18 y/o Black male shot dead by Police in St Louis suburb of Berkeley MO

[liljim]

i dont see any evidence that it was an ambush, safety would probably have been off if this was planned.

nothing about the way things played out on the video makes it look like a planned thing to me.

 

[CoolJ]

My take on the video is the cop was called/dispatched for whatever reason(store called police over shoplift, etc.)

He had a right to have frisked the individual that eventually pointed the gun. If during that conversation, he had cause to believe they were involved in that shoplift or involved in any other crime, or were about to be involved in a crime, he could frisk.

I did mention I'm not a big fan of NYPD stop and frisk and the intel cards they gather, nor am I a fan of former Chief Blair in Toronto and TPS doing it there either.

Are you not going to respond to the link I posted? I just chose it randomly. There are many. Here is another:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+v.+Ohio

"Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous."

Just so we are on the same page. Here is what you said. And you have said this before in other threads implying that you can basically frisk anybody anytime you wish:

Archangel7 - "Now we understand Terry v Ohio and why a cop has a right to frisk for weapons during an interaction."

 

[Archangel7]

Kind of OT , since you keep bringing up the city of Toronto but when the mayor of your city is a raging alcoholic and crackhead, I think it would be pretty understandable to question the authority and leadership.

The mayor in most cases isn't tasked with daily law enforcement, etc. so that's(authority) is not on topic or a part of this thread.

 

[CoolJ]

I guess they also must believe the shop keeper was "in on the conspiracy" and phoned in a false shoplifting report.

Uhmmm... Wouldn't you have to believe that the shopkeeper was in on it if it was an "ambush" as you have suggested?

 

[liljim]

Uhmmm... Wouldn't you have to believe that the shopkeeper was in on it if it was an "ambush" as you have suggested?

not necessarily, i dont believe this but if someone thought it was an ambush then they could have actually stolen openly from the store knowing the clerk would call police.

again, i do not see any reason to think that happened. but its possible.

 

[reedus23]

Reedus,

Not necessarily on this forum, but in social media there are claims that the gun was planted with supposed photographic proof, that he was pulling out a phone to video not a gun, that the officer should of tazed him instead of shooting, that the video was doctored, that he was alive for 30 minutes but the police wouldn't call EMS, etc. I think many people who acknowleged that the young man DID pull a gun bring up stories of where white subjects in similar situations would not have been shot.

ETA: there is also a lot of emphasis on the dash and body cams not being on even though there is other video footage available and explanations for those cameras not running. There does appear to be more cameras at the store than what we have seen footage from if that makes sense. I guess it's possible that they are holding some footage that shows the scene more closely and more graphically until the investigation is complete but that's conjecture on my part.

Thanks for that. I had seen some of the craziness on twitter but just chalked that up to the normal cast of characters. Some nuts on all sides on social media. The dash cams and body cams not being on bothers me, but not in determining justification in this case. I think at some point, the law has to be set up where there is a presumption of wrong doing if an officer doesn't have such cameras turned on and something bad happens. That's just a presumption, though, and can be overcome with other evidence, i.e. other video. Thanks for the info and saving me from reading all however many pages.

 

[reedus23]

lololol Semi comedic question, LOL....... how can one comment if one hasn't watched the vid or read about the crime? :thinking: :crazy:

Not sure what you're talking about. I read an article or two. I watched 2 of the views of the video. It all seemed to me to be a justified shooting so I paid it no more attention until I saw there was a thread here discussing it. Should I not now comment? Is that what you are suggesting or am I misreading?

 

[Archangel7]

Are you not going to respond to the link I posted? I just chose it randomly. There are many. Here is another:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+v.+Ohio

"Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous."

Just so we are on the same page. Here is what you said. And you have said this before in other threads implying that you can basically frisk anybody anytime you wish:

Archangel7 - "Now we understand Terry v Ohio and why a cop has a right to frisk for weapons during an interaction."

Yes , I'll respond. You are attempting to take a partial quote out of context of the ongoing discussion.

Yes a police office has a legal right to frisk if he has good reason to expect a person who is temporarily "detained, seized, or in momentary short term type interaction" has weapons.

If a police officer has stopped, paused, restricted temporarily, a persons free movement and has good reason to believe that person is armed and dangerous he can actually do so at gunpoint.

Read the law. A cop can't just willy nilly stop a citizen for no reason. A citizen in the US has always had freedom from unlawful interruption. There is no demand for "papers comrade" in the US.

In the case we are discussing, the cop could legally frisk if he had gotten that far.

If a cop has reason to stop you in the legal sense, he has a right to frisk for his protection and your protection.

 

[reedus23]

not necessarily, i dont believe this but if someone thought it was an ambush then they could have actually stolen openly from the store knowing the clerk would call police.

again, i do not see any reason to think that happened. but its possible.

I highly doubt there was any kind of ambush planned. There would have been much easier ways to do that. Simply call 911 from a house. Call in a heart attack or something. I think ambush talk is just the crazies on twitter on the LE side kind of like the crazies on the thugs side talking about using a taser. Bottom line is, the guy pulled a gun and the officer shot him. Justified IMO.

 

[Archangel7]

I haven't and am not going to read all the pages leading up to this. Is there really any question that this was a justified shoot? If so, that is the first I have heard of that.

You'll have to ask CoolJ, He posted he feels it is likely or mostly justified or similar wording.

 

[CoolJ]

Yes , I'll respond. You are attempting to take a partial quote out of context of the ongoing discussion.

Yes a police office has a legal right to frisk if he has good reason to expect a person who is temporarily "detained, seized, or in momentary short term type interaction" has weapons.

If a police officer has stopped, paused, restricted temporarily, a persons free movement and has good reason to believe that person is armed and dangerous he can actually do so at gunpoint.

Read the law. A cop can't just willy nilly stop a citizen for no reason. A citizen in the US has always had freedom from unlawful interruption. There is no demand for "papers comrade" in the US.

In the case we are discussing, the cop could legally frisk if he had gotten that far.

If a cop has reason to stop you in the legal sense, he has a right to frisk for his protection and your protection.

BBM
You would know better than me, but that just doesn't seem to be what Terry vs. Ohio says

Again, this is why I keep harping on getting Police Departments to educate the public. It just isn't that clear.

So if I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I can be frisked?

 

[CoolJ]

You'll have to ask CoolJ, He posted he feels it is likely or mostly justified or similar wording.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I Said it was likely justified. How could anyone be 100% sure without knowing what really happened?

 

[reedus23]

I will probably regret getting into the discussion but I think that the question being discussed is:

Is LE entitled to search during every stop or every detention even if there is no articulable basis to believe that the person stopped or detained has a weapon? In other words, is there ever a scenario possible where there is reasonable suspicion to justify a stop but there isn't sufficient suspicion to justify a search?

 

[reedus23]

Not sure what you are getting at here. I Said it was likely justified. How could anyone be 100% sure without knowing what really happened?

I would agree with that.

 

[Sonya610]

Uhmmm... Wouldn't you have to believe that the shopkeeper was in on it if it was an "ambush" as you have suggested?

Not at all. If you steal from a store and then stand outside the front the doors long enough they WILL call the police. It happened a couple of months go in St. Louis when the crazy guy shoplifted TWICE and waited for them so he could commit suicide by cop.

But never mind, no point in us debating.

 

[CoolJ]

I would agree with that.

Thank you for agreeing with me, and thank you for making me the authority on deciding whether this was a justified shooting or not.

 

[reedus23]

Thank you for agreeing with me, and thank you for making me the authority on deciding whether this was a justified shooting or not.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant that was a reasonable way to state it. It appears justified to me as well but without actually being there or involved, talking in absolutes is usually ill advised.

 

[CoolJ]

Not at all. If you steal from a store and then stand out front the doors long enough they WILL call the police. It happened a couple of months go in St. Louis when the crazy guy shoplifting and then screamed at the police to shoot him while weilding a knife.

I think if you were planning an ambush you wouldn't leave it up to the shopkeeper to call the police on you for shoplifting. And I don't think you would just hang out under the lights and cameras waiting for police to arrive. But I guess we all see things differently.

 

[CoolJ]

I didn't mean it like that. I meant that was a reasonable way to state it. It appears justified to me as well but without actually being there or involved, talking in absolutes is usually ill advised.

My apologies, I misread the posts. It was Archangel7 who made me the authority on whether or not it was justified.

 

[Sonya610]

I will probably regret getting into the discussion but I think that the question being discussed is:

Is LE entitled to search during every stop or every detention even if there is no articulable basis to believe that the person stopped or detained has a weapon? In other words, is there ever a scenario possible where there is reasonable suspicion to justify a stop but there isn't sufficient suspicion to justify a search?

That has NOTHING to do with this case. Seems like an attempt to derail the discussion IMO and the mods have narrowed the discussion down to ONLY the facts in THIS CASE.