Stockley verdict coming down.

[OakRiver]

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).

This is further supported by Stockley's partner being the officer who initially reported seeing the firearm rather than Stockley prior to the chase, and that the wounds suffered by the deceased are consistent with him reaching towards where the firearm was located.

 

[Fargo]

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.

LOL, I see vastly more of an attitude from you, Chip, and others that there is a blanket and near irrebuttable presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting.

Strangely though, pretty much every law-enforcement officer who has posted in this thread thinks that Stockley's actions at best smell bad...

Contemplate this for just a minute, Stokley testified that he saw the gun in Smith's hand during the beginning of the chase. Yet you both discount his lack of DNA on it as meaningless. Strangely, Stockley's DNA is supposed to have gotten on there by having grabbed it in the exact same time period...


Lack of DNA does not establish anything incontrovertibly, but is absurd the way that you guys are acting like it is meaningless. Ask the Duke lacrosse players what it meant to them.

The judges decision was legally supportable, and based on his factual determinations very well may have been completely correct based on the law. That doesn't mean that I think that Jason Stokley somehow automatically has clean hands in this. I really doubt that he does.

 

[OakRiver]

LOL, I see vastly more of an attitude from you, Chip, and others that there is a blanket and near irrebuttable presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting.

Strangely though, pretty much every law-enforcement officer who has posted in this thread thinks that Stockley's actions at best smell bad...

Contemplate this for just a minute, Stokley testified that he saw the gun in Smith's hand during the beginning of the chase. Yet you both discount his lack of DNA on it as meaningless. Strangely, Stockley's DNA is supposed to have gotten on there by having grabbed it in the exact same time period...


Lack of DNA does not establish anything incontrovertibly, but is absurd the way that you guys are acting like it is meaningless. Ask the Duke lacrosse players what it meant to them.

The judges decision was legally supportable, and based on his factual determinations very well may have been completely correct based on the law. That doesn't mean that I think that Jason Stokley somehow automatically has clean hands in this. I really doubt that he does.

Or we read the case, look at the facts, and agree with the Court's findings. I do not recall saying that the Officer "has clean hands". My stance has been that the evidence does not support the charges filed. Furthermore I am not making any claim concerning the DNA, merely relying on the reported testimony of the expert before the court and the Judge's comments when reaching their conclusion.

That does not show any attitude "that there is a blanket and near irrebuttable presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting". Rather it shows bad faith on your part by attempting to ascribe motive to members of this community that they do not have, and poisoning the well for future discussion as in your unsubstantiated view we are biased in favor of LEOs.

 

[Fargo]

Or we read the case, look at the facts, and agree with the Court's findings. I do not recall saying that the Officer "has clean hands". My stance has been that the evidence does not support the charges filed. Furthermore I am not making any claim concerning the DNA, merely relying on the reported testimony of the expert before the court and the Judge's comments when reaching their conclusion.

That does not show any attitude "that there is a blanket and near irrebuttable presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting". Rather it shows bad faith on your part by attempting to ascribe motive to members of this community that they do not have, and poisoning the well for future discussion as in your unsubstantiated view we are biased in favor of LEOs.

Wait a second? I am poisoning the community's discussions by claiming that your attitude automatically imputes good faith, but you are just fine to claim that others are automatically applying bad faith? Wow!

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.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Or we read the case, look at the facts, and agree with the Court's findings.

I think we can all agree that courts don't get everything right. I'm not saying they did or didn't in this specific case, but it's always possible.

I just hate seeing reasonable counter-arguments get "well look what the court decided" or semantics thrown back at them. That, in my opinion, does not do a lot for the discussion.

 

[chipbennett]

LOL, I see vastly more of an attitude from you, Chip, and others that there is a blanket and near irrebuttable presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting.

Then you really don't know me very well. (Case in point: Michael Slager/Walter Scott. I maintained all along that his actions warranted a trial, because the use of deadly force was no longer justified at the time it was used.)

I generally maintain that police officers have a higher burden of behavior and responsibility in their actions carried out under color of law, but also that failure to uphold that standard does not inherently constitute murder when deadly force is involved. There are many times where a police officer should be held accountable for his actions - such as being fired as a police officer - while simultaneously that officer's actions do not warrant murder charges.

As for a blanket presumption of good faith attached to any LEO shooting: isn't that the same presumption that every single one of us enjoys, under due process, as the manifestation of the presumption of innocence?

 

[chipbennett]

I think we can all agree that courts don't get everything right. I'm not saying they did or didn't in this specific case, but it's always possible.

I just hate seeing reasonable counter-arguments get "well look what the court decided" or semantics thrown back at them. That, in my opinion, does not do a lot for the discussion.

True, the courts do not get everything right. Judges are human. Jurors are human. Prosecutors and attorneys are human.

And most importantly: it is fundamental to liberty that the accused enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence. It sets a very high bar, and one that sometimes doesn't get met, even for the truly guilty. But anything less would jeopardize the truly innocent.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

True, the courts do not get everything right. Judges are human. Jurors are human. Prosecutors and attorneys are human.

And most importantly: it is fundamental to liberty that the accused enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence. It sets a very high bar, and one that sometimes doesn't get met, even for the truly guilty. But anything less would jeopardize the truly innocent.

Definitely, no disagreement there. It's a great and important system.

Wonder if there would be less furor over these rulings if prosecution would stop over-charging? Why do they always go for murder? Is there a less-severe charge that would have a higher chance of "success"?

 

[chipbennett]

Definitely, no disagreement there. It's a great and important system.

Wonder if there would be less furor over these rulings if prosecution would stop over-charging? Why do they always go for murder? Is there a less-severe charge that would have a higher chance of "success"?

I would assume so. I would also assume that you see that in the less-politicized cases.

I don't know if there were a lesser charge for which there would be evidence to convict in this case. But in the cases of Philando Castile and certainly, Walter Scott? I think those were definite over-charges (for political reasons).

 

[OakRiver]

Wait a second? I am poisoning the community's discussions by claiming that your attitude automatically imputes good faith, but you are just fine to claim that others are automatically applying bad faith? Wow!

Please read what I said. The comment that you are objecting to was directed at another community member who said something very similar to you.

The original comment for context;
"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)"

My response;
"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."

What I said does not match the meaning that you are attempting to ascribe to it.

 

[OakRiver]

I think we can all agree that courts don't get everything right. I'm not saying they did or didn't in this specific case, but it's always possible.

I just hate seeing reasonable counter-arguments get "well look what the court decided" or semantics thrown back at them. That, in my opinion, does not do a lot for the discussion.

What does not do a lot for any discussion to to claim that people taking part in the discussion cannot see past a badge, or repeating arguments which the Court addressed and dismissed with solid reasoning.

If you wish to object to the Court's findings you are at liberty to do so and I look forward to seeing your reasoning.

 

[bwframe]

You guys are over analyzing this whole mess. The only reason for this discussion is that there is a political class of folks out there looking for an excuse to riot.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The Boston Tea Party was not an example of looting. The participants didn't abscond with the tea; they dumped it in the harbor. It wasn't vandalism, either, because goods were destroyed, not (real) property.

what would be circumstances where you approve of vandalism and looting of private property and goods?

Wait it wasn't vandalism because it was goods, but in the same post you use vandalism applying to goods?

I didn't think racism still existed the way it does until I became a police officer. The calls you get, the things people tell you, and the general way you see society interact will remove any doubt about how relevant racism is in America. And I'm not just talking about things said by a specific race. People of all groups say awful things about other groups AND their own groups.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that racism doesn't exist. Just that it doesn't exist to nearly the degree that some claim. Can you explain further what you mean by "existed the way it does"? Are you referring to the spread in society or the degree in some individuals? Or?

No, it isn't. The use of the adjective real is intentional:

Vandalism implies damage to fixed, i.e. real, property. Destruction of goods is something different.

Where do you get that vandalism implies damage to fixed property? I've never heard that in my life, I've heard it apply to any property whether "real" or not. Someone slashes someones car tires or breaks out a window, vandalism. Someone spray paints the side of a garage or breaks a window in a house, the same.

As if I'm relying on my own definitions of terms?

It seems that you are. Can you show some cites to where the term vandalism only applies to "real" property? Current M-W definition ":willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property"
1828 M-W definition " Ferocious cruelty; indiscriminate destruction of lives and property."

Indiana doesn't have a charge of vandalism, they have criminal mischief which is defined as "A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent commits criminal mischief.

Per the feds it's this "Destroying, injuring, defacing, or damaging property or real property."

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

Could be the judge agonized over delivering a guilty verdict which would alienate him from other LEOs.

But in the decision he never said he agonized over the decision, he stated he agonized over the evidence. Slight but important difference.

Definitely, no disagreement there. It's a great and important system.

Wonder if there would be less furor over these rulings if prosecution would stop over-charging? Why do they always go for murder? Is there a less-severe charge that would have a higher chance of "success"?

There were less severe charges, it was 1st degree murder and lesser included. The judge could have found him guilty of just about anything less than murder in the same classification of charges, such as 2nd degree, intentional manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, etc. What ever the actual name of them are in that state.

I would assume so. I would also assume that you see that in the less-politicized cases.

I don't know if there were a lesser charge for which there would be evidence to convict in this case. But in the cases of Philando Castile and certainly, Walter Scott? I think those were definite over-charges (for political reasons).

Not sure about the Scott case, but iirc there were in the Castile case. It was the same as I posted above, murder with lesser included. The jury could consider lesser charges if they wished.

 

[lonehoosier]

Police: Interstate protesters arrested for trespassing
Police: Interstate protesters arrested for trespassing | Illinois News | nwitimes.com

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that racism doesn't exist. Just that it doesn't exist to nearly the degree that some claim. Can you explain further what you mean by "existed the way it does"? Are you referring to the spread in society or the degree in some individuals? Or.

As in such an open manner which directly effects specific people. My previous belief about racism was that it was sort of a closet belief that people had about other races that never went much further than that. Without getting too specific, I've seen numerous instances where a minority was singled out as "up to no good" for no articulable reason. There could be another explanation for that non-specific feeling but it rarely seems to happen with white people. I've also heard numerous times that someone seemed less trustworthy based on their race. I've had total strangers go on some of the most hateful racist tirades you could possibly imagine. I've also heard the less direct "you know how they are" or "those people" when referring to a minority group. I don't think I could be convinced at this point that I'm just haphazardly running into the last remaining racists in the country. I will admit there is something about my appearance or demeanor which seems to make people think they can be open with me. If I could write a book about the crazy interactions I've had with strangers...

 

[Kutnupe14]

As in such an open manner which directly effects specific people. My previous belief about racism was that it was sort of a closet belief that people had about other races that never went much further than that. Without getting too specific, I've seen numerous instances where a minority was singled out as "up to no good" for no articulable reason. There could be another explanation for that non-specific feeling but it rarely seems to happen with white people. I've also heard numerous times that someone seemed less trustworthy based on their race. I've had total strangers go on some of the most hateful racist tirades you could possibly imagine. I've also heard the less direct "you know how they are" or "those people" when referring to a minority group. I don't think I could be convinced at this point that I'm just haphazardly running into the last remaining racists in the country. I will admit there is something about my appearance or demeanor which seems to make people think they can be open with me. If I could write a book about the crazy interactions I've had with strangers...

It would be a best seller.

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46403547

Three St. Louis officers charged for directly attacking an undercover officer at protests, with a 4th getting a charge for aiding.

A US federal jury has charged three Missouri police officers with attacking a black officer working undercover whom they mistook for a protester.
After texting about how they wanted to rough up protesters, they brutally beat their police colleague with a riot baton, Thursday's indictment says.
It happened during protests in St Louis in 2017 after a white officer who killed a young black man was acquitted.
A fourth officer has also been charged for helping cover-up the incident.

I want to know why it took a federal grand jury to charge them, rather than a state one.

More local reporting on it:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_4a82d209-b3cd-565e-9a97-309cf1c2a5af.html

The texts prior to, and after, the beating are... shockingly disgraceful. And revealing.