Another police shooting in the St. Louis area

[Derec]

I am not going to speculate on "whys" on a whim.

Yet you speculate about another shooter (on the grassy knoll?)

Until there is more evidence to support one claim or the other, I am simply not taking your assumptions or police claims as necessarily valid.

They recovered the gun. They recovered bullets. There is evidence

Um, the entire quote was "Interestingly, the police officer's record is not public knowledge at this point. Seems a bit one-sided, regardless what actually happened. " which should clearly mean that regardless whether there victim shot at the police officer or not, it is one sided that that the victim's record is public knowledge but the police officer's is not.

The perp's record is public knowledge because criminal cases are a public record. A police officer's employment records aren't. Why do you then find it improper that Myers' record was dug up so quickly?

 

[SimpleDon]

Here is an explanation of why the officer was working for a private security firm, the neighborhood went together and formed a special tax district to pay for the extra patrols.

Here is another story that explains other points, including how the parents of the boy knew that he had bought a sandwich, and what type of sandwich it was, a turkey hogie.

Google is a wonderful thing.

So what if he had bought a sandwich? The police recovered a gun that had been fired three times.

Derec questioned how the mother knew that he had bought a sandwich. I don't think that it is important. You have to ask Derec why he does.

 

[Derec]

So what if he had bought a sandwich? The police recovered a gun that had been fired three times.

Derec questioned how the mother knew that he had bought a sandwich. I don't think that it is important. You have to ask Derec why he does.

No, it was Jimmy Higgins who initially asked that question. I merely said that I didn't know either.

What I don't understand is how the mother knew the teen had a sandwich.

No idea either. Maybe he had a sandwich also. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SimpleDon]

Derec questioned how the mother knew that he had bought a sandwich. I don't think that it is important. You have to ask Derec why he does.

No, it was Jimmy Higgins who initially asked that question. I merely said that I didn't know either.

What I don't understand is how the mother knew the teen had a sandwich.

No idea either. Maybe he had a sandwich also. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Now we have the irrelevant question of the sandwich cleared up.

 

[RavenSky]

I think that when Derec started this thread, he was so certain he had a bona-fide legitimate shooting by a cop killing a black man, and he was going to play some sort of "gotcha" game, though if it were a truly a clear cut justified shooting no one here would have defended VonDerrit Myers anyway. And to be honest, at first blush this did seem to be a straight-forward case of a black man opening fire on a police officer, then being shot and killed by the officer. Seventeen times seems extremely excessive for a supposedly trained cop, but overall the first report offered by Derec seemed inarguable:

While on patrol, the officer saw three black males run away as he approached. He gave chase because one of them was holding up his pants in a way that made the officer believe the teen may be carrying a gun, Dotson said.
The officer and one of the three tussled. The teen ran off, then turned around and fired at least three shots at the officer, Dotson said.
The officer returned fire, killing the teen.

But there seem to be some problems with the case:

The above account conflicts with what Lt. Col. Alfred Adkins of the St. Louis Police Department apparently said to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the evening of the shooting:

The man the officer was chasing jumped from some bushes and struggled with the officer, Adkins said. The man then pulled a gun and fired at the officer, Adkins said. The officer returned fire and fatally shot the man.

So VonDerrit Myers jumped out of some bushes and attacked the off-duty patrol officer. Except, there weren't any bushes. The following day, police dropped any mention of these bushes but Chief Sam Dotson claims:

Myers turned and approached the officer in "an aggressive manner and the officer told Myers to surrender. Myers continued to come at the officer and the two struggled. A sweatshirt the man was wearing came off during the struggle.

The manager of the Shaw Market where VonDerrit Myers had just purchased a sandwich is quoted as saying: "Like six minutes after I sold him a sandwich, he got shot... He wasn't armed when he was here. He didn't have a hoodie."

The security video from the market shows that VonDerrit Myers is not wearing a hoodie or sweatshirt, and that his pants are not sagging in any way suggestive of a gun in his pocket.

So how did VonDerrit Myers magically gain a sweatshirt after leaving the Shaw Market, then just as magically have it removed from his body by the police officer before being shot 17 times by that same officer?

There are a few more discrepancies in the linked article, but I think the video of VonDerrit Myers in the market does not support the various claims by the St. Louis police department of what happened in the minutes immediately after he left the market.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it was Jimmy Higgins who initially asked that question. I merely said that I didn't know either.

What I don't understand is how the mother knew the teen had a sandwich.

No idea either. Maybe he had a sandwich also. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Now we have the irrelevant question of the sandwich cleared up.

Quick market sandwich = the new Skittles

 

[Derec]

I think that when Derec started this thread, he was so certain he had a bona-fide legitimate shooting by a cop killing a black man, and he was going to play some sort of "gotcha" game, though if it were a truly a clear cut justified shooting no one here would have defended VonDerrit Myers anyway.

I started this threat because even though it was an armed perp shooting at a cop his death still incited anger (including by elected officials like Jamilah Nasheed) and violent protests in St. Louis. And it seems the same attitude is spilling into this thread.

And to be honest, at first blush this did seem to be a straight-forward case of a black man opening fire on a police officer, then being shot and killed by the officer. Seventeen times seems extremely excessive for a supposedly trained cop, but overall the first report offered by Derec seemed inarguable:

But?

But there seem to be some problems with the case:

DailyKos is a far left blog. Earlier they complained about police stating that Myers, who had an outstanding felony gun change, was "no stranger" to them, calling it a "dog whistle". I guess some people want any kind of information that puts the shootee in a negative light kept secret, just like they wanted to bury the fact that Michael Brown had robbed the store.

The above account conflicts with what Lt. Col. Alfred Adkins of the St. Louis Police Department apparently said to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the evening of the shooting:

Early reports of any kind of news like this contain inaccuracies that get corrected in later reporting. Of course they often become fodder for silly conspiracy theories.

The manager of the Shaw Market where VonDerrit Myers had just purchased a sandwich is quoted as saying: "Like six minutes after I sold him a sandwich, he got shot... He wasn't armed when he was here. He didn't have a hoodie."

How would the shopkeeper know if he had a concealed weapon or not? Also, did police confirm the timeline as the gunshots occurring 6 minutes after the purchase of the sandwich?

The security video from the market shows that VonDerrit Myers is not wearing a hoodie or sweatshirt, and that his pants are not sagging in any way suggestive of a gun in his pocket.

His pants were definitely sagging. And when he is sort of facing the camera (around the 30s mark) it looks like there is a bulge - although it's hard to say from the low-res video, maybe he's just very excited about the sandwich.
As to hoodie or sweatshirt, are you suggesting the police not only planted a gun (and got off a few shots with it without anyone noticing) but also planted a hoodie?
And I guess it was merely serendipitous that the guy they were framing in that way is already facing a felony gun charge?
In reality there is no good reason to think any of these things. He could have put the sweater at some later point (maybe as it was getting chilly). There is no reason to take shopkeeper's timeline as fact, especially since he obviously has an ax to grind.

So how did VonDerrit Myers magically gain a sweatshirt after leaving the Shaw Market, then just as magically have it removed from his body by the police officer before being shot 17 times by that same officer?

Must be the drop sweater all St. Louis police officers carry on them to frame young black men with.

There are a few more discrepancies in the linked article, but I think the video of VonDerrit Myers in the market does not support the various claims by the St. Louis police department of what happened in the minutes immediately after he left the market.

What exactly in the video contradicts the later events? A concealed gun would not have been obvious on surveillance camera. And if he got a sweater from elsewhere (like a car) he could have gotten a gun from there just as easily even if he wasn't armed at the store. The time stamp places the sandwich purchase at around 7:03-7:05 pm. When exactly did the actual shooting take place?

Quick market sandwich = the new Skittles

I am sure some people want it to be. Of course, even the fixation on Skittles and Arizona ice tea watermelon drink was kind of stupid. Trayvon wasn't shot because he had candy and soft drink, he was shot because he gave an armed man "whoop ass".

 

[Jayjay]

No, it was Jimmy Higgins who initially asked that question. I merely said that I didn't know either.

What I don't understand is how the mother knew the teen had a sandwich.

No idea either. Maybe he had a sandwich also. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Now we have the irrelevant question of the sandwich cleared up.

Not yet. I would like to know if the sandwich was covered on site of the shooting?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it was Jimmy Higgins who initially asked that question. I merely said that I didn't know either.

What I don't understand is how the mother knew the teen had a sandwich.

No idea either. Maybe he had a sandwich also. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Now we have the irrelevant question of the sandwich cleared up.

I don't think it is irrelevant. What we have here is a three-tier problem.

1) A mistrust of the police from the African American community
2) A number of cases of very questionable at best lethal violence used against those in the African American community
3) Flat out willful ignorance of some in the African American community

The sandwich claim reminded me of a woman that actually claimed that a winning lottery ticket that was claimed by someone was actually lost by her in a parking lot. A story so utterly unbelievable, you would almost have to assume it was true, because it would be otherwise unthinkable anyone would claim otherwise.

A sandwich? On what basis could she even make such a claim. I can understand denying that he would shot at an officer, but to make such a claim, to me, underlies one of the other issues the African American community suffers from... some just don't recognize there is a violence issue. "Oh, not my boy."

It is bad enough that there is a shooting at all. To enter into the situation a matter of fact, that she could not possibly have known seems reckless. Shootings are bad enough. Unwarranted shootings are dreadful. Warranted shootings that are painted as murders, are pretty darn bad too. The African American Community has enough issues to deal with, such as legitimate racial discrimination problems, that they don't need the family and friends of victims of violence that was the result of their own ridiculous creation making it appear that there is even more.

 

[RavenSky]

A sandwich? On what basis could she even make such a claim. I can understand denying that he would shot at an officer, but to make such a claim, to me, underlies one of the other issues the African American community suffers from... some just don't recognize there is a violence issue. "Oh, not my boy."

Maybe she got the outlandish idea that her son had a sandwich from the fact that he had just purchased a sandwich?

To quote my earlier post that contained the links:

The manager of the Shaw Market where VonDerrit Myers had just purchased a sandwich is quoted as saying: "Like six minutes after I sold him a sandwich, he got shot... He wasn't armed when he was here. He didn't have a hoodie."

 

[Derec]

Not yet. I would like to know if the sandwich was covered on site of the shooting?

You mean recovered, right?
No, a sandwich wasn't recovered at the scene according to the police.

"There wasn't a sandwich recovered at the scene, it was a gun recovered at the scene," Chief Dotson said. "The ballistic evidence at the scene showed that the individual had a gun, fired the gun, and there was ballistic evidence behind the officer which shows the bullet went past the officer. So that's the reality."

Presumably Myers would have had eaten the sandwich already or else had dropped it when he started running from the police officer.

 

[Derec]

Maybe she got the outlandish idea that her son had a sandwich from the fact that he had just purchased a sandwich?

Which is no way contradicts the fact that he also had a gun.
Since no sandwich (unlike the gun and the bullets) was found at the scene he must have either eaten it already or had dropped it as he started running. Contrary to what the family is saying, he wasn't holding a sandwich when he was shot.

 

[RavenSky]

Maybe she got the outlandish idea that her son had a sandwich from the fact that he had just purchased a sandwich?

Which is no way contradicts the fact that he also had a gun.
Since no sandwich (unlike the gun and the bullets) was found at the scene he must have either eaten it already or had dropped it as he started running. Contrary to what the family is saying, he wasn't holding a sandwich when he was shot.

Shop manager said he did not have a gun, but that he did have a sandwich

 

[Derec]

Shop manager said he did not have a gun, but that he did have a sandwich

And police say that he did have a gun (which he shot) but didn't have a sandwich. A gun (and bullets he shot) were recovered, but not a sandwich.
He could have eaten the sandwich or dropped it. He didn't have it when he got shot though.
And the shopkeeper had no way of knowing for sure that Myers didn't have a gun. Besides, he could have armed himself sometime after leaving the store if he didn't have a gun already.

What I would really like to know is the precise timeline. He left the store around 7:05. When exactly was he confronted by the police officer? When exactly was he shot?

 

[RavenSky]

Shop manager said he did not have a gun, but that he did have a sandwich

And police say that he did have a gun (which he someone allegedly shot) but didn't have a sandwich. A gun (and bullets he someone allegedly shot) were recovered, but not a sandwich.
He could have eaten the sandwich or dropped it. He allegedly didn't have it when he got shot though.

FIFY

And the shopkeeper had no way of knowing for sure that Myers didn't have a gun.

Neither did the cop despite his claims that he did based on the way Myers was holding his pants

Besides, he could have armed himself sometime after leaving the store if he didn't have a gun already.

Pure speculation on your part

What I would really like to know is the precise timeline. He left the store around 7:05. When exactly was he confronted by the police officer? When exactly was he shot?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is no way contradicts the fact that he also had a gun.
Since no sandwich (unlike the gun and the bullets) was found at the scene he must have either eaten it already or had dropped it as he started running. Contrary to what the family is saying, he wasn't holding a sandwich when he was shot.

Shop manager said he did not have a gun, but that he did have a sandwich

The shop manager didn't search him, his saying the guy didn't have a gun isn't credible. All he knows is the guy didn't openly have a gun. Since the chase started when the cop felt that the way the guy's pants were hanging said "hidden gun" the lack of an open gun isn't relevant.

 

[RavenSky]

Shop manager said he did not have a gun, but that he did have a sandwich

The shop manager didn't search him, his saying the guy didn't have a gun isn't credible. All he knows is the guy didn't openly have a gun. Since the chase started when the cop felt that the way the guy's pants were hanging said "hidden gun" the lack of an open gun isn't relevant.

So your position is that the shop manager, who saw Myers up close and for a longer period of time, could not detect this "hidden gun" but a cop in a car going the opposite direction could detect this "hidden gun" which is why he gave chase.

Sounds fishy to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The shop manager didn't search him, his saying the guy didn't have a gun isn't credible. All he knows is the guy didn't openly have a gun. Since the chase started when the cop felt that the way the guy's pants were hanging said "hidden gun" the lack of an open gun isn't relevant.

So your position is that the shop manager, who saw Myers up close and for a longer period of time, could not detect this "hidden gun" but a cop in a car going the opposite direction could detect this "hidden gun" which is why he gave chase.

Sounds fishy to me.

Sounds like the cop looks for guns and has a lot of practice doing so. The shop owner has neither the experience nor is he on the lookout for concealed guns. I find nothing fishy about a pro doing a far better job than an amateur not even trying to do the job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe she got the outlandish idea that her son had a sandwich from the fact that he had just purchased a sandwich?

To quote my earlier post that contained the links:

The manager of the Shaw Market where VonDerrit Myers had just purchased a sandwich is quoted as saying: "Like six minutes after I sold him a sandwich, he got shot... He wasn't armed when he was here. He didn't have a hoodie."

He bought a sandwich. That doesn't mean he wasn't armed. It doesn't mean he didn't shot any shots. It doesn't mean he shot any shots. It is an entirely unimportant detail that does nothing to resolve what happened.

I'm getting so sick and tired of all of the assumptions made up front in these cases. You have one side where the cop is a murderer, another side where all black victims likely had it coming. And the hooligans from both sides turning up the heat. It seems like so many people don't want justice, they just want their worldview reinforced.

My problem is that the mother doesn't know if her son was armed and shouldn't be inciting by stating her son, without a doubt, was unarmed. Shooting an unarmed man is grave crime.

Not a second thought about the officer. What if he was shot at three times, and had to kill the shooter to survive? Imagine the nightmares from that. Not all cops are sociopaths.

So I would rather an investigation determine the details of these cases, instead of the baseless accusations or claims of either direct or indirect third parties to the incident.

- - - Updated - - -

Pure speculation on your part

Almost every post in here is pure speculation.

 

[RavenSky]

So your position is that the shop manager, who saw Myers up close and for a longer period of time, could not detect this "hidden gun" but a cop in a car going the opposite direction could detect this "hidden gun" which is why he gave chase.

Sounds fishy to me.

Sounds like the cop looks for guns and has a lot of practice doing so. The shop owner has neither the experience nor is he on the lookout for concealed guns. I find nothing fishy about a pro doing a far better job than an amateur not even trying to do the job.

You are really trying to say, with a straight face, that shop owners do not keep themselves situationally aware; looking for customers who may be armed and potential robbers?

Like Derec, I'd like to know for a fact how much time actually passed between buying the sandwich and being gunned down by a police officer shooting 17 times.

 

[RavenSky]

Maybe she got the outlandish idea that her son had a sandwich from the fact that he had just purchased a sandwich?

To quote my earlier post that contained the links:

He bought a sandwich. That doesn't mean he wasn't armed. It doesn't mean he didn't shot any shots. It doesn't mean he shot any shots. It is an entirely unimportant detail that does nothing to resolve what happened.

I don't think it is an unimportant detail in that a sandwich in his pocket could cause his pants to sag the way the cop described (which assumes the cop was telling the truth but mistaken about the cause). The sandwich is also important if, as the shop owner stated, only six minutes passed between purchasing the sandwich and being killed by the cop - where is the sandwich?

I'm getting so sick and tired of all of the assumptions made up front in these cases. You have one side where the cop is a murderer, another side where all black victims likely had it coming. And the hooligans from both sides turning up the heat. It seems like so many people don't want justice, they just want their worldview reinforced.

I think you have a point here to some degree, but I also think you are mistaking valid questions for assuming the "cop is a murderer". As I stated before, my initial opinion was that this case was a valid shooting. I didn't assume the cop was a liar or a murderer. But as more facts come out, and as the police keep revising their story, I am starting to have my doubts.

My problem is that the mother doesn't know if her son was armed and shouldn't be inciting by stating her son, without a doubt, was unarmed. Shooting an unarmed man is grave crime.

Mothers will be mothers and I don't put very much credence into anything his mother said as she was not there. The shop manager, otoh, was there minutes before the shooting.

Not a second thought about the officer. What if he was shot at three times, and had to kill the shooter to survive? Imagine the nightmares from that. Not all cops are sociopaths.

What are you suggesting here? That no one should try to get to the truth just in case it re-traumatized the cop? We should assume he is telling the truth because if he is it would be traumatic to question his story?

So I would rather an investigation determine the details of these cases, instead of the baseless accusations or claims of either direct or indirect third parties to the incident.

How is a video and the shop manager's statement "baseless accusations" and how do you expect to determine the details of these cases without the "claims of either direct or indirect third parties to the incident." Witnesses are third parties.

Pure speculation on your part

Almost every post in here is pure speculation.

Some are, some aren't. The specific portion of the post I was commenting to was pure speculation.