White officer shoots black youth in St Louis County

[Beowulf]

Berkeley officer kills suspect who pulled gun; police say victim was 'known' to police
BERKELEY • A Berkeley police officer fatally shot a suspect who pointed a gun at him late Tuesday, St. Louis County police said early today.

Police did not identify the person killed but Toni Martin, who was at the scene, said he was her 18-year-old son, Antonio Martin.

Several protesters also arrived at the scene shortly after the shooting. Many stayed overnight.

St. Louis County police said the incident started about 11:15 p.m. Tuesday as the Berkeley officer "was conducting a routine business check" at the Mobil gas station at 6800 North Hanley Road.

The officer saw two people outside the station, got out of his vehicle and approached them. One of the suspects pulled out a handgun.

"Fearing for his life, the Berkeley Officer fired several shots, striking the subject, fatally wounding him," the release from the county police said. "The second subject fled the scene."

Berkeley police requested that the county department's Crimes Against Persons Unit handle the investigation of the shooting. Detectives "recovered the deceased subject's handgun at the scene," the release from county police said.

For at least two hours, the body remained on the parking lot just in front of the gas station as police investigated the shooting. Berkeley police cars were on either side. A Berkeley police car was later towed away.

The station appeared to have security cameras that are trained on the parking lot.

Toni Martin said her son was with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. The girlfriend remained at the scene but declined to talk to a reporter.

Just after the shooting, several dozen people gathered outside the gas station, which was ringed by crime scene tape.

The crowd at the station included ministers and some of the people who have been active in the protests related to the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, 18, by a Ferguson police officer in August.

At one point, as some of the protesters grew rowdy, explosive flashes were set off. It was unclear by who.

Also, a QuikTrip store near the Mobil station was damaged by vandals before police officers closed access to it.

Mike Smith, 30, was among those who came to the shooting scene. He lives in the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson, where Brown was killed Aug. 9. He works at a warehouse and said he came to Berkeley after seeing social media reports about the shooting.

"This is ridiculous, man," Smith said of Martin's shooting. "After the first one this sh-- should have stopped. My only question is: what exactly did he do to be killed?"

Also among the crowd were several legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild.

Someone else who came to the Mobil after the shooting was the Rev. Starsky Wilson, one of the co-chairmen of the Ferguson Commission set up by Gov. Jay Nixon to look into the social and economic issues at play in north St. Louis County.

"Black. Young person shot by a police officer," Wilson said, describing it as a familiar narrative.

Wilson pointed out that since Brown's shooting most of the protests have been nonviolent and he said he was not surprised that what he was seeing in Berkeley was nonviolent.

"When you see police escalate, you see violence," Wilson said.

Darien Gatewood, 23, a foundry worker and a student at Maryville University who lives in St. Louis County, also came to the scene shortly after the shooting.

"Somebody just lost their son before Christmas," Gatewood said. "This is a present from law enforcement."

Gatewood spoke in a calm voice as he watched the crowd at the scene, which had dwindled to about a dozen by 4:30 a.m.

He added: "Honestly no one out here respects the police. That's the feeling we have."

Others at the scene were pressing police to reveal details about what happened. They questioned why a large contingent of officers could be at the scene yet none of those officers would discuss what had taken place.

[Agent Fisher]

I saw the video, It's grainy, but Martin clearly lifts and extends his arm as to aim a pistol. At that point, by current rules regarding use of force for the US, completely legit. Hell, it would have been legit for me as armed security.

[Simon_Jester]

Could you link that video?
______________________________

I find myself wondering what passed through Martin's mind.

I also note:

"Others at the scene were pressing police to reveal details about what happened. They questioned why a large contingent of officers could be at the scene yet none of those officers would discuss what had taken place."

...Because this is will be (and rightly should be) the subject of a serious investigation with legal consequences, and police hopefully know enough about law not to talk carelessly and randomly in a manner that might prejudice an investigation? There's a reason the first thing a lawyer usually tells you is some form of "don't talk to anyone without vetting it with me first."

It would be nice if everyone understood this; you don't give unnecessary information to the police, and you don't trash-talk the police. You say what is necessary and proper, they say what is necessary and proper, everyone goes on.

[Andras]

DC cops shot two people (one died) in just a couple hours last night, but both of them had fired on the officers.

[Broomstick]

I saw the video, It's grainy, but Martin clearly lifts and extends his arm as to aim a pistol. At that point, by current rules regarding use of force for the US, completely legit. Hell, it would have been legit for me as armed security.

If he's pointing a gun at someone, totally legit for anyone under US laws and concepts of self defense.

DC cops shot two people (one died) in just a couple hours last night, but both of them had fired on the officers.

If you're threatening lethal force the person you're threatening has a right to defend him or her self. Anyone who would argue otherwise is an idiot or has some other agenda.

[Simon_Jester]

While we may be looking at a wave of attacks on police, I should point out that random people getting into shootouts with the police isn't that rare in America. The FBI lists 400 "justifiable homicides" committed by police in the line of duty each year, and a large fraction of those probably involve people with guns being shot and killed by police.

So we'd expect that somewhere in America, about an average of once per day, police acting in the line of duty will kill someone, under circumstances the FBI will later call 'justifiable.' And on a large fraction of those occasions, the victim will have a gun and be shooting it.

Note: the '400 a year' figure is pretty clearly a very low estimate of the total number of people killed by police, as discussed here...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/anot ... homicides/

This is where I got the 400/year figure, because I wanted to count only killings that some legal body felt they had reason to count as lawful. That way one would hopefully exclude most if not all of the "shot an innocent man" incidents while including most of the "shot someone waving a gun at me."

Assuming my argument can be extended this far, as a rough order of magnitude estimate, we'd expect at least one police killing of an armed person fairly often. At the high end, about once a day; at the very low end, about once every three days.

So let's wait a bit before deciding this is anything other than random 'background radiation' of violence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Could you link that video?

Video

Also, from second source

In the first video the firearm is pointed at the officer at 1:19. The video is edited to highlight this.

In the second source the frame is frozen at the moment when Antonio is pointing the firearm at the officer and a photograph of the firearm that Antonio had. The firearm is difficult to see in the video but he is clearly pointed something at the officer.

[TheHammer]

One other thing to take note of, is how extremely lucky the officer in this case was not only to survive, but that there happened to be a security camera showing that his side of events were accurate. Had there been no security camera footage, the fact that this officer failed to have on the body cam he had been issued likely would have resulted in several riots as people would presume he ditched the footage and was up to no good.

Because of that, IMO failure to wear an issued body camera should result in his termination from the force. Failure to take that seriously is going to result in major distrust if the camera is "conveniently forgotten" any time something questionable happens.

One more thing, was it ever conclusively identified whether or not there was a dashcam? They've been in use since AT LEAST the late 90's, and I don't understand why in this day and age those things aren't standard or even required equipment on ALL police vehicles...

[Simon_Jester]

Having "failure to wear a bodycam" be an offense justifying termination from the force will likely result in a lot of turnover by itself. It would be a subject for disciplinary action on the first offense, probably even the first several.

However, I agree that if an officer persistently fails to wear the issued body camera, the potential for problems with the public and the implied desire to hide one's actions would be grounds for first suspension, then termination.

[Agent Fisher]

Hammer, according to a report I'd seen, there were three body cams for the entire department, and he had been given a briefing about it the week before. As someone who uses a cam system while working, it took me weeks before I had the muscle memory to turn the damn thing on every time I contacted someone.

And for the in car camera, it was the type that is activated by flipping on the emergency lights.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Unfortunately, there is a bit of an adaptation curve to using the cameras. I had a similar issue like Agent Fisher described. Though I would support disciplinary action in the future if a camera is not turned on during an incident.

[TheHammer]

Having "failure to wear a bodycam" be an offense justifying termination from the force will likely result in a lot of turnover by itself. It would be a subject for disciplinary action on the first offense, probably even the first several.

However, I agree that if an officer persistently fails to wear the issued body camera, the potential for problems with the public and the implied desire to hide one's actions would be grounds for first suspension, then termination.

Hammer, according to a report I'd seen, there were three body cams for the entire department, and he had been given a briefing about it the week before. As someone who uses a cam system while working, it took me weeks before I had the muscle memory to turn the damn thing on every time I contacted someone.

And for the in car camera, it was the type that is activated by flipping on the emergency lights.

Unfortunately, there is a bit of an adaptation curve to using the cameras. I had a similar issue like Agent Fisher described. Though I would support disciplinary action in the future if a camera is not turned on during an incident.

I'm sure there is a learning curve, but it seems to me that the notion of wearing the body cam wasn't taken seriously. If the body cam is available, yet "not worn" or "not turned on" its going to immediately be viewed by the public as a police cover up whether its legitimate or not. Would a police officer leave the station without his gun? I think that the point of emphasis needs to be that the camera use and training should be every bit as important as an officer's weapons training. Granted, that too may be lacking in a lot of cases, but in theory it should help lessen the number of incidents both as a preventative measure (people who know they are on camera tend to be better behaved), and as tool for gathering evidence to prosecute both criminals, and police misconduct.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm sure there is a learning curve, but it seems to me that the notion of wearing the body cam wasn't taken seriously. If the body cam is available, yet "not worn" or "not turned on" its going to immediately be viewed by the public as a police cover up whether its legitimate or not. Would a police officer leave the station without his gun? I think that the point of emphasis needs to be that the camera use and training should be every bit as important as an officer's weapons training. Granted, that too may be lacking in a lot of cases, but in theory it should help lessen the number of incidents both as a preventative measure (people who know they are on camera tend to be better behaved), and as tool for gathering evidence to prosecute both criminals, and police misconduct.

We all understand that. During those times that my was not turned on I was glad that nothing had happened.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the takeaway is that it is critically important to get enough bodycams for everyone, with a healthy reserve for malfunctions ("no problem, there's a spare in the trunk of the squad car!"). And that it's well worth creating some new mechanism to make sure that wearing the bodycam becomes as routine as putting on one's sidearm when going out on patrol.

[Borgholio]

And that it's well worth creating some new mechanism to make sure that wearing the bodycam becomes as routine as putting on one's sidearm when going out on patrol.

Modern cars including my Prius have sensors that can detect if the key fob is inside or outside of the car. Having a similar system where the camera turns on whenever the wearer leaves the squad car or when the lights are turned on would be a pretty seamless system.

[Darmalus]

Would a police officer leave the station without his gun?

If the police had gone from never taking a gun with them from the station to being required to do so, I'd say definitely yes. New muscle memory is hard to establish, especially if you have old muscle memory getting in the way.

Modern cars including my Prius have sensors that can detect if the key fob is inside or outside of the car. Having a similar system where the camera turns on whenever the wearer leaves the squad car or when the lights are turned on would be a pretty seamless system.

Good idea, but might run into battery problems. I know the camera chews through my phone battery like no ones business.

[Borgholio]

I know the camera chews through my phone battery like no ones business.

Ditto, but remember that your phone battery has to power not only the camera, but also a bunch of stuff that not included in a bodycam such as a 4 - 5" LCD screen, GPS, wifi, bluetooth, cell radio, etc... The RFID tag in a car fob lasts for years on a tiny button-cell battery. So I wouldn't think installing such a thing on a bodycam would have any measurable impact on battery life.