The incident is being easily displaced as a back story to the Michael Brown incident. The detail of the Shaw neighborhood shooting is being shuffled around, because the media and other interested parties don't want this to be another black eye to the city of Saint Louis. It is easy to dismiss any wrong doings, if the media publicly helps to establish a justification for the incident. NOTICE I SAID INCIDENT and not shooting. Their is a difference and here is why!
While, Sam Dotson, Francis Slay, Hi-Tech Security, Fox 2 News, KSDK and KPLR-11(another Fox 2 News) focus on the armed subject whom fired upon an off-duty police officer???? They have forgotten one very important detail. He wasn't off duty! This particular officer was working, what is referred to as Secondary Duty (Private Security) for a particular employer for a specific area -VERY IMPORTANT FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!
In fact, Chief Dotson, was quoted by the media, indicating that the officer was outside the security area of his private employer; while still being on the clock working for that private security company. In a nut shell, the officer stopped an individual (citizen) while wearing his police uniform and working security for private employer, outside the private employer contracted area. HMMMM!
I) Can P.O.S.T. Certified Peace Officers in Missouri work as private security and maintain their exercised rights as police officers; when they are working in that said private security capacity?
Answer: No P.O.S.T Peace Officer of Missouri can exercise their duties as a registered (active officer for a police department) police; while working in the capacity of a security officer. The boundaries and restrictions limit the actions of a security officer beyond the scope of their employment, hence jeopardizing the obligations and interfering with duties afforded to them as a police officer.
II) So, did the police officer have the right to stop and detain the individual as a off duty officer. Where does the line cross from off duty to on duty?
Answer: A police officer whom is off duty and sees the commission of a crime can take action. That officer, in civilian attire must make the announcements with credentials, in a loud manor, to the suspected criminals and the people in the surrounding area. If an officer is working as private security that officer can take all legal actions, within the scope of their employers assets and for the better interest of the area.
What they can't do! A Security Officer cannot stop you coming out of a store outside their area of security zone. Regardless if they are a uniformed police officer. That is called a 'Terry Stop' or a 'Stop and Frisk' which is only allowed by active police officers or private security within their area of patrol. For example like Lt. Patrick Hayes comments about stopping black people at Walmart.
III) What are the general facts leading up to the shooting?
Answer: Here are the facts, if anybody interested
1) Did the city police officer fail to follow the correct procedure, if he wanted to stop an individual outside his scope of authority while working as security officer.
Fact B: His authority doesn't crossover faintly as Dotson, Slay and Hi-Tech would have the public to believe. Extreme circumstance must be clear and present to allow the crossing of the two areas of employment.
2) Did the officer use his appearance (his uniform) as threat to persuade compliance. When that failed did it become a street fight between two armed individuals.
Fact C:YES! A Street Fight, between two individuals as an implied mutual combat (loosely given). No true legal authority had been established, regardless if the officer was in uniform. The SCA -Surrendered Compliance Authority doctrine can be argued, since the individual decided to stop when initially approached by the officer, wearing an authoritative uniform. Nonetheless, this officer didn't have the appropriate authority to conduct/commence a 'Terry Stop' of a private citizen. The action by the officer was outside the realm of his regulated authority while working as a security officer. He was outside his employers security region, Peace Officer Rights had been placed on a moratorium in the exchange for the sake to pursue other financial revenue or endeavors.
IV) So, was the police officer On or Off-duty?
Answer: He was On duty as a Security Officer but not a police officer; btw, authorized by Slay and Dotson. Keep in mind, the former Board of Police Commissioners prior to the City takeover, regulated security licenses for private security officers and companies. Prior to its dismissal, that same Board /w Slay, had suspended the License of Hi-Tech Security; because, police officers were going beyond the scope of their duty. That incident involved a car chase and crash in the Central West End area and also illegal-ling TOWING CARS.
Think of it this way! You stop at the local Walgreen and buy something. You walk pass the Walgreen security officer on your way out. You get into your car and drive down the street and stop at the local gas station. The next thing you know, that same Walgreen Security officer approaches you and demand to search your purse. He said he has followed you and want to check you for stolen items.
My Question: Would you allow that Walgreen Security Officer to search you or would that situation turn into a physical confrontation?
V) Does it matter that a police officer, while working security, decides to switch hats at his leisure?
Answer: The US Constitution protects the rights of citizens from intrusion upon their privacy. The role of a security officer obligation ends at the borders of the protected assets. A on-duty uniformed officer would have the authority, if called upon to respond and investigate. As long as Mapp vs. Ohio exist for the protected interest of the accused.
- Why hasn't the Attorney Generals Office filed charges!
- Why hasn't the NAACP asked for a separate civil rights investigation.
- Where are the political leaders that were so eager to stand up for a slam dunk of a case involving an unarmed man. Where are they?
Answer: It is easier to point the finger at the system when the evidence is clear. It's becomes more difficult to point the finger when the victim is on trial for being a known previous gun felon on house arrest. As far as the investigation, Dotson has referred all questions to Hi-Tech Security. Of course, you know nobody from the AA's office enjoy talking to me! Especially, when I call them out and remind them to uphold the oath of their sworn duty.....LOL,HAHA.... I SAID DOOOTEEE!