Antonio Martin, Black Teenager, Fatally Shot By Police 2 Miles From Ferguson: Report

[ellenrr]

Source: Huffington Post

A Missouri teen was fatally shot by an officer on Tuesday night just two miles from Ferguson, Mo., police said.

Antonio Martin, 18, was shot at a Mobil gas station in Berkeley, Mo., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The alleged victim's mother, Toni Martin, spoke to The Dispatch and confirmed that her son had been shot by police.

County police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schellman says a Berkeley police officer was conducting a routine business check at a gas station around 11:15 p.m. Tuesday when he saw two men and approached them.
Schellman says one of the men pulled a handgun and pointed it at the officer. The officer fired several shots, striking and fatally wounding the man. Schellman says that the second person fled and that the deceased man's handgun has been recovered.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/antonio-martin-police-shooting_n_6376210.html

---

correction by Huff Po to an earlier report:
"CORRECTION: A previous version of this story included an interview with a man claiming to have been at the scene of the shooting and friends with the deceased. As police have released statements saying the second person involved in the incident has fled the scene, the source is now suggesting he was never there."

[JackInGreen]

1. Stream from the gas station

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/stackizshort

No idea how long it will be up but we're live.

[ellenrr]

9. thanks- I couldn't get it, but that is probably my old computer, I

appreciate you being there and livestreaming.

[marym625]

12. Did she actually get the incident?

I received the notification she was going live but I was half asleep. Now I can't get it to play

[THECHOSEN1]

2. What is the new here

A guy pulled a gun on a cop, pretty sure it does not matter where you live or what color you are. You're going to get shot if you do that.

[JackInGreen]

3. Got a link

to an official corroboration of that? If so it'd be appreciated if you included that in your post.

(EDIT: and I don't mean the initial word of mouth report, I mean a full report that isn't just sourced with the PD.
Unless you trust them to be unbiased, in which case we should talk about this lovely bridge I have to sell you)

[ColesCountyDem]

6. What report wouldn't be 'sourced with the PD'?

Just wondering.

[bobGandolf]

15. It's unfortunate, but the PD is not a reliable source.

Without body cams, video footage from passersby, or numerous unbiased witnesses, we simply can't know the truth.

[marym625]

13. Since there is video evidence

That st. Louis county cops plant weapons, I don't know I will ever believe these trigger happy racists

[JackInGreen]

19. Hence

my skepticism to any report sourced word of mouth from the cops or officially from the cops. I'll take critical analysis after the fact for the win.

[marym625]

21. check

My reply#18 here

[JackInGreen]

23. I did

Explains a lot of the reports I was hearing via the stream I posted earlier, first no gun, then gun, and the crowd getting angry asking where they found it because it wasn't there before.

[marym625]

33. and from what I saw

On the video "proof" was too far to see was in his hand. However, the news I was watching cut off the press conference

[cynzke]

69. The Escape Clause!

Last edited Wed Dec 24, 2014, 11:46 AM - Edit history (2)

There doesn't have to be an actual gun. All the cop has to say is that he BELIEVED the suspect HAD a weapon and that his life was in danger. Now the police department can take actions against the cop, punish or fire him because of what led up to the shooting. Was there any justifiable reason (probable cause) to approach the suspect in the first place. If there was no legal reason to approach the suspect, then the officer precipitated the incident, prior to the moments preceding the shooting and that would violate protocol. But as soon as a suspect initiates any action the officer believes to endanger himself or others, the officer by law, may use lethal force even if it turns out the officer was wrong (no weapon). So cops don't have to plant a weapon to justify lethal force, but it certainly bolsters the cop's story. And following a lethal force incidence, a district attorney must decide whether the circumstance of the shooting fit within the law's definition of self-defense or to file some charge against the police officer. Because the law favors the police, DA's don't want to indict cases they can't clearly win. It ruins their record and costs taxpayers money. This explains why we see cases where the police department took the measures they legally could as an employer against the offending officer, including their strongest measure, termination, while no criminal charges were filed.

This article explains...."When is it legal for a cop to kill you?"

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

[KingCharlemagne]

99. Crickets from the person to whom you responded. Typical. - nt

[XemaSab]

4. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy your stay!

[THECHOSEN1]

104. Thanks for the patronation

I will take your greeting with the respect it deserves.

[kwassa]

127. Patronization, not "patronation"

Excuse me if I sound patronizing.

[AngryOldDem]

5. Pardon me if I want to see concrete, video evidence on this.

I'm having a really hard time lately believing what I hear.

[LiberalElite]

7. Here's ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-killed-police-shooting-ferguson-missouri/story?id=27807891

[marym625]

14. jesus christ

They haven't learned a god damned thing.

I bet the kid pulled out his cell phone to record the cop and the cop shot him. The kid pulling a gun on a cop while in the commission of standing at a gas station, makes no sense

Que vilifying the teen. 3,2,1

[mwrguy]

105. It was a cell phone?

Fuck the cops

[Schema Thing]

107. the poster above said "I bet the kid pulled out a cell phone".

I'm just curious, why would you respond to that statement with "It was a cell phone? Fuck the cops"?

[marym625]

120. I don't know

But from what we knew this morning, it could have as easily been a phone as a gun.

I have not heard anything all day so I don't know what has happened since. Going to catch up in a few minutes

[Feral Child]

11. We already have

a full complement of police fan-boys here. Thanks for applying and we'll contact you if an opening occurs.

[ellenrr]

40. LOL

[Feral Child]

45. Hi, ellenrr!

[ellenrr]

87. Hi Feral Child. I really enjoy your posts. nt

[Feral Child]

92. Thanks

and me too you.

[ellenrr]

95. I don't think that's good english -chuckle - but I know what you mean. :) nt

[bobGandolf]

16. Very true.

But did he really pull a gun?

A cop's word is simply not enough.

[chrisa]

41. The snide responses prove that no one here is interested in the facts.

They just want to knee-jerk blame the cops before anyone knows what happened. The tendency to automatically blame the police here is ridiculous, especially when the video below shows the man pulling something out and pointing it at the cop.

[cstanleytech]

65. "no one here is interested in the facts." I wouldnt say no one is interested because I am

and I am sure there are some others who are interested in facts though that seems to be getting rarer these days here on the DU.

[sabrina 1]

82. Do you know what that 'something' was?

[chrisa]

89. No one here does. That's my point.

Seems that people here have already made their mind up about this story before knowing anything about it. They see that a cop shot someone, and it automatically must be the cop's fault.

[840high]

130. Yes. I ignore all

that jumping to conclusion with no proof.

[GreatGazoo]

83. what video?

link?

[7962]

86. here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video

[tabasco]

125. Of course! Police never lie and never plant evidence!

Why wait for an investigation? Just believe what the nice policeman says!

[pipoman]

8. Armed adult pulls gun on cop and is shot....

So few couch potatoes would/will ever find themselves in the position of having to personally respond to a burglar alarm charged with confronting what ever/whom ever they encounter at the scene. ..but boy do they like second guessing those who do....

[7962]

10. Thank you. Sanity is lacking here lately. nt

[Feral Child]

50. See Post #42

Your "sane" poster is misreporting facts. This was a "routine business check", he was not responding to an alarm.

Up to you to determine if you think his propaganda is sane, of course.

Actually, no one in this thread has accused to cop of perfidy, though many of us suspect it.

You might find the "book review" in Post #42 significant.

[7962]

85. Here is video of just prior to the indcident

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video

Police force in this town is mostly black; not like Ferguson.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/teenager-is-fatally-shot-at-gas-station-in-berkeley/article_d45db16a-7422-5307-b81d-b45dbdc896ba.html

Police now saying there was a call to the store

And several posts are saying they dont believe the story to be true without any evidence to the contrary

[Feral Child]

90. AS they should.

Apparently you haven't read my post as directed.

We need proof, since cops brag about covering up their murders by planting weapons. As I said, no posters accused this cop of lying, they merely asked for evidence.

Apparently a healthy distrust and requiring evidence to justify lethal force are insane to you, whilst lying is praiseworthy and "sane". I question your evaluation skills as much as I do your personal integrity.

And a report from police after a lie doesn't excuse a lie, and a "call" does not equate to an alarm, even if a liar does have knowledge of it before he lies.

You two are silly little impotent disrupters. You don't challenge actual DUers, you amuse us. How empty and frustrating your lives must be.

[7962]

96. Saying "I dont believe you" is the same as saying "you're lying"

Some story from a cop dropping a gun yrs ago has nothing to do with THIS case. There were over 100 cops killed last year, does that justify the cops doing their job poorly? Of course not. Each case has to be judged on its own. But I no longer give the cops the instant benefit of the doubt like I did in my younger days.
I believe an indictment should have been brought in the Garner case and I said here many times that the focus should have always been on THAT case; where it was on tape and showed everything. The ferguson case was always going to be a mess because of the differing witnesses and the fact that there was some type of altercation.
In this case, the cop needs some action taken against him at least because he didnt have his camera on, IMO. Dont know about the dashcam, which would likely show the incident since it was in front of the car.
And as for your "actual DUers" comment, I've been here a lot longer than you have. Who made you the decider of who is a "real" member??

[Feral Child]

100. Oh, please.

There was nothing for me to say that I "disbelieved". At the time of his post, he declared that the policeman was responding to an alarm, despite the fact that the article very clearly said he was on a routine business check.

There was no question of not believing him, he spoke untruthfully, with the intent to deflect honest discussion. There was zero chance that he did speak the truth. I'm pretty sure when you speak untruthfully, you're lying.

As to my reference to Jordan, he wasn't "some cop". He was a "national hero" and his book was recommended reading in most police academies, required reading in some; hence, police organizations have instructed police officers to plant evidence to exonerate their crimes. You can try to minimize the implications, but you're being disingenuous. That's kind of like lying, but sneakier.

And you may play that tired old "noob" insult, but you know as well as I that some disrupters are more devious than others and survive a long time before they're disgraced, so your post count has no validity. And who am I? I'm the guy speaking for himself when I judge you based on quibbling little minimizations and other skeezy little tricks to deflect the truth.

The "I" that I speak of may not have been here for years, but that doesn't mean I was born yesterday. That "I" is a clever gent with years of experience in judging whether people are trustworthy or not.

In "my" opinion, some people that post disinformation here aren't "true DUers". Posting more tripe isn't likely to change my opinion, merely reinforce it.

[7962]

102. Well I appreciate your dedication, but I've never posted disinformation.

I'll leave that to the professionals. While i may post something you dont like, thats life. I dont like some of the stuff I post, but its news and should be seen. I try to double and triple check any story I post. Check my journal and find the false stories.
As far as THIS story goes, I posted the video of the incident, and the story published worldwide by a major news outlet, not "InfoWars".
According to other posts, there is also pictures showing a gun, which you obviously believe likely to be a throw down. Doesnt seem likely with all the people around the scene

[Feral Child]

108. I wasn't commenting on the video.

Just your comment regarding pipoman's statement about responding to "alarms". At the time he posted that (and suggested that DUers are in, his vulgar terms, "couch taters&quot he was responding directly to the OP and deliberately misrepresented the "routine business check".

So, whether you routinely take the side of the police or not, he has us bickering; that's exactly what trolls want, to disrupt discussion.

I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to the videos in your post, I was not, nor do I consider them dishonest.

I was ONLY referring to your assumed support of a trolling, dishonest post. As I've said several times, at the time he posted, the only information we had was that the officer was making a routine check. If you were not supporting his remark at that time, then we've misunderstood each other completely and for that I apologize.

If you'd like to delete this subthread, I'll agree. It seems to have gotten off-topic. If you insist that he was correct in making that statement at the time he did and with the limited information at his disposal, I have to let it stand. His post was dishonest, and his only defense of it was some school-boy taunting, he did not retract or excuse his lack of veracity whatsoever.

[7962]

123. The story I linked to mentioned a larceny report; I read his post after the story,

so i figured it was nothing new. But its been updated so many times I cant tell when that part showed up! the last update was 2 hrs ago, but they dont list them.
"Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was responding to a report of stealing at a Mobil on the Run station about 11:15 p.m. Tuesday when the deadly shooting happened."

[Feral Child]

131. Yes, our own "chain of evidence" has been muddied.

That's how trolls effectively disrupt our ability to have fruitful discussions and the named individual is gloating over it.

He hasn't needed to face any accountability for his deceit. I should have not let myself be distracted and should have ignored any responses except from "pipoman" himself, so I bear considerable blame for his getting away with it.


DU needs a better system to weed out disruptors; the jury system isn't focused enough, it only considers specific posts, not consistent disruption like we're experiencing from the "apologists" in these racial-injustice cases.

I need to present this subthread to Admin and ask for a disruption-focused team like MIRT or some other oversight to rid us of these interlopers.

[frylock]

103. 2014 Line of Duty Deaths: 114

Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 26
Drowned: 1
Fire: 1
Gunfire: 46
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 15
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicle pursuit: 5
Vehicular assault: 10


Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year#ixzz3MqB8cmh4

[backwoodsbob]

101. wow

can you post a link where cops brag about planting weapons to cover up murders?There is no statute of limitations on murder so apparently you can bust open a few murders for the feds.

Can you also show where the poster you replied to said lying is praiseworthy?

So you already know the police are lying here?Maybe you should go to work for the FBI with those amazing powers of deduction

[Feral Child]

112. Nice try

but I never said that this cop was lying, I merely said that there's just cause to doubt the police. Your paraphrasing is deliberately misleading.

As to your query, re: link to a cop bragging about planting evidence, you could try to be diligent and actually read the subthread you're so rudely, and stupidly, interrupting.

I'll give you a shortcut, since you're obviously just trolling for posters to insult and not really participating in the discussion. Read Post # 42. Don't cheat now, read the whole post. I think you'll find the answer, but I don't think that's what you want. You just want to insult me and discredit my statement. Perhaps you think I'll get angry and lash out, so you can alert and silence me with a "hide". Foolish boy, you'll have to work harder than just a drive-by to upset me.


Come on back now, and admit you're wrong once you actually read my posts.

Where comes your special knowledge of statutes of limitation? Are you a police man? Still, even if you are, I believe you'd have to know every statute in all 50 states. Prodigious body of knowledge, that.

Oh, and do try to keep up. It's just silly to ask me to repeat myself.

[Demit]

20. "officer was conducting a routine business check."

He wasn't responding to a burglar alarm. He saw two men and approached them. The story doesn't say why, but I'm very curious to learn the rest of the story.

[pipoman]

22. OK, mea culpa....insert "routine business check", doesn't change the point...

Why wouldn't he approach people loitering at a business while conducting a business check? Isn't that the purpose of a business check?

[Demit]

38. People loitering at a business? You mean customers?

[pipoman]

73. No, loitering, panhandling, dealing, etc....

[Demit]

93. What constitutes a loiterer?

Seems to me there's a certain length of time involved, by definition. How would the cop know who was "loitering" if he had just arrived upon the scene?

I think your point is, a loiterer is whoever a cop decides it is. Panhandling involves an observable concrete action; dealing involves an observable concrete action. But if a cop observes two guys not doing anything wrong, but still want a reason to confront them, he can call them loiterers. Do I have that right?

[giftedgirl77]

63. Or perhaps they were walking through the parking lot???

If it was a routine business check the cop had no business bothering that kid. Perhaps you assume he was loitering for the same reasons you made the false assumptions about an alarm? Racial profiling at its finest right here.

[pipoman]

74. Or perhaps you haven't a clue what police routines consist of...

Routines trained in every single police academy from sea to shining sea....

[giftedgirl77]

106. A routine business check means they drive through the business

parking lot & are supposed to ensure that everything is operating as expected. As it was on this video. The business was still open & operating, this guy was merely walking away. He wasn't even standing around in front of the business fuckin off, so there goes the loitering argument.

I am well aware of what a "routine" consists of, unlike some here I actually have a 4 year degree in Criminal Justice with a focus in forensics as well as over 10 yrs of experience working with law enforcement.

[pipoman]

121. I have seen no video nor had the poster I was responding to

Doesn't a "routine business check" vary considerably from one area/community/county to the next? For instance wouldn't a routine business check at a convenience store in a town of 2000 at 7 pm differ from a routine check on a convenience store on cheap hotel row in a city of 2 million? Wouldn't a routine check include assessing the probability of illegal activity and investigation of their suspicions? Suspicions based on body language, knowledge of people present, suspicious activity? Seems if in fact there was a gun, the cop's suspicions panned out, wouldn't you agree?

As to whether or not the stop was based on reasonable suspicions, I can't say since I haven't seen video or any other information other than in the op. Generally I will assume the cop is closer to the truth than someone who was arrested, since I know that most police are doing the best job they know how to do with the tools they are given.

[asjr]

76. What gets me is "alleged victim". Is that what they

are calling a victim now?

[pipoman]

78. is a person, say an obvious example,

The Hollywood bank robbers, killed in a shoot out with police a victim? I guess I really don't know if there is an objective answer to this....the only explanation I can think of. ..

[Feral Child]

42. Twisted,and deceitful, as usual.

Re-read the posted article: a "routine business check" is NOT responding to an alarm, but don't let facts get in your way. Continue to insult us with your fabrications. We're not stupid, pipoman, but your fabrications are. Lame, agenda-driven, deceitful propaganda.

BTW, no one here has claimed the cop was wrong. We suspect it, of course. But we want facts, not your spiteful lies.

Have you ever read Bill Jordan's "No Second Place Winner"? It's a primer on surviving "gun-fights" by a 30 year Border Patrol veteran, inventor of the "Jordan" holster.

In it he describes another officer, I believe a Texas Ranger, who killed a man whilst on duty. The killer-cop's explanation for the lack of a weapon was that it had slid off the bridge where the killing took place into the Rio Grande.

Bill then slyly mentions that he took a walk along that bridge with a confiscated gun in his shirt pocket. As he leaned over the railing, the gun slipped from his pocket and plunged into the river.
The next day, as officers investigating the killing "drug" the river looking for the dead man's reported weapon, they retrieved a large number of weapons from that spot.

Clever and "humorous" anecdote explaining how a killer-cop got away with murder. This book was written prior to his retirement in 1971 and was a "must-read" for cops when it was released and is still very popular with cops and "quick-draw" experts.

The victim of this shooting reportedly, by the police spokesman, had a gun. Maybe so, or maybe the cop that killed him read Bill Jordan's book of advice on how to kill, and how to get away with it.

[pipoman]

68. Lol....blah, blah, blah

"Routine business check"....routine. ...routine. ...ok, how many couch taters are asked to do "routine business checks"?

As for the rest....irrelevant ramblings....have you slept in the last 24 hours?

[Anansi1171]

80. Hi Righty! Ex-Green Beret here.

Convenient how in your thoughtful, reasoned and persuasive analyzes, everyone else is a coach potato!

[Feral Child]

88. Is that how you perceive real DUers?

As lazy folk welded to a couch? How sad.

You know, flying beneath the radar doesn't mean a ground observer can't identify you, and your deceptive bullshit.

You're a one-trick pony who doesn't belong here.

How many right wing cop-worshiping trolls ever do anything but fail at actual disruption?

As far as the rest, hardly irrelevant. Braggart "cowboys" unsuited for actual work write tomes extolling the heroism of planting weapons on the men they kill without justification. Pretty relevant to the rampant and valid distrust of your heroes.

[pipoman]

114. Avoid and distract...

The comments here are mostly people who would never, have never been required to respond to crowds of screaming people at a crime scene or party, to confront people who are wanted for crimes or in the process of committing crimes. Everyone else are expected to only respond to offenses against themselves defensively, police have to respond to people offensively. It is another world from most people's experience and miles outside of their comfort zone.

Don't pretend to know me, I am here because I am a rabid civil liberation democratic voter (as are most civil liberations). It just happens that most people (here and everywhere) haven't a clue what they are talking about when it comes to law, case law and process, so to cover for their ignorance they just spout on as if racism is the reason for no bill grand juries.

[Feral Child]

132. And you're an expert

on critical response and also the law and it's processes.

Are you a cop? A lawyer might understand adjudication but not have your expert view of mob mentality and control.

Most policemen are not "rabid civil liberation democratic voters". If you are such an unusual combination, I'm pretty sure you need to diversify your career options because those two conditions are diametrically opposed and you should certainly not expect to survive, much less advance, in your chosen career.

If, on the other hand, you're merely reciting talking points and have none of the experience you deride us for not having, then rock on, 'cause you'll get outed soon enough, having accomplished nothing whilst here.


You're going to have to accept that I don't believe you. I think it's fair to say that you won't gain long-term credibility with this community.

It's my opinion that you are a disruptor. No "rabid civil liberation democratic voter", even one who has the unlikely police experience you claim, is going to defend the police so consistently, especially in discussions of police violations of civil rights, like gunning down unarmed black people without any legal justification.

No, you are most likely a Republican or Liberarian imposter who enjoys interfering with Democrats opposed to the heavy-handed, illegal, and clearly conservative-values motivated activities of the police apparatus in this country.

You may be able to continue your fifth-columnist activities for awhile, but be assured of two things:
1. You're never going to dissuade a single one of from demanding justice or reigning in rogue police agents and agencies.
2. Your existence here will be of a decidedly short duration.

I'm done with you for the time being.

[pipoman]

133. Well, you've got around 7 years of catching up with me...if you're not

on your second or third user id...

20 years as a criminal defense investigator....

[Feral Child]

134. So, you're among

those "taters" that have never faced a mob.

Like I said. Done....for now.

[pipoman]

135. Lol.. you are too much...

[heaven05]

17. I'll wait for the true story

was it a camera or a gun? Was there a second person or not? No PD versions please. Was the executed person a 'thug' or a 'threat'? Was he holding up the gas station or not? Was he 'suspicious looking' or was he just filling the car with gas while black? FTCWGWB? All these questions must be asked. One fact though, another young black male will NOT see this christmas.

[marym625]

26. so far

The "video evidence" isn't clear or close enough to see a weapon. And the fact there are multiple people at the station just makes zero sense that Antonio Martin, another black teenager shot and killed by cops in St Louis County, would suddenly pull a weapon

I am not going to say I 100% believe that Martin didn't have a weapon, but I am not going to believe it until there is absolute proof. Especially with the reporter pictures with no gun at scene initially

[heaven05]

31. okay

just another shooting of a young black under 'suspicious' circumstances.....I am really trying to figure out how I ended up in 1950's amerikkka again. I don't have a silver delorean....?????? Anger is growing, again. I haven't felt this uncomfortable in my skin for a long time.

[duhneece]

46. Taken fromfb Cop Block..take w/grain of salt"

"Bay Area Intifada

Clashes Break Out Following Another Police Shooting Near St Louis

Police in Berkeley, MO have shot and killed another Black teenager, 18 year old Antonio Martin. Details remain unclear with conflicting stories of whether the young man was armed. As always, the police version is that he was armed, but witnesses are disputing this account.

Angry residents along with Martin’s friends and family members were at the scene of the police killing within moments. Activist from nearby Ferguson rushed to scene as well where fighting between police and the crowds broke out. Several arrests are being reported.

Pictures/Video: https://bayareaintifada.wordpress.com/…/breaking-news-cla…/…

Jabar/ We Copwatch/ Bay Area Intifada"

Now I'm not sure what to believe

[marym625]

51. It was protesters

That put the fire out at the QT while cops just stood by and watched. After all the burning allowed to happen after the GJ decision, I'm beginning to think that the cops and FD decided to "let them burn shit down"

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. I'll have to wait for more reporting of what the witnesses say ...

But I always find this kind of reporting to be woefully lacking ... "Cop approaches 'suspect' (no reason why) ... 'suspect' pulls gun ... Cop shoots 'suspect' (who doesn't get off a shot)."

This would suggest that, either, the Cop had his gun drawn as he approached the "suspect"; or, the Cop missed his/her calling as a quick-draw artist. It just strain credulity for me that anyone could draw and shoot before another (with his/her gun drawn) could squeeze the trigger.

I'm pretty sure there is more to this story ...

[marym625]

75. sick of this story repeating

A perpetual loop

Antonio Martin

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Watching Mayor's Press Conference on the shooting ...

apparently there is a video that has the officer responding to a shop-lifting call ... and the "suspect" did, in fact, get off a shot, before getting shot.

[marym625]

117. That's not what was said in the earlier press conference

I have been in the car all day and the news in all these rural areas was lacking. Have to catch up

[7962]

97. Here is the video, FWIW.

Its from the other side of the parking lot.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/24/cctv-footage-antonio-martin-gun-police-missouri-video

Also, shouldnt there be Dash camera? It happened right in front of the car so it would be visible.
Apparently the cops body camera was OFF, which in itself is cause for action of some sort against him IMO.

[marym625]

18. supposedly there's video

But reporters are putting this out

[EvilAL]

24. I'm confused about the angles.

The 'no gun at scene' ones seem to be pointing one direction, with the yellow markers out of view, then the 'gun appears' ones are from the back of the car, where you see the 2 yellow markers. Then the shot of the gun doesn't really show where it is in perspective to the first ones.

[Enrique]

28. the picture where we see the gun, it's next to a wall

that doesn't relate to any of the other pictures.

[EvilAL]

32. Yeah,

it doesn't prove anything. The gun could be anywhere. Hopefully more pics arrive that are more conclusive.

[mariawr]

64. It is next to the curb, it appears, not a wall. And the curb in previous pic shows no gun. nt

[Enrique]

66. oh, i see thanks

do we have any idea what the red thing is to the right of the gun?

[giftedgirl77]

72. That's the orange marker next to the yellow tarp

covering the body, there is just a corner of the yellow in it as well. That's how I matched them all.

[Adrahil]

109. I don;t think you can say for sure what is and isn;t in those pics. The resolution sucks.

[marym625]

124. Just what I was going to say

[marym625]

29. reporter David Carson

Actually, photographer with St Louis Dispatch, is tweeting pictures. Said earliest gun shows up is 12:51am.

[EvilAL]

34. He was there the whole time?

You'd think he'd see the gun or someone planting it.

[marym625]

37. There's more on the live stream

Jack posted up the thread

As I said, I am not 100% in belief that Antonio didn't pull a weapon. But I won't believe it until there is indisputable proof. The St Louis County PD have been busted for planting weapons

[EvilAL]

44. Yeah, I get that.

Not good to just believe the first thing you hear.

[marym625]

49. I don't.

[Enrique]

77. he says he didn't arrive on the scene until 12:35

and he has a picture of the gun at 12:41

[marym625]

79. and pictures from earlier

Don't show a gun. I know when he got there. I am the one that asked him.

[Adrahil]

110. Do you have access to better pics?

The only ones I've seen are not good enough to say anything for sure.

[marym625]

122. Not at the moment.

I have been away from news all day. Once I catch up, depending on what has happened, I will look for some

[Enrique]

25. is there an explanation to go along with the picture?

I can't tell what it is supposed to be showing.

[pipoman]

27. why aren't the photos from the same perspective?

[marym625]

30. Because he didn't even realize what he was photographing

At first

[EvilAL]

36. Here's the video

seems like the guy points something at him, then it pauses and you don;t see the shooting.
it's right at the end..

[marym625]

39. considering the circumstances

And the fact cell phones are being pulled out constantly, and the fact these people were doing nothing wrong in the first place, I just am extremely skeptical

[EvilAL]

43. Be skeptical if you want,

but it looks like he points something at him. Maybe it got edited or some shit, but it was posted on St. Louis Dispatch site. I just used the youtube link. Isn't that where the live twitter guy works?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/berkeley-officer-kills-suspect-who-pulled-gun-police-say-victim/article_d45db16a-7422-5307-b81d-b45dbdc896ba.html

[marym625]

47. "pointed something"

When they show a gun pointed, I will stop being skeptical.

Yes, that's where he works

[EvilAL]

52. Well,

maybe he pointed his cell phone at arms length towards the cop, or maybe he pointed his ID at arms length towards the cop.
The cop was a quick draw though, if the guy didn't even get a shot off.

[marym625]

53. At a place of business with innocent bystanders

[Adrahil]

111. Fair enough.... but whatever he's holding, he sure isn;t holding it like a cell phone.

... I'll wait for this to develop.

[cigsandcoffee]

113. Sure looks a lot like he pulled a gun. n/t

[Vinca]

54. It looks like the photos are from 2 different places.

[marym625]

55. of the same place. n/t

[Vinca]

56. Right . . . I should have been more clear.

If you look at the lines in the pavement and the windows of the business, it's obviously not photos from the same location of the parking lot.

[marym625]

59. Sorry

I don't understand your point

[Vinca]

98. It doesn't look like the same place in the parking lot.

The implication has been made that the gun was planted based upon the photos, but it doesn't look as if the exact same place in the parking lot was photographed each time.

[marym625]

119. It is

There are water or oil marks, dips in the pavement, that show it's the same place.

But I have been away from news all day and don't know what has happened

[Travelman]

115. I see a cone in every one of the top photos

Anyone who has actually read the grand jury transcripts from the Ferguson case will know that it's procedure for police on the scene who are not crime scene investigators to put cones out to mark evidence that they may locate for the crime scene investigators.

It seems completely reasonable to me that the first units on the scene would have taken a cone out of their trunk and put it over/next to the gun. Hence, it's quite logical that the cones in those pictures are where the gun is, and later the crime scene unit removed the cone and instead put down the yellow placard for the pictures to be taken.

[exboyfil]

35. Off topic but I really can't believe

that police officers are giving away $100 bills as part of a public relations move. It reminds of the scene in Evita in which Peron is not addressing the needs of the people, but Evita declares:

Would you like to try a college education?
Own your landlord's house, take the family on vacation?
Eva and her blessed fund can make your dreams come true
Here's all you have to do my friends
Write your name and your dream on a card or a pad or a ticket
Throw it high in the air and should our lady pick it
She will change your way of life for a week or even two
Name me anyone who cares as much as Eva Peron



Much better to the spend the money on getting body cameras for the police.

[jtuck004]

48. I've been on a number of calls, and around for a few decades, and it is vanishingly rare to find

street-level folks who might carry a gun carry one that is "defaced", which MAY mean the serial numbers are gone or altered. That's usually something done at a much higher level, and those guns aren't typically just thrown away to be easily found, because they are illegal, period, w/o the numbers.

The police chief from the link above...

"He also said the 9 mm gun found on the suspect had five rounds in the chamber and one round in the magazine. He also said the gun was "defaced."

Just seemed odd, right up front, and I know there are a lot of people with cameras, and laying across the hood to take a cop's picture could get one killed these days.

Wonder if he had a cell phone and if it has a video or picture still on it? Or if not, if there was a signal that disappeared around then?

Oh yeah - "the deceased man's handgun has been recovered" - did he have a permit and a title to it in his pocket? A gun was recovered - had they definitively tied it to him at that point, or is the officer embellishing?

[marym625]

58. I found that odd

As well. And exactly the same as they said about the gun VonDerritt Myers supposedly had.

And the cops dash cam and body cam were both off.

[PeteSelman]

60. How could it have five rounds in the chamber?

Dude sounds like he has no clue how guns even work.

[brush]

57. Doesn't make sense that someone not doing anything wrong would just pull a gun on a cop . . .

with all the tension there.

A second person allegedly fled, then there wasn't a second person, according to the police.

There wasn't gun then there was a gun according to photos — yeah, sure sounds credible (sarcasm gif) to me.


What it really sounds like is that the cops in that area aggressively confront blacks then something happens, and now it's a dead black male.

[Enrique]

61. according to what photos?

what photos show there wasn't a gun and then there was?

[brush]

70. There's a post in this thread with photos from a Post Dispatch photographer . . .

showing photos without a gun, then later there is suddenly a gun.

[CANDO]

84. I'm reluctantly going to say that...

The photos where folks are saying there is no gun....are too far away to definitively say there is no gun. These photos do clearly show there is a police marker, and the spot where the gun is are just too dark to see the gun from the far away photo. Now, studying the depression in the pavement from the far away photos, the beige color of the sidewalk as well as the beige color of the store wall.....and the closer photo of the gun matches the depression of the pavement as well as the beige coloring of the curb/lower wall area of the store. I am just as outraged at the senseless brutality from the LE community as everyone else, but these photos, in my view are matching up with a gun at the scene with the far away photos showing an evidence marker and the lighting too poor to illuminate the gun. For those insisting no gun, why the police marker clearly in the photos all along? Why would they place a marker where they might plant evidence later. I'm not buying that.

[Schema Thing]

116. I'm not seeing a police marker

but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.


the police markers behind the vehicle are not where the gun is.

[marym625]

118. I was just going to say that

I missed anything that happened since early this morning so I can't say anything about what happened since. But on the picture, I can't see it either

[CANDO]

128. The marker is just a few feet from the body.

In each of the photos, the angle is a different, but the marker is there. The poor lighting makes the gun not identifiable in the top two pics. The marker is visible in the lower left pic nearly hidden by the 2 in the superimposed script. And the pic clearly showing the gun is much better lit with the same dip in the pavement by the curb which is also very visible in the more distant pics. I'm in no way defending anything about this shooting scene. Just processing what I see in the four pics and putting it out there.

[Schema Thing]

129. The marker seems to be a different marker in the top two pics

I'm a photographer, so I know that there are all sorts of anomalies that can appear with different angles, different/poor resolutions, different/poor lighting, etc... but that glowing orange object in the top two pics really seems to be something different than the yellow upside-down "V" shown in the pic that clearly shows the gun. Not saying it's impossible, just doesn't quite *fit* to my first review.

Also, even as distant and poorly lit as those top two pics are, I really think you would see *something* that you could say "oh that might be the gun" next to the glowing object - if it was there. But, again as a photographer, I know I don't have enough info to make definitive statements about these pics yet.

[Fred Sanders]

62. Too......many.....fucking....guns....in America. The cops are scared to die like everyone else. 300

million fucking guns...wouldn't you be?

[cstanleytech]

67. "Too......many.....fucking....guns....in America. " Agree there. nt

[gopiscrap]

126. Wow! Waddya know

his body cam was turned off?