meanmaryjean
Verified RN (Pediatrics Specialty)
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 4,239
- Reaction score
- 17,699
Let's hope so. It's early and I am not fully caffeinated yet!I think you are missing the sarcasm in the post you are quoting
Let's hope so. It's early and I am not fully caffeinated yet!I think you are missing the sarcasm in the post you are quoting
<modsnip> I am sure they will do a Thorough investigation, that will take several hours to complete. It sounds like they've already got their theory about some innocent Russian Roulette takeoff game that went horribly wrong being the reason this woman is dead. Now how many of you would have come up with that as what happened?
It is a lucky break that they have a sort of impartial witness, the partner of the accused. It's just too bad he happened to leave the room right before the fatal gunshot. Clearly he knew that this was not as fun a game as say Trivial Pursuit, but he can still give an honest account of what transpired, since the person who got shot can't say much. Dead women tell no tales.
<modsnip>
Sorry but that's not what happened.
Just another "officer involved shooting while on duty", the fact that 2 of the officers on duty, were in an apartment not even in the precinct where they were supposedly working...there are so many issues here...
But, if we were to break it down to regular people, two employees of "McDonald's" were not at work, they were in an apartment...
1. They would be dismissed, for not being at work.
The employees shot another employee..
2. They would have been arrested and incarcerated in a heartbeat.
BUT, because these are Police Officers, they are obviously above all laws for actual citizens. They were not fired or arrested and incarcerated.
Mic drop, walk off stage in complete disgust.
Falcon, equally implausible to me is the Reverse Russian Roulette scenario.
Do you agree, or no?
Falcon, equally implausible to me is the Reverse Russian Roulette scenario.
Do you agree, or no?
You are wrong on several counts.
1 if they worked at McDonald’s they would not be in a position to serve the customers. The two officers were two miles away from their precinct boundary. They were still in the City of St Louis and available to respond to calls. It is quite customary for a police officer to be outside his precinct for a myriad of reasons. Using their own bathroom, seeing their kids, eating, changing clothes, doing Investigations, and so on. There is not a fence around the precinct boundaries.
2. Not necessarily. When a gun goes off and kills another person the investigators look for a motive and malice. If there is neither it would not be unusual, if the suspect was a local resident, to release him pending further investigation.
3. Police officers are guaranteed the same right to due process as you are.
Yes.
Just another "officer involved shooting while on duty", the fact that 2 of the officers on duty, were in an apartment not even in the precinct where they were supposedly working...there are so many issues here...
But, if we were to break it down to regular people, two employees of "McDonald's" were not at work, they were in an apartment...
1. They would be dismissed, for not being at work.
The employees shot another employee..
2. They would have been arrested and incarcerated in a heartbeat.
BUT, because these are Police Officers, they are obviously above all laws for actual citizens. They were not fired or arrested and incarcerated.
Mic drop, walk off stage in complete disgust.
Isn’t anyone questioning the partner/police officer’s account of events?
Is anyone really investigating this case?
The only other people investigating it are other law enforcement officers, so... They need an impartial panel for this one. Maybe a judge, a physician, local citizen, etc.
Roger that.
Thank you for your response, and for your service as a LEO, Falcon.
I will not press you on your theories, as I can appreciate that being verified LE yourself, you may feel conflicted about saying any more than what you have here.
Roger that.
Thank you for your response, and for your service as a LEO, Falcon.
I will not press you on your theories, as I can appreciate that being verified LE yourself, you may feel conflicted about saying any more than what you have here.
Thank you. I’m not conflicted on this case. I was one of the first to call this thing as suspicious.
Thank you.
Not conflicted in fact I may have been one of the first to call this a shaky case. I’ve been trying to explain to the other guy that being outside your beat is a very common thing (not for meeting with an attractive coworker) and that not immediately locking someone up in a similar case is not unusual.
Make sure to read this statement from the Circuit Attorney Kim Davis's Office here. You can be assured Ms. Davis has no love for LE in general.
Circuit Attorney on Twitter
We urge the media and community to refrain from speculation and drawing conclusions regarding the death of the @SLMPD officer this morning. The victim and the officers involved deserve a fair and impartial review of the evidence and facts.
. I’ve been trying to explain to the other guy that being outside your beat is a very common thing (not for meeting with an attractive coworker) and that not immediately locking someone up in a similar case is not unusual.
It's St Louis politics. So...I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Where in her statement did Ms Davis indicate that she has no love for LE in general?
Here's a tweet just below the one you linked
Circuit Attorney on Twitter
Quote snipped by me
Thanks for your insight and analysis. I remember listening to my family's police scanner decades ago, and if a patrol unit/officer needed to stop by his home or even just take a "break" outside their usual zone, they would ask for permission over the radio. IIRC, there was a particular number-code that applied.
For instance, I would hear their request as "Unit 290 requesting a 99 at 00 Baker Street" IMO
Is that still a "thing" with police agencies? If you know, of course!
It's St Louis politics. So...