Angry St. Louis Police Officers Association Is Angry

Sam Wilkinson

According to a faithful reader, I'm Ordinary Times's "least thoughtful writer." So I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Related Post Roulette

39 Responses

  1. Michael Drew says:

    I would guess police officers so often tell people to get on the ground with their hands behind their heads because they think that is the most unthreatening (peaceful seems maybe a bit beside the point) position a person can adopt. However, I don’t think Wilson instructed him to do that.

    I would say that it’s worth noting that animals and people seek to make themselves bigger and move toward an antagonist when they are trying to be threatening in order to scare a threat away. The intent of having hands up is absolutely meant to show surrender, but the effect, we shouldn’t assume I don’t think, isn’t necessarily to be in fact make oneself absolutely the least threatening on can possibly be.

    THAT being said, this response from the SLPOA is absolutely over the top and ridiculous. Self-parody. More like SLPOS.Report

  2. Saul Degraw says:

    The SLOPA simply want everyone to shut up and go away and how dare people disagree with the Grand Jury decision and exercise their free speech rights and given by the Constitution. They are showing their anti-civil liberty tendencies.Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    At the risk of being a killjoy, I’m not certain that the SLPOA is really a “thing”. The press release seemed so absurdly unprofessional that I struggle to imagine it was penned by even a quasi-professional organization. Searching for the group turns up a bunch of articles related to today’s actions by the Rams, some completely unrelated groups with similar names, a FaceBook page that doesn’t seem real, and links to Jeff Roorda. Roorda appears to be a local politician who was once a police officer before being fired and may or may not be an officer elsewhere in Missouri.

    It occurs to me that he may be the only — or perhaps one of a very small few — member of the SLPOA.Report

    • Sam Wilkinson in reply to Kazzy says:

      They’ve got an office, for whatever that’s worth.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        That address is also associated with the St. Louis Police Veteran’s Association ( which seems like a far more “real” organization.

        Again, I’m not trying to be a killjoy. What Roorda said here is pure asshattery and would be hilarious if it wasn’t also dangerous. I’m just not sure that this statement represents the beliefs of anyone other than himself. I do not intent to make a “It’s just a few bad apples and really the police in general and St. Louis police in particular are really just swell” argument. I just think this particular bit of absurdity might be trolling and our energy and outrage should be directed at more worthy targets.Report

      • Sam Wilkinson in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:


        I’m with you. This guy might have decided to ride a wave.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        The Facebook page is actually pretty funny as most of the activity on it seems to be people calling out Roorda. Whoops!Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Kazzy says:

      @kazzy I think I agree. I thought the people at this link ( had something on their site or letterhead that they were the local chapter of the FOP, but googling now shows that the local chapter homepage is (St Louis *County* Police Association). SLPOA may have been a quasi troll the whole time.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Kolohe says:


        A bit more research tells me that this guy isn’t a troll as he proposed legislation that would make private any information related to police shootings that didn’t go to trial. So he seems VERY serious about protecting cops at any and all costs. He just doesn’t seem to have much support or represent a legitimate organization.Report

      • Chris in reply to Kolohe says:

        He is definitely not a troll. He’s been front and center on the police side of this since August, and is good buds with Nixon, who campaigned for him this fall.

        And lest there be any mistake, he’s a Democrat.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Kolohe says:

        “Troll” in the sense that he calls himself the SLPOA, when he really speaks for no one but himself. It’s as if you called yourself the New York Preschool Educational Association.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Kolohe says:

        Wait… @mike-schilling … are you saying I *shouldn’t* be calling myself that? But all these business cards…Report

  4. Stillwater says:

    Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours.

    Not an empty threat given the incident causing this little ruckus.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Stillwater says:

      Shooting a man is protected by the First Amendment? News to me.Report

    • Your Big Mouth in reply to Stillwater says:

      You want to ‘Exercise’ your rights but disregard others. Trust me I know, I have police in the family and the stories around the dinner table about how many timeS you look right past a person’s rights is enough to make me sick. Sure the bad guy gets a free-ride too often. But you are training professionals that should know better. You want to ‘Exercise Your Rights?’, how about exercising the oath you took and do the right thing, not the EASY thing.

      EMPTY THREAT? It is big mouths like you with your THREATS and actions that causeD this in the first place. PLEASE GO AWAY!Report

  5. Snatch says:

    Regarding Mike Brown giving up in the most peaceful position, you must have ignored all evidence and missed the other part of the statement:

    Five members of the Rams entered the field today exhibiting the “hands-up-don’t-shoot” pose that has been adopted by protestors who accused Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson of murdering Michael Brown. The gesture has become synonymous with assertions that Michael Brown was innocent of any wrongdoing and attempting to surrender peacefully when Wilson, according to some now-discredited witnesses, gunned him down in cold blood.
    SLPOA Business Manager Jeff Roorda said, “now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson’s account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eye-witness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again.”

    It’s your word (the same as a handful of now-discredited “eyewitnesses” who read it on their Facebook News Feed) against his word (corroborated by every shred of evidence and credible eyewitness testimony). His word wins.Report

    • Sam Wilkinson in reply to Snatch says:

      Sixteen witnesses said his hands were up. Two didn’t.Report

      • aaron david in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        I find it fascinating that when an African American man is accused of a violent crime, we are told that witnesses are often mistaken and when it is a while police officer, “Sixteen witnesses said his hands were up. Two didn’t.”Report

      • Chris in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        We have a long history of dismissing the testimony of black witnesses as unreliable. It wasn’t by accident that the tape of the white construction workers caused such a stir on both “sides” of the case.Report

      • aaron david in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        So, heads I win, tails you loose?Report

      • Troublesome Frog in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        I’m not sure how the fact that witnesses make mistakes should adjust our heuristic here. My baselines assumption is that the thing more witnesses agree on is more likely to be true, all else held equal.

        So let’s introduce the fact that witnesses lie and make mistakes. How should it change my weighting of the accounts? Should it invert the logic so we go with whatever version of the story the fewest witnesses agree to? Or is it just a background fact that likely affects both sets of witnesses roughly equally? I’m going with the latter.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Snatch says:

      His word wins.

      Man, with all the impressive work you did in the lead up I was hoping for something more robust than this. Frankly, I’m disappointed and you should be ashamed of yourself.Report

    • greginak in reply to Snatch says:

      Umm no snatch. It is deeply inaccurate to say all the evidence supported Wilson. Not even close. You can argue there was evidence on both sides but to say all the “credible” evidence supported Wilson is cow poo. Unless you define “credible” as evidence that supports Wilson.Report

    • Barry in reply to Snatch says:

      “It’s your word (the same as a handful of now-discredited “eyewitnesses” who read it on their Facebook News Feed) against his word (corroborated by every shred of evidence and credible eyewitness testimony). His word wins.”

      Actually, wrong. It wasn’t even corroborated by every shred of the evidence and testimony which the defense lawyer prosecutor allowed the grand jury to see.Report

    • zic in reply to Snatch says:

      @chris did you see the new recommendations for eye witness testimony?

      I’m particularly interested in recording the certainty at the time the testimony was collected.Report

      • Chris in reply to zic says:

        I did. I wonder to what extent they’ll be followed. They certainly make police work more difficult, and the police are the final arbiters of all of this stuff.Report

  6. Mike Schilling says:

    “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and that means we can make those thugs STFU.”Report

  7. Damon says:

    Cops don’t like it when mundanes get uppity. Cops think they should just keep their place and stay silent. After all, safety of the cops is paramount.Report

  8. Chris says:

    Roorda has also been pushing for a law that would allow police departments to not release the names of officers who kill people, and has fought against the use of cameras to record police. He also defended the officer in this video (warning, it’s disturbing) by saying that the victim “lunged” at the officer. If you can bring yourself to watch the video, you will see how utterly absurd that is.

    So according to his moral calculus, a few guys holding their hands up at a football game is much, much worse than cops attacking and killing people and suffering no consequences, not even the release of their names.Report

  9. Jaybird says:

    For the record, I make sure that I don’t support the NFL because of all of the domestic violence. It has nothing to do with not supporting the people who were protesting the shooting.Report

  10. zic says:

    I love this. Absolute best advertising in the world to turn this into a big deal. Such a simple act of civil disobedience, hands up don’t shoot. Anyone can do it, anywhere; without speaking a word, communicate so much. It reminds me of holding the stork pose in the public square in White Lotus by John Hersey.

    Thank you, disgraced Officer Joorga. You’re an inspiring fascist.Report

  11. Kolohe says:

    This is the first time the SLPOA has engaged in enhanced jackassery (though they have apparently pulled their initial “Ferguson Response” from back in August)

    They also didn’t say anything when the Skin’s defensive backs did the same thing exiting the tunnel at their home opener back in September.Report

  12. dragonfrog says:

    I found this sentence to be almost charming in its oblivious awfulness:

    I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do.

    IOW: Remember, we are white and affluent, and those people aren’t – so before you get all outraged about the murder of someone who didn’t even have very much money, for crying out loud, maybe give a little thought to which side your bread is buttered on.

    (SLPOA logo at the bottom of the page: A police badge surrounded by the words “blood money is still money, ya buncha ingrates”)Report

  13. ScarletNumbers says:

    The comment about taking the SLPOA’s side because they have money to spend is so tone deaf that The Onion would reject it for being ridiculous.Report