St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson Refuses to Meet With Citizens, Allows St. Louis Police to Cyberstalk Protesters
Mayor apparently fears facing direct questions that St. Louis residents are owed answers to
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department has become a cyberbully, posting information online of protesters
Police attempts to destroy a business with online harassment
Nero fiddles while Rome burns
In a statement issued by the mayor’s office, mayor Lyda Krewson has decided that in lieu of meeting residents for two-way communication regarding protests and police brutality, that she would offer weak, broad responses to many very valid complaints:
While it is nice that she did mention the obvious institutionalized racism and brutality, it’s a far cry from detailed discussions with citizens. She keeps her head in the sand while the St. Louis police run amok and seemingly do what they want. It overlooks a glaring problem: The fact that St. Louis Metropolitan Police cyberbullies people, continues to post personal information online of people who have been arrested, including their home addresses. Edited for protesters’ privacy:
Police defends their harassment, which is causing death threats
When questioned, St. Louis PD replied that they were posting information under the “Sunshine Law” which, according to MO statute 610.100, has these points:
1. (2) “Arrest report”, a record of a law enforcement agency of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident thereto together with the charge therefor;
(4) “Incident report”, a record of a law enforcement agency consisting of the date, time, specific location, name of the victim and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by that agency;
(8) “Nonpublic location”, a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to a dwelling, school, or medical facility.
2. (1) Each law enforcement agency of this state, of any county, and of any municipality shall maintain records of all incidents reported to the agency, investigations and arrests made by such law enforcement agency. All incident reports and arrest reports shall be open records.
(3) If any person is arrested and not charged with an offense against the law within thirty days of the person’s arrest, the arrest report shall thereafter be a closed record except that the disposition portion of the record may be accessed and except as provided in section 610.120.
3. Except as provided in subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this section, if any portion of a record or document of a law enforcement officer or agency, other than an arrest report, which would otherwise be open, contains information that is reasonably likely to pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any victim, witness, undercover officer, or other person; or jeopardize a criminal investigation, including records which would disclose the identity of a source wishing to remain confidential or a suspect not in custody; or which would disclose techniques, procedures or guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, that portion of the record shall be closed and shall be redacted from any record made available pursuant to this chapter.
6. Any person may apply pursuant to this subsection to the circuit court having jurisdiction for an order requiring a law enforcement agency to open incident reports and arrest reports being unlawfully closed pursuant to this section.
What all of the above highlights is that 1.2: arrest reports are to be maintained as public record, and specifies only “detention or confinement incident.” Nothing about personal details, such as home addresses. 1.4 defines incident reports as “date, time, specific location, name of the victim and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident” which again does not specify home address. It then defines in 1.8 a nonpublic location as ” a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to a dwelling…” This too would indicate that home addresses are nonpublic information. 3 points out that the arrest report would remain open, but if any portion “contains information that is reasonably likely to pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any…other person…including records which would disclose the identity of a source wishing to remain confidential or a suspect not in custody…that portion of the record shall be closed and shall be redacted from any record made available pursuant to this chapter.” Clear and present danger would be death threats received by protesters, below. 6 states that any person may apply. The word apply means that the information be requested, not publicly posted. At no other point has this Twitter account posted this kind of information, and is obviously using it to harass protestors, knowing that there are people that would use the information specifically to threaten or cause harm. As a result, a well-known live streamer has received a death threat:
— Rebelutionary Z (@Rebelutionary_Z) September 19, 2017
Dissenting opinions get bullied
Along with this kind of harassment, they have also posted an inflammatory article on a site oriented toward law enforcement with details of a local restaurant owner, who was critical of how the police were handling the situation. But the business always gave uniformed police a 50% discount. Police were trying to disperse protesters by shooting rubber bullets at them, also hitting his employee, and firing teargas at the business. Understandably, the owner was angered. Not only by this, but also by the way that the police were handling the situation right outside his door, so he made a statement about it on Twitter – which was tame compared to what many people say:
The bully police then proceeded to post the article with information about his business, stating “Let’s get the word out that if you bash the police, you won’t be getting our business.” They then posted it to a local police association Facebook page, encouraging people to call and harass the business, as well as their Facebook:
The business is now being called incessantly and getting bad online reviews because an individual dared make a statement against the police department. However, they are also getting a lot of business support from locals for being good guys, because they were very supportive of the protesters’ rights.
These guys are still handing out waters to people even though some young guy in a bandana tried to light their restaurant plants on fire pic.twitter.com/chi49x9FoP
— Versha Sharma (@versharma) September 16, 2017
St. Louis Police Department’s online behavior mirrors their street behavior
This cyberstalking and bullying is a glaring example of how unprofessionally the police in St. Louis City conduct themselves. St. Louis Police Department is very obviously poorly managed and is full of loose cannons who fear no recourse for their actions, because there is no accountability. This is an exact echo of who they are on the streets: Above the law and without direction, intimidating residents out of their place of appointed power. They murder with no recourse. And the mayor? Well, she just sits idly by, avoiding meeting with the residents to discuss this very real and present danger. As she stated in her one-sided statement, she expects, “that the men and women who dutifully serve and protect our city will conduct themselves professionally.” If this is an example of professionalism, especially by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department’s social media face, then the standard is obviously very low. I’ll reiterate what the owner of Pi stated, but a little differently.
Standard operating procedure for @SLMPD, terrorizing our town, hiding behind the keyboard.