MO - Off-duty officer (Katlyn Alix) shot dead by on-duty officer (Nathaniel Hendren), Jan 2019

[Seattle1]

I’m so confused. So 28 officers who have not been let go but are still active on their beats have an inability to submit a case for prosecution? So what do they do all day, just like traffic tickets? Or are there other offices they could prosecute a cases through and only banned from Linda’s (clearly well ran office)?

I'm not familiar with the city government of St Louis but when I first read the words "exclusion list" --it sounded more like something out of a "political playbook" -- and not what one would associate with the Prosecutors office. And suddenly it all made sense when I learned that KG was a former, two term State Representative prior to running unopposed for Circuit Attorney!

My understanding is the "28 banned officers" remain on the force, yet denied the opportunity to defend themselves and/or knowledge why they are on KG's list. Politicians have special lists, but I've never heard of this by a city attorney's office.

If we're to believe the media, there's alleged corruption in the SLPD, and a very inexperienced prosecutor leading the Prosecutors/Circuit Attorneys office. Sounds like a disastrous marriage.

Making more sense why KA's family and their attorney held a press conference only hours after her funeral mass.

What a mess....

MOO

 

[drama_farmer]

IMO, just wondering if the three officers at the house that night might appear on that "exclusion" list of 28 officers?

 

[Betty P]

I'm not familiar with the city government of St Louis but when I first read the words "exclusion list" --it sounded more like something out of a "political playbook" -- and not what one would associate with the Prosecutors office. And suddenly it all made sense when I learned that KG was a former, two term State Representative prior to running unopposed for Circuit Attorney!

My understanding is the "28 banned officers" remain on the force, yet denied the opportunity to defend themselves and/or knowledge why they are on KG's list. Politicians have special lists, but I've never heard of this by a city attorney's office.

If we're to believe the media, there's alleged corruption in the SLPD, and a very inexperienced prosecutor leading the Prosecutors/Circuit Attorneys office. Sounds like a disastrous marriage.

Making more sense why KA's family and their attorney held a press conference only hours after her funeral mass.

What a mess....

MOO

I have a feeling the STLPD understands why those officers are on an exclusion list. The CA says any incidents that indicate corruption, misbehavior, etc. are referred to Internal Affairs, so the police department understands why they're on the list and, through Internal Affairs, are technically tasked with investigating problem behavior that has been reported.

So I'm not sure what they're complaining about. The CA has put the ball back in their court. It's their problem, they have to deal with it. Officers wishing to appeal need to work through Internal Affairs to resolve the situation.

 

[Psychofcrime]

Here's the downside of having the "list". CA won't accept any cases from them and they are still on the force, handling cases.

A St. Louis drug dealer confesses to selling prescription drugs but still walks free

JMO Instead of making a list and bringing their legit cases to a halt, why not work with the police department in solving these suspected credibility problems. Why not work for the citizens instead of creating this turmoil. Yes, the CA has legitimate accusations but to just shut down? How does that help anyone? And somewhere I heard that some that were on the list don't even work for the force anymore and some have no idea why they are on the list. Yes, there is a huge problem in the police department but in my opinion there is a huge problem in the CA office. It's about time for transparency for both and do what you are paid to do.... enforce the law and provide justice for the citizens of St. Louis. I've said it before...neither side is doing their job.

ETA.. If it is provable that a police officer lied or gave false evidence or testimony, why wouldn't the officer be terminated? Is it just a hunch by the CA? Seems to just be a power struggle between the two and the citizens are the losers.

 

[nightowl1975]

ETA.. If it is provable that a police officer lied or gave false evidence or testimony, why wouldn't the officer be terminated? Is it just a hunch by the CA? Seems to just be a power struggle between the two and the citizens are the losers.

You would think lying under oath and giving false evidence would be grounds for termination. But you would also think that sadistic officer in Glendale would be terminated (not to mention arrested) after his gross misconduct that was captured ON VIDEO. Alas, he’s still weilding a gun against the citizens of Glendale. Apparently getting rid of corrupt and criminal cops is dang near impossible.

 

[Seattle1]

I have a feeling the STLPD understands why those officers are on an exclusion list. The CA says any incidents that indicate corruption, misbehavior, etc. are referred to Internal Affairs, so the police department understands why they're on the list and, through Internal Affairs, are technically tasked with investigating problem behavior that has been reported.

So I'm not sure what they're complaining about. The CA has put the ball back in their court. It's their problem, they have to deal with it. Officers wishing to appeal need to work through Internal Affairs to resolve the situation.

Except the procedures you reference to actually involve IA so the police understands why they're on the list, are new --they were just announced by KG in a statement on February 8, 2019.

Up until then, there have been articles posted up thread stating that the 28 excluded were in the dark. And some on the list were no longer employees! I believe we'll have to wait and see if there are any results moving forward.

 

[Psychofcrime]

I started to go on a another rant about the St. Louis police department and the circuit attorney's policies but have decided I am straying from the subject here.

JMO But I am going get back to it... Wondering what the heck happened with these 3 officers on January 24th.

Would love some new clues or new information. It's driving me nuts.

 

[ilovematt]

Except the procedures you reference to actually involve IA so the police understands why they're on the list, are new --they were just announced by KG in a statement on February 8, 2019.

Up until then, there have been articles posted up thread stating that the 28 excluded were in the dark. And some on the list were no longer employees! I believe we'll have to wait and see if there are any results moving forward.

You mean like the “official” procedures to get an officer on a list like this involves the officer being made aware of allegations? But this list sounds like some bad network tele cop show blackball list... like an unofficial list you could be unaware you’re on or piss off the wrong person with clout and all the sudden you’re alienated. That’s how I read it anyway.

 

[Seattle1]

You mean like the “official” procedures to get an officer on a list like this involves the officer being made aware of allegations? But this list sounds like some bad network tele cop show blackball list... like an unofficial **** list you could be unaware you’re on or piss off the wrong person with clout and all the sudden you’re alienated. That’s how I read it anyway.

I think they want to get them off the list, and finally do away with KG's private list! Why was there no exclusion list during the last 20 year leadership of the city attorney's office? I just find this unbelievable.

 

[GordianKnot]

I started to go on a another rant about the St. Louis police department and the circuit attorney's policies but have decided I am straying from the subject here.

JMO But I am going get back to it... Wondering what the heck happened with these 3 officers on January 24th.

Would love some new clues or new information. It's driving me nuts.

BBM:

I don't think we're likely to get any new information, so we can only brainstorm/speculate based on what we know, or think we know now, IMO.

Even Occam is left shaking his head and throwing up his hands w/ this one.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

I imagine the fact that this is and has been a story to follow, is the result of it involving an officer on officer shooting, where one of them was off duty. This must be extremely rare. Any explanation would be questionable, although I agree with others that at least something logical would have been more understandable. The RRR explanation makes this a lot more intriguing, and obviously interesting. Seems like it's harder to keep under the radar.

Even with that, the specter of a white wash, or secret settlement, looms large, and hopefully that does not end up being the case. I suppose that ultimately the family of the deceased, which I guess includes the husband, ultimately may determine what is known and what perhaps goes away. If money is enough to settle their feelings, then the rest of us may never know. I think not firing this guy outright is a complete joke. Remains to be seen about the partner, but why even bother having this guy associated with your department, SOLELY on the basis of his excuse for killing a fellow officer? I mean seriously, why was this guy even a part of the department the SECOND he gave his statement about the incident?

 

[Psychofcrime]

I imagine the fact that this is and has been a story to follow, is the result of it involving an officer on officer shooting, where one of them was off duty. This must be extremely rare. Any explanation would be questionable, although I agree with others that at least something logical would have been more understandable. The RRR explanation makes this a lot more intriguing, and obviously interesting. Seems like it's harder to keep under the radar.

Even with that, the specter of a white wash, or secret settlement, looms large, and hopefully that does not end up being the case. I suppose that ultimately the family of the deceased, which I guess includes the husband, ultimately may determine what is known and what perhaps goes away. If money is enough to settle their feelings, then the rest of us may never know. I think not firing this guy outright is a complete joke. Remains to be seen about the partner, but why even bother having this guy associated with your department, SOLELY on the basis of his excuse for killing a fellow officer? I mean seriously, why was this guy even a part of the department the SECOND he gave his statement about the incident?

BBM I have a fear that KA's family, through their lawyer, may find out exactly what happened. They might be embarrassed or sad about the truth and decide not to disclose any of the details. Respectfully, that is their right but the selfish side of me will be disappointed.

 

[GordianKnot]

I imagine the fact that this is and has been a story to follow, is the result of it involving an officer on officer shooting, where one of them was off duty. This must be extremely rare. Any explanation would be questionable, although I agree with others that at least something logical would have been more understandable. The RRR explanation makes this a lot more intriguing, and obviously interesting. Seems like it's harder to keep under the radar.

Even with that, the specter of a white wash, or secret settlement, looms large, and hopefully that does not end up being the case. I suppose that ultimately the family of the deceased, which I guess includes the husband, ultimately may determine what is known and what perhaps goes away. If money is enough to settle their feelings, then the rest of us may never know. I think not firing this guy outright is a complete joke. Remains to be seen about the partner, but why even bother having this guy associated with your department, SOLELY on the basis of his excuse for killing a fellow officer? I mean seriously, why was this guy even a part of the department the SECOND he gave his statement about the incident?

BBM: Agree with you, especially on your points bolded above.

I don't understand how the SLPD can keep this guy on the force and keep their credibility....oh, wait.

What am I saying? Never mind.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Justice marches on. The judge has stepped aside:

Cop Charged for Killing Colleague During Game of Russian Roulette Gets His Way, Judge Steps Aside

 

[nightowl1975]

Justice marches on. The judge has stepped aside:

Cop Charged for Killing Colleague During Game of Russian Roulette Gets His Way, Judge Steps Aside

That judge just said out loud what anyone with a functioning brain is thinking. Good luck if this guy thinks any other judge won’t think the same thing. You don’t point a loaded gun and pull the trigger at someone you don’t intend to shoot.

Is there any chance the actual charges will be upgraded to reflect the actual crime once the investigation is complete, or are we looking at the final charges?

 

[GordianKnot]

Justice marches on. The judge has stepped aside:

Cop Charged for Killing Colleague During Game of Russian Roulette Gets His Way, Judge Steps Aside

Well, is Justice aware that she's marching toward the "Exit" sign?

Oh, no, that's right: she's blind.

JMO.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Clearly it was wrong for a Judge to school a "trained professional" about gun safety.

 

[bwt42]

Lets say they weren't cops & credible witnesses watched them play RRR. What would appropriate charges be.

 

[nightowl1975]

Lets say they weren't cops & credible witnesses watched them play RRR. What would appropriate charges be.

It HAS to be at least VOLUNTARY manslaughter, right? There was nothing “involuntary” about it.

Personally, I think he murdered her. Why, I’m not sure. But I don’t think this RRR story is at all why she was shot.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Lets say they weren't cops & credible witnesses watched them play RRR. What would appropriate charges be.

Interesting question. Two willing participants, each firing the gun and taking the chance that they themselves will be shot. I recall last year there was a guy and his girlfriend filming a clip for You Tube, where she shot him while he was holding a phone book in front of him, and the shot went through the book and killed him. I can't remember whether she was charged or not.

Found it...she pleaded to 2nd degree manslaughter. YouTuber who fatally shot boyfriend in ill-fated stunt pleads guilty