St. Louis police said Tuesday that they have evidence indicating a black teen who was fatally shot by an off-duty officer last week did fire a gun at that officer.
In the wake of the Oct. 8 shooting, two distinct stories emerged about what actually happened during the altercation. The family of the victim, 18-year-old Vonderrit Myers, Jr., was adamant that he was unarmed at the time of the shooting and was carrying nothing but a sandwich. Police said Myers was armed and fired at least three rounds at the off-duty officer during a chase.
The St. Louis Police Department issued a statement Tuesday saying that a forensics lab turned up gunshot residue on Myers’ right hand, shirt and inside the waistband and pockets of his jeans, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Gunshot residue can be found on anyone who was near a shooting, police cautioned.
The newspaper reported that ballistics evidence also showed three bullets that hit the ground near where the off-duty officer tried to take cover matched Myers’ gun.
why is it that shoot to kill is the accepted practice when dealing with these situations? since when? why don’t po shoot at a knee to incapacitate? i do not believe for one minute the teen shot at him and the police dept has already been caught lying and having to change their story. this is always the cheap reason given as to why they shot and killed the “assailant” he had a gone and he shot at me…many have already intimated that these types of cops plant evidence bc who’s going to challenge them? except now their disgusting behavior has been exposed
Not buying it.
If you accept the police explanation–that they were being shot at-- your suggestion that they should return fire with the intent of winging a guy who was trying to kill them in the knees is laughable.
And if you accept the other side’s version, that he was not shooting at the police or otherwise threatening them with deadly force, then NO shooting–at the suspect’s knees or anywhere else–would be justified.
“that he was unarmed at the time of the shooting…”
Does this mean that he was armed BEFORE the shooting?
IF he had a gun and fired at the cop then he got what he deserved. Had he lived, he could have taken innocent lives (that’s if that wasn’t already done - assuming he owned a gun.).
The police cannot be trusted and criminals without badges are a menace to society. Who to trust?
What a quagmire.
Why was he being chased in the first place.
Who to believe? Like I said, what a quagmire.
Of course I took the picture off of the internet so I have no idea if it’s an edited picture. But I’m betting it’s not.