Protests Erupt After St. Louis Police Officer Fatally Shoots Teen | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Protests Erupt After St. Louis Police Officer Fatally Shoots Teen

A police officer fatally shot a teen who opened fire in St. Louis on Wednesday night, officials said. St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said that the officer fired his weapon 17 times after "at least three" shots were fired at him. It was not immediately clear how many times the 18-year-old suspect was hit. The death sparked protests in the Shaw neighborhood in the south of the city. The incident occurred on the eve of demonstrations scheduled to take place in nearby Ferguson, Missouri, over the fatal shooting of teenager Michael Brown by police two months ago.

The six-year veteran of the St. Louis Police Department was off-duty but in uniform and working a side security job at the time of the shooting. Dotson told reporters at a briefing early Thursday that a group of three men fled after spotting him. The officer gave chase and "physical altercation" occurred between the officer and a suspect, who was described as aged 18 and black. Dotson said the suspect then "fired at least three rounds at the police officer" before he returned fire. The officer was unharmed.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

IF this went down precisely the way the officer said it did, the incident was the polar opposite of what happened in the Michael Brown case, if in fact the young man was armed, and shot first.

But why did the three young men run off after spotting this officer?!? What is the story here?

And could he not have called for back-up, rather than running after them in a way which almost guaranteed that if they were armed, there was going to be a confrontation?

There are several areas of this story which make no sense, but appear to have been added by St Louis police to augment their "narrative" of what happened, and this is not new, in the process of police protecting their own, where police will simply lie to create cover for their actions.

Why have the police in Missouri not been trained in the use of non-lethal weapons which do not kill, and why do they not have such weapons to hand?!?

A non-lethal device which incapacitates a person without killing them, is a sedative dart, but the problem here is dosage.

If that problem can be overcome, rather than killing someone outright, I would much prefer that police departments carry these rather than bullets, or tasers, which can, and do, kill.