Berkeley (MO) officials: Man killed by police had pointed gun at officer
Source: STL Post-Dispatch
Leaders here have tried desperately to distinguish the police killing of 18-year-old Antonio Martin on Dec. 23 from that of Michael Brown in Ferguson 4½ months earlier, which sparked months of racially charged protests and put law enforcement under a national microscope.
On Tuesday, Berkeley’s mayor, police chief and other officials held a press conference to announce that a city investigation had determined that the officer, who is white, was in fear for his life and justified to shoot Martin, who was black. They said there was evidence that Martin pointed a gun at the officer in a convenience store parking lot.
It’s a sharp contrast to the Ferguson investigation, in which information seemed to trickle out over a four-month period. That culminated just before Thanksgiving when a grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, a white officer who killed a black teen, Brown, in a street confrontation.
St. Louis County police also are reviewing the Berkeley shooting in an investigation that continues.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/berkeley-officials-man-killed-by-police-had-pointed-gun-at/article_5027be1d-c99e-5cb9-9c1a-04ca73316591.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)Is Democratic Underground becoming "all police shootings that fit a certain mold, all the time?"
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Is that some sort of torture technique?
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)Sirius/XM satellite radio started a channel that played all Barbra Streisand all the time. They dropped it after a month.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Because they are happening out of control. There is no more relevant story that pertains to all American than how we are policed.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)Just more recording and attention paid. And the outrage is very selective.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)you have the ability to ignore or trash the thread. Why come here and complain?
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Totally not the same thing. Nice try though.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)
The cops body camera and patrol car video cameras were turned off. They seized the video footage from the store and when they played it for the media they cropped out a huge section where you would've seen whether he had a gun or cellphone. Wow. So many coincidences.
alp227
(32,006 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Local coverage is most comprehensive.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I've seen 3 separate videos, in fact.
In his press conference, broadcast live in KSDK, Mayor Hoskins, who is black, stated unequivocally that a review of the video footage and witness statements ALL show that Antonio Martin pointed a gun at the officer. State Sen. Maria Chapelle-Nadal, one of the most vocal critics of how police handled the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, has said that this case is clearly different because Martin was armed. "That officer not only has an obligation to protect the community, but he also has a responsibility to protect himself," she told USA Today. "Because of the video, it is more than apparent that his life was in jeopardy." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/24/man-shot-killed-berkeley/20849045/
As a community, Berkley is vastly different from Ferguson: the mayor and city manager are black, and over half of the police force is also black, including command officers.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I also notice that you failed to address the other factual information I also provided.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Just think it's bizarre they cropped the video to "protect the parents". Read the links if you're going to spout.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Why would you find it bizarre that they would not want to show the parents their child being blown away, and lying there dead or dying? I'm pleased to hear that you agree with the mayor, the senator and the police that this is a 'good shoot'.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)This country is becoming Nazified.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)While I may agree about the Nazified part, I'm not going to nitpick about commonly used terms in our language.
Judi Lynn
(160,452 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They are playing games for some reason. Not saying perp didn't have a gun. By why edit it out and claim it's "out of respect for the family". We have seen enough of FOX edits and cop lies so we are distrustful. Why muddy the pond further?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)There will never be an acceptance of official police reports without tangible proof in the St. Lewis area, Missouri, or the United States again.
The Michel Brown killing, the official lie, the institutionalized racism within law enforcement, the victim blaming, the incompetence/obstructionism of the prosecution, and the white wash were too blatant.
Followed up by a sequel set in New York, and a sequel set in Milwaukee........
LincolnsLeftHand
(43 posts)And I'm ok with the fact that the grand jury didn't return an indictment in the Brown case. After all, the grand jury heard all the evidence and decided not to indict. That doesn't mean the process was perfect, but I'm not in the camp of those calling for the officer's head based on incomplete evidence and a vague distrust of the police.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I believe full public disclosure, prosecution for perjury, adversarial questioning, and proper legal briefing of the jury would have gone a long way to heal the wounds caused by the systemic racism in law enforcement.
"Vague distrust of the police", is like the vague existence of mountains. Distrust of police is a lesson brutally and continually taught by the police themselves.
Officer Wilgun guilt or innocence should have been determined in a court of law in full view of the public.
In the sprite of full disclosure; I would most probably be a poor choice as a juror.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)There is zero evidence supporting the cops story. None. Body cameras turned off. Patrol car video turned off. But there is the store video...whoops...cops release it with 20% of the image cropped out so you can't see if its a gun or a cell phone in the kids hand. The kid has a record so why do this? Unless they freaking lied again and all the kid did was try and record what they were doing. Release the whole video...what is this, 911? If he actually had a gun and threatened officers with it then he obviously deserved to get shot so whats the problem?
Travelman
(708 posts)This is just more apocryphal BS. The three different videos released were not "cropped." Some news media people may have cropped the videos later, but what was released to the public was not cropped at all.
This is no different than the now thoroughly-proven-false claim that the cops all stood around a dead body for half an hour before calling an ambulance. Same with this utterly asinine claim that this proven thug was pointing a cell phone at the cops.
We have the video. We have the gun. We have someone who had a long history of violent behavior involving guns. We have multiple witnesses on the scene (ACTUAL witnesses on the scene, unlike the non-witness "witnesses" who claim to have seen Vonderrit Myers with nothing but a 9mm sandwich) who have confirmed that Martin pointed a gun at a cop, and that was CONFIRMED BY THE BLACK MAYOR AND THE BLACK CHIEF OF POLICE. So either this is a gigantic racist conspiracy carried out by a bunch of Black people in high positions in city government, or maybe, just maybe, it might be that this guy, who already had a history of gun violence, pulled a gun on a cop and was rightly shot for his stupidity.
Should the cop have had his body camera on? Yep. You bet your ass he should have. But they're BRAND NEW. It's not an habitual thing for the police in Berkeley to wear body cameras yet. YET. The department has already addressed this issue, BEFORE the shooting occurred: there is already an escalating set of penalties in place for cops who fail to wear and/or activate their body cameras.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Good for you. I am not.
I find killing an unarmed person absolutely unacceptable. That was the case in the Brown murder.
The Martin case may have been justifiable based on what I have seen (the officer certainly appeared to be scared to death and a weapon may have been pointed by Martin). But I would still like to know what happened before hand. Why the officer;s camera's weren't on. And why (if anyone knows) would Martin have pulled a gun on the officer?
The entire episode makes no sense from what we see on camera. What did they talk about? What happened? Obviously Martin's friend (or acquaintance) that originally walked up to the police car and was speaking to the officer has some answers. Where is he?
cynzke
(1,254 posts)Just the perception of one. The video shows the kid extending his arm similar to the simulation of someone holding a firearm. At those moments if the cop believes the suspect's motions mimic a pending assault against the officer, the law sides with the officer in use of lethal force, gives them a legal life preserver. If the cop reasonably believes in the moments before, that his/her life was in danger, he/she allowed to defend his/her self. Nowhere in the law does it state that a cop has to second guess what the intentions of the suspect are or does the officer have to wait to see a weapon. A delay, hesitation could prove fatal. Some hand guns are small enough to fit in your palm and in the poor lighting it would be hard to ascertain whether the suspect was holding a knife, gun or cell phone. So afterwards, should the officer be wrong about there being a weapon, the law does allow for mistakes, given the situation of having to make a split decision. In this case there were witnesses, there is video that the suspect did make some movement that the officer responded to. The order of that does suggest the officer's direct response related to the suspects response. Having the camera's may be suspicious and the cop may have violated the department protocol, there is plenty of remaining evidence that still supports the cops version of "self-defense" and the
DA would have to prove that the cop deliberately left the cameras off to intentionally kill someone. Pretty hard to prove in this case given all the other evidence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Was only referring to this case. What's up with the bad faith arguing around here lately?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)pull and point a gun at the officer, it was in the presser yesterday.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Do you have a link for that?
Everything I have read says they can't find the other individual. I find that to be another oddity of the case.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Full video and story here:
http://fox2now.com/2014/12/30/update-berkeley-mayor-to-hold-news-conference-on-officer-involved-shooting/
An independent investigation performed by St. Louis County Police confirmed that Martin pulled a gun on the officer who was responding to the call for shoplifting.
During the conference, Police Chief Frank McCall said the individual who was with Martin at the time confirmed the same. He told police that he fled for fear of his life because he didn’t know if he would be shot.
Police say several witnesses also said Martin was armed and did attempt to fire his weapon at the officer.
Bear in mind that the Mayor, Police Chief and most of the command officers are AA.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)It still seems like a pretty strange thing. They both were standing out in front of the store chatting. Not something a typical shoplifter does. And when the policeman drove in to the gas station the guy with Martin walked up to the car. It didn't look like he was called over. Martin could have left but he apparently stayed around. Then the cop calls him over and he pulls a gun? Very odd.
I wish someone could explain what he was thinking.
I am not faulting the officer in this instance. He looked scared to death.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I can't for the life of me fathom why this young man would pull a gun on a police officer, what was he thinking? The cop was VERY lucky that the safety was still engaged on the gun.
Unfortunately, another young man pays the ultimate price for a poor decision.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Without them, I would have found it hard to believe he would have pulled a gun.
I doubt we will ever get answers as to why Martin did what he did. It is a very sad situation both for the Martin family and the officer involved.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)1 family who's lives will never be the same and one police officer who has to live the rest of his life knowing that, however justified, he took a human life.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Vague?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)St. Louis County DA McCulloch had an obligation to recuse himself so that Gov. Nixon (or the presiding judge) could thereby appoint a Special Prosecutor to present evidence and hear testimony.
Instead, McCulloch knowingly suborned perjury (Witness #40, by McCulloch's own admission). Expect the U.S. DoJ to indict McCulloch for conspiracy to obstruct justice and violation of MB's civil rights in . . . never mind.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Anarchy develops when enough of the population is convinced that no law at all is preferable to the ones we have. Incidents like the Michael Brown case breed that thinking.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)at least one or two disturbing questions:
1) Martin at 18 is walking around with a loaded firearm ready to draw and fire upon a law enforcement officer. According to the 'official narrative,' only an engaged safety prevented Martin's weapon from discharging.
How many other 18-year-olds are now walking around the St. Louis area locked and loaded because they legitimately fear, based on Michael Brown's fate, that any encounter with law enforcement no matter how innocuous may be their final act upon the stage?????
2) If this was such a righteous shoot, then why is the name and identity of the officer not being released? Is there some sort of MO statute that allows authorities to withhold this information when the death is considered 'justifiable homicide'? And if it were such a righteous shoot, why won't the authorities release all the video footage?
Travelman
(708 posts)How many other 18-year-olds are now walking around the St. Louis area locked and loaded because they legitimately fear, based on Michael Brown's fate, that any encounter with law enforcement no matter how innocuous may be their final act upon the stage?????
Answer: zero. There are no eighteen-year-olds wandering around St. Louis armed because they think that they are going to defend themselves from the police.
Those who ARE wandering around St. Louis illegally armed do so because, among other things, they think that they can take out a cop and: a.) gain a lot of "street cred," and; b.) think that they can get away with it. See: Vonderrit Myers.
2) If this was such a righteous shoot, then why is the name and identity of the officer not being released?
And subject the officer to yet another lynch mob? No way. That's stupid on its face.
Is there some sort of MO statute that allows authorities to withhold this information when the death is considered 'justifiable homicide'?
Yes, actually. The way that the FOIA and "sunshine law" statutes are written in Missouri, those records are normally kept sealed unless there is a conviction, or under certain other FOIA requests. Records are permanently sealed thirty days after a report unless there is an ongoing prosecution.
And if it were such a righteous shoot, why won't the authorities release all the video footage?
What relevant footage do you think has not been released?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)
that you don't have the faintest idea what a 'premise' is nor how it functions. You do have the word in your vocabulary though, I'll give you that.
randys1
(16,286 posts)the top of my puter, just to be sure where i was...
This isnt getting better, it is getting worse, and I dont know how the AfAm community continues to react with such tremendous patience and reason.
How could ANYONE actually believe that there are NO AfAm men walking around armed worried they might be shot by cops, how terribly irresponsible of a statement is that!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014945402
randys1
(16,286 posts)How terribly burnt the landscape would be if we reversed roles
Travelman
(708 posts)You, however, clearly do not.
Now, tell us how your false premise that 18-year-olds wandering around St. Louis illegally armed to defend themselves against police works. Demonstrate that you actually know what a premise is.
I'll wait.
branford
(4,462 posts)1. Some people walk around with illegal firearms and even point them at others because they are criminals and/or stupid, nothing more, nothing less. There are any number of 18 year old males in across the country, of all races, doing it right now. We don't need conspiracy theories to account for not unexpected human behavior. See, Occam's Razor.
2. The name and identity of the officer is not being released because a thorough investigation has determined that he has done nothing wrong. The officers name does not change any pertinent facts. We already know his body camera was not turned on, have the gun in evidence, videos of the shooting, the decedent's criminal record, etc.
There is simply no reason to expose him to the mob and potentially destroy his career, or worse, his life. However, any individual can seek to discover his identity through legal channels like a state records request, although I imagine that absent a criminal charge against the officer, his identity might be an exception to any disclosure rules. There is also nothing preventing any intrepid reporter or regular citizen from actually trying to ascertain the officer's identity and reporting it. In fact, I would surmise that a great many people outside the department and town administration know full well who the officer is, and are not reporting it for the very same reasons it was not officially released.
Lastly, what video footage has purportedly not been released. Multiple posters have provided a number of full videos of the incident.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)a firearm by unanimous consensus (including even the smirking DA McCulloch), it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that young males of color are now drawing the entirely reasonable conclusion that their lives can be snuffed out at a moment's notice by rogues operating under color of the law for no reason whatsoever and taking appropriate measures for their self defense.
The video I saw stopped with a fuzzy image of what is purported to be Mr. Martin raising his hand and holding what authorities allege is a firearm but is too fuzzy for my eyes to discern. My understanding is that authorities themselves admitted they had not realeased the entire video out of solicitude, supposedly, for the family's feelings (not that such solicitude, mind you, prevented them from immediately detailing his criminal record to the press).
If this shoot is so unanimously considered 'justifiable' and 'righteous,' why what possible objection could the officer have to his name and identity being released? A 'mob'. I guess 'justifiable,' like 'beauty,' rests in the eye(s) of the beholders.
BTW, what was the name and ID of the killer cop who adminsitered the kill shot to Mr. Vonderrit Myers? Or is that information also privileged?
branford
(4,462 posts)as well as the actual gun in evidence, and now multiple statements by eyewitness unconnected with police. At some point, you'll just have to acknowledge that some altercations between a white police officer and black youth are not the result of any fault, no less racism, by the officer. Of course, that does not mean there should be no law enforcement reforms to eliminate the instances of actual unjustified use of police violence, only that each individual incident must be reviewed on its own merits.
Moreover, are you really now citing Vonderitt Myers as evidence of a unjustified shooting? Although I believe that the matter has not yet been fully closed, the evidence thus far is pretty damning for Mr. Meyers - GSR on his hands and clothes, including inside of his pockets and waistband, recovered weapon and shells, the fact that he was out on bail for an illegal weapons and resisting arrest charge, wearing an anklet as a condition of bail, and thus could not possess a weapon and should not even have been out, social media posting of him with the weapon used in the shooting, etc. Heck, in the Myers incident, the allegation was not that he simple possessed the weapon, but he fired multiple shots before the officer returned fire.
Moreover, contrary to you claim, the name of the officer involved in the Myers matter has been reported, it's Jason H. Flanery.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)pleading for his life as the officer (Flanery, you say) stood over him and administered the final kill shot. Bet you didn't hear about those eye- or earwitnesses did you? Or, if you did, you've chosen to ignore their witness. As you will.
I meant to suggest that Martin had armed himself precisely b/c he was aware of what had happened to an unarmed Michael Brown not two miles down the road as the crow flies. The next time a St. Louis County LEO bumps into an Antonio Martin, said officer may not be able to rely on the safety being engaged.
BTW, Flanery's name was not officially released but I don't think you want to be holding him up as some paragon of enlightened law enforcement if his posts on social media are to be trusted. Again, as you will. And, our bickering aside, thanks for pointing me to Flanery's name, as I had somehow missed it.
branford
(4,462 posts)Although I certainly do not agree with this views, they are perfectly legal and permissible in our country, held by large swaths of the population as recent elections demonstrate, and cannot be used to prove prima facie racial animus in court. The Myer's family attorney can suggest that conservative views imply racism, but no court will admit such allegations without much, much more foundation about the officer's personal views and conduct, and is the reason while any mention of it has only been, at best, ancillary.
I also followed the case for a while. Many of those witnesses actually didn't witness anything, and were just offering their opinion. That is how the suggestion that he was only carrying a sandwich began. This is not uncommon, and also appears to be the case regarding some individuals in the Martin matter when the case was first reported, such as the testimony concerning tha half hour wait for the ambulance.
I'm also surprised that you appear to concede Myers possessed the handgun, which appears to contradict these supposed witnesses, despite the ample physical and circumstantial evidence. His possession would be unquestionably illegal, and alleged fear of the police generally would not permit him to fire at the officer, even in the most liberal self-defense jurisdictions.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)had not conceded that he had a handgun. (Just so we're clear, I'm unwilling thus far to concede that Martin had a handgun either.) If Myers was acosted by the off-duty cop Flanery working a rent-a-cop gig and that same rent-a-cop failed to identify himself as a police officer, then excuse me, Myers would have had every right to act in his self defense. But, as it happens, Myers was unable even to assert a claim of self defense, given that he was summarily executed on the streets (actually, I believe he was killed on a slight hillside) of St. Louis County.
branford
(4,462 posts)where you erroneously professed, as you do now, that the officer's perfectly legal, department approved, often community encouraged, and very commonplace security work somehow changes the legal calculus concerning the encounter between the officer and Myers. You are certainly free to object to the practice of permitting outside work, but you've been repeatedly been advised of the actual law and practice in the vast majority of jurisdictions. In any event, the officer was in fact wearing his police uniform at the time of the encounter and retained (and was duty bound to exercise) all police powers. The security work was a non-issue in the shooting, despite your protestations to the contrary. You also severely misunderstand the relevant laws of self-defense.
Unless significant new facts emerge, neither of the officers in the Martin or Myers shootings will be criminally charged or even face internal discipline, nor should they. I also predict that neither the Martin nor Myers families will commence civil proceedings for wrongful death, and in the event that they choose to do so, they will either lose or be paid a tiny token sum rather by the towns just to avoid litigation costs.
There are more than ample examples of police malfeasance to justify appropriate department reforms, such as the Eric Garner case. However, if you chose to cite every altercation between a white officer and black youth as an example of police racism and violence, irrespective of the facts and evidence concerning the individual cases demonstrating that the police were almost certainly justified in their use of force, you do nothing but appear to be a blind ideologue and ultimately justify doubts by much the public about less clear instances when police employ violence.
Simply, if there is amble evidence that someone pulled a gun on a police officer during a lawful encounter, no less fired on them and/or demonstrated other violent and threatening tendencies, the clear majority of the public will not object to an officer's use of lethal force in their defense.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)justifies the time and effort. Allow me to say that whether Flanary was wearing his police uniform or not is entirely immaterial to the question of whether Myers understood Flanary to be a police officer engaged in lawful pursuit of his police duties. Since their encounter happened late at night -- in the dark -- it is entirely possible that Myers had not the slightest awareness that Flanary was a police officer. Assuming Myers even had a firearm -- a fact I would say is still in some dispute -- Myers might reasonably have concluded that Flanary was merely some run-of-the-mill brigand intent upon extorting from Myers, and thereby necessitating self defense.
Yes, you and others have made clear that Flanary for all intents and purposes remained a police officer even while off duty and doing his rent-a-cop gig. Big deal. The real question is whether Myers understood Flanary to be a police officer engaged in lawful activity. That case still remains to be proven, your bluster and repetitions notwithstanding.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'll be willing to bet a years worth of my pension that Flanary did ID himself as a police officer, why wouldn't he?
And lest we forget, Myers was illegally carrying a gun, the gun that just happened to match up with the one he was showing off on a Facebook pic.
Oh, and he was also out with his friends, thereby violating the terms of his bail, don't forget that he was wearing a ankle moniter.
And, GSR was found on his hands, his waistband and his pockets, so, given all that, it's a safe bet that he did indeed shoot at the officer and paid the ultimate price for his stupidity.
branford
(4,462 posts)he would definitely not be protected by the relevant self-defense statutes which requires a reasonable belief of a direct lethal threat, even if he legally possessed the firearm and was not prohibited from being out and about due to his bail conditions, which would by themselves likely foreclose any self-defense arguments as a matter of law.
Moreover, are you really trying to argue that Myers still might not have had a gun despite the GSR all over his body and clothes and recovery of a fired weapon and slugs that match the gun Myers had in his possession on his own social media postings? The required level of planning required to conspire and implement the planting of that particular gun and other forensic evidence, to the extent even remotely possible, all before medical personal, law enforcement or others arrived at the scene would be breathtaking and worthy of the best spy thrillers, particularly since there hasn't been any allegations that the officer had ever met or knew about Myers before the incident. If that's the case, Flanery should immediately be hired by the CIA.
The legal issue also wasn't whether Myers knew that Flanery was a police officer (he was wearing his police uniform), but rather whether Flanery's encounter with Myers was lawful (a very low burden and not really in dispute) and if he reasonably feared for his safety (Myers actually shot at him).
Again, if you want people to seriously consider the ramifications of unjustified police violence and implement reform, it's imperative to the movement's credibility that they acknowledge when police justifiably employ violence. If the argument effectively is police are always wrong irrespective of the real and damning evidence, there is no discussion to be had, and all current questionable police policies, along with demonstrated public sympathy and belief in the police credibility, will continue as before.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)corroborated some or all of that encounter of Myers' final moments. Including visuals of Flanary standing over a crouching and defenseless Myers to administer the kill shot and audio of Myers pleading for his life ahead of the kill shot.
Hmm, now where have we witnessed this before . . . that several ear and eye-witnesses all agree materially on a version of events inimical to the police officer's 'justificable homicide' fairy tale, only to see that ear- and eyewitness testimony thrown over???? Why, the answer would be Ferguson, MO (or, more accurately, Clayton, MO, site of the Michael Brown Grand Jury).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I've been closely following this case and I've yet to see anything stating that.
And, have these been confirmed?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)(I thought) established back in late October, only to have you once more move the goalposts, then I will have proven myself a schmuck of the first order.
That said, why don't you start with this excerpt from a Stltoday article:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/private-autopsy-claims-vonderrit-myers-shot-while-fleeing/article_ab007919-9bf9-50e2-8dd2-8f5b45088440.html
That article was posted by me back on October 23 and discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014926043
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You call that evidence?
Have the police and the DA's investigators interviewed these "witnesses" and confirmed their story?
How come these "witnesses" haven't come forward yet? How come we don't know who they are?
So far all we have are unsubstantiated stories from dubious "witnesses", while so far the state has the actual gun used, the recovered bullets that match Myers gun, the GSR on Myers hands, waistband and his pockets, the fact that Myers was in violation of his bail conditions, Myers past violent history.
Given all that, I'm strongly leaning to it was a justified homicide.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)are his parents and the lawyer, so where's the link that says the allegations that the officer executed him were corroborated?
Corroborated by whom? When? Where?
branford
(4,462 posts)In the majority of cases, they are revealed to be friends and family of the deceased who quickly speak to the press and claim they "know" that the suspect would never engage in anything untoward, no less criminal, despite not actually being present at the event at issue (and often despite a lengthy and damning criminal history).
This is how the rumor started that Myers was only armed with a sandwich or the ambulance allegedly intentionally did not arrive at the scene of the Martin shooting for over a half an hour. Even after such stories are thoroughly debunked, true believers still cling to them lest their narrative and preconceived notions fall apart.
I really fail to see why people try desperately to challenge justified shootings. They might be tragic, but focusing on them while ignoring evidence rarely induces sympathy with the public and ends up bolstering police credibility in more questionable matters. Aren't there more than enough indisputable or highly questionable incidents of police violence to justify reforms without harping on incidents where the police really acted to save their own lives?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)cares about justice.
Do these witnesses sound like 'friends and family of the deceased'?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/private-autopsy-claims-vonderrit-myers-shot-while-fleeing/article_ab007919-9bf9-50e2-8dd2-8f5b45088440.html
You want to keep defending the actions of a right-wing bigot (Flanary) who was operating as some sort of loose-cannon vigilante, have at it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)of loose-cannon vigilante.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you've already declared the officer an executioner without a shred of evidence to prove your wild accusations.
How do you know they aren't friends and family of the deceased? Have they named the "witnesses" yet? No, they haven't, so, how the hell do you know that for sure?
branford
(4,462 posts)but the police investigation, under the new stringent post-Michael Brown rules, has recommended that no charges be filed. Moreover, yes, these witnesses indeed do sound like little more than friends and family of the deceased.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-seek-no-charges-in-officer-s-killing/article_613ee14a-5c6f-50a9-9566-009df039d49e.html
I give very little credence to alleged witnesses that the family lawyer claims exists, but has still has not identified months after the shooting. You complain bitterly that the police refuse to release enough evidence for the public to adequately review police shootings, including the Myers case. Accordingly, if the alleged witnesses that exonerate Myers exist, why are you not demanding they too be immediately identified. Doesn't the public have a right to know?
Quite frankly, as an attorney, I recognize the common tactic being used by the family counsel. Vaguely claim you have some indisputable evidence in order to shape public opinion in the early stage of an investigation and pressure the authorities while you search for some real evidence. Unfortunately, at some point, the family attorney has to basically put-up or shut-up. Since these purported witnesses have not been revealed thus far and the police investigation has concluded, all indications are that these witnesses were merely a bluff, or did not actually witness anything other than hear inadmissible rumor and innuendo, like the infamous sandwich. Hence, the quintessential "friends and family are sure the deceased did nothing wrong, but can't prove it" witnesses.
Now, what evidence or identifiable witness testimony can you cite to that actually disputes the officer's account. It's certainly not the recovered fired gun, shell casings, Myers' clothes, the autopsy, his social media postings, his upcoming trial for illegal weapons possession, or his breach of his bail conditions. The fact that the officer was a conservative Republican, unsurprising and relatively banal for a MO police officer, doesn't constitute evidence of anything, no less bigotry, DU stereotypes notwithstanding.
If the officer was a "right-wing bigot" and "loose cannon vigilante" as you claim, there should be more than ample documentary evidence of actual racism and discrimination, as well as at least a few harassment and excessive force complaints. Nevertheless, I've read nothing more that he doesn't support President Obama's policies, and considering public polling, more than half the country appears to agree.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)support President Obama's policies."
Quoting from your link::
According to a Chesterfield police report, Flanery was a student at Parkway West High School on March 22, 2001, when a teacher spotted someone throwing a beer can and cigarette out of a car. Police searched the vehicle and found a wooden baton and four unopened beer cans in the car, and Flanery admitted having two throwing knives in the glove compartment.
Here's what that paragon of law enforcement virtue Flanary has to say about Michelle Obama:
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)That he's a RW'er? Yeah, he is, but what does it have to do with the homicide of Myers?
Hell, in High School, I was hell on wheels also, was always in some sort of trouble with my teachers, cops, parents, what normal kid isn't?
But this all has diddly squat to do with with this case.
branford
(4,462 posts)Your proof that the officer is a homicidal bigot is a crime 13 years ago while he was in high school concerning possession of beer and baton in his car and that he really doesn't like the president and first lady? You're not willing to consider as evidence the fact that Myers was awaiting trial in one month for illegal weapons and resisting arrest charges, has a prior criminal record, was on monitored bail where he could not possess a firearm nor be out and about, and his social media posting with a gun identical to the one recovered, yet we're to believe your offended and convinced of the officer's guilt due to the his minor high school record over a decade ago and some political comments where race, no less violent intent, is nowhere to be found. Wow, just wow!
The family's attorney actual expressed inculpatory theory was "right-wing conservatives have not traditionally been 'the friendliest' to people such as Myers." Again, wow. This information would be inadmissible in either a criminal or civil trial, and can only be described as laughable, particularly from experienced trial counsel. I certainly do not agree with the officer's politics, and he may very well be a complete and total ass, but if that's the best you and the family's attorney can cite to, I would reiterate my opinion that there's no chance of a criminal charge, and a civil suit is unlikely or will result in a quick and unfavorable verdict.
More importantly, what about those witnesses the Myers family attorney promised us? Aren't you annoyed that these perfect witnesses that could prove your theories will not come forward in the interests of justice? With the claims that amount to little more than the officer is an evil conservative Republican as purported "evidence" and vague hints of important eyewitnesses that never materialized, I'm beginning to think the family may have retained cranks, incompetents or ethically challenged counsel.
Lastly, I've pointed-out a number of examples of actual forensic evidence supporting the officer's account of what happened. I'm still waiting for any evidence you could point to that contradicts the released forensics or provides an alternative theory that exonerates Myers. I would suggest further citation to Myers family attorney would be imprudent.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Are you claiming that because Flanary doesn't agree with President Obama's policies and he said some disparaging things about the First Lady, then he must be guilty of executing Myers? That he's a dirty cop?
This is your evidence? This is your argument?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you claim there's audio of Myers pleading for his life? Where's the audio? Why hasn't the family or lawyer released it yet? Have you heard it?
If there really was audio of what you claim, it would be a very powerful counter to the officer's accounts, so, where is it?
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)They get robbed. They show the video. The suspect(s) are completely unrecognizable because of the low quality. Maybe the point is just to show they were robbed in order to collect the insurance?
Travelman
(708 posts)The suspect in this case was "unrecognizable" because he was in a position outside of the purpose of the cameras in question.