advertisement

UPDATE: Two suspects in custody in Columbia shootings, police chief says

Monday, February 20, 2012 | 10:21 p.m. CST; updated 1:51 p.m. CST, Friday, March 2, 2012

*CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the amount of bond the adult suspect was being held under.

COLUMBIA — Two suspects — a juvenile and an adult — are in police custody in connection with a string of recent shootings, Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton said at Monday's City Council meeting.

The adult suspect is being held on a *$25,000 bond, Burton said.

MoreStory


Related Media

Related Articles

In the past 27 days, there have been 11 verified instances of shots fired, seven of which Burton said he believes are connected. 

Only one person has been injured — in the gun battle after a party at downtown's Boone Tavern — so far. But at a news conference Monday afternoon at the department's headquarters, Burton expressed deep concern that someone would eventually die.

"Rarely is the intended target the one who pays the price," he said. "It's usually the mother or son or grandmother, or someone who knows no more than they see on the evening news." 

Burton described the recent shooting incidents as unusual.

"It's unprecedented since the '90s that we've had so many (shots fired) in such a short period of time," he said.

The incidents have occurred between 2 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. Since many of the shots have been fired at times when residents are "moving about the city," the incidents are even more dangerous, Burton said.

Burton said at the conference that lack of witness cooperation had been a problem in making arrests. Victims weren't talking, and law enforcement couldn't fully understand each incident without information from witnesses, he said, adding that the lack of cooperation was probably part of the culture of those involved.

"They're just thugs," he said. "And when you engage in criminal activity ... then you act like a thug in your daily life." 

The shots fired are believed to be gang-related, Capt. Brian Richenberger said. He would not disclose the names of any suspects or speculate about whether someone in particular is a target.

Police believe two rival groups might be feuding because the names of those involved continually appear as both victims and suspects, Burton said. If the incidents are part of an ongoing fight between two groups, the cause is still unclear.

"You've got to have a reason for shooting at each other," Burton said. "That's what doesn't make any sense."

Burton called for the community to respond with a unanimous message that acts of violence will not be tolerated. 

"The public has to get fed up," he said. "What we don't want is for people to wait around until we've got two, three people that have been killed because of this idiocy."

Burton said he believes death will be the end result if the community does not come together to help the investigation. He urged the public to contact Crime Stoppers with anonymous tips if they have any information. 

The police department is collaborating with the Boone County Sheriff's Department and will work with the Division of Probation and Parole and the Boone County Prosecutor's office, he said. The police department also plans to increase patrols to counter the violence, but Burton would not divulge an exact number of officers on the case for the protection of the investigation.

"As far as (the individuals involved) are concerned, there's 200 (officers) out there," he said.

He emphasized that a small group of people is causing a lot of the problems.

"To them, it's a game," he said. "It's a very dangerous game."

Those with any information about the incidents may contact Crime Stoppers online or at 875-8477.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams February 20, 2012 | 10:50 p.m.

And people wonder why otherwise civilized folks resort to water-boarding and electroshock to get information.

"Fed-up" means different things to different people.

It's a relativity thingie.

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt February 21, 2012 | 5:14 a.m.

So who are we fed up with? Perps who leave no clues or cops with suspects but no names.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis February 21, 2012 | 7:59 a.m.

So I want to know where those guys who follow the cops with the cameras are? Why not try to really protect the public and catch who's behind all these shootings? Why not put that video equipment to some real use? When they start shooting into a building filled with small children that's when every person needs to start helping!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking February 21, 2012 | 8:23 a.m.

CFJ knows damn well what would happen to him if he tried to film any of the gang members (even though it would probably be a much more valuable thing than simply filming cops doing their jobs). Fortunately for their targets, these guys aren't very good shots - I'd be more worried if I were an innocent bystander than is one of them were actually trying to shoot me. However, this also means they keep doing it.

People can leave anonymous tips on Crimestoppers. Snitching is good for the community...

DK

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 21, 2012 | 9:01 a.m.

CFJ seem to be hiding behind the people they are harassing. Justice applies to all; and harassing the people who are trying to protect the citizens of Columbia is definitely not an equally applied justice effort.

(Report Comment)
Elaine Hartley February 21, 2012 | 9:48 a.m.

It is beyond ridiculous to hold CFJ responsible for the lack of law enforcement around these shootings. Law enforcement and the protection of Columbians is the job of the police. That is what they get paid for. Perhaps the police have a good reason for their secrecy surrounding this matter but it does seem very odd.

In addition, waterboarding is not a "relative thingie" but is a criminal act of torture and still against international law no matter who ignores that fact.

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 21, 2012 | 10:13 a.m.

DK, you never answered my responses to your comments on Youtube. Shall we continue that discussion here?

Also, we haven't filmed nor been called to film any police in at least a month. It seems that the police have made improvements in the way they interact and communicate with citizens.

In the absence of calls, our resources have shifted to working with people who have filed specific complaints get answers. Some of these are video worthy, some aren't; we help either way. We've also been filming Bias-Free and CPRB meetings( http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF... ), If you would like to be contacted when new videos come out, contact me at the email below.

No one has contacted us about doing a story on this situation and if the CPD really wanted our help, they would have invited us to this news conference instead of leaving us in the dark about it, while inviting all the other media outlets.

Mr. Sutton, I'm kind of lost by your statement. Could you explain how we are "hiding behind the people (we) are harassing(by which I assume you mean the cops)."

As far as "snitching" goes, people are fearful of retribution for cooperating against violent offenders, who probably will see the streets again. If they will shoot up a busy Chuck E. Cheese in broad daylight, do you think they'll be afraid to shoot a cooperating citizen?

Crimes-stoppers is great and all, but if the police/prosecution want to secure convictions, they need people to get on the stand to point out the shooter, which is not as simple as calling crime stoppers.

During the Tony Lewis trial, it was established that there is no witness protection program at CPD and that CPD doesn't keep track of cooperating citizens once they hit the Department of Corrections.

I'm not saying people shouldn't cooperate, I'm saying it's extremely insensitive for people to chastise them when they don't.

Anyway, anyone is welcome to contact me if you see anybody shooting or want to talk to us about ANYTHING and we will do our best to investigate.

Matthew Akins
Citizens For Justice
Matt@CFJComo.com
573-825-7031

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 21, 2012 | 10:15 a.m.

Elaine: Great comment!

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 21, 2012 | 10:18 a.m.

Must be a full moon...

@Gerald
We are fed up with victims and witness's that do not cooperate with the police. I would not feel a bit sorry for anyone that witnessed any of the shooters in action who ends up losing their life or a family member to violence.

@Sally
If our videographers are following the police around by listening to a scanner, I think they are going to be behind the police and arrive at the scene after the action. If you know who is going to shoot at who when, then by all means let the camera crew know so they can be there on time. Oh, by the way, you might want to let the cops know that info too...

This will only stop when all the thugs are dead or when "the community" decides that living like a civilized society is better than the wild west. The problem is that those that do want to live in a civilized society and act accordingly are not immune to the stray bullets coming from the wild west...

(read in your best Ben Stein voice...)

Bronson...

Bronson...

Charles Bronson???

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 10:25 a.m.

Ah, Elaine, There are situations where you would insist upon torturing another human being, perhaps even helping do it.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 21, 2012 | 10:32 a.m.

@Elaine
Torture is against "international law" and that is not relative, but what constitutes torture is a relative thingie.

I am absolutely positive that if you watched Navy Seal training you would call it torture. I am not at all certain, but my feeling is that most people who go through this kind of training and live a "harder" life than you or I, don't consider waterboarding torture. Some probably do. So, the question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture is indeed a relative thing.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 10:56 a.m.

Note to Mike and Elaine: You changed my wording to read "relative thingie".

I deliberately wrote "relativity thingie."

There's a difference.

Relativity is: Different observers see different facts when in relative motion (or, in this case, events).

It was a pun. A poor one, tho, in retrospect.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders February 21, 2012 | 10:59 a.m.

If only we had cameras on every street corner, I'm sure none of this would've ever have happened.

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 21, 2012 | 11:09 a.m.

M A ... CFJ seems to be only focused on attempting to try and catch the CPD doing something that may be questionable. And of couse you will always deny any editing so I won't go any farther on that issue.

So back to my statement about "hiding behind". Instead, why are you not following around or trying to seek out and video any activity that may be of real criminal nature? Your group focus seems to be that the only real criminal activity is done by some members of the CPD. Are you "hiding behind" because it is safe to do so?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 21, 2012 | 11:19 a.m.

@Harold
I am not sure you understand who CFJ is and how much we pay them...

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 21, 2012 | 11:59 a.m.

Mike, I am well aware as to who CFJ unless it has Changed. "Citizens for Justice", as they call themselves, is a self-elected group who focus on trying to video an alledged act of misconduct by members of the Columbia Police department. To justify their existence, they have exhibited at least one act by a CPD officer that is complementary. However, they focus on alledged acts of misconduct by the CPD.

"How much we pay them"? Never heard that statement before! I assume that was a bit of light sarcasm.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 21, 2012 | 12:17 p.m.

Harold, you got it. I was not happy with CFJ when I first heard about them and actually posted a pretty scathing comment about them on these forums. Since then, I have read some of whay they do and what Mr Akin has written and have backed off. As long as they do not interfere with the police while they are doing what they do, they have every right to do what they do. Expecting them to police this city free of charge doesn't make any more sense than expecting you or I to do the same. I think it is a little misguided that they even came up in comments about this recent crime spree is all...

(Report Comment)
John Schultz February 21, 2012 | 12:51 p.m.

Sally, do you own a car? If so, why aren't you patrolling the city as you want CFJ to do for you, for free, apparently?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro February 21, 2012 | 12:58 p.m.

("Guardian Angels return to St. Louis to rebuild communities")
http://www.ksdk.com/sports/story.aspx?st...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 2:18 p.m.

Ray: I think a group of honest Guardian Angel-types is a good thing. Any type of neighborhood watch group, especially an active one, is a good thing.

But, in the end...as with all societies trying to develop law and order...it will be the mothers and grandmothers who pull the fat from this fire. They have to get fed up and full of righteousness and resolve and action. If they fail to act, there is no solution other than vigilante-style violence on the part of fed-up males....not a good way to go at all.

Males are the bystanders in getting things started, but then they follow.

Females are the great civilizers. Always have been, always will be. One example: North American 1880's western towns. There are many others. PS: Most of those civilizers were quite religious....is there a correlation here? Hmmmmm.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 21, 2012 | 2:41 p.m.

Sorry Michael, but I can't pass this up.

In the 1880s Western towns there were undoubtedly women who exercised a civilizing influence; however, there were also women who, shall we say, "provided a service," and their services were apparently very popular. Whether the services were "civilizing" I leave up to readers.

As Amanda Blake, Miss Kitty on the long-running TV show "Gunsmoke," once put it, "Until that TV show came along with Melissa Gilbert I though I had "The Little House on the Prairie.'"

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 2:55 p.m.

Ellis: lol. Yes, the first females that follow males spearheading a new region generally have financial gains in mind.

The second group of wimmin run off the first group of wimmin' and...um...still have financial gains in mind.

Uh oh...did I press the post button?

Oh lord.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 2:56 p.m.

Bond noted in the article was a mistake.

Only 25K, not 250K.

He's already back on the street.

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 21, 2012 | 3:00 p.m.

Mike.. It is my opinion that they took pains to cultivate their image. That does not mean that their true objective has changed. As to patrolling the city; they patrol trying to catch the CPD in an alledged act of misconduct.

Mike, Ray, and Michael.... You are correct in your statements. The "Guardian Angels" of several years ago were mostly older men along with a few women who patrolled and discouraged acts of misconduct. I never heard of any "Vigilantism". Won't say it never happened, tho.
And the remark by Michael that the greatest effect a long time ago was by Mothers and Grandmothers; very true!
Now if all the Mothers and Grandmothers, along with a lot of Grandfathers, would apply a good case of "now politically incorrect" wood shed time, we would not be discussing this problem much in the future.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 3:19 p.m.

Harold: Mothers and grandmothers are the origin of a solution yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Always will be. They are the civilizers, the ones who smear a thin veneer of civilization over us males, then desperately try to keep it intact.

For some peoples, there's no more smearing, and there's no more trying to keep it intact.

Abject failure now, next week, next month, next year, next decade, next 100 years.

The police are minimal players in the "keep it intact" part. And, their job does not involve smearing.

Without a resurgence of female backbone, this problem has no solution. I see no such resurgence, so I've given up until I do.

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 21, 2012 | 4:18 p.m.

Michael... Right on! Now, if we could get a lot of the Mothers to stop encouraging the "Welfare Queens", maybe those days will come back. Don't give up!

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 21, 2012 | 8:06 p.m.

Harold; You're welcome to think what you want about us, our motivation, and our objective.

I go to pretty much every CPRB meeting, not just the ones where a controversial issue is being discussed, and at every meeting there is a section called compliment an officer.

If I'm remembering correctly, 2 of the last 3 meetings had no complimented officers.

Aside from a recent Tribune article( http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012... ), about Officer Sean Dutton and another officer stopping a man from committing suicide, there hasn't been a lot of press on officers having positive encounters with the public from any other media outlets recently.

Not saying that it's not happening, but if the people who are so satisfied with the CPD that they feel what we do at CFJ constitutes harassment, then please start reporting the positive encounters you're having.

If you feel like leaving a comment on on our database (http://cfjcomo.com/officers.php) would be supporting or feeding into some type of conspiratorial police hate group, then at least compliment the actions of the good ones to the city so they can be recognized: http://gocolumbiamo.com/Police/officerco...

(Report Comment)
Molly Tarleton February 21, 2012 | 8:33 p.m.

I thought this article was about a series of shootings, not Citizens for Justice. From what I can tell CFJ operates within the law and their mission is to protect the public. I can find no fault with that.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 9:13 p.m.

Matthew says, "Not saying that it's not happening, but if the people who are so satisfied with the CPD that they feel what we do at CFJ constitutes harassment, then please start reporting the positive encounters you're having."
_____________________

No, you aren't saying it's happening. You're much to clever for that.

Instead, you are inferring there are no positive encounters because there are no reports.

Which, of course, is an absurdity.

Why, you ask?

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ever hear the term "silent majority"?

PS: Such an inference on your part is one reason why you and your ilk are confident most Columbia citizens think CPD does a poor job...problem is: Satisfied customers will seldom fill out your satisfaction survey.

You believe your "numbers" are far greater than they are. I believe you are quite wrong.

(Report Comment)
Justin Thomas February 21, 2012 | 10:34 p.m.

Just wanted to point out that a lot of the language used by Chief Burton during the press conference is indicative of the difficult relationships between CPD and the "community". I know that when something like this is happening, it is not the time for such an approach; but, this kind of talk would not show up in a place where the police have invested more in establishing partnerships with the community it serves. If CPD is really interested in dealing with this problem long-term, the mentality that emphasizes primarily surveillance and enforcement needs to be put in check with some major work on education, outreach, and service. And, it is because of the work of CFJ and other concerned, active citizens across Columbia that such a crazy idea could even be considered possible here.

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 8:45 a.m.

Micheal Williams said:

"No, you aren't saying it's happening. You're much to clever for that.

Instead, you are inferring there are no positive encounters because there are no reports."

No Micheal. What I'm saying is the fact that positive encounters aren't being reported is neither CFJ's, nor any other media outlet's fault.

It is the fault of those having the positive encounters with police for not reporting them.

It is no way their obligation to do so, but if a person feels so strongly about their community and police force that will attack CFJ for whatever harm you think we're causing on an unrelated Missourian article, then why aren't you taking the time the fill out the surveys/compliments to the city about the officers your having these interactions with, so that those officers can have a note put in their personnel files?(NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION: I want everybody who had something negative to say about us to answer this.)

They would appreciate this a lot more than you commenting about CFJ, being that it would help those officers obtain promotions, highly-valued special assignments, and raises. It would also help the community by placing positive officers in positions of power.

And your claim that if a person is satisfied, they will seldom fill out a survey is based on what?

Remember what you said: "Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

As far as our "numbers" go, I'm going to guess you mean the people who support or at least appreciate what we do at CFJ.

It is neither yours nor my place to comment on the number of people who do so, but when you throw around words like majority and minority, your basing these on your perspective not on facts.

If you took the time to go to a Douglass Park Neighborhood Association Meeting with Justin Thomas, you might find your anti-CFJ mindset would put you in the minority.

And one last thing; If you think we're anti-police, you must have not watched our video:

Boone County Sheriff's Department vs. Columbia Police Department: Is There a Difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuQ6X5E7s...

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 22, 2012 | 1:39 p.m.

Matthew Atkins- I watched your video. It is obvious to me that you are convinced that you and your group are morally superior. So why not put on your super person capes and straighten out the entire world?

(Report Comment)
Jeremy Calton February 22, 2012 | 3:28 p.m.

Dear everyone: What does any of this have to do with Citizens For Justice? That's nonsensical.

Also, if you hate people with cameras recording public figures in public, then you basically hate America and its constitution and bill of rights, and support totalitarian states like modern China or Stalinist Russia or Burma or North Korea or Iran.

By the way, CFJ put out a video about how great the Boone County Sheriff's Department is. I assume everyone condemns that, as well?
Please call the Sheriff's Dept. today to let them know how much you hate CFJ and don't believe anything they say about our deputies.

@Michael Williams
Ever hear of a phrase "tyranny of the majority?" Or "persecuted minority?"
I guess when the lefties get 50.1% of the people or legislature to enact something you don't agree with, you just smile and move on, knowing that the majority is infallible.

@Harold
For now I guess we will just have to let the police parade around in costumes playing judge, jury, and executioner.

I really wish I could get one of those costumes, too; not having to obey the same laws as everyone else would be SO much easier for me. I promise I'll only use that power responsibly, just like Spider-Man or those unassuming, harmless grad students in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I love when someone's response to another's point is "Well, if you can't solve ALL problems at once, then you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say." You must have a lot of really short conversations.

Before you pick on someone who gives his own time and money for a cause he believes in to help his community*, why don't you tell us all what problems YOU are solving...?

The camera does not have moral superiority--it just records reality. If you are afraid of that, I suggest you stop reading the news.

* Or to document and recognize the awesome job our wonderful police do every day, which I'd think ANY good citizen would obviously support...your lack of support and civic pride can only lead me to conclude that you must hate the police.

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 22, 2012 | 4:29 p.m.

Jeremy.....You certainly do ramble a lot.
And do you rehearse before a mirror, first?

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton February 22, 2012 | 4:50 p.m.

And Jeremy... its not the camera. Its the "in your face", opportunistic attitude of the person behind the camera. Especially those who assume that they have journalistic privilege and therefore think that they are free to intrude as they please. Should you, or any others, ever attempt to come on to my property and set up a camera or any kind of recording device, you will be charged with trespassing. And anyone is welcome to come on to my property if they show respect first and get permission.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2012 | 4:52 p.m.

Matthew: Actually, I've not commented at all on your organization.

I just commented on your comment.

You wrote the words, ""Not saying that it's not happening, but if the people who are so satisfied with the CPD that they feel what we do at CFJ constitutes harassment, then please start reporting the positive encounters you're having."

I commented on those words. I think they are absurd. I've seen comments like this before, and when someone says "Not saying that it's not happening", and then follows with a "but", that tells me....uh..."Yes, you did."

Marketing 101: Satisfied folks fill out fewer satisfaction cards than dissatisfied folks.

Besides, you want to hear from CPD-satisfied folks, why not count what you read herein?

You and your ilk are the squeaky wheel. The rest of are well oiled and doing fine.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 22, 2012 | 5:17 p.m.

Since we are off topic already I will try and distract you from your current squabble...

"why not put on your super person capes and straighten out the entire world?"

Reminds me of the funniest bib for a baby that I have ever seen. It says, "These fools put my cape on backwards!"

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 7:43 p.m.

Michael said: "You wrote the words, ""Not saying that it's not happening, but if the people who are so satisfied with the CPD that they feel what we do at CFJ constitutes harassment, then please start reporting the positive encounters you're having."

I commented on those words. I think they are absurd. I've seen comments like this before, and when someone says "Not saying that it's not happening", and then follows with a "but", that tells me....uh..."Yes, you did."

My comment meant exactly what I explained it to mean. You saying you know what I meant by other comments you've read(posted by other people) is like me saying I don't like this specific officer who pulled me over because of a negative interaction I've had with a completely different officer who pulled me over. Unfair and ridiculous.

"Besides, you want to hear from CPD-satisfied folks, why not count what you read herein?"

Because not one person has come forth with a reason they feel this way. No one has said Officer ____________ helped me in this predicament, I was having an awful day and SGT. __________ helped straighten everything out for me, or even: I hate getting pulled over, but the fact that Officer__________ was the one who did it changed my opinion of the process.

Your satisfied with the department; Great! Which officers have influenced your perspective or are you just saying that since you've personally never had an encounter with the police, everything must be be going right?

There are great officers who work for CPD, but there ARE not so great officers as well. If there weren't, our city's perfectly competent legal department wouldn't be writing settlement checks to people who have had issues with certain members of the department.

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 7:45 p.m.

Harold said "Its not the camera. Its the "in your face", opportunistic attitude of the person behind the camera."

Opportunistic implies we gain something from this; What exactly do you think we personally gain from CFJ, besides lots of negative attention from people who don't understand or even want to understand us?

"Especially those who assume that they have journalistic privilege and therefore think that they are free to intrude as they please."

Can you provide example of how you feel we intrude? We are ALWAYS very respectful to the officers we communicate with and this is not always reciprocated, but we would have NO grounds to complain about their conduct if we didn't maintain this level of respectfulness. Do you think anybody would cut us a lot of slack if we did intrude or, in legal terms, OBSTRUCTED A GOVERNMENT OPERATION?

"Should you, or any others, ever attempt to come on to my property and set up a camera or any kind of recording device, you will be charged with trespassing."

Why in the world would we want to do that? We don't even film police at their homes. That WOULD be intruding. Also, if you don't have one already, post a visible no trespassing sign on your property somewhere, otherwise you will be disappointed to find out that the police won't be able to arrest people who come on you property without permission(unless, of course, it's obvious their intentions were to commit a crime), but merely issue them a warning not to come back.

And with the morally superior and super hero cape remarks; What are you even talking about?

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 7:50 p.m.

LOL @ Mike Mentor's comment.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2012 | 8:28 p.m.

Matthew asks, "Which officers have influenced your perspective or are you just saying that since you've personally never had an encounter with the police, everything must be be going right?"
___________________

Well, that's none of your GD business.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2012 | 8:30 p.m.

Matthew asks, "What exactly do you think we personally gain from CFJ...."
_____________________

Juvenile gotcha's?

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 8:48 p.m.

Michael said: "Matthew asks, "Which officers have influenced your perspective or are you just saying that since you've personally never had an encounter with the police, everything must be be going right?"
___________________

Well, that's none of your GD business."

lol. Anyone else feel like answering?

And if that's the stance your going to take, you have no room to complain about a lack of press coverage on positive encounters between the police and the public...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 22, 2012 | 9:37 p.m.

Matthew: Did I complain about lack of press coverage for positive encounters with the police?

PS: My encounters with the police have ALWAYS been excellent. Because I'm respectful and show no threat whatsoever. I help pay these guys/gals, deliberately putting them into potentially violent situations FOR ME, and I want to make their job easier when they encounter me. Even when I've broken a law all of my fellow citizens felt necessary for the common good, I'm still respectful. You woulda got poor film from me to juice those juvenile gotcha's of yours.

I do not respect your group because you go into it with the mindset of finding or interpreting something wrong. You are biased from the get-go. Hence, I do not trust you or your group to improve anything. I distrust you more than reporters, and that says a lot.

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 11:43 p.m.

Micheal: No, you did not specifically complain about a lack of press coverage for positive encounters with the police.

You said the following:

"PS: Such an inference on your part is one reason why you and your ilk are confident most Columbia citizens think CPD does a poor job."

which you only concreted with this statement:

"I do not respect your group because you go into it with the mindset of finding or interpreting something wrong. You are biased from the get-go."

What would make you say that? You've made many inferences during this discussion about are motivation and such and so forth. Now it's my turn to make one:

The only things you know about us is what you've seen/heard/read in the media, seen on our videos, and read on our website. Is this correct?

The database on our website features non-biasedly collected info from other media outlets, sunshine law requests, and public records. Find something biased about it to back your point.

Quotes I've given to media outlets and left on comment sections express our non-biased attitude and interest to know more about the complex thing we call the criminal justice system. Find something biased I've said to back your point.

Now it comes down to the videos. If you take away our CPRB, City Council, and dash-cam videos, which are inherently and unarguably non-bias, being that they are completely unedited(by us at least) and un-commentated, you're left with a collection of videos showing either misconduct, a positive encounter, or both.
Which of the 3 is most popular?

The ones showing misconduct in both number of videos and number of views.(If you'd like an explanation as to how to double check these ranking on our youtube page since you don't trust me or my group, let me know).

Not to say that the positives ones don't get views; our third most popular video is completely a positive one(This is how officers SHOULD react to you video taping them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuN0SqdRq...), but this is pretty much the only place I can find any sort of evidence that CFJ is bias. While I have went to great links to explain why this is and any reasonable minded person can see some of the road blocks we've been running into trying to promote positive encounters with CPD(think BCSD vs. CPD), the fact remains that we have more negative videos than positive ones.

IE: Your complaints about us are due to a lack of press coverage for positive encounters with the police.

If you have another reason for stating that we are bias, please do share.

As far as the juvenile gotchas statements you keep making: something like that doesn't get you this far; hard work, determination, and a willingness to stand up for what's right, even if it's not the popular thing to do does. If something was "fun" about being with CFJ, that ended a long time ago.

(Report Comment)
Matthew Akins February 22, 2012 | 11:43 p.m.

If you'd like, we can continue a discussion about this on an article that's actually about CFJ:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements