Authorities said a Ferguson (Mo.) police officer was shot and wounded while on patrol Saturday evening.

St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman said the shooting took place at approximately 9:30 p.m. local time. KTVI reported that the officer was shot in the arm and sustained non-life-threatening injuries. At least a dozen law enforcement agencies responded to the shooting, and police helicopters canvassed the area, but no arrests were immediately reported.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar told reporters early Sunday that the officer was shot after approaching two men at the Ferguson Community Center, which was closed at the time. As the officer approached, the men ran away. When the officer gave chase, "one of the men turned and shot," Belmar said.

Belmar did not give further details about the officer's condition. He said the officer returned fire but said police have "no indication" that either suspect was shot.

The shooting comes amid a fresh flare-up of unrest following the deadly August 9 shooting of a black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. The shooting sparked days of violent protests and racial unrest in the predominantly black community. Some residents and civil rights activists have said responding police officers were overly aggressive, noting their use of tear gas and surplus military vehicles and gear.

Saturday's shooting occurred approximately two miles from where Brown died near his grandmother's apartment building. KTVI reported that dozens of protesters initially showed up at the scene in the mistaken belief that the officer had shot someone. By midnight, approximately two dozen officers stood near a group of about 100 protesters who mingled on a street corner across from the police department, occasionally shouting, "No justice; no peace."

On Thursday night, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson attempted to march with protesters hours after releasing a videotaped apology to Brown's family. In it, Jackson acknowledged Brown's body should have been removed from the street much sooner than the four hours it was there as police collected evidence.

He insisted officers meant no disrespect to the community or the family. "I'm truly sorry for the loss of your son," Jackson said.

Witnesses said Jackson agreed to join marchers Thursday but failed to tell officers monitoring his safety to stand down. They said that led to some officers forcing their way into the gathering, then pushing and shoving marchers. Several protesters were arrested.

"If (the officers) had just not come in, everything would be all right," protester Steven Wash, 26, of Ferguson, said Friday.

"Jackson decided to come out and broker some peace and pretty much asked what he could do to build a new level of trust, and police continued to come, come, come," Wade added. "The olive branch he tried to extend was great, and it showed he wasn't a robot. But police forced him out like he was a diplomat in a war zone."

The unrest Thursday occurred two days after many in the St. Louis suburb complained police did little to douse a fire that destroyed a makeshift Brown memorial.

The Justice Department, which is investigating whether Brown's civil rights were violated, is conducting a broader probe into Ferguson police. On Friday, it urged Jackson to ban his officers from wearing bracelets supporting Wilson while on duty and from covering up their name plates with black tape.

Ferguson residents complained about the bracelets, which are black with "I am Darren Wilson" in white lettering, at a meeting with federal officials this week.

Brown's shooting has also focused attention on the lack of diversity in many police departments across the country. In Ferguson, of 53 officers in a community that is two-thirds black, only three are African-American.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/28/ferguson-police-officer-wounded-in-shooting-authorities-say/

Good thing that cops a bad shot, even though those punks were committing a crime and they shot first he would probably still be facing prosecution and we would have damn near riots again and Obama would be praising the criminals once again while damning the police.

I would be wearing a bracelet that says I support Wilson too and would be covering up my name.... Those people there are targeting cops for doing their job, tonight was evident of that. This incident almost sounds like an ambush on the cop honestly.

The people there are just looking for another excuse to loot and steal again.

there are several clouded issues here

1st: the shooting of MB, is still undetermined, so for a RMPLOYEE of the citizens to show support is something like allowing teachers to say a prayer,, their personal position has no place in their job

off the job , they should wear whatever they wish

2nd, in no circumstance should it be ok for an officer to hide who they are,, that is the only way to hold them accountable , INDIVIDUALLY, for their actions

3rd, in this case, where there were armed suspects, and clearly there would be evidence of one of the arms being fired,, there would have not been any 'riots', due to evidence of the suspect being a potentially fatal threat(having fired from the arm they were carrying)


4th, all I got from this is that a couple of criminals ran from and shot at a cop,,, that's something people sometimes do because they want to GET AWAY,,,, and comes with the territory

there may be some 'criminals' who 'target' cops, and there may also be cops who target,, certain people ,,,as well,,,because of implicit fear that they have developed

being that the latter are PAID with an expectation to 'protect and serve' , and not 'target and execute',,,,they certainly should expect to be held accountable for their action JUST AS MUCH as any 'criminal'...and must therefore be identifiable,,,

The SCOTUS has repeatedly said that cops do not have an obligation to protect citizens. Why do people still believe in this myth?

There's no reason to believe the shooting was connected with demonstrations over the August police shooting of unarmed African-American teen Michael Brown, authorities said.

"It didn't happen within the proximity of the protest area," said St. Louis County Police Chief Col. Jon Belmar. The shooting scene was in a more secluded area.


In the aftermath of the shooting, county police officials gave differing accounts of what led up to it, saying at one point that it involved two suspects who spontaneously ran from the officer's squad car.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/27/us/ferguson-police-officer-shot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
...............



re 1st .... Have to agree. This action only adds fuel to an already tense situation.

re 2nd .... Again agreed. The purpose of the tags and badge numbers for that matter is to be able to identify an officer in event of a problem.


Belmar told reporters the officer was very close to two suspects when one turned on him with a gun. He said the officer blocked the gun with his arm and then was shot.

Police later said the account of two suspects was incorrect.

The wounded officer is able to speak and told colleagues about the incident, police said.

Here we go again, blame the police for all the ill gotten thieves and criminals of this world.
We have the same in the UK. Bums and criminals who want to do nothing except spread misery and then the police get the blame when they crack down on them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.


The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.


The 5-to-4 decision, Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, came in response to an appeal by the State of Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit removed a convicted murderer, Gregory Thompson, from the state's death row.

After his conviction and the failure of his appeals in state court, Mr. Thompson, with new lawyers, had gone to federal district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his initial lawyers had been constitutionally inadequate. The new lawyers obtained a consultation with a psychologist, who diagnosed Mr. Thompson as schizophrenic.

But the psychologist's report was not included in the file of the habeas corpus petition in district court, which denied the petition. It was not until the Sixth Circuit and then the Supreme Court had also denied his petition, making the case final, that the Sixth Circuit reopened the case, finding that the report was crucial evidence that should have been considered.

In overturning that ruling in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the majority said the appeals court had abused its discretion in an "extraordinary departure from standard appellate procedures." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor joined the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied on rules to the exclusion of justice. Judges need a "degree of discretion, thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears," he said. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined the dissent.

so, If I say that, cigarette smoking can lead to cancer,, would that mean cigarette smoking is to blame for ALL cancer?

I guess, some people will read into what was said, something more general than specific,, but the statement that distrust between citizens and police causes corrosion in the community, is just truth,, and not 'blaming'.....

actually, that is more about whether they have an obligation to protect the (to be read 'each') individual, as opposed to the community

and since they still have it on their squad cars, Im pretty safe with the comment that citizens EXPECT them to do that ,,,,

I bet Uncle Jesse and the Dishonorable Al are getting woodies again!

You obviously know nothing about law enforcement. People who are in a law enforcement related field are a family. They support each other, they are a family. If the head of the Department says it's ok, then its ok. Besides Wilson is the victim here.

I would develop fear too if I had a huge man attacking me inside my patrol car where he could gain access to my gun, back up gun, rifle, Taser, baton, Pepper Spray etc.

why is it certain folks here think about only those TWO black men,, so much more often than even I ( a black person) do?


talk about woodies,,,,

this statement makes ABSOLUTELY no sense

since this man who HAPPENS TO BE A POLICE OFFICER is accused of killing someone in the community

it is in POOR PROFESSIONAL taste to have fellow police officers who are to SERVE that community advertising support for his action,,,while on the job, SERVING THAT COMMUNITY

it has NOTHING to do with whether they can support him, but when and in what manner


as far as what people fear in this country,,,having fearful cops running around is not something I personally wish for,,,,,quite different than a fearful mingler

even I , a woman, though I may be fearful of someone in the situation you describe,, would NOT Be fearful of someone RUNNING Away,, or merely turning around, which is the situation that is actually ACCUSED of having happened,,,,

MB was not killed during that altercation, but rather AFTER IT HAD ENDED and MB had ran away (unarmed obviously)

We need laws and law enforcement, just like we need a certain amount of govt and regulation.

What we don't need is those acting in the capacity of enforcement thinking themselves above it themselves or citizens/voters believing they are

Hang more Military Hardware on them,and the Citizens will look even more like The Enemy!

Smoking and cancer have nothing to do with it and was a bad example to give.
As for the distrust between citizens and the police causing corrosion, I find that a little silly too.
I have no problem with the police whatsoever and I don't know anyone who does.
The only people ever to have problems with the police are bums and criminals, like I said earlier.

The police should pass out food stamps to the protesters. That would make them happy and not want to loot and steal.

You're right, wrap them up in cotton wool and let's all feel sorry for them because they're on welfare and can't be bothered to work for a living.

it was a perfect example, because NOWHERE was a statement made or claim stated that police are to blame for 'all ill gotten' anything

a very specific issue of trust between citizens and cops was addressed, nothing more/nothing less


and because you have no 'problems' with police doesn't mean others haven't , and people PROFILED As criminals who aren't

in communities where the above situation is their REALITY,, a mistrust exists that can corrode the relationship that is meant to be there,,,


your infallible faith in cops, who are also only human, is scary,,,

very bigoted and sad thinking,,,,,,,but I guess people who only think 'criminals' have problems with cops would follow through with other stereotypical assumptions,,,