Stockley verdict coming down.

[SSGSAD]

I'm still pretty pissed at Rural King, and I DO need some work boots. Who's with me?

I know NOTHING, nothing .....

Please enlighten me .....

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Ok, what is your opinion of the Boston Tea Party? Or all of the shenanigans surrounding the Stamp Act.

Ok. How about a current scenario.

 

[bwframe]

Wow, thugs destroying St Louis is the same as the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok. How about a current scenario.

Generally, IMO, it isn't outside the bounds of reasonableness (if one is subject to an oppressive govt) to deprive those individuals who support and benefit under said oppressive govt. That's as true today as it was in 18th century. Agree or disagree?

 

[OakRiver]

Same here; read the complete document and the judge's reasoning seems pretty reasonable. I had never heard of the case until now.

Here is a link for anyone that wants to read it. https://www.scribd.com/document/358...tockley-found-not-guilty-of-murder#from_embed

Thanks for the link. It was certainly an interesting read. My initial impression is that the prosecution overcharged the Officer and there was a serious lack of evidence for the charges brought (the alleged 5th "kill shot" being unsupported by numerous audio and video sources, the accusation that the firearm was planted was flimsy, the alleged incriminating statement had insufficient context to show any intent, the shot placement being consistent with the deceased reaching for a firearm where one was discovered)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thanks for the link. It was certainly an interesting read. My initial impression is that the prosecution overcharged the Officer and there was a serious lack of evidence for the charges brought (the alleged 5th "kill shot" being unsupported by numerous audio and video sources, the accusation that the firearm was planted was flimsy, the alleged incriminating statement had insufficient context to show any intent, the shot placement being consistent with the deceased reaching for a firearm where one was discovered)

And the gun, that had absolutely none of the deceased' DNA, only the officer's? Or his return to his car to retrieve an item we never get a glimpse of? Esp, when one considers that the officer had no problem carrying unauthorized weapons in his car. That seems a little more than flimsy. The defense didn't prove their case, but let's not default to that meaning the evidence used against him was inconsequential.

 

[OakRiver]

And the gun, that had absolutely none of the deceased' DNA, only the officer's? Or his return to his car to retrieve an item we never get a glimpse of? Esp, when one considers that the officer had no problem carrying unauthorized weapons in his car. That seems a little more than flimsy. The defense didn't prove their case, but let's not default to that meaning the evidence used against him was inconsequential.

All of which was covered in the Court's ruling.

 

[Kutnupe14]

All of which was covered in the Court's ruling.

The judge said he "agonized" over his decision. That indicates to me, the evidence presented by either side was a tad more substantial. Certainly more than flimsy. Unless you believe people agonize over easy decisions.

 

[bwframe]

The judge said he "agonized" over his decision. That indicates to me, the evidence presented by either side was a tad more substantial. Certainly more than flimsy. Unless you believe people agonize over easy decisions.

Could be the judge agonized over the decision knowing the only decision he could make would result in rioting and fueling the professional antagonizers.

 

[OakRiver]

The judge said he "agonized" over his decision. That indicates to me, the evidence presented by either side was a tad more substantial. Certainly more than flimsy. Unless you believe people agonize over easy decisions.

The evidence that the firearm had been planted was absolutely flimsy as the officer's clothing was insufficient to conceal the firearm, there were a number of other officers in the area that would have easily witnessed a firearm being planted, there were numerous cameras at the scene, and the finger prints from the officer could be explained by his making the weapon safe. The fact that the entry wounds present in the deceased indicated that he was turning towards the location that the weapon was discovered are further evidence that the accusation of planting the firearm was flimsy.

So yes in terms of the firearm charge it was flimsy as I originally stated. So was the decision to prosecute based on a statement with no context (and the judge noted that the alleged context was at odds with the Defendant's behavior once the chase has ceased and he approached the vehicle), and allegations of a "kill shot" which was wholly unsupported by any evidence.

I see that the in the linked document the actual phrase used was that"Agonizingly, this Court has poured over the evidence again and again". That means that the Court took great effort to review the evidence fully and impartially as required. It does not support your interpretation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The evidence that the firearm had been planted was absolutely flimsy as the officer's clothing was insufficient to conceal the firearm, there were a number of other officers in the area that would have easily witnessed a firearm being planted, there were numerous cameras at the scene, and the finger prints from the officer could be explained by his making the weapon safe. The fact that the entry wounds present in the deceased indicated that he was turning towards the location that the weapon was discovered are further evidence that the accusation of planting the firearm was flimsy.

So yes in terms of the firearm charge it was flimsy as I originally stated. So was the decision to prosecute based on a statement with no context (and the judge noted that the alleged context was at odds with the Defendant's behavior once the chase has ceased and he approached the vehicle), and allegations of a "kill shot" which was wholly unsupported by any evidence.

I see that the in the linked document the actual phrase used was that"Agonizingly, this Court has poured over the evidence again and again". That means that the Court took great effort to review the evidence fully and impartially as required. It does not support your interpretation.

A gun that has the officer's DNA, but none of the DNA of the suspect (Smith). A nugget of information held by the city but not turned over to the attorney's representing the Smith's family. After Smith's body is pulled from the vehicle.... and AFTER Stockley began messing around in his car, he then gets into the vehicle Smith, was driving and does what? What reason would he have to get into an unoccupied car? To retrieve the weapon? Because it's a threat to whom? Should you kinda want to preserve evidences and let a tech take care of the scene? Stockley says he was getting medical treatment supplies for Smith, and yet he doesn't provide any aid. So what was he getting from the car?
And believe it or not, when people get shot, it actually hurts, and people don't sit still. The gun, which amazingly Smith never decided to grab prior to when Stockley say he reached for it, was found in-between the center console and passenger seat. Stockley fired from the driver's side. Do you think, that just maybe, a person getting shot, would turn away from where incoming rounds are originating (i.e. towards the driver's side)? Its not flimsy at all. When officers don't follow certain protocols, i.e. securing scenes, preserving evidence, abiding by departmental policy, shenanigans is often thought of.

So to recap:
-Stockley has one unsanctioned department weapon, is it beyond belief that he would have another?
-Stockley shoots Smith, because he say Smith was reaching for a gun
-Stockley returns to his vehicle, and rummages around for something, something that unfortunately we never are able to see.
-Stockley says he returned to his vehicle to get medical supplies to render first aid to Smith
-Smith is removed from the vehicle
-Stockley does not, nor even attempt, to render first aid to Stockley
-Stockley, wearing no gloves, enters the vehicle and "finds" gun, despite there being no reason to do so.
-Fire arrives and actually does render aid to Smith
-Subsequent testing reveals no DNA from Smith on the gun, but DNA from Stockley is present.
He may not have planted a gun, but it not beyond belief, to believe that he could have and had the motive to do so. It's only flimsy to people who have no idea how LE protocols work, and Stockley's repeated failure at observing such.

[video=youtube;FmJk3V8Dsck]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=596&v=FmJk3V8Dsck[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

That isn't how the constitution is written, nor interpreted. The right to peaceably assemble is separate. The right to petition is separate. They are independent of each other.


Again, for this to make any sense at all, you really need to look at this as 2 separate things. This isn't a "roadway on a bridge" situation, where 1 thing can be 2 things. This is 2 separate bridges.

So, you don't see (peaceable) public protests as a valid/legitimate form of petitioning of the government for redress of grievances? I do.

In terms of administration and governing, the "peacable" part is key. There's laws, rules, and cases galore on breaking it down. But, it is completely separate from petitioning. People can peacable assemble for a cause that the government has no part of. That content-neutral part is absolutely important.

I never said or implied otherwise. See above. I'm focused on protests as a legitimate form of petitioning.

I did not know that. I presume not as a black person. (BTW, totally unrelated, could Black Like Me get published or made into a movie these days?)

On your second point, I didn't say - and should clarify - that I don't think personal experience is required or that one is incapable of having a valid viewpoint in its absence. What I am saying is that personal experience can and should inform a viewpoint.

I have no personal experience involving St. Louis, and only a little in other parts of Missouri. I held a valid viewpoint based on my personal experiences in life.

I had a conversation with a black friend who, in the last year or so, had LOTS of experience in St. Louis and other parts of Missouri. Granted, this probably wasn't the best year or so in St. Louis history, but the conversation revealed to me that my viewpoint was limited by my lack of personal contact with St. Louis and Missouri. It did not make my prior viewpoint invalid; it rendered the information it was based on incomplete.

But now I'm curious - did you experience any racial subtext in St. Louis, or can you characterize your viewpoint of how black people are treated there? I am genuinely interested in your experience.

St. Louis was much like any other such city - especially one that suffers from too many years of progressive rule.

As I said before: I believe your friend's stories. And I can tell you other stories, too: about the "knockout" game targeting, largely of elderly Asians in some of the ethnic neighborhoods in the mid-county area; about my bandmate being shot at while trying to repair a roof, merely for being a white man in North St. Louis. You'll find people as overtly racist in North St. Louis as you will find down in the bootheel. The skin color changes, but the sentiment is the same. And yeah: you'll find good ol' boy cops in parts of St. Loius County and in Missouri - again, much like any other place. I ran into one in Chesterfield, though my interaction with him obviously wasn't racially motivated.

And all of that was before the drumming up of racial strife by the Obama DOJ in the aftermath of the Michael Brown incident. While I had moved away in late 2012, I had the misfortune of being back in St. Louis for work for the latter half of 2014, so I got a (literal) front-row set to all of that. So, it would not surprise me one bit if there is still general, racial tension.

 

[chipbennett]

And the gun, that had absolutely none of the deceased' DNA, only the officer's? Or his return to his car to retrieve an item we never get a glimpse of? Esp, when one considers that the officer had no problem carrying unauthorized weapons in his car. That seems a little more than flimsy. The defense didn't prove their case, but let's not default to that meaning the evidence used against him was inconsequential.

C'mon, Kut. I know that you know better than this. With DNA, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The absence of the deceased's DNA on that gun proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

That the officer was carrying an AK pistol proves that he was a cowboy, not a murderer. And it was also one of the main causes for his firing from the PD.

 

[Kutnupe14]

C'mon, Kut. I know that you know better than this. With DNA, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The absence of the deceased's DNA on that gun proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

That the officer was carrying an AK pistol proves that he was a cowboy, not a murderer. And it was also one of the main causes for his firing from the PD.

Ok let's look at this logically. Why do you think Smith's DNA was not on the gun? And your thoughts on Stockley retrieving "medical supplies" from his vehicle, and then doing nothing with them, but rather entering the vehicle that Smith had been dragged out of?

 

[OakRiver]

A gun that has the officer's DNA, but none of the DNA of the suspect (Smith). A nugget of information held by the city but not turned over to the attorney's representing the Smith's family. After Smith's body is pulled from the vehicle.... and AFTER Stockley began messing around in his car, he then gets into the vehicle Smith, was driving and does what? What reason would he have to get into an unoccupied car? To retrieve the weapon? Because it's a threat to whom? Should you kinda want to preserve evidences and let a tech take care of the scene? Stockley says he was getting medical treatment supplies for Smith, and yet he doesn't provide any aid. So what was he getting from the car?
And believe it or not, when people get shot, it actually hurts, and people don't sit still. The gun, which amazingly Smith never decided to grab prior to when Stockley say he reached for it, was found in-between the center console and passenger seat. Stockley fired from the driver's side. Do you think, that just maybe, a person getting shot, would turn away from where incoming rounds are originating (i.e. towards the driver's side)? Its not flimsy at all. When officers don't follow certain protocols, i.e. securing scenes, preserving evidence, abiding by departmental policy, shenanigans is often thought of.

So to recap:
-Stockley has one unsanctioned department weapon, is it beyond belief that he would have another?
-Stockley shoots Smith, because he say Smith was reaching for a gun
-Stockley returns to his vehicle, and rummages around for something, something that unfortunately we never are able to see.
-Stockley says he returned to his vehicle to get medical supplies to render first aid to Smith
-Smith is removed from the vehicle
-Stockley does not, nor even attempt, to render first aid to Stockley
-Stockley, wearing no gloves, enters the vehicle and "finds" gun, despite there being no reason to do so.
-Fire arrives and actually does render aid to Smith
-Subsequent testing reveals no DNA from Smith on the gun, but DNA from Stockley is present.
He may not have planted a gun, but it not beyond belief, to believe that he could have and had the motive to do so. It's only flimsy to people who have no idea how LE protocols work, and Stockley's repeated failure at observing such.

[video=youtube;FmJk3V8Dsck]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=596&v=FmJk3V8Dsck[/video]

Your standard of "not beyond belief" does not match the Court's, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. As previously shown the State did not meet their burden of proof. All you have done is show that the Officer did not meet departmental standards, not that any crime was committed.

Your points about the DNA on the gun found in the car, the possibility of the gun found in the vehicle being planted, and the Officer possessing an unapproved AK pistol were all addressed in the Court's ruling which I highly encourage you to read if you have not already done so.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think it's sort of interesting how most of INGO turns into lawyers when an officer is acquitted for making poor decisions (or getting away with something).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your standard of "not beyond belief" does not match the Court's, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. As previously shown the State did not meet their burden of proof. All you have done is show that the Officer did not meet departmental standards, not that any crime was committed.

Your points about the DNA on the gun found in the car, the possibility of the gun found in the vehicle being planted, and the Officer possessing an unapproved AK pistol were all addressed in the Court's ruling which I highly encourage you to read if you have not already done so.

Huh? It matches perfectly with the court. "Not beyond belief" means it's possible. But convictions aren't handed down on "what's possible." Could Stockley be innocent, certainly. Does his actions seem like that of an innocent person, IMO, no.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm going to speak primarily to the gun/DNA.

Ok let's look at this logically. Why do you think Smith's DNA was not on the gun? And your thoughts on Stockley retrieving "medical supplies" from his vehicle, and then doing nothing with them, but rather entering the vehicle that Smith had been dragged out of?

There are lots of reasons that DNA isn't found somewhere. The real world isn't an episode of CSI. DNA doesn't always transfer on contact. And even when it does, it isn't always detectable. And even when it's detectable, it isn't always conclusively identified.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

And further: Smith need not have even actually grabbed the firearm at the time he was shot. The officer merely needed reasonable belief that Smith was reaching for a firearm in order to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense (n.b. and that reasonable-belief standard is also why the "planted gun" theory has little merit; there was no need for the existence of an actual firearm, in order for the use of deadly force to be justified).

 

[OakRiver]

I think it's sort of interesting how most of INGO turns into lawyers when an officer is acquitted for making poor decisions (or getting away with something).

Maybe some of us have a background in law or that some of us read the Court's ruling and see that many of the points being raised were already addressedand dismissed based on the evidence provided.

Plenty of people here have no issue in calling a bad shot a bad shot, arguing blanket bad faith because the accused is a LEO does not do a lot for the discussion.

 

[OakRiver]

Huh? It matches perfectly with the court. "Not beyond belief" means it's possible. But convictions aren't handed down on "what's possible." Could Stockley be innocent, certainly. Does his actions seem like that of an innocent person, IMO, no.

If you are telling me that your standard of proof is that " "Not beyond belief" means it's possible" then that i a lower standard of proof than what is used in criminal cases, and is more closely matched to the civil standard of on the balance of probability.

You may choose to believe that the Officer's actions imply guilt. The Court looked at all the evidence, agonizing so, and do not share your conclusion based on the evidence.