Agree based on what I've heard. biggest issue I see is that cop was off duty.

 

Does that matter?

Does that matter?

 

To me, somewhat. If a cop identified himself and asks me to stop, I stop.

 

If a random stranger is walking behind me and asks me to stop, I might not. An off duty cop would be treated differently than an officer in uniform.

 

In no situation is it appropriate to fire shots at him. Just saying there is a difference.

I don't see why the officer being off duty would matter. If I read correctly he was working a second job that was approved by his department. If that is true I'm sure he was allowed to wear his uniform. His arrest powers and everything else are intact whether he was on the department's clock or not. If he had a reason to talk to/detain the suspect and the suspect ran and fired shots at him I don't see what he could have done wrong. I know nerves are raw in the St. Louis area right now but I don't see why this should add to it. As for the stories about the suspect being unarmed: I'm not sure I buy that. If the officer had fired a couple of times, heck even 5 times I could see it being a case where he mistook something for a gun. I just don't buy that he fired 17 times if he wasn't being shot at.

To me, somewhat. If a cop identified himself and asks me to stop, I stop.

 

If a random stranger is walking behind me and asks me to stop, I might not. An off duty cop would be treated differently than an officer in uniform.

 

In no situation is it appropriate to fire shots at him. Just saying there is a difference.

 

The officer WAS in uniform while working off duty--which was allowed by the department. To the suspect he'd have looked like any other on duty officer.

If the cop wasn't off duty, it seems like it would be crystal clear.

 

Not a good situation either way.

 

He was in uniform working as security for overtime. He wasnt really off duty.

I'm sure some will disagree but I am not at all impressed with Senator Jamilah Nasheed. She's already made claims that she believed the deceased was shot in the back of the head and that he was racially profiled. What is she basing this on I wonder?

 

She's the Senator that dropped an "F you" to the Gov on Twitter , I believe.

 

You are correct and here is why.

 

 

After thinking about this...I'm confused. Why would the police need this guy to find them someone to plant a gun on? Doesn't add up...

After thinking about this...I'm confused. Why would the police need this guy to find them someone to plant a gun on? Doesn't add up...

 

 

Maybe it had been used in a shooting and by planting it on a dead body it would wrap up the previous shooting. If the person that it was planted on were dead they couldn't be questioned about the previous shooting. If they weren't dead but it was someone that was guilty of another crime they could pick them up and say that they found the gun on them. They'd likely take the fall from the previous shooting. The case goes away. I'm guessing they don't want to just get rid of the gun because that means that the police will continue to look for the person that did the shooting.

 

Maybe it had been used in a shooting and by planting it on a dead body it would wrap up the previous shooting. If the person that it was planted on were dead they couldn't be questioned about the previous shooting. If they weren't dead but it was someone that was guilty of another crime they could pick them up and say that they found the gun on them. They'd likely take the fall from the previous shooting. The case goes away. I'm guessing they don't want to just get rid of the gun because that means that the police will continue to look for the person that did the shooting.

 

Your theories are wild and would leave a lot of loose ends. Why would they need this guy to find them a dead body? It still doesn't make sense to involve him...

Your theories are wild and would leave a lot of loose ends. Why would they need this guy to find them a dead body? It still doesn't make sense to involve him...

 

Why else would they want a body to plant a gun on? If there wasn't an open investigation tied to that gun somewhere that they were involved in then why not just throw the gun in the river? They need someone that can be tied to that gun to make something else go away. That video obviously doesn't give whole lot of context into the situation but it would seem obvious that is what the guy that filmed it is implying by coming forward with it and saying what he did in the interview. What other reason do you think it could be?

 

I'm not saying either way whether that is what the cops are getting at--it is too short of a video for me to put all of the pieces together. But don't you think that is what the guy being interviewed is alleging?

People are out of control, period! As some of you know, I get on the case of officers if I think they deserve it.

 

But at least last night, no need for the crap from some protesters, busting out windows of a cruiser, throwing a knife at an officer. The PD needed to go as far as they could, short of shooting real bullets, and get the crowd under control.

 

Yes, I know not all protesters are acting like punks, but when the officers need to take this route there is only one group to blame, the punks!

I'm sure some will disagree but I am not at all impressed with Senator Jamilah Nasheed. She's already made claims that she believed the deceased was shot in the back of the head and that he was racially profiled. What is she basing this on I wonder?

 

She's the Senator that dropped an "F you" to the Gov on Twitter , I believe.

That the suspect was black and so is she. That's all it takes for some, for someone to be the same race as they are.

After thinking about this...I'm confused. Why would the police need this guy to find them someone to plant a gun on? Doesn't add up...

 

Doesn 't matter.

 

Why else would they want a body to plant a gun on? If there wasn't an open investigation tied to that gun somewhere that they were involved in then why not just throw the gun in the river? They need someone that can be tied to that gun to make something else go away. That video obviously doesn't give whole lot of context into the situation but it would seem obvious that is what the guy that filmed it is implying by coming forward with it and saying what he did in the interview. What other reason do you think it could be?

 

I'm not saying either way whether that is what the cops are getting at--it is too short of a video for me to put all of the pieces together. But don't you think that is what the guy being interviewed is alleging?

 

You missed my point. It doesn't make sense that they need this guy to find them a body. It sounded to me like they were trying to get information out of him by holding time over his head. Notice for some reason we didn't hear any of the incriminating stuff on audio.

 

I'd be interested in hearing that if there's audio of it.

 

And yes I think that is probably close at least to what he's, My point is it doesn't make sense.

 

Doesn 't matter.

 

It matters to me. People obviously don't blindly accept that police are right...They shouldn't blindly accept that they are wrong either.

 

You posted that as an example of why St. Louis police can't be or aren't trusted. There is nothing definitive about the video or audio, just some odd accusations.

 

If you didn't want to discuss the video you shouldn't have posted it.