Another black teen shot by cops in St. Louis

[PhoenixAsh]

This is an RT link:

http://rt.com/news/217243-black-man-ferguson-police/

Notice this segment:



A police officer was conducting a routine check at the Mobil gas station in the suburb of Berkeley, St. Louis at about 11:15 pm local time, St. Louis County Police said. The officer saw two male suspects and approached them.

Notice the use of the word "suspects". This was apparently a routine check...what were they suspects off? And why?

I think this language makes the set up (presumably by the cops) to make it appear that the cops had legal cause to approach these two teens and forms the basis of the justification process.

[PhoenixAsh]

Here is the CNN link: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/24/justice/missouri-officer-involved-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30596531

[PhoenixAsh]

It is interesting to see the differences in how the articles open and bring the story.

Look at FOX for example...which has a focus on the justification part and as painting it as not something racially motivated.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Notice the use of the word "suspects". This was apparently a routine check...what were they suspects off?
Standing while black.

[PhoenixAsh]

Exactly.

The story with the gun will be played by the cops to justify self-defence yadayadayada.

Except...even if there was a gun...the pointing of it may have been an act of self-defence as well. This will probably be ignored by the media and the state. Cops by now have the solid reputation of being a hostile threat.

That is..if there even was a gun to begin with....of course.

One of the articles state that the victim was alive for another thirty minutes on the scene.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God RT's website really needs to be re-done by someone who has some experience with web design, the layout is awful.

[Hermes]

Except...even if there was a gun...the pointing of it may have been an act of self-defence as well. This will probably be ignored by the media and the state. Cops by now have the solid reputation of being a hostile threat.


I think this is important to focus on.

There's cctv footage here (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video) on The Guardian, right before the shooting, but I've seen posts/pictures of cctv cameras that were much closer to the actual incident, without their footage being used.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://rt.com/usa/217523-stlouis-protests-killing-teenager/


This is ridiculous:


Although the officer had been assigned a body camera, Belmar said he wasn't wearing it at the time, and the dashboard camera was not activated because the patrol car's emergency lights were not on. The 34-year-old officer, a six-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department, is on administrative leave pending an investigation.

There are three angles from surveillance video, but none show the complete version of what happened that night, with police deciding not to publish the moment in which Martin was shot. Based on a video released on Wednesday, it does appear that an individual who police have identified as Martin draws a gun on the officer. Due to the quality of the footage, however, it is difficult to identify either Martin or the object in his hand. In a second video released later in the day, the individual identified as Martin can be seen raising his arm, although his hand remains outside of the frame.

Smells like yet another cover up.

[Ritzy Cat]

People are going to see what they want to see in that blurry shit


Here is the CNN link: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/24/ju...html?hpt=hp_t1

BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30596531

I saw no fucking gun. Even if he had actually held a gun up to the police officer, that most certainly can't be used as any meaningful evidence. The evidence is blurry and unclear. I simply see no gun. Unless investigators are delusional (although I guess they would be - they still trust the State), he's not pointing a gun. We can't use the logic for the opposite either: that "since we can't see anything, we can't assume he didn't have a gun".

why does it seem in EVERY one of these cases there is absolutely no clear evidence... and any evidence that seems to be promising is delayed / suppressed by the police (esp. in the Michael Brown one, where the Grand Jury only listened to Darren Wilson's testimony, AFAIK)

[RevUK]

There's no evidence that the cop's story isn't accurate.