Off-duty St. Louis officer injured by friendly fire after police chase of stolen car

[Stacko]

It's time to play America's favorite game show! "Is there any situation in which it's not OK for a police offer to shoot a black man?"

But police now say the off-duty officer was shot by a fellow cop who did not recognize him as an officer, in a separate encounter away from the initial crash.

According to a department summary of the incident released later Thursday, two officers who encountered the armed off-duty officer ordered him to the ground. He complied. When they recognized the off-duty officer, they told him he could stand up and walk toward them.

Another officer just arriving at the scene saw the off-duty officer get up and, not knowing he was an officer, fired his weapon once at the man. He hit the off-duty officer in the arm, the department said.

 

[BStrong]

It's time to play America's favorite game show! "Is there any situation in which it's not OK for a police offer to shoot a black man?"

One of the cops that wrote on use of force issues back in the 1970's and 1980's made enemies when he stated that if he was black and an off-duty officer in NYC he would think long and hard before becoming involved in any off-duty incident while armed.

His stated fear was that responding unis would perceive a black officer in civvies and armed as a threat, not a potential brother officer.

40+ years later, evidence at hand proves the guy was right.

 

[mgidm86]

One of the cops that wrote on use of force issues back in the 1970's and 1980's made enemies when he stated that if he was black and an off-duty officer in NYC he would think long and hard before becoming involved in any off-duty incident while armed.

His stated fear was that responding unis would perceive a black officer in civvies and armed as a threat, not a potential brother officer.

40+ years later, evidence at hand proves the guy was right.

More like:

His stated fear was that responding unis would perceive a black officer man in civvies and armed as a threat, not a potential brother officer.

This might be a problem for an armed off-duty officer/man/woman of any race. Why would the cops fear a black man over any other race? If there are reasons, are they valid (statistically or otherwise) or not, and how can they be addressed?

 

[BStrong]

More like:

His stated fear was that responding unis would perceive a black officer man in civvies and armed as a threat, not a potential brother officer.

This might be a problem for an armed off-duty officer/man/woman of any race. Why would the cops fear a black man over any other race? If there are reasons, are they valid (statistically or otherwise) or not, and how can they be addressed?

The writer (who was a working cop at the time) wrote that white officers would see the color and the gun before considering that the man was an officer. For my part, I can't say that he was wrong - the practice of off-duty officers carrying creds and badge on a necklace for easy recognition started as a response to the concern that any off duty officer in civvies armed could be a blue on blue shooting victim. Theory was, stuff went down off duty and you needed to get involved, armed, the badge necklace and the piece comes out at the same time and you hope responding officers know you or are paying attention.

The fact that he wrote about this and it got out into the general populace was about as big a controversy at the time as the Rodney King tape became years later.

For the most part, the media and the general population could have cared less, but the honchos at NYPD declared the writer/cop as PNG and many departments that had cooperated with him in lethal force investigations turned their backs on him too.

He later found some fans in the popular gun owner press but later was involved in a particular lawsuit over FBI issue handguns where his past writing on the subject came back to haunt him, although not the material about NYPD.

 

[Hungry81]

Sorry I wanted to type a response, but the stupidity of the scenario has dragged my IQ well below my previous supergenius number of 64 and I cannot function in this state.

The good news however, is I am now more than qualified to be a police officer in the U.S, or I would be if I developed an irrational fear of random black people and a mindnumbing, paradoxical love and fear of guns that activates my shoot or shoot some more reflex, especially if I think that the fearsome black people have guns.

 

[Giordano]

I am much more concerned about subconscious racism than conscious racist because I believe the former is much, much more prevalent in the general population and in most police forces.

I suspect many of us have some form of it: I know that if I am alone on a dark street and see a huge guy coming toward me, I feel more fear if they are of certain ethnic groups than others. I don't like that I feel this way, I do not believe it is legitimate, and I fight and try to overcome the feeling with my conscious mind. But certainly somehow this racist fear became embedded in my unconscious at some point, even though I try to not to let it control my actions or conscious thoughts. And thankfully I do not have a gun nor do I have to make quick, life and death decisions.

As discussed upthread, I believe that it is this unconscious racism that underlies much of these police killings of innocent black people. Have police departments had any success in training officers to recognize this unconscious racism and to find ways of minimizing its impact on their decisions? Or do many police just laugh it off and deny it is a possibility in their own thinking?

 

[Mumbles]

More like:

His stated fear was that responding unis would perceive a black officer man in civvies and armed as a threat, not a potential brother officer.

This might be a problem for an armed off-duty officer/man/woman of any race. Why would the cops fear a black man over any other race? If there are reasons, are they valid (statistically or otherwise) or not, and how can they be addressed?

Well, there is the century-plus stereotyping of black men as "brutes", violent sociopaths who only desire to rape and/or kill poor, innocent white people, who can only defend themselves by killing them.

You know, the exact story we hear about people like Trayvon Martin, John Crawford III, Philando Castile, and most other black people who have been unjustly killed or tormented by police or vigilantes in the past few years. And the origin behind the trend of anti-violence black men like Michal Sheermer or Common being called "thugs" or "rioters and looters" by many right wingers.

But aside from that - no reason at all...

ETA, Fortunately, Captain Shoot-a-black had bad aim, I'm pretty sure the off-duty officer lived through the unnecessary shooting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One of the cops that wrote on use of force issues back in the 1970's and 1980's made enemies when he stated that if he was black and an off-duty officer in NYC he would think long and hard before becoming involved in any off-duty incident while armed.

Of course he did, how is anyone supposed to trust a rat like that? The number one rule of police culture is snitches get fired. Police officers by and large much prefer to work with violent racists than someone who would report them for committing murder.

 

[Mumbles]

Of course he did, how is anyone supposed to trust a rat like that? The number one rule of police culture is snitches get fired. Police officers by and large much prefer to work with violent racists than someone who would report them for committing murder.

Unfortunately, this appears to be true - to the point where a person on Ferguson and a hopeful message to this department and knuckleheads howling about rioting....

Talk about bad messaging...

But in cases like this, there simply is nothing the individual could have done. The cop had the power, he chose to shoot wildly, every consequence is on him. And as long as people demand that we "respect the police" without any reform, we'll continue to see cases like these.

I don't know what to say. We have some violent and outright racist police, and a democratic system that enables them...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Unfortunately, this appears to be true - to the point where a person on Ferguson and a hopeful message to this department and knuckleheads howling about rioting....

Talk about bad messaging...

But in cases like this, there simply is nothing the individual could have done. The cop had the power, he chose to shoot wildly, every consequence is on him. And as long as people demand that we "respect the police" without any reform, we'll continue to see cases like these.

I don't know what to say. We have some violent and outright racist police, and a democratic system that enables them...

And the biggest problem is how all the other cops cover for the most violent and racist ones.

 

[Mumbles]

And the biggest problem is how all the other cops cover for the most violent and racist ones.

Most unfortunately, these obvious bigots have friends in the White House - Toupee Fiasco and especially Jumpin Jeff Sessions.

This is a systemic issue with police in the US - their reinforcing, especially the "warrior cop" nonsense, makes them the bleeding edge of what we see today.

And yes, the fact that other cops cover for this is another part of the problem. The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed our current idiot, despite the clear damage that he should do (and has done already) to police-community relations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Most unfortunately, these obvious bigots have friends in the White House - Toupee Fiasco and especially Jumpin Jeff Sessions.

This is a systemic issue with police in the US - their reinforcing, especially the "warrior cop" nonsense, makes them the bleeding edge of what we see today.

And yes, the fact that other cops cover for this is another part of the problem. The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed our current idiot, despite the clear damage that he should do (and has done already) to police-community relations.

In a shocking development, cops who lied to cover for a comrade committing murder are actually facing charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/27/us/chicago-officers-indicted-laquan-mcdonald/index.html

Of course basic refusal to report anything would not be charged. No one would ever expect a cop to rat out a fellow cop who murders someone.

 

[3point14]

In a shocking development, cops who lied to cover for a comrade committing murder are actually facing charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/27/us/chicago-officers-indicted-laquan-mcdonald/index.html

Of course basic refusal to report anything would not be charged. No one would ever expect a cop to rat out a fellow cop who murders someone.

From the link:

"The indictment makes clear that these defendants did more than merely obey an unofficial 'code of silence,' rather it alleges that they lied about what occurred to prevent independent criminal investigators from learning the truth," Holmes said.



Apparently one needs to go way beyond 'not reporting a crime while being a uniformed officer' to be in any sort of trouble...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Apparently one needs to go way beyond 'not reporting a crime while being a uniformed officer' to be in any sort of trouble...

You think that Police Officers should not have the same rights as everyone else?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You think that Police Officers should not have the same rights as everyone else?

You think that police officers should have no more duties than anyone else?

Seriously. It's part of the job of police officers to determine when there's a likelihood of a crime having been committed, to apprehend the suspects, and to compile evidence to deliver to the justice system. Should this become no longer part of their job when they determine that the suspect is a police officer? I would think that a police officer who is aware a crime has been committed but does nothing to alert anyone else to the fact, while not guilty of anything in law, is at best guilty of dereliction of duty and inadequate performance of his or her job.

Dave

 

[3point14]

You think that Police Officers should not have the same rights as everyone else?

I think they should have enhanced responsibility to go along with their enhanced authority.


Either that or anyone shooting a policeman gets the same benefit of the doubt that policemen get - so that police officers end up with exactly the same rights as everyone else.


They seem - or you seem on their behalf - to want all the power and none of the responsibility.

 

[Mumbles]

In a shocking development, cops who lied to cover for a comrade committing murder are actually facing charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/27/us/chicago-officers-indicted-laquan-mcdonald/index.html

Of course basic refusal to report anything would not be charged. No one would ever expect a cop to rat out a fellow cop who murders someone.

that's...actually shocking.

I get the initial police, in this case. Get on the ground, identify yourself, we need to know what's happening. That's fine.

The cop that showed up and just shot...not okay.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You think that Police Officers should not have the same rights as everyone else?

Yes this is as bad as mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. Teachers should have the same rights to ignore the crimes of their coworkers that police do. That is why all the charges against Penn State that it acted inappropriately when it had a coach raping kids is wrong headed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You think that police officers should have no more duties than anyone else?

Seriously. It's part of the job of police officers to determine when there's a likelihood of a crime having been committed, to apprehend the suspects, and to compile evidence to deliver to the justice system. Should this become no longer part of their job when they determine that the suspect is a police officer? I would think that a police officer who is aware a crime has been committed but does nothing to alert anyone else to the fact, while not guilty of anything in law, is at best guilty of dereliction of duty and inadequate performance of his or her job.

Dave

I think they should have enhanced responsibility to go along with their enhanced authority.


Either that or anyone shooting a policeman gets the same benefit of the doubt that policemen get - so that police officers end up with exactly the same rights as everyone else.


They seem - or you seem on their behalf - to want all the power and none of the responsibility.

The thing is that in this case they were not acting as police, but witnesses. You're both basically saying that because they are police officers they aren't allowed to have the same rights as witnesses that other witnesses get and should be compelled to answer questions.

A question then is where do their rights as witnesses end and the duties as a cop begin.

Personally what I think that they should have done from a moral stand point, and what I think they should be legally forced to do are different things.

The fact that they lied and thus Obstructed Justice, well then they get what they deserve.

 

[3point14]

The thing is that in this case they were not acting as police, but witnesses. You're both basically saying that because they are police officers they aren't allowed to have the same rights as witnesses that other witnesses get and should be compelled to answer questions.

A question then is where do their rights as witnesses end and the duties as a cop begin.

Personally what I think that they should have done from a moral stand point, and what I think they should be legally forced to do are different things.

The fact that they lied and thus Obstructed Justice, well then they get what they deserve.

I thought a cop was a cop all the time?

When they're off duty, are they prohibited form making arrests?

If they cease to be policemen at all when off duty, having none of the privileges and not carrying, or, at least, never displaying their badge until they've clocked on again, then, yes, I agree with you.

If the badge lives, as I understand, on a chain around the neck and they have the full rights and responsibilities off duty as they do on duty then no, I don't agree with you.