St Louis protests -- Stockler verdict of not guilty (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

May end up just a local story but with previous events, this could turn bigger again. Offices closing, schools closing, all in fear of protests.

Stockley verdict

 

[Gawain]

When the judge has to start by quoting the code of Judicial Conduct that states an unpopular decision must be made if just, you know the cop is walking.

 

[TobiasFunke]

May end up just a local story but with previous events, this could turn bigger again. Offices closing, schools closing, all in fear of protests.

Stockley verdict

My usual perspective on these is that if you go to trial and get a verdict, defer to that verdict absent extenuating circumstances. The judge/jury hear all the evidence, we don't.

But the way that article explains the case, including the apparent planting of a weapon, and the quotes from the cop/defendant ... geez. Not great. Godspeed, St. Louis folks.

 

[Gawain]

My usual perspective on these is that if you go to trial and get a verdict, defer to that verdict absent extenuating circumstances. The judge/jury hear all the evidence, we don't.

But the way that article explains the case, including the apparent planting of a weapon, and the quotes from the cop/defendant ... geez. Not great. Godspeed, St. Louis folks.

Read the verdict. It's rare to get DNA from a gun, the cop had to touch the gun to safe it and the "Killing the MFer" statement was in the middle of a bunch of other conversation that could have referred to the car, to the suspect, or to anything else. Charges shouldn't have been brought. Lets not forget the guy hit a cop with his car and fled through oncoming traffic at 80+. The partner spotted and identified the suspect's weapon before the pursuit happened.

 

[[icon]]

LEts not get bogged down with Facts when we could be burning down our own neighborhood and stealing ####. Daddy needs some new kicks. 

 

[Gawain]

Judge Tim Wilson throwing shade:

Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Read the verdict. It's rare to get DNA from a gun, the cop had to touch the gun to safe it and the "Killing the MFer" statement was in the middle of a bunch of other conversation that could have referred to the car, to the suspect. Charges shouldn't have been brought. Lets not forget the guy hit a cop with his car and fled through oncoming traffic at 80+. The partner spotted and identified the suspect's weapon before the pursuit happened.

I'm reading up now, but even that's not a substitute for hearing all the evidence like a judge or jury would.  Which is why I usually defer to their judgment over my own. But it seems pretty clear that charges were justified here, at a minimum.  And I'm glad there were already damages awarded to the victim's family and that the cop is no longer on the force, hopefully that stems a little bit of the anger in the community.

Fleeing isn't relevant, as he as no longer fleeing when the shooting happened. If a cop's not in danger he shouldn't shoot. And a policy that allows a cop and his partner to inspect the scene of their own shooting is probably one that we need to change.  Once they establish that there's no longer an imminent threat to them or to other people they should rope off the area and wait for someone else.

Hope things stay peaceful tonight.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Judge Tim Wilson throwing shade:

What an incredibly stupid thing for a judge to say. Especially the "urban" part. I can't even come up with a decent reason to add that adjective. If you can conclude that the victim was armed based on the actual evidence presented, fine.  Just say so.  No reason to supplement it with extraneous nonsense that gives people who are already likely to question your judgment good reason to do so.

 

[Gawain]

I'm reading up now, but even that's not a substitute for hearing all the evidence like a judge or jury would.  Which is why I usually defer to their judgment over my own. But it seems pretty clear that charges were justified here, at a minimum.  And I'm glad there were already damages awarded to the victim's family and that the cop is no longer on the force, hopefully that stems a little bit of the anger in the community.

Fleeing isn't relevant, as he as no longer fleeing when the shooting happened. If a cop's not in danger he shouldn't shoot. And a policy that allows a cop and his partner to inspect the scene of their own shooting is probably one that we need to change.  Once they establish that there's no longer an imminent threat to them or to other people they should rope off the area and wait for someone else.

Hope things stay peaceful tonight.

The striking of a police officer, the flight and the absence of a chance for clear reflection is absolutely relevant to the first-degree murder charge. First-degree requires premeditation. Tough to premeditate when you're driving 85+ and concerned about being shot.

Were damages awarded, or did "the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners paid a $900,000 settlement to Autumn Smith?"

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-judge-sets-million-bail-for-former-st-louis/article_ae75c9ea-3fbe-5928-b13d-5ab5eecb6e8b.html

 

[matttyl]

What an incredibly stupid thing for a judge to say. Especially the "urban" part. I can't even come up with a decent reason to add that adjective. If you can conclude that the victim was armed based on the actual evidence presented, fine.  Just say so.  No reason to supplement it with extraneous nonsense that gives people who are already likely to question your judgment good reason to do so.

To differentiate him from other types heroine dealers?  Maybe heroine deals in the 'burbs don't carry guns?  I don't know this particular story all that well, but isn't an "urban heroine dealer" exactly what this case is about?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The striking of a police officer, the flight and the absence of a chance for clear reflection is absolutely relevant to the first-degree murder charge. First-degree requires premeditation. Tough to premeditate when you're driving 85+ and concerned about being shot.

Were damages awarded, or did "the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners paid a $900,000 settlement to Autumn Smith?"

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-judge-sets-million-bail-for-former-st-louis/article_ae75c9ea-3fbe-5928-b13d-5ab5eecb6e8b.html

He wasn't driving 85 miles an hour when he shot the guy.  You don't have to premeditate for a certain amount of time before you shoot in order to be convicted.

You're right, I shouldn't have phrased in a way that implied there was a court judgment against the cop. Underlying point is the same though- hopefully the money and the fact that this guy isn't a cop any more will help mitigate some of the anger.

 

[Gawain]

You don't have to premeditate for a certain amount of time before you shoot in order to be convicted.

Agreed, but as is stated in the decision, Deliberation is defined as “cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief.”

Absent the weather, where was any time for cool reflection found?

 

[TobiasFunke]

To differentiate him from other types heroine dealers?  Maybe heroine deals in the 'burbs don't carry guns?  I don't know this particular story all that well, but isn't an "urban heroine dealer" exactly what this case is about?

No, it was about whether a cop who killed a guy committed a crime when he did so. Dealing heroin isn't punishable by death without due process.

What does that sentence accomplish for the judge? I think it makes it look like the actual evidence that the guy was armed was weak and he felt the need to supplement it, which is weak and suggests prejudice. You want people to believe you came into the case with a clear head and no biases, and saying that you assumed the victim was armed because he was an "urban heroin dealer" does exactly the opposite.  And of course "urban" brings up a racial component- even if the judge wasn't using it as a wink to his race, he should know that the word is often used that way (not even necessarily in a derogatory way- see "urban contemporary" music) and show a little discretion. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Donkey Derp]

LEts not get bogged down with Facts when we could be burning down our own neighborhood and stealing ####. Daddy needs some new kicks. 

Even impending hurricanes can't stop the opportunity for free shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHntsxoguHM

 

[TobiasFunke]

Agreed, but as is stated in the decision, Deliberation is defined as “cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief.”

Absent the weather, where was any time for cool reflection found?

That would depend on the evidence. It looks like his partner went to the car before he did, so maybe then? I dunno, like I said I defer to the court that's heard all the evidence and can evaluate state of mind much better than we can.  But I think that's the sort of thing that should be evaluated at trial. I understood you to be saying that the fleeing/chase was a reason that this should never have gone to trial in the first place, which is a different thing. I disagree with that. I don't know nearly enough to disagree with the verdict.

 

[matttyl]

No, it was about whether a cop who killed a guy committed a crime when he did so. Dealing heroin isn't punishable by death without due process.

What does that sentence accomplish for the judge? I think it makes it look like the actual evidence that the guy was armed was weak and he felt the need to supplement it, which is weak and suggests prejudice. You want people to believe you came into the case with a clear head and no biases, and saying that you assumed the victim was armed because he was an "urban heroin dealer" does exactly the opposite.  And of course "urban" brings up a racial component- even if the judge wasn't using it as a wink to his race, he should know that the word is often used that way (not even necessarily in a derogatory way- see "urban contemporary" music) and show a little discretion. Just my opinion, of course.

Sorry, I mean isn't "urban heroine dealer" what the statement (not case specifically) was about.  The judge was in fact making a statement about a heroine dealer from a city, or urban locale? 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sorry, I mean isn't "urban heroine dealer" what the statement (not case specifically) was about.  The judge was in fact making a statement about a heroine dealer from a city, or urban locale? 

The entire sentence is unnecessary, but the adjective in particular was pretty silly IMO. I'm sure the guy was wearing a shirt too, why not describe him as a "green-shirted heroin dealer"?

It's pointless and needlessly inflammatory. If your argument to support your conclusion that a guy was armed isn't persuasive enough without describing him as an "urban heroin dealer," then it's probably not a well-founded conclusion. Again, just my opinion.  After all, he's the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.

Also it's "heroin"

 

[matttyl]

The entire sentence is unnecessary, but the adjective in particular was pretty silly IMO. I'm sure the guy was wearing a shirt too, why not describe him as a "green-shirted heroin dealer"?

It's pointless and needlessly inflammatory. If your argument to support your conclusion that a guy was armed isn't persuasive enough without describing him as an "urban heroin dealer," then it's probably not a well-founded conclusion. Again, just my opinion.  After all, he's the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.

Also it's "heroin"

Yes, sorry - heroin.  I'm a rural white guy. 

Anyway, now "urban" is inflammatory?  Really?  Saying he was wearing a green shirt tells us nothing about him.  Saying that not only was he a heroin dealer, he's an urban one at that (would you rather him have said "inner city", or would that have been inflammatory as well?) gives us specific relevant details about the situation. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes, sorry - heroin.  I'm a rural white guy. 

Anyway, now "urban" is inflammatory?  Really?  Saying he was wearing a green shirt tells us nothing about him.  Saying that not only was he a heroin dealer, he's an urban one at that (would you rather him have said "inner city", or would that have been inflammatory as well?) gives us specific relevant details about the situation. 

They're not really relevant details, that's my point.  If there wasn't already sufficient evidence that the guy was carrying a gun to validate the defense's case, the fact that the victim was an "urban heroin dealer" shouldn't push them over the top. Just like if you kill a guy and you claim the victim had a gun as part of your case for self-defense, it shouldn't really matter if your victim was from Texas or loves Toby Keith or some other thing that might make it statistically more likely that he was armed but isn't really relevant to your particular case.

Context is what makes something inflammatory, not a word by itself. Like I said, it's often used to describe the black community. If you're using it to describe a style of music preferred by black people, not really a problem at all IMO. If you're using it to help explain to a community already deeply skeptical of law enforcement why a cop isn't gonna be convicted for killing a guy, perhaps a little more problematic IMO.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This blows. I was still considering getting tickets to the U2 show tomorrow, but no way am I going to downtown St Louis this weekend.  Cripes. 

 

[Zow]

I'm reading up now, but even that's not a substitute for hearing all the evidence like a judge or jury would.  Which is why I usually defer to their judgment over my own.

I want to kiss you.  Seriously. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

The entire sentence is unnecessary, but the adjective in particular was pretty silly IMO. I'm sure the guy was wearing a shirt too, why not describe him as a "green-shirted heroin dealer"?

It's pointless and needlessly inflammatory. If your argument to support your conclusion that a guy was armed isn't persuasive enough without describing him as an "urban heroin dealer," then it's probably not a well-founded conclusion. Again, just my opinion.  After all, he's the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.

Also it's "heroin"

Maybe it has something to do with heroin being a huge rural issue now too. Articles like this pop up all over. Maybe in rural areas they are far less likely to carry weapons. 

Seems kind of stupid to latch onto that part of it. To use your own logic, if your argument needs to focus on digging for hidden agendas and meanings, maybe your argument kind of sucks?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

To differentiate him from other types heroine dealers?  Maybe heroine deals in the 'burbs don't carry guns?  I don't know this particular story all that well, but isn't an "urban heroine dealer" exactly what this case is about?

Jane Austen was never armed.  Though I suppose she resided more in the country(?)

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Am I understanding this right that these cops initially shot at the suspect in public simply because he was fleeing a drug deal?  Is that a common practice?  

 

[Gawain]

Am I understanding this right that these cops initially shot at the suspect in public simply because he was fleeing a drug deal?  Is that a common practice?  

No. The police tried to stop the individual in a Church's Chicken store. Suspect fled in a car, striking one of the officers. An officer witnessed the suspect holding a firearm as the suspect fled. There was a high speed pursuit (80+ MPH), which lasted three minutes, where the suspect drove into oncoming traffic. After both vehicles were stopped, the police approached the vehicle and demanded the suspect show his hands, while exiting the vehicle. The suspect did not comply. Multiple witnesses heard the police demand the suspect show his hands multiple times. The officer on trial fired five shots, with no pause between them, at the suspect. The bullet wounds were consistent that the suspect was reaching for something on the passenger seat. A pistol was found between the center console and seat.

 

[[icon]]

No. The police tried to stop the individual in a Church's Chicken store. Suspect fled in a car, striking one of the officers. An officer witnessed the suspect holding a firearm as the suspect fled. There was a high speed pursuit (80+ MPH), which lasted three minutes, where the suspect drove into oncoming traffic. After both vehicles were stopped, the police approached the vehicle and demanded the suspect show his hands, while exiting the vehicle. The suspect did not comply. Multiple witnesses heard the police demand the suspect show his hands multiple times. The officer on trial fired five shots, with no pause between them, at the suspect. The bullet wounds were consistent that the suspect was reaching for something on the passenger seat. A pistol was found between the center console and seat.

Don't care, let's burn some ####! 

 

[avoiding injuries]

No. The police tried to stop the individual in a Church's Chicken store. Suspect fled in a car, striking one of the officers. An officer witnessed the suspect holding a firearm as the suspect fled. There was a high speed pursuit (80+ MPH), which lasted three minutes, where the suspect drove into oncoming traffic. After both vehicles were stopped, the police approached the vehicle and demanded the suspect show his hands, while exiting the vehicle. The suspect did not comply. Multiple witnesses heard the police demand the suspect show his hands multiple times. The officer on trial fired five shots, with no pause between them, at the suspect. The bullet wounds were consistent that the suspect was reaching for something on the passenger seat. A pistol was found between the center console and seat.

Better cases need to be used for these reactions. They're diminishing instances of actual misconduct.  

 

[Gawain]

Better cases need to be used for these reactions. They're diminishing instances of actual misconduct.  

Agreed. The Castile case in MN was egregious. Put all your effort into cases where conduct was indefensible, instead of trying to excuse all police shootings as racially motivated.

 

[lod001]

Don't care, let's burn some ####! 

And get some free shoes.

 

[Christo]

Agreed. The Castile case in MN was egregious. Put all your effort into cases where conduct was indefensible, instead of trying to excuse all police shootings as racially motivated.

Haven't you heard? If a black man is a victim it's always about race.

 

[Dedfin]

Agreed. The Castile case in MN was egregious. Put all your effort into cases where conduct was indefensible, instead of trying to excuse all police shootings as racially motivated.

I doubt anyone posting above would think this.

 

[mr roboto]

I doubt anyone posting above would think this.

This is part of the problem. You've labeled sides immediately. Super unhelpful. 

 

[Dedfin]

This is part of the problem. You've labeled sides immediately. Super unhelpful. 

I didn't label sides immediately.  I have to admit I'm wrong about "anyone" in my above post.  It's not anyone.

 

[mr roboto]

I didn't label sides immediately.  I have to admit I'm wrong about "anyone" in my above post.  It's not anyone.

I read your post as 'the ones defending the cop in this case couldn't possibly find other cases egregious.'  Which is a huge assumption. Like you're either pro-LE or pro-BLM and each case should make you retreat to your side.