Current Events > The judge who acquitted Stockley gives his reasoning (cop who shot black man)

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://nypost.com/2017/09/16/why-judge-acquitted-st-louis-cop-of-first-degree-murder/

Wilson also noted none of the officers standing next to the vehicle were called to testify that Stockley planted a gun. And he recounted witness testimony that the absence of a person’s DNA on a gun does not mean that person did not touch the gun.

“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,” the judge wrote.

The victim's DNA was obtained from a heroin bag in his car. It would indeed be unusual for a heroin dealer to be unarmed during a transaction.

Smith drove at speeds of up to 87 miles per hour on wet roads, endangering other drivers and pedestrians. About 45 seconds before the chase ended, police dashcam video captured Stockley saying, “going to kill this (expletive), don’t you know it.”

“People say all kinds of things in the heat of the moment or while in stressful situations, and whether Stockley’s statement … constituted a real threat of action or was a means of releasing tension has to be judged by his subsequent conduct,” the judge wrote.
The court does not believe the officer’s conduct following the end of the pursuit is consistent with the conduct of a person intentionally killing another person unlawfully, Wilson wrote. He noted testimony by the state’s witnesses that Stockley ordered Smith to open the door and show his hands.

It was not until 15 seconds after Stockley arrived the driver’s side door that he took his service revolver out of its holster and fired several shots.

The prosecution failed to provide any conclusive evidence that the gun was planted. The prosecution's entire case centered around this issue.

Bump

Was there more rioting last night? I know the first 2 nights were pretty bad.
---

Expected a lack of evidence. Got it.

Based on everything I have read of the case, even though I personally believe that the cop planted the gun, the judge made the right call.
---

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?
---

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Before when cops weren't even getting indicted it was a powerful signal that someone could watch videos of cops shooting unarmed people and not caring. But once you bring them to trial, you have to prove your case. That's hard to do, and good defense attorneys make a lot of money injecting doubt into airtight cases.
---

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Before when cops weren't even getting indicted it was a powerful signal that someone could watch videos of cops shooting unarmed people and not caring. But once you bring them to trial, you have to prove your case. That's hard to do, and good defense attorneys make a lot of money injecting doubt into airtight cases.

OJ Simpson is a textbook example.
---

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

because he's black and a cop killed him apparently
---

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

because the pattern of black people being shot by police under sketchy circumstances should be upsetting to anyone.
---

Ammonitida posted...

Wilson also noted none of the officers standing next to the vehicle were called to testify that Stockley planted a gun. And he recounted witness testimony that the absence of a person’s DNA on a gun does not mean that person did not touch the gun.

“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,” the judge wrote.

That's a shame. Set free because of a lack of evidence, but the reason then they base their reasoning on speculation. Not only is it an "anomaly" that this guy didn't have a gun, but it's assumed that he had that exact gun. Officer could have planted any type of gun and it was going to be assumed to be this person's.
---

That_Happened posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Wilson also noted none of the officers standing next to the vehicle were called to testify that Stockley planted a gun. And he recounted witness testimony that the absence of a person’s DNA on a gun does not mean that person did not touch the gun.

“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,” the judge wrote.

That's a shame. Set free because of a lack of evidence, but the reason then they base their reasoning on speculation. Not only is it an "anomaly" that this guy didn't have a gun, but it's assumed that he had that exact gun. Officer could have planted any type of gun and it was going to be assumed to be this person's.

It's exactly that the cop COULD have. You want prosecutions? Stop supporting prosecutors who throw such B.S. charges at cops? Seriously? Planting a gun with zero evidence? What did you expect?
---

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over more police murder?

FTFY
---

Sir Will posted...

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over more police murder?

FTFY

There was no evidence of murder.
---

Darksaber310 posted...

It's exactly that the cop COULD have. You want prosecutions? Stop supporting prosecutors who throw such B.S. charges at cops? Seriously? Planting a gun with zero evidence? What did you expect?

I would expect for there not to be a different set of rules for police than for citizens. If a citizen was caught on camera saying "I'm gonna go kill this cop" it would be damning. But a cop says it and it's "Oh he was just in the heat of the moment at the time, it doesn't mean anything."
---

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.
---

This is how this stuff works...

1. Black guy gets shot by the cops.
2. Public gets mad no matter what without knowing any facts and riots or throw a shit storm politically.
3. Politicians dont want to touch it because they are either wrongly condemning the cops or ignoring a huge part of society and without knowing what happened why take the risk one way or the other.
4. Politicians kick it to the SA's office so they can say, "the justice system will take care of it."
5. SA's office looks at case and determines if they can bring charges. Not bringing charges would result in riots/political rage no matter how little evidence they have so if in doubt they bring charges on any evidence they can.
6. At court they can't win on bogus charges so cop is acquitted. Public rages. Politicians and SA can say they did their part and blame it on the courts.
7. Black guy still dead. Cops career ruined. Everyone mad. No one ever knows what actually happened.

I don't think anyone wants this cycle to keep happening but its hard to see it going a different way in most cases.
---

whitelytning posted...

1. Black guy gets shot by the cops.
2. Public gets mad no matter what without knowing any facts and riots or throw a s*** storm politically.
3. Politicians dont want to touch it because they are either wrongly condemning the cops or ignoring a huge part of society and without knowing what happened why take the risk one way or the other.
....

Most time unarmed black people are killed there are no riots. And this cop lied about what happen, and literally disobeyed orders. But he is to be trusted when he kills someone.
---

lilORANG posted...

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

because the pattern of black people being shot by police under sketchy circumstances should be upsetting to anyone.

Not if they're drug dealers or blatant criminals overall. Which is the case in most, if not all police shootings.
---

cjsdowg posted...

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.

You should watch 12 Angry Men
---

cjsdowg posted...

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.

Hearsay can't be used as evidence. What is wrong with you?
---

thelovefist posted...

cjsdowg posted...

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.

Hearsay can't be used as evidence. What is wrong with you?

1. an audio recording during the event isn't hearsay
2. hearsay only applies to absolving testimony. so goes the saying "anything you say can and will be used against you" but it cannot be used to acquit you.
3. not sure what all the evidence is, but it sounds more likely that the gun was picked up by the officer and placed back by accident, and not like he was carrying around firearm contraband to specifically frame people with
---

lilORANG posted...

cjsdowg posted...

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.

You should watch 12 Angry Men

I like that movie, but the story wouldn't have worked if the boy said "I'm going to kill you" to a police officer. Then it would have been more than enough evidence to convict.
---

I still just don't understand why a police officer who was told to stop carrying a personal firearm and openly disobeyed orders was not instantly fired.
---

Bio1590 posted...

I still just don't understand why a police officer who was told to stop carrying a personal firearm and openly disobeyed orders was not instantly fired.

Because unions have a shit-ton of power even in right-to-work states, and government employee unions are the most powerful. Of these, police unions are head-and-shoulders above all.
---

cjsdowg posted...

lilORANG posted...

There was reasonable doubt. It's as simple as that.

Yeah when you say point blank you are going to kill someone , then you kill there there is so much doubt.

Read the rest of the article. He tried to deescalate the situation before firing the fatal rounds. He didn't just "execute" him outright. His prior comment during the high speed chase could easily be argued as a heat of the moment type a thing.

Facts are, the prosecution failed to present any tangible evidence that the gun was planted. Their whole case hinged on this gun and the vitcim's lack of DNA being found on it. I was able to dig up a few true crime cases where a person unquestionably handled a deadly weapon (based on other evidence), but did not leave any identifiable DNA on said weapon (one case had a mixture of DNA from two unidentified males that excluded the suspect). Thus, the prosecution's contention that this lack of DNA proved the gun was planted is very weak circumstantial evidence.

What both sides agree on is that the victim was engaged in a heroin deal just before the high speed chase, and we all can admit that it would be highly unlikely that such a man would be unarmed during a transaction involving drugs like this.


Whatever the truth, the prosecution presented a very weak case.

I would also like to add;

There was a man who was set to be executed, but recently had it stayed because DNA on the knife excluded him (this story was posted here several times).

After reviewing the court documents, I'm 100% convinced that he burglarized that woman's home and used that knife to stab her to death. His car was found in possession of her stolen items and multiple witnesses including his ex-girlfriend gave incriminating testimony. He also had a history of violence and burglary.

He left no DNA on the murder weapon, but he certainly handled it.

cjsdowg posted...

whitelytning posted...

1. Black guy gets shot by the cops.
2. Public gets mad no matter what without knowing any facts and riots or throw a s*** storm politically.
3. Politicians dont want to touch it because they are either wrongly condemning the cops or ignoring a huge part of society and without knowing what happened why take the risk one way or the other.
....

Most time unarmed black people are killed there are no riots. And this cop lied about what happen, and literally disobeyed orders. But he is to be trusted when he kills someone.

That was not established at trial.

whitelytning posted...

This is how this stuff works...

1. Black guy gets shot by the cops.
2. Public gets mad no matter what without knowing any facts and riots or throw a shit storm politically.
3. Politicians dont want to touch it because they are either wrongly condemning the cops or ignoring a huge part of society and without knowing what happened why take the risk one way or the other.
4. Politicians kick it to the SA's office so they can say, "the justice system will take care of it."
5. SA's office looks at case and determines if they can bring charges. Not bringing charges would result in riots/political rage no matter how little evidence they have so if in doubt they bring charges on any evidence they can.
6. At court they can't win on bogus charges so cop is acquitted. Public rages. Politicians and SA can say they did their part and blame it on the courts.
7. Black guy still dead. Cops career ruined. Everyone mad. No one ever knows what actually happened.

I don't think anyone wants this cycle to keep happening but its hard to see it going a different way in most cases.

Case in point

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nc-cop-charged-shooting-football-player/story?id=20264796

It first sounded like the perfect "breathing while black" case for the left-wing. Black man gets in a car wreck, survives, and then bangs on a woman's door at night apparently asking for help. Woman gets spooked and calls the police. Black man is then shot dead by the white responding officer.

It took two grand juries to obtain an indictment. The first grand jury declined. The trial ended in a hung jury (most in favor of acquittal). He will not be retried.

The white cop was saved by, guess what? A dash cam that recorded the victim inexplicably charging at the officer like a linebacker looking to sack a QB in the superbowl. The cop yells "get down, get down" repeatedly before unleashing.

Why did he charge at the cop? No one knows for sure, but we do know that he sprinted at the cop and presented a threat to his life.

fenderbender321 posted...

Why weren't any of the officers called to testify about the gun?

I think they did, in favor of the cop.

Ammonitida posted...

Read the rest of the article. He tried to deescalate the situation before firing the fatal rounds. He didn't just "execute" him outright. His prior comment during the high speed chase could easily be argued as a heat of the moment type a thing.

Facts are, the prosecution failed to present any tangible evidence that the gun was planted. Their whole case hinged on this gun and the vitcim's lack of DNA being found on it. I was able to dig up a few true crime cases where a person unquestionably handled a deadly weapon (based on other evidence), but did not leave any identifiable DNA on said weapon (one case had a mixture of DNA from two unidentified males that excluded the suspect). Thus, the prosecution's contention that this lack of DNA proved the gun was planted is very weak circumstantial evidence.

What both sides agree on is that the victim was engaged in a heroin deal just before the high speed chase, and we all can admit that it would be highly unlikely that such a man would be unarmed during a transaction involving drugs like this.

The cop broke his own department rules, he disobeyed direct order he lied about the events of that night. But yeah lets give him the benefit of the doubt.
---

cjsdowg posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Read the rest of the article. He tried to deescalate the situation before firing the fatal rounds. He didn't just "execute" him outright. His prior comment during the high speed chase could easily be argued as a heat of the moment type a thing.

Facts are, the prosecution failed to present any tangible evidence that the gun was planted. Their whole case hinged on this gun and the vitcim's lack of DNA being found on it. I was able to dig up a few true crime cases where a person unquestionably handled a deadly weapon (based on other evidence), but did not leave any identifiable DNA on said weapon (one case had a mixture of DNA from two unidentified males that excluded the suspect). Thus, the prosecution's contention that this lack of DNA proved the gun was planted is very weak circumstantial evidence.

What both sides agree on is that the victim was engaged in a heroin deal just before the high speed chase, and we all can admit that it would be highly unlikely that such a man would be unarmed during a transaction involving drugs like this.

The cop broke his own department rules, he disobeyed direct order he lied about the events of that night. But yeah lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

Lied about what exactly?

Ammonitida posted...

Case in point

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nc-cop-charged-shooting-football-player/story?id=20264796

It first sounded like the perfect "breathing while black" case for the left-wing. Black man gets in a car wreck, survives, and then bangs on a woman's door at night apparently asking for help. Woman gets spooked and calls the police. Black man is then shot dead by the white responding officer.

Wow I love the bull shit he defending that murdering cop.

The cop shot him while the was on the ground and stopped EMT from saving his life. The only people who did want.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-sees-dashcam-video-in-police-shooting-of-north-carolina-black-man/

Also running towards someone when you are looking for aid isn't odd. But since he is a black guy people like you assume malice.
---

cjsdowg posted...

The cop broke his own department rules, he disobeyed direct order he lied about the events of that night. But yeah lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he's guilty of breaking department rules, he should be found guilty of breaking department rules and not murder.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

If he's guilty of breaking department rules, he should be found guilty of breaking department rules and not murder.

So you trust someone who would disobey orders ?
---

cjsdowg posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Case in point

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nc-cop-charged-shooting-football-player/story?id=20264796

It first sounded like the perfect "breathing while black" case for the left-wing. Black man gets in a car wreck, survives, and then bangs on a woman's door at night apparently asking for help. Woman gets spooked and calls the police. Black man is then shot dead by the white responding officer.

Wow I love the bull shit he defending that murdering cop.

The cop shot him while the was on the ground and stopped EMT from saving his life. The only people who did want.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-sees-dashcam-video-in-police-shooting-of-north-carolina-black-man/

Also running towards someone when you are looking for aid isn't odd. But since he is a black guy people like you assume malice.

The cop shot him when they were both on the ground. He had every reason to believe that the victim intended to inflict serious bodily harm. That much is clear from the dashcam.

But LMAO at you thinking he was running at him like Usain Bolt for "help"!! You have zero credibility. This was likely suicide by cop. Failed to kill himself in a car wreck, tried and succeeded with a cop. He had recently broken up with his girlfriend.

Facts are, the cop responded to a suspected burglary only to immediately be confronted by a man who sprinted at him without saying a word. Cop is heard yelling get "down get down" to no avail. Justified, and the prosecution was malicious.

cjsdowg posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

If he's guilty of breaking department rules, he should be found guilty of breaking department rules and not murder.

So you trust someone who would disobey orders ?

In general? no

Over a heroin dealer? Yes.

Over a heroin dealer who led a 2 minute police car chase? Yes yes and yes.

The "I'm going to kill this guy" comment isn't meaningfully different from the shit people say when someone cuts them off on the freeway.

There are a lot of cases you can point to where people were shot for breathing while black, but this isn't one of them.
---

cjsdowg posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

If he's guilty of breaking department rules, he should be found guilty of breaking department rules and not murder.

So you trust someone who would disobey orders ?

What did he lie about? You still haven't answered.

ChromaticAngel posted...

cjsdowg posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

If he's guilty of breaking department rules, he should be found guilty of breaking department rules and not murder.

So you trust someone who would disobey orders ?

In general? no

Over a heroin dealer? Yes.

Over a heroin dealer who led a 2 minute police car chase? Yes yes and yes.

The "I'm going to kill this guy" comment isn't meaningfully different from the shit people say when someone cuts them off on the freeway.

There are a lot of cases you can point to where people were shot for breathing while black, but this isn't one of them.

Name those cases.

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

It really helps to familiarize yourself with the subject matter.
The biggest issue people, myself included, have is that this psychopath was carrying his personal firearm (AK-47, the fuck?!?!?!) with him which was absolutely against dept policy. The dept was well aware of it and did nothing.
It's less about shooting the guy, more about he did it with a weapon he was not authorized to carry. It's about holding him AND the dept accountable. Police officers do NOT get to pick and choose what rules they follow.
Well in theory, in practice they do wtf ever they want.

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.
---

The_Russians posted...

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

It really helps to familiarize yourself with the subject matter.
The biggest issue people, myself included, have is that this psychopath was carrying his personal firearm (AK-47, the fuck?!?!?!) with him which was absolutely against dept policy. The dept was well aware of it and did nothing.
It's less about shooting the guy, more about he did it with a weapon he was not authorized to carry. It's about holding him AND the dept accountable. Police officers do NOT get to pick and choose what rules they follow.
Well in theory, in practice they do wtf ever they want.

And I agree, he should be punished for illegal possession of firearms.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.

Castile was unjustified.

Garner was not shot.

Tamir was justified given the circumstances.

ChromaticAngel posted...

The_Russians posted...

Flasbangs posted...

Why would people riot over the death of a drug dealer?

It really helps to familiarize yourself with the subject matter.
The biggest issue people, myself included, have is that this psychopath was carrying his personal firearm (AK-47, the fuck?!?!?!) with him which was absolutely against dept policy. The dept was well aware of it and did nothing.
It's less about shooting the guy, more about he did it with a weapon he was not authorized to carry. It's about holding him AND the dept accountable. Police officers do NOT get to pick and choose what rules they follow.
Well in theory, in practice they do wtf ever they want.

And I agree, he should be punished for illegal possession of firearms.

And yet, nothing happened. Again.

Ammonitida posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.

Castile was unjustified.

Garner was not shot.

Tamir was justified given the circumstances.

Garner was not shot but he was killed and mostly for "breathing while black"

Shooting someone with a fake weapon is justifiable in some cases but not considering the circumstances of Tamir rice where the police showed up and gunned him down immediately. He was not even offered a chance to surrender. They just showed up and killed him.
---

Ammonitida posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.

Castile was unjustified.

Garner was not shot.

Tamir was justified given the circumstances.

MN resident here. The Castille case is what changed my stance on the police brutality/BLM issue. They weren't even trying to be transparent or hide their agenda with that case. They moved the goalposts and changed the defense to "oh well he had MARIJUANA in his system! Clearly he was a lunatic and the officer feared for his life so he was justified in his actions!"
Yeah.....that weed wasn't his, was found after the fact, and had fuck all to do with that racist peice of shit pulling him over for NO REASON.

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.

Castile was unjustified.

Garner was not shot.

Tamir was justified given the circumstances.

Garner was not shot but he was killed and mostly for "breathing while black"

Shooting someone with a fake weapon is justifiable in some cases but not considering the circumstances of Tamir rice where the police showed up and gunned him down immediately. He was not even offered a chance to surrender. They just showed up and killed him.

His partner tried to stop the car, but it skidded along the dirt (established by crime scene evidence). At that point the cop had no choice but to confront him at that very close distance. A frame of footage is consistent with the cop's testimony that Tamir lifted up his shirt to retrieve the weapon immediately after the cop exited the vehicle.

Ammonitida posted...

His partner tried to stop the car, but it skidded along the dirt (established by crime scene evidence). At that point the cop had no choice but to confront him at that very close distance.

They were driving on a snowy road/grass in the winter. There was no reason for them to be driving that close to him if they thought he was legitimately armed. If the car skidded it should have been from 100 feet away, not from 5 feet away.
---

The_Russians posted...

Ammonitida posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Name those cases.

Philando Castile
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice

Several others I can't remember right now.

Castile was unjustified.

Garner was not shot.

Tamir was justified given the circumstances.

MN resident here. The Castille case is what changed my stance on the police brutality/BLM issue. They weren't even trying to be transparent or hide their agenda with that case. They moved the goalposts and changed the defense to "oh well he had MARIJUANA in his system! Clearly he was a lunatic and the officer feared for his life so he was justified in his actions!"
Yeah.....that weed wasn't his, was found after the fact, and had fuck all to do with that racist peice of shit pulling him over for NO REASON.

Whose agenda? Many on the right condemned the shooting even after the acquittal. The DailyCaller even ran several articles condemning it.

That_Happened posted...

Ammonitida posted...

His partner tried to stop the car, but it skidded along the dirt (established by crime scene evidence). At that point the cop had no choice but to confront him at that very close distance.

They were driving on a snowy road/grass in the winter. There was no reason for them to be driving that close to him if they thought he was legitimately armed. If the car skidded it should have been from 100 feet away, not from 5 feet away.

It skidded. This was established by crime scene forensics. The skid marks were like 12 feet in length IIRC.