Charlottesville riots

[wufan]

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?

Unfortunately , a guy that is authorized to use deadly force just can't say things like that, regardless of the situation.

[jdmee]

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.

What the judge said in his verdict and I agree with is the link between the statement and the killing wasn't proven. Just because it was said does not automatically mean it was premeditated. According to the ruling "The statement was not intelligible when played during the trial... The context is not clear from the recording; it cannot be determined what was said before and after the statement."

[jdmee]

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.

Does my prior statement prove I didn't do it in self defense or that it was a pre-meditated killing?

[jdshock]

Does my prior statement prove I didn't do it in self defense or that it was a pre-meditated killing?

We're talking about a span of minutes here. If you say "I'm going to kill so and so" and then minutes later you do, I'm betting dollars to donuts on a guilty verdict every time if you don't add in the police dynamic. It's hard to convict cops. It's really not that hard to convict regular folks.

I just think it's crazy to jump through all of these hoops to say "well maybe he was saying he was going to kill the guy to save a kid in the street!" or something. The cop didn't provide any such explanation. Are you honestly of the opinion that in any other case you would say "hmmm... I don't have the context for the meaning of the phrase 'I'm gonna kill that mf'er,' and it's equally likely that it shows intent to kill as anything else."?

[pinstripers]

I'm so pissed I'm going to burn my whole ****ing city down.

[WuDrWu]

New information, conveniently omitted previously, that the suspect struck the police car 2 times and struck the officer while attempting to flee.

I know some of you hate the police and want to bend over backwards to protect every last soul, but I don't know how any reasonable person can say this was first degree murder.

[WuDrWu]

We're talking about a span of minutes here. If you say "I'm going to kill so and so" and then minutes later you do, I'm betting dollars to donuts on a guilty verdict every time if you don't add in the police dynamic. It's hard to convict cops. It's really not that hard to convict regular folks.

Let me tell you something, you run into me while dealing drugs, in my driveway, I'm going to say I'll kill you. And if you hang around, I probably will. And if you think a jury in Kansas is going to convict me of 1st degree murder, you're insane.

This guy assaulted a police officer that was on duty. Frankly I don't care if he firebombed him.

[WuDrWu]

Let me tell you something, you run into me while dealing drugs, in my driveway, I'm going to say I'll kill you. And if you hang around, I probably will. And if you think a jury in Kansas is going to convict me of 1st degree murder, you're insane.

This guy assaulted a police officer that was on duty. Frankly I don't care if he firebombed him.

Maybe I'm the problem and everyone else is right, idk.

[jdmee]

We're talking about a span of minutes here. If you say "I'm going to kill so and so" and then minutes later you do, I'm betting dollars to donuts on a guilty verdict every time if you don't add in the police dynamic. It's hard to convict cops. It's really not that hard to convict regular folks.

I just think it's crazy to jump through all of these hoops to say "well maybe he was saying he was going to kill the guy to save a kid in the street!" or something. The cop didn't provide any such explanation. Are you honestly of the opinion that in any other case you would say "hmmm... I don't have the context for the meaning of the phrase 'I'm gonna kill that mf'er,' and it's equally likely that it shows intent to kill as anything else."?

If I was on a jury and was given an explanation for the statement I would consider it.

If I was on a jury and the prosecution was telling me that there were 4 shots a delay and the a 5th shot up close. And their video evidence and witnesses don't collaborate them. I would start to have doubts.

If I was on a jury and the prosecution told me that that 5th close up shot was the "kill" shot and their ME then told me it was just a superficial wound. It would add to my doubts.

If I was on a jury and the prosecution ME told me that the wounds were consistent with a person reaching to the right searching for something. Which matches the defendant's account of things. More doubt.

If I was on a jury and the gun they supposedly planted, which was too large to effectively hide on a person, was never seen to be in possession of the defendant. It would be hard for me to say there wasn't reasonable doubt.

[WuDrWu]

Watched just a bit of CNN Headline News' coverage of the protests in St Louis over the weekend.

And I quote "Jason Stockley, a white police officer, was accused of 1st degree murder of Anthony Smith, a black man. Audio tapes confirmed Stockley said he was going to kill the man and prosecutors argued that Stockley planted a gun in the man's car. The judge said the prosecution did not do enough to prove their case."

No bias there.

[CBB_Fan]

The left needs to stop trying to convict cops of murder. Frankly put, it is not possible. The job of the prosecution is to get a conviction, but the left consistently forgets that a conviction for a lesser charge is better than a non-guilty decision on a greater charge. The lawyers that argued for a 1st degree murder charge failed in their duty.

The next time a cop kills a black man, the left needs to start from the absolute bottom. I don't care how open and shut the case is, they should start by attempting to get the lightest manslaughter charge possible and lowest sentence. Aiming for 1st degree murder and a life sentence and missing is simply not acceptable.

If the cop is innocent, going for a grander charge escalates the incident. It incites the media and the black community, and forces private institutions to enforce the mob's justice if a guilty verdict can't be found. We've seen it time and time again; each of the cops involved in these cases loses their livelihood even if they get a non-guilty plea. If the cop is guilty, going for a grander charge significantly reduces the likelihood of justice being upheld. That isn't acceptable.

[ShockTalk]

The left needs to stop trying to convict cops of murder. Frankly put, it is not possible. The job of the prosecution is to get a conviction, but the left consistently forgets that a conviction for a lesser charge is better than a non-guilty decision on a greater charge. The lawyers that argued for a 1st degree murder charge failed in their duty.

The next a cop kills a black man, the left needs to start from the absolute bottom. I don't care how open and shut the case is, they should start by attempting to get the lightest manslaughter charge possible and lowest sentence. Aiming for 1st degree murder and a life sentence and missing is simply not acceptable.

If the cop is innocent, going for a grander charge escalates the incident. It incites the media and the black community, and forces private institutions to enforce the mob's justice if a guilty verdict can't be found. We've seen it time and time again; each of the cops involved in these cases loses their livelihood even if they get a non-guilty plea. If the cop is guilty, going for a grander charge significantly reduces the likelihood of justice being upheld. That isn't acceptable.

Can't the prosecution also go for multiple levels allowing juries/judges to pick the level of guilt if you will?

[jdshock]

Can't the prosecution also go for multiple levels allowing juries/judges to pick the level of guilt if you will?

Lesser included offenses are basically always an option, but you're rarely going to hear them on close because it's just not persuasive to spend your time saying "So and so murdered the victim and they had purpose and intent and evil in their heart and they planned it... oh, by the way.... you can also find that it was done in the heat of the moment and give a lesser crime."

On top of that, you're absolutely never going to see it in a cop case because the cop cases almost always come down to self-defense. This case was always going to be first degree murder or innocent because of the self-defense issue. Since it was a bench trial, you could conceivably had a judge that split the baby and gave a lesser included (in my opinion, this would've been the worst decision since it would've been a clear attempt at "compromise"), but they could do that regardless of what the prosecution asked for.

[jdshock]

The left needs to stop trying to convict cops of murder. Frankly put, it is not possible. The job of the prosecution is to get a conviction, but the left consistently forgets that a conviction for a lesser charge is better than a non-guilty decision on a greater charge. The lawyers that argued for a 1st degree murder charge failed in their duty.

The next time a cop kills a black man, the left needs to start from the absolute bottom. I don't care how open and shut the case is, they should start by attempting to get the lightest manslaughter charge possible and lowest sentence. Aiming for 1st degree murder and a life sentence and missing is simply not acceptable.

If the cop is innocent, going for a grander charge escalates the incident. It incites the media and the black community, and forces private institutions to enforce the mob's justice if a guilty verdict can't be found. We've seen it time and time again; each of the cops involved in these cases loses their livelihood even if they get a non-guilty plea. If the cop is guilty, going for a grander charge significantly reduces the likelihood of justice being upheld. That isn't acceptable.

Cops get off because of self-defense.

If Jason Stockley was innocent of first degree murder, what lesser crime do you think he could've been convicted of?

[shockfan89_]

Cops get off because of self-defense.

If Jason Stockley was innocent of first degree murder, what lesser crime do you think he could've been convicted of?

I don't think police should ever be charged with first degree murder (premeditated). That would require you to find that the police officer went to work that day with the intent to kill THAT person. This is impossible to prove assuming the officer is responding to a call from the public. The officer would have no possible way of knowing they were going to receive that call.

I believe, at the most, police should be charged with second degree murder. There is at least a chance of proving this.