Charlottesville riots

[jdshock]

Fringe related to the topic:

There's a trial going on in St. Louis right now for a cop named Jason Stockley who killed a guy during a traffic stop. The facts in this case are pretty bad. There's apparently a video of the cop during the car chase where he says "I'm going to kill this motherf*****." Once he gets the car pulled over, he basically executes the victim. The cop was carrying an AK-47 at the time, even though it was against department policy to carry that type of personal weapon while on duty. And the weapon that was found in the victim's car only had fingerprints belonging to the cop. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ockley-n787996

But, for some reason, I've heard basically nothing about it here (meaning St. Louis). On its face, the facts seem far worse than in the Michael Brown incident. This is one thing that really bothers me about "movements" or whatever you want to call them. They always seem to put all their eggs in one basket. If you agree with the idea that people of color face discrimination from police officers, you had to get fully on board with EVERY aspect of the Michael Brown case, rather than just saying "yeah, as a whole, they face discrimination." And it seems like movements always pick the wrong incidents to use as evidence. Then the other side just gets to respond by saying "well, Michael Brown did X thing wrong" rather than having to address the fact that you believe the whole system has problems. Who knows, though. If this guy is found not guilty, maybe there will be riots. I just haven't heard very much build up.

Just came out: not guilty.

[Aargh]

Just came out: not guilty.

the information I got about this incident put the cop in a very bad light. My initial thought was that the cop would certainly be convicted.

I wasn't at the trial, so I never heard "the other side of the story". Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best one we've got. I will go along with the jury on this as they are the ones who got to hear the situation from both sides. I suspect some won't accept the not guilty verdict.

[jdshock]

the information I got about this incident put the cop in a very bad light. My initial thought was that the cop would certainly be convicted.

I wasn't at the trial, so I never heard "the other side of the story". Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best one we've got. I will go along with the jury on this as they are the ones who got to hear the situation from both sides. I suspect some won't accept the not guilty verdict.

No jury. Just a judge near retirement.

Almost all the evidence is public, by the way. You can find the videos of the incident. You can see the reports from the trial. The Order itself runs through the evidence.

[jdmee]

Judges Verdict You can read the full verdict. It seems the basis of the decision is the state did not meet the burden of proof.

[wufan]

No jury. Just a judge near retirement.

Almost all the evidence is public, by the way. You can find the videos of the incident. You can see the reports from the trial. The Order itself runs through the evidence.

@jdshock:, was this a poor ruling in your estimation?

[jdshock]

@jdshock, was this a poor ruling in your estimation?

I'm going to preface my answer by saying there are a lot of folks a lot smarter than I am who think it was the only reasonable decision and a lot of folks a lot smarter than I am who think it was a poor ruling. And a lot of both of those groups have significantly more experience in this particular area than I do.

I'm hesitant to give a definitive answer, so I'll share some general thoughts:

1. The prosecution really seemed to go all in on the idea that the gun was planted. This was explained to me as a strategic decision because if the gun had not been planted, the cop is basically never going to be found guilty since cops get so much leeway on self-defense. I don't know that I think that is accurate. It seems to me you could still find him guilty if the gun were the victim's gun but there was no evidence the victim ever reached for the gun, ever touched the gun, etc. But based on my reading of arguments both sides submitted, I absolutely agree that the prosecution went in on this issue.

2. I think a lot of shady things happened in this case. They found a judge who is retiring anyway. The judge put his house up for sale several weeks ago. The judge waited to release the decision until the week after his daughter's wedding so that there wouldn't be protests or anything affecting that. On the one hand, that's just a wise decision. Why cause yourself more trouble than you have to? On the other hand, it seems pretty crazy that you just get to postpone this giant announcement that affects people's lives because it benefits your own personal agenda.

3. The cop did a lot of bad things that both sides agree on: carrying a weapon he wasn't supposed to, firing at a fleeing vehicle, etc. These absolutely bias people's opinions (including mine) of the key facts even though they don't really go to the actual issue.

4. I think the judge's written order is very bad. I think he said some stuff in the order that he only said because he's retired and doesn't care what people think. On the issue of whether the gun was planted, the judge said "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." In my mind, that is not an inference that the judge could legally base his decision on. The fact that he just threw that in there seems like it's just a slap in the face to people who are opposed to the decision. He said the phrase "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" was "ambiguous." He said that the police officer's actions immediately after the stop were not those of someone who intended to kill someone since it took "15 seconds" for him to start shooting. And lastly, (and I skimmed the 30 page verdict, so don't quote me on this part), I never saw him even mention the facts of the officer drawing his unauthorized weapon, and then switching hands and drawing his department issued weapon. To me, that was maybe the biggest fact in the case and even if I missed it in my skimming, there should've been a lengthy discussion about it.

I don't know that I'm willing to say the ruling was wrong. Even if I would've gone the other way (and I think I personally would have), it's the type of decision that probably has some argument on both sides. I do think the judge's reasoning is bad in lots of places in the decision.

[wufan]

I'm going to preface my answer by saying there are a lot of folks a lot smarter than I am who think it was the only reasonable decision and a lot of folks a lot smarter than I am who think it was a poor ruling. And a lot of both of those groups have significantly more experience in this particular area than I do.

I'm hesitant to give a definitive answer, so I'll share some general thoughts:

1. The prosecution really seemed to go all in on the idea that the gun was planted. This was explained to me as a strategic decision because if the gun had not been planted, the cop is basically never going to be found guilty since cops get so much leeway on self-defense. I don't know that I think that is accurate. It seems to me you could still find him guilty if the gun were the victim's gun but there was no evidence the victim ever reached for the gun, ever touched the gun, etc. But based on my reading of arguments both sides submitted, I absolutely agree that the prosecution went in on this issue.

2. I think a lot of shady things happened in this case. They found a judge who is retiring anyway. The judge put his house up for sale several weeks ago. The judge waited to release the decision until the week after his daughter's wedding so that there wouldn't be protests or anything affecting that. On the one hand, that's just a wise decision. Why cause yourself more trouble than you have to? On the other hand, it seems pretty crazy that you just get to postpone this giant announcement that affects people's lives because it benefits your own personal agenda.

3. The cop did a lot of bad things that both sides agree on: carrying a weapon he wasn't supposed to, firing at a fleeing vehicle, etc. These absolutely bias people's opinions (including mine) of the key facts even though they don't really go to the actual issue.

4. I think the judge's written order is very bad. I think he said some stuff in the order that he only said because he's retired and doesn't care what people think. On the issue of whether the gun was planted, the judge said "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." In my mind, that is not an inference that the judge could legally base his decision on. The fact that he just threw that in there seems like it's just a slap in the face to people who are opposed to the decision. He said the phrase "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" was "ambiguous." He said that the police officer's actions immediately after the stop were not those of someone who intended to kill someone since it took "15 seconds" for him to start shooting. And lastly, (and I skimmed the 30 page verdict, so don't quote me on this part), I never saw him even mention the facts of the officer drawing his unauthorized weapon, and then switching hands and drawing his department issued weapon. To me, that was maybe the biggest fact in the case and even if I missed it in my skimming, there should've been a lengthy discussion about it.

I don't know that I'm willing to say the ruling was wrong. Even if I would've gone the other way (and I think I personally would have), it's the type of decision that probably has some argument on both sides. I do think the judge's reasoning is bad in lots of places in the decision.

Thanks for sharing that! I will not be reading through the decision, so will take your word for it.

[ShockTalk]

Police departments and the courts need to draw a line in the sand regarding "over zealous" cops. These few bad apples are giving all the great cops a bad name and putting them in more danger. How can citizens really believe a cop who indeed should have feared for his/her life in a situation when "fear for my life" simply becomes an excuse for grossly inappropriate behavior and brutality. Just how is "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" ambiguous when that is exactly what he did. If he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it. Where's the responsibility here?

Being a cop carries a huge amount of responsibility to begin with. I thank my lucky stars there are men and women in law enforcement who understand this and put their lives on the line to serve this free nation. If you don't think you can live up to that, get out before something really bad happens. If you don't, prepare yourself for the consequences of your poor judgement.

There has to be a clearer understanding of what "crossing the line" really is.

[wufan]

Police departments and the courts need to draw a line in the sand regarding "over zealous" cops. These few bad apples are giving all the great cops a bad name and putting them in more danger. How can citizens really believe a cop who indeed should have feared for his/her life in a situation when "fear for my life" simply becomes an excuse for grossly inappropriate behavior and brutality. Just how is "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" ambiguous when that is exactly what he did. If he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it. Where's the responsibility here?

Being a cop carries a huge amount of responsibility to begin with. I thank my lucky stars there are men and women in law enforcement who understand this and put their lives on the line to serve this free nation. If you don't think you can live up to that, get out before something really bad happens. If you don't, prepare yourself for the consequences of your poor judgement.

There has to be a clearer understanding of what "crossing the line" really is.

I can understand where, l I'm going to kill that MFer" is pretty damning, but I can also see where it was a call out prior to escalation. It does have an ambiguous meaning.

[ShockTalk]

I can understand where, l I'm going to kill that MFer" is pretty damning, but I can also see where it was a call out prior to escalation. It does have an ambiguous meaning.

While the two may not be connected, play along here. You're a cop, you're being recorded, and you know it. Simply stupid, his state of mind, or both? Where's the responsibility?

[MoValley John]

Police departments and the courts need to draw a line in the sand regarding "over zealous" cops. These few bad apples are giving all the great cops a bad name and putting them in more danger. How can citizens really believe a cop who indeed should have feared for his/her life in a situation when "fear for my life" simply becomes an excuse for grossly inappropriate behavior and brutality. Just how is "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" ambiguous when that is exactly what he did. If he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it. Where's the responsibility here?

Being a cop carries a huge amount of responsibility to begin with. I thank my lucky stars there are men and women in law enforcement who understand this and put their lives on the line to serve this free nation. If you don't think you can live up to that, get out before something really bad happens. If you don't, prepare yourself for the consequences of your poor judgement.

There has to be a clearer understanding of what "crossing the line" really is.

Yes.

[jdmee]

Police departments and the courts need to draw a line in the sand regarding "over zealous" cops. These few bad apples are giving all the great cops a bad name and putting them in more danger. How can citizens really believe a cop who indeed should have feared for his/her life in a situation when "fear for my life" simply becomes an excuse for grossly inappropriate behavior and brutality. Just how is "I'm going to kill that motherf*****" ambiguous when that is exactly what he did. If he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it. Where's the responsibility here?

Being a cop carries a huge amount of responsibility to begin with. I thank my lucky stars there are men and women in law enforcement who understand this and put their lives on the line to serve this free nation. If you don't think you can live up to that, get out before something really bad happens. If you don't, prepare yourself for the consequences of your poor judgement.




There has to be a clearer understanding of what "crossing the line" really is.

But according to the judges brief you couldn't hear the context, or what was said surrounding the statement. what if the whole thing was, if he doesn't stop soon I am going to kill that mf before he runs over that kid?


If I just got out of a boring meeting and I tell someone to just shoot me now and they pull out a gun and shoot me, does that mean I asked for it?

[ShockTalk]

But according to the judges brief you couldn't hear the context, or what was said surrounding the statement. what if the whole thing was, if he doesn't stop soon I am going to kill that mf before he runs over that kid?


If I just got out of a boring meeting and I tell someone to just shoot me now and they pull out a gun and shoot me, does that mean I asked for it?

YOU ARE BEING RECORDED. "We've gotta find a way to stop that guy before he runs over that kid". I'm also not basing all this on just what he said, but he did say it. As for the second, the speaker was not the one doing the action.

[SHOCKvalue]

Thank goodness for the so-called "war on drugs". Has increased drug violence, increased law enforcement violence, increased law enforcement presence, blown rates of incarceration through the roof, cost lives, and cost insane amounts of money.... for what gain? I'm not sure a single drug-related metric has improved via the "war on drugs". Just more government/law enforcement interference and control upon daily life, plus the aforementioned nuggets of goodness. (What's ironic is that I'm actually a half-a-degree away from being a teatotaler, personally.)

Anytime you hear a bureaucrat talk about a desire to improve the state of our country through more laws, regulation, and government programs, just think of the "war on drugs".

[jdshock]

If I just got out of a boring meeting and I tell someone to just shoot me now and they pull out a gun and shoot me, does that mean I asked for it?

This is a really bad argument. Now, if you sarcastically say "this meeting was so boring I'm going to shoot Bill in accounting" and then you do... That's going to be presented at your murder trial.

In my mind there's only one compelling argument for his statement. I don't believe it was used at trial and I haven't heard anyone make the argument, but I think it would've been somewhat persuasive. If he'd just said he meant "he's forcing me to drive so recklessly that I felt like I was going to crash into him and kill him." I know I've been driving and said "I'm going to hit this idiot!" based on their bad driving and it wouldn't have shown my intent to hit them or anything. But I haven't heard anyone argue this way.

Everyone seems interested in saying "it's just a phrase." I think all of those arguments are silly.