St. Louis PD Fatally Shoot Teen, Family Claims He Was Unarmed

[techbeck]

ST. LOUIS ? Another police-involved fatal shooting of a teenager, this time in south St. Louis not far from the Missouri Botanical Garden, led to hours of protests overnight Wednesday and into Thursday morning as an angry crowd gathered quickly when news spread across social media.

 

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said the officer was off-duty, working a secondary job for a private security company, when he chased and fatally shot an 18-year-old male Wednesday night who came at him aggressively in a gangway.

 

The teen had a gun and fired at least three shots at the officer, who returned fire, the chief said. The teenager attempted to fire more but his gun jammed, Dotson said.

 

The officer was unhurt. The officer fired 17 times, Dotson said. It is unclear how many times the teenager was struck.

 

Police said they recovered a 9mm Ruger.

 

Teyonna Myers, 23, of Florissant, said Myers was her cousin.

 

?He was unarmed,? Teyonna Myers said. ?He had a sandwich in his hand, and they thought it was a gun. It?s like Michael Brown all over again.?

 

Relatives of the dead teen who came to the scene identified him as Vonderrit Myers Jr., 18. They disputed the police version. They say he didn't have a weapon.

 

Myers was wearing an ankle bracelet at the time he died -- a court-ordered monitoring system as a condition of bail in a previous gun case, according to his lawyer and police.

 

http://newsone.com/3060354/st-louis-pd-fatally-shoot-teen-family-claims-he-was-unarmed

 

So what, now every time a white cop shoots a minority the cops are wrong and the person shot is innocent and it is a racist issue.  Holding a sandwich?  Really?  Where the heck did the gun found at the scene come from.  And you never hear about a black officer killing a black suspect, or a white officer killing a white suspect. 

[Dot Matrix]

He fired three shots at an officer. As far as I'm concerned, that's game over for him. A gun just doesn't appear out of thin air, and fire off three shots.  

[techbeck]

He fired three shots at an officer. As far as I'm concerned, that's game over for him.  

 

But according to others, the cops mistook the sandwich as a gun.... :rolleyes:   lets dismiss the fact that a gun was recovered at the scene and the kid was wearing an ankle monitoring devices for previous gun related charges.

[SierraSonic]

I just want these body cameras mandatory already.

[Dashel]

I don't want cameras, terrible idea.  I just want confidence in our cops and citizens.  In this case a weapon has been (unconfirmed) recovered.  Surely ballistics can shed the necessary light on this.

[Skiver Veteran]

Can I also point out...

 

St Louis PD Fatally shoot teen...

 

 

 

officer was off-duty, working a secondary job for a private security company

 

I don't know what the technicalities are around this but i would imagine as an off duty office doing a secondary job, you can't really claim this was a "police" involved incident can you? 

 

But yeah as others have said, a gun was found, the guy had previous and last time I checked, sandwiches generally don't shoot back.

[Dashel]

He wasn't still in uniform so its a grey area.  He's officially being treated as if he were on the clock.

 

Ballistics confirms.

 

The suspect continued to come towards the officer until they got into a physical altercation. The suspect and the officer were hands on with each other. At that time, the suspect's gray hooded sweatshirt comes off and the suspect starts to run up a hill at the address on Shaw."

The officer clearly saw the suspect had a gun, Dotson said.

The officer said he "wanted to be certain that it was a gun and did not fire at that point," Dotson said. "The suspect pointed the gun at the officer and fired at least three rounds at the police officer. We believe this to be true because there are three projectiles that we recovered with trajectories going towards the officer, down the hill, and one piece of ballistic evidence located behind the officer. At that point, the officer returned fire. As the officer moved towards the suspect, the suspect continued to pull the trigger on his gun."

 

It doesn't help the narrative when relatives act like idiots.  Shut up Jackie Williams.  That said, his questionable harassment of the suspect and amount of shots fired doesn't help anything.

[techbeck]

I don't want cameras, terrible idea.  I just want confidence in our cops and citizens.  In this case a weapon has been (unconfirmed) recovered.  Surely ballistics can shed the necessary light on this.

 

You will never have confidence like that.  Even with cameras.  You can have proof on camera and people will claim it is edited.  Look at Ray Rice...he was caught on camera and now is claiming the video was altered.   As long as people use race as an excuse or way to get away with things, will always have issues like this.

 

Not to mention there will be claims the video was corrupted or the video was lost.  Look at the IRS claiming that messages were deleted.

[SierraSonic]

I don't want cameras, terrible idea.  I just want confidence in our cops.  In this case a weapon has been (unconfirmed) recovered.  Surely ballistics can shed the necessary light on this.

Why are they a terrible idea in your opinion? I think that all political/government/public positions should be monitored as way to remove obvious corruption.

[Dot Matrix]

Why are they a terrible idea in your opinion?

They're not going to do much to change circumstances. While they may clear or indict an officer, people will still be people. They'd never release the video until the investigation has concluded.   

[+Tyranade Subscriber²]

The parents just don't want to admit their child was a thug to be honest, race has nothing to do with it, if you shoot at a police officer expect to get shot because the second you pull a gun on someone it's your life or theirs IMO.

 

Heck if I was that kid my parents would be on the news saying I got what I ######ing deserved for being so damn stupid.

 

EDIT: Also this bullcrap about a "sandwich" that has got to be the single dumbest excuse for someones actions I have ever read *headdesk.

[Dashel]

Why are they a terrible idea in your opinion? I think that all political/government/public positions should be monitored as way to remove obvious corruption.

Beyond as tech says, not only do they do little to solve the 'problem', it opens itself to a huge slew of other issues regarding how it is stored and used.  They can sell their dashcam footage to TV shows like Cops is a prime example.  These cameras would go the extra degree of invading people's homes without consent and that is unacceptable.

[SierraSonic]

They're not going to do much to change circumstances. While they may clear or indict an officer, people will still be people. They'd never release the video until the investigation has concluded.   

1) People act differently while being recorded, which alone should help limit most problems.

2) I rather have the evidence recorded and still be used than to not have it all.

3) This benefits both sides.

 

 

Beyond as tech says, not only do they do little to solve the 'problem', it opens itself to a huge slew of other issues regarding how it is stored and used.  That they can sell their dashcam footage to TV shows like Cops is a prime example.  These cameras would go the extra degree of invading people's homes without consent and that is unacceptable.

DRM tech to prevent copying and viewing without proper credentials (such as the cop not having access to his own device) properly protected cloud based storage and management with severe punishment to any leakers. ETC.

 

Again, if police are already going into your house with a warrant, you may already feel invaded, these cameras should help protect you from abuse of power, any privacy concerns are lost when that line was already crossed due to the situation. No expectation to privacy out doors, and inside your home you can really expect any privacy during a legal raid, and shouldn't expect any when people are forcefully in your home anyway.

[techbeck]

Now these idiots are burning American flags...and of  course, vandalizing property.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/09/video-st-louis-protesters-burn-american-flags-in-protest-of-police-shooting/

 

These protests are just an excuse to cause problems and do violence.  Throwing knives at officers.  Sorry, well I am not sorry, protesters...you are a hell of a lot worse than what you claim the cops are .   I wouldnt even call these people protesters.

[xrobwx71]

They're not going to do much to change circumstances. While they may clear or indict an officer, people will still be people. They'd never release the video until the investigation has concluded.   

You're correct. Even if they had a vid of this incident, the "family" would still say he had a sandwich.

[Dinggus]

We should riot the rioters. But I'm sure that would be considered a hate crime. Just like majority of 2013-2014 has been claimed a hate crime!

[mudslag]

Beyond as tech says, not only do they do little to solve the 'problem', it opens itself to a huge slew of other issues regarding how it is stored and used.  That they can sell their dashcam footage to TV shows like Cops is a prime example.  These cameras would go the extra degree of invading people's homes without consent and that is unacceptable.

 

 

All those reasons can be handled in the right situations. Always filming active situations is a far better safety net for all involved then not having it. If the cops do something wrong, its on camera and any claims made against the cop or the individual involved can be accounted for. I agree there have to be measures to secure storage and use but that doesn't mean proper options can be found. You want confidence in the cops, they need to be accountable and film is a way of doing it. Dash cam footage is often released after the cases have made it through the courts or from the lawyers of the people involved or through legal means when it's released to the media. The police still have legal restrictions when it comes to releasing video. The same goes for when it's used inside people's homes. The only time it would be unacceptable is if someone released video of someone innocent without consent. Other wise Im more then ok with it.

[123456789A]

They already found that the guy had a weapon and gun residue on his hands. He was clearly shooting at something before he got shot by the police officer.

 

I think some people riot and protest just to be noisy for unnecessary reasons.

[xendrome]

I agree there have to be measures to secure storage and use but that doesn't mean proper options can be found. You want confidence in the cops, they need to be accountable and film is a way of doing it. 

 

It's always fun for people who have no idea how systems like these work to couch quarterback stuff. Mudslag is at least sensable in this manor

 

I can tell you this, Taser is the leading body camera provider right now. The system they offer incorporates docking stations that charge and download all video (they currently use Amazon S3 for storage) from the body cameras when the cameras are docked. Each user of the cameras only have the ability to view their video from their bluetooth linked cell phone through their Evidence Manager app on iOS or Android. Once docked the videos are then only viewable from the http://www.evidence.com dashboard, all Views/Downloads/Notes etc are logged (if even allowed to be done) and there is a complete audit trail of every item/action that is taken. Typically there are 1 or 2 people who are in charge of setting up user accounts (administrators) and also setting up retention periods. They do not have access to modify audit logs.

 

One thing you guys have to understand also is, they do not record 24/7, the officer must doubletap the battery back on their belt to start the camera. Most agency policies give the officer the discretion to activate the camera or not. The issue is with body cameras a situation can change so fast that you only have time to react and do not even think about activating your camera. So having a policy that states an officer must activate their camera when a situation arises is going to at least get people written up for failure to follow policy, or at worse, killed for not reacting properly to a deadly situation.

 

As said above, the cameras can hurt a bad cop or help a good cop, and can also provide crucial evidence to convict.

 

If anyone has any questions about them specifically just ask and I will answer.

[Dashel]

What is the policy for deletion?  Memories fade.

 

An always on policy might be enough of a gotcha to experiment with it.  I think the potential for abuse far outweighs the amount of confidence it would restore.  In regards to stories such as this, its not about the sandwich.

[farmeunit]

What is the policy for deletion?  Memories fade.

 

An always on policy might be enough of a gotcha to experiment with it.  I think the potential for abuse far outweighs the amount of confidence it would restore.  In regards to stories such as this, its not about the sandwich.

At minimum, the camera should be on when they leave the car, I think.  Maybe it's not feasible from a storage standpoint, but when you've got 128GB SD cards available, I wouldn't think it would be an issue.  Even if it's built-in storage, it should have enough to be able to hold SEVERAL hours of storage, and/or upload from the car.

[mudslag]

What is the policy for deletion?  Memories fade.

 

An always on policy might be enough of a gotcha to experiment with it.  I think the potential for abuse far outweighs the amount of confidence it would restore.  In regards to stories such as this, its not about the sandwich.

 

 

Memories fade, video doesn't. Video isn't about gotcha, it's nothing more then another set of eyes, the difference is these eyes are unbiased, it will show what it shows. What exactly do you mean by gatcha? If someone is caught on camera doing something they shouldn't be doing, be it police or civilians, then being on video helps protect the other side. There has always been problems with reported abuse by police and without video evidence, that potential abuse can go unchecked. The same goes for the other side of that coin, the police risk false reports all the time, video would go a hell of a long way in stopping those false reports. Concern over potential abuse of video leaks is moot considering the potential accountability that couldn't exist without said video. 

[xendrome]

What is the policy for deletion?  Memories fade.

 

An always on policy might be enough of a gotcha to experiment with it.  I think the potential for abuse far outweighs the amount of confidence it would restore.  In regards to stories such as this, its not about the sandwich.

 

Deletion is kept at retention levels. What happens is at the end of each shift the officer will dock his camera, it will upload the data to cloud storage and then they can login to their evidence.com page and they will see all of the uploads. They then are required per policy to tag each video with a category. Each category is preset and has predetermined non-modifyable retention levels. Some are "Traffic Stop", "DUI", "Capitol Crime" etc... They range anywhere from 90 days to forever for how long they are retained. If an officer does not label a video right away, it goes into a "90 Day Hold" by default until it is labeled. Then it is up to a supervisor to make sure his/her shift is properly labeled. 90 days is typically sufficent to catch something that may come up after the fact. Major cases are obviously grabbed and labeled right away.

[xendrome]

At minimum, the camera should be on when they leave the car, I think.  Maybe it's not feasible from a storage standpoint, but when you've got 128GB SD cards available, I wouldn't think it would be an issue.  Even if it's built-in storage, it should have enough to be able to hold SEVERAL hours of storage, and/or upload from the car.

 

The taserbody cameras can hold something like 16 hours of storage, depending on what the recording quality is set to. A typically shift is usually 12 hours, so there is no problem there. It is internal storage to prevent tampering.

 

There are things in the works from what I have heard about proximity sensors or accident sensors being installed in cars to trigger automatic activation of the body camera, sort of like the car cameras do today. (When the lights are turned on, or an impact over X number of G Forces).

 

Also I forgot to mention, like the Car cameras, the body cameras are always buffering 30 seconds worth of video, not sound but video. So if something happens and officer can double tap the battery pack and it will record the previous 30 seconds without sound then then after 30 seconds sound will start. So if they are involved in something, can control the situation then think to turn the camera on within 30 seconds, they might catch the entire incident. But people aren't perfect, and things get crazy so cameras can sometimes be the least thing on your mind when you are chasing someone, running for cover or who knows what.

[Torolol]

The teen had a gun and fired at least three shots at the officer, who returned fire, the chief said. The teenager attempted to fire more but his gun jammed, Dotson said.

The officer was unhurt. The officer fired 17 times,

 

Boy vs Cop scores:  3:17,

so for every single shot, the officer respond 5 times more??