Its this kind of crap that erodes the public’s faith in the police. He has zero proof but will shoot his mouth off anyway. Asshat.
5 Likes
This guys a chief of police? making that kind of rudimentary assumption based on nothing. I thinks more complicated than that…like the shooters used the cover of the protesters to shoot the cops hoping that as a result the cops would open fire on the protesters
2 Likes
If we have the shell casings, can’t we trace those to the shop that sold them?
No we cannot. Because the ability to do so is one of an endless list of sane regulatory ideas shot down by NRA nutjobs and their spineless political allies, who feverishly imagine (hope?) they will one day have to fight for their “freedom” against “government jack-booted thugs” by doing exactly what this psycho did in Ferguson.
2 Likes
Only on CSI.
Didn’t this same guy earlier claim that the shooter was “embedded” with the protestors? How big was the crowd that you could be 125 yards away and still be a part of it? Or was his earlier speculation about the shooter being “embedded” in the crowd simply incorrect? And if so why hasn’t he retracted that previous speculation? Further, given his now established history of inaccurate speculation why is he continuing to speculate on this, minus new supporting evidence? Is it really that important to him to show off how bad he is at his job?
3 Likes
Can someone please explicitly ask him if it’s possible this shooting could be the work of an agent provocateur?
It’s days like this that make me want to set the caps lock and start typing an endless stream of swear words.
3 Likes
If he’s sure the shooter had an association to the protest why hasn’t he arrested that person or person’s ?
Thank you johnrm!
If they have the bullets from the victims and if we kept track of the ballistics, or whatever the proper term is for the impressions that the rifling from a barrel makes on a bullet, from different guns, which we don’t because NRA, couldn’t they match the bullets to the gun that fired them? And if we could match them to the gun that fired them and if we kept records on what shops sold what guns to who, which we don’t because NRA, again, couldn’t they track down where the gun that fired them was bought and by who? Or am I misunderstanding how accurate those sorts of ballistics, or whatever the proper term is, are in identifying the gun of origin?
The shooter had a KKK association…and I have as much proof as the Chief.
1 Like
Belmar’s assertion that the shooters had an ‘unfortunate association’ with
the protesters is not valid. It would be just as valid to assume it was
an inside job on the cops part (someone trained, to get attention and
lightly wound, but not kill the 2 officers) who may have volunteered for
the duty just to gain sympathy from the citizenry at large. My theory
that it’s an inside job (Like 9/1!!!??) is about as valid as Belmar’s.
2 Likes
Since this guy needs a job, he might put in an application with Putin’s people. Being able to know important things about a perpetrator in high profile cases before you even identify them them is a valuable law enforcement tool over there.
1 Like
It means the Chief is still intent on reminding people that he’s a mean, stupid cracker.
1 Like
Trying to equate this officer’s “excuses” for his words with the same words that were used as defense for the original action that caused this mess makes my head spin.
Nonsense, it was the NRA … “see we need more good guys with guns”
Belmar said in the news conference that officers saw muzzle flashes about 125 yards away from the police line. He said that he believed the weapon used was “a pistol, a handgun,” based on shell casings recovered in the area, the sound the shots made and the nature of the injuries to the two officers.
Wait - 125 yards, with a pistol. Three shots, two solid hits. That’s someone VERY good. That’s more militia, not gang banger.
EDIT : (I see this is mentioned above - sorry for the repeat)
1 Like
Oh it means something. It means the cops have already made up their minds what the motive of the perps was and therefore will only be looking for someone who fits that profile.
Pretty much every time you see a person who’s been in prison for years exonerated by DNA evidence, you’ll find detectives who locked up on a theory of what went down before gathering any evidence and systematically ignored, suppressed or destroyed any evidence that was inconsistent with what they just knew must have happened.
They teach you never to let yourself get locked in to a theory too early in detective school. The good cops don’t. The bad ones go with the truthy truth their infallible guts tell them just had to be what happened right out the gate and never let any little bits of evidence that come along during the investigation sway them.
One imagines that’s called “good police work” in Ferguson.
2 Likes
It’s only good shooting if the shooter was aiming at the cops.
But then, the possibility it may have been someone trying to kill one of the protesters would never occur to the paragon of police work who is soon to be the ex-chief of police of Ferguson. He knows what he knows and he knows it had to be the work of Those People. You know, the ones lacking Personal Responsibility.
3 Likes
How sure is anyone that the shots were not intended for the demonstrators not the cops? I find it very strange that anyone in that crowd would be shooting at the police after they had just gotten what most of them have been protesting about…the resignation of the Ferguson police chief.
It would make a lot more sense that those firing shots would be those angry that the police chief had finally been forced out. The St. Louis County Police Chief needs to look to motive, as well as real evidence, rather than immediately blame people.
This is what gets law enforcement so often in trouble with the public. They come up with a theory and then don’t look for evidence other than that which supports it.
1 Like
With a bench rest and an Olympics-quality target pistol, maybe. Maybe.