Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by yabbyyou, Jan 24, 2019.
Let's hope so. It's early and I am not fully caffeinated yet!
*Deleted duplicate post.
ESWBBM (Every Single Word Bolded By Me):
SoCalD, this post is brilliant! One word only in reply:
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.
I might be wrong on motive. But feel confident that the Russian Roulette game never happened.
Due process? Of course, regular citizens would have been processed in custody until a bail hearing.
These officers were not at their duty station. End of discussion.
Motive and Malice? I believe that no one "plays" Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Also, a happily married woman is usually at home in the middle of the night with her husband, not at another man's apartment.
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.
Just now catching up on this story and am aghast at what transpired. Unbelievable, incredibly poor judgment and complete lack of responsibility and common sense. Extreme stupidity. Just wow.
No, neither of these people should keep their jobs. They're not fit for service in law enforcement. How was this allowed to happen? How common is this kind of behavior? Why aren't supervisors monitoring patrolmen? So many questions.
But, no, these people aren't qualified to serve, period. They're entitled to due process, like any other citizen, but the nature of their job is such that the public should not be subjected to having people like them on the force. If they have to remain employed, stick them in a job where they have no real responsibilities and no interaction with the public. Mopping floors or something.
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.
Agreed. If the chief wanted impartial investigation he could easily call the FBI for a complete investigation.
I don't see that happening.
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
Thank you. I’m not conflicted on this case. I was one of the first to call this thing as suspicious.
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.
If you were the investigating officer on this case, what would that process look like?
What questions would you want to ask both of the surviving officers?
What evidence would be most critical to you?
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...
Exactly. You don't just wander wherever you want while on duty.
I do sort of feel for the guy's partner, catch 22, luck of the draw who you get, and if you don't "get along" it can go badly for you, I definitely know that. I was once in an intolerable situation like this at work, partner had zero ethics and integrity. Supervisor had even less. Guess who ended up leaving? I don't see the partner being able to save face here...unless it all gets swept away.
It is well known in the St. Louis community that the relationship between the Circuit Attorney's office and the police department is shaky at best. Very political. It will be interesting to see if there is an independent investigation into this strange case. I sure hope so. Otherwise, there will always be questions about the real story. St. Louis police department has enough outside criticism to deal with. They really need to be transparent with this to protect their reputation.