MO - Police officer fatally shoots Vonderrick Myers in south St. Louis #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.shawstlouis.org/all-abou...-general-membership-meeting-minutes_5-5-2014/
Second District Police & Circuit Attorney Reports

Two snips from these minutes.
Police (Lieutenant Lawlor)- Shared copies of recent crime info. For the month of April, there was a shooting on April 28th at about 8:25pm at Klemm and Castleman, it is unusual because the victim did not call the shooting in and they say they can not identify who did it. There were three other assaults that were domestic-related, in each case an arrest was made or there is a warrant out. Two burglaries, 4100 block of Shaw on unlocked garage, and 3900 DeTonty family related incident. Eleven thefts, five were motor-vehicles, bicycles were stolen overnight on several blocks, couple of catalytic converters. Four stolen autos, two were recovered and one was attempted. Compared to last year crime is down.

Shooting on Klemm and Castleman- They do not know who shot them. Have asked police to increase patrols.
 
First, stores and apartment complexes do hire off-duty, uniformed officers for security. Also, college and high school sports events hire uniformed off-duty officers for events. (From personal experience.)
As for the second question I don't know.
 
reedus23 said:
For those of you in LE or with family in LE, couple of questions regarding this other incident. Before I ask, I'll make it clear, by all accounts, the guy was fired on and by being fired on was justified in firing back, no doubt.

When working side jobs as security, which I understand many cops do, are they allowed to wear their uniforms? I have no point of reference on it beyond other jobs or sports, where they don't want you wearing a company/team's uniform when doing other things because what you do outside of work would then reflect on the company/team, not to mention the liability issues.

Second, does the fact that he was off duty change which statutes apply as far as justification goes? In other words, does the so called "fleeing felon" rule still apply and so forth?

I guess there's no way around it, but I also wish that they'd stop referring to him as an officer. He was not an officer at the time of the shooting. He was a guard or whatever. Point is, he wasn't acting in his capacity as an officer and calling him an officer gives the impression he was. Is that line of thinking wrong?
Click to expand...

In my experience (I am a St Louis native, and my dad is a 19 year veteran of the St Louis police force), yes it is common for them to wear their uniforms depending on the secondary job they are doing. My father is LE and has worked numerous secondary jobs over the years. Most of the time it is in police uniform.

Police officers are never really "off duty", my dad has to carry his badge and service weapon with him 24/7, he is on call 24/7. If they see a crime being committed and are not on the clock they are obligated to do something to stop the crime. Be that pursing the suspect, talking them down, calling it in, whatever, they have to do something.
 
scmom said:
First, stores and apartment complexes do hire off-duty, uniformed officers for security. Also, college and high school sports events hire uniformed off-duty officers for events. (From personal experience.)
As for the second question I don't know.
Click to expand...

I know they hire them. The first question was more, are they allowed to wear their police uniforms while working the other jobs?
 
prayers4missing said:
In my experience (I am a St Louis native, and my dad is a 19 year veteran of the St Louis police force), yes it is common for them to wear their uniforms depending on the secondary job they are doing. My father is LE and has worked numerous secondary jobs over the years. Most of the time it is in police uniform.

Police officers are never really "off duty", my dad has to carry his badge and service weapon with him 24/7, he is on call 24/7. If they see a crime being committed and are not on the clock they are obligated to do something to stop the crime. Be that pursing the suspect, talking them down, calling it in, whatever, they have to do something.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Again, I learn something new every day. I fully understand the "never off duty" concept and the need to always carry a badge and weapon. The first thing that had popped up in my mind were the liability issues that can be created for the St. Louis City PD if they wore their uniforms while working a second job. So thanks for the input because my gut would have told me otherwise.

I think it was clear, but to make sure I was...I completely understand and get and have no qualms with officers working a second job because they're not paid enough as it is as officers IMO. My only question was whether the departments approve of the wearing of their uniforms while working 2nd jobs. Thanks again.
 
reedus23 said:
I know they hire them. The first question was more, are they allowed to wear their police uniforms while working the other jobs?
Click to expand...
Yes. They hire uniformed off-duty officers for security.
 
krimekat said:
who, Bassem? Rumor has it Bassem's a narc for LE & that's why even after being arrested over 30 times for driving without a driver's license he's still out & about. He was front & center earlier this summer at the Palestine Rally
Click to expand...

:eek: Well he's a really good actor if that's the case.
 
Hi-Tech Security is usually hired by residents in the community to add extra patrol that the police can not do. I know they patrol in the neighborhood next to my job and they were hired after several people were robbed at gun point at night.
 
DebinGA said:
"The officer involved in the shooting worked for Hi-Tech Security, which employs several St. Louis police officers in secondary, “moonlighting” jobs. He was patrolling the neighborhood on behalf of that company, not the city’s Metropolitan Police Department."

The Shaw Neighborhood isn't a gated community. It's streets are public and open to all, unless I'm mistaken. I don't understand the idea of private security confronting and chasing down walkers because "they look suspicious".
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons why I was wondering if the statutes and laws change.
 
katydid23 said:
In Twitterland, they deny he was armed. They say he was carrying a sandwich, not a gun, and the cops planted the gun on him.

It is a fact that he was out on bond for carrying an illegal weapon and resisting arrest, but that is referred to the same way the robbery video was, as trying to deflect and taint the victim.

No one wants to accept that he shot first, nor that he was even armed.
Click to expand...
I also heard him referred to as a "child" by several protesters.
 
reedus23 said:
For those of you in LE or with family in LE, couple of questions regarding this other incident. Before I ask, I'll make it clear, by all accounts, the guy was fired on and by being fired on was justified in firing back, no doubt.

When working side jobs as security, which I understand many cops do, are they allowed to wear their uniforms? I have no point of reference on it beyond other jobs or sports, where they don't want you wearing a company/team's uniform when doing other things because what you do outside of work would then reflect on the company/team, not to mention the liability issues.

Second, does the fact that he was off duty change which statutes apply as far as justification goes? In other words, does the so called "fleeing felon" rule still apply and so forth?

I guess there's no way around it, but I also wish that they'd stop referring to him as an officer. He was not an officer at the time of the shooting. He was a guard or whatever. Point is, he wasn't acting in his capacity as an officer and calling him an officer gives the impression he was. Is that line of thinking wrong?
Click to expand...

My ex-husband used to work armed security and my BIL is a cop, so coming from that vantage point:

He was an officer at the time of the shooting in the same way that an-off duty EMT or a nurse who sees someone faint in the grocery store and responds is still a nurse or an EMT. You may not be on-duty, but you have a skill set that most of the public does not have and at times you may have to use that skill set even when not on duty.

As for in/out uniform, etc. I think it depends. Our friend Jeff who is a cop used to work an off-duty job for a private security company. He was guarding a construction site at night where there was a lot of expensive equipment being used. I'm pretty sure when he was doing that I remember him not being in uniform. He really wasn't expected to have any contact with the public on that job, a closed construction site at night, unless someone happened to be there illegally.

I know we used to have charity poker tournaments downtown here on weekends and they were kind of a big thing for a while (before our casino opened up). The tourney was required to have x numbers of cops there providing security, just because of the large amount of money involved in something like that. Those guys were always in uniform. I think it was technically considered on-duty: they got overtime for it and the cost of that was billed to the tourney operators. But they weren't out patrolling, responding to calls, etc., and they could only take those assignments if they occurred outside of their scheduled work shift, so that the city wasn't short of cops on the street. I'm not really sure how regulations on that type of thing differ from department to department or state to state, etc. either.
 
reedus23 said:
For those of you in LE or with family in LE, couple of questions regarding this other incident. Before I ask, I'll make it clear, by all accounts, the guy was fired on and by being fired on was justified in firing back, no doubt.

When working side jobs as security, which I understand many cops do, are they allowed to wear their uniforms? I have no point of reference on it beyond other jobs or sports, where they don't want you wearing a company/team's uniform when doing other things because what you do outside of work would then reflect on the company/team, not to mention the liability issues.

Second, does the fact that he was off duty change which statutes apply as far as justification goes? In other words, does the so called "fleeing felon" rule still apply and so forth?

I guess there's no way around it, but I also wish that they'd stop referring to him as an officer. He was not an officer at the time of the shooting. He was a guard or whatever. Point is, he wasn't acting in his capacity as an officer and calling him an officer gives the impression he was. Is that line of thinking wrong?
Click to expand...

BBM. An officer is an officer 24/7. That said, he defended himself as any citizen has a right to do. If someone is shooting at me, I have the right to defend myself.

JMO
 
DebinGA said:
AP: "St. Louis Police Chief Col. Sam Dotson said the 32-year-old officer, whom he didn't identify, was patrolling the historic Shaw neighborhood in his police uniform for a private security company at around 7:30 p.m. Wednesday when he saw three males, and one of them ran off before stopping. When the officer did a U-turn all three ran, so the officer gave chase, first in his car and then by foot."

http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-fatally-shoots-man-st-louis-051329575.html

AP doesn't mention what about the three black males caught the attention of the officer driving by, much less why he felt the need to pursue them by car and at least one on foot. Did Chief Dotson explain anything about that?
Click to expand...

I started a thread for last nights shooting and linked an article that explains why the officer was suspicious.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...lly-shoots-Vonderrick-Myers-in-south-St-Louis
 
Irish_Eyes said:
My ex-husband used to work armed security and my BIL is a cop, so coming from that vantage point:

He was an officer at the time of the shooting in the same way that an-off duty EMT or a nurse who sees someone faint in the grocery store and responds is still a nurse or an EMT. You may not be on-duty, but you have a skill set that most of the public does not have and at times you may have to use that skill set even when not on duty.

As for in/out uniform, etc. I think it depends. Our friend Jeff who is a cop used to work an off-duty job for a private security company. He was guarding a construction site at night where there was a lot of expensive equipment being used. I'm pretty sure when he was doing that I remember him not being in uniform. He really wasn't expected to have any contact with the public on that job, a closed construction site at night, unless someone happened to be there illegally.

I know we used to have charity poker tournaments downtown here on weekends and they were kind of a big thing for a while (before our casino opened up). The tourney was required to have x numbers of cops there providing security, just because of the large amount of money involved in something like that. Those guys were always in uniform. I think it was technically considered on-duty: they got overtime for it and the cost of that was billed to the tourney operators. But they weren't out patrolling, responding to calls, etc., and they could only take those assignments if they occurred outside of their scheduled work shift, so that the city wasn't short of cops on the street. I'm not really sure how regulations on that type of thing differ from department to department or state to state, etc. either.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. I know at our local ballpark, we would actually pay the municipality to provide an officer to attend certain events and we'd cover the cost of any overtime needed for that, but the officer was clearly still on duty because he wasn't working for an outside security firm. The only difference is that the "patrol" he was given for that night was the ballpark only.

I think that part of my question arises from the liability aspects. I know it doesn't seem to be the case here, but what if an officer wrongfully shoots someone while working a 2nd job through a private security firm, could the PD be held liable for his actions? If he's always "on duty", the answer would be yes, but that doesn't seem to make sense. But then, if allowed to wear his uniform while working for a private company, maybe the PD itself COULD be held liable. I dunno and I'm probably getting everything side tracked. Part of me was just wondering why Dotson needed to say anything at all if the PD wasn't involved, but rather HiTech Security was involved.
 
DebinGA said:
"The officer involved in the shooting worked for Hi-Tech Security, which employs several St. Louis police officers in secondary, “moonlighting” jobs. He was patrolling the neighborhood on behalf of that company, not the city’s Metropolitan Police Department."

The Shaw Neighborhood isn't a gated community. It's streets are public and open to all, unless I'm mistaken. I don't understand the idea of private security confronting and chasing down walkers because "they look suspicious".
Click to expand...

I don't understand "walkers" who fail to stop and instead shoot at a security guard.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
I don't understand "walkers" who fail to stop and instead shoot at a security guard.

JMO
Click to expand...

The walker/s didn't stop and shoot at a security guard. The walker/s ran from the security guard still in his company car who hadn't spoken a word to them yet. The 18 yo fled until the security guard left his vehicle, ran him down, and grappled with him ... perhaps over control on the officer's gun. I don't question the security guard's ultimate need to shoot the man; only the justification for his initial suspicion and pursuit.
 
It don't mean a good gosh darned what this LEO/SG did or didn't do. According to the protestors and the people who want to make trouble, he is guilty of murdering that poor innocent high school student just holding a sandwich. So we must kick police cars. We must smash windows. We must run around calling for an arrest of the LEO or even better death! It is like Mike Brown all over again. That's as far as the thought process will take them because some malfunctioning chip in their brains seems to be stopping the functions of the brain that process REASON. We must put emotion, hysteria, violence and anger FIRST, before we can sort out the details, before we can anyalyze the situation, before we can actually allow any kind of civil investigation process move forward.

If this kind of behavior doesn't make any normal person living in that city want to move away from there as soon as possible, I don't know what will. It is a shame. St. Louis has a really nice downtown area, with beautiful fields, parks, etc... There will be no reasoning with these people. Honestly, they are about as easy to reason with an appease as ISIS at this stage. Perhaps they are not running around beheading people, but they are calling for LEO's deaths. They are trying to destroy the peace and prosperity of their own communities. They will no longer stand back in their own misery and self-hate and allow those who enjoy their lives, their freedoms and the fruits of their labor. They want every person to be brought down to their level of misery and they won't be calmed until they succeed.

This is NOT about the color of someone's skin - it is about the content of their character. And I don't care what ethnicity someone is, but I WILL judge you on how you dress, how you speak, how you carry yourself, who you associate with, what your criminal record is, and how you behave. MB was a robber, a thief, a bully, an attacker and a would-be cop killer and I have seen more than enough proof to come to that conclusion. I am tired of sugar coating this situation. This other young man was a criminal that was running around the streets with his ankle bracelet on when he should have been home. How did he get himself into the situation where he was pursued by a cop? He was probably trying to break into something. But that doesn't even matter. What matters is that he tried to kill a police officer and LOST.

These people want nothing less than for cops to have their weapons taken from them and allow the criminals to shoot them on demand. End of story for them. God help our society if we keep letting these people run the agenda in our society. Enough already. ENOUGH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 3,460 (members: 121, guests: 3,339)

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
3,339
Total visitors
3,460
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,324
Messages
18,170,694
Members
232,402
Latest member
kittyl628
Back
Top