Charlottesville riots

[CBB_Fan]

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?

It is not about whether or not he was or was not innocent. It is all about whether he is provably guilty.

It is not possible to prove a cop committed 1st degree murder in Missouri under normal conditions. To do so, the cop needs to commit the murder after premeditiation and the murder needs to be committed:

• In an outrageous, vile, or depraved manner or involved torture
• While committing or attempting another homicide
• While creating a significant risk of death to more than one person because of the weapon or device used (i.e. a bomb)
• For money (i.e. paid hitman or kills spouse for life insurance funds)
• While committing or attempting rape, sodomy, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, or a felony drug offense
• To conceal a drug-related felony offense
• To avoid arrest
• To stop a person from aiding in a drug felony offense prosecution
• During the commission of a "criminal street gang activity" crime

Going for a 1st degree murder conviction in Missouri in light of the fact that a cop almost cannot meet the definition is legal negligence. It isn't a matter of guilt, it is a matter of being almost impossible to prove guilt within the confines of the Missouri law system.

To answer your question, the prosecution should have gone for a voluntary manslaughter charge. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one person intentionally kills another, but acted out of passion or anger before he or she had time to calm down. Voluntary manslaughter often happens when a person is acting in self-defense, but overreacts and kills another person. It is also virtually the only way for a cop to be charged for the killing of another person in Missouri (which again, is a product of the state's individual laws).

Voluntary manslaughter is a Class B felony with a penalty of range of 5-15 years jail time and up to $5,000 fine. I think the prosecution should have argued for a minimum sentence of 5 years with the possibility of a pardon, and no fine. For comparison, 1st degree murder is punishable only by the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

[jdshock]

That would require you to find that the police officer went to work that day with the intent to kill THAT person.

That's incorrect. Premeditation just means they thought about it before doing it. You could premeditate a murder in a matter of minutes.

[jdshock]

There's a lot that's wrong with your post. I don't know if you're a lawyer. I don't know if you practice in Missouri. I don't know you from Adam. But a lot of this isn't accurate, and I think it's important to clarify a few things.

It is not possible to prove a cop committed 1st degree murder in Missouri under normal conditions. To do so, the cop needs to commit the murder after premeditiation and the murder needs to be committed:

• In an outrageous, vile, or depraved manner or involved torture
• While committing or attempting another homicide
• While creating a significant risk of death to more than one person because of the weapon or device used (i.e. a bomb)
• For money (i.e. paid hitman or kills spouse for life insurance funds)
• While committing or attempting rape, sodomy, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, or a felony drug offense
• To conceal a drug-related felony offense
• To avoid arrest
• To stop a person from aiding in a drug felony offense prosecution
• During the commission of a "criminal street gang activity" crime

This is incorrect. This list is actually a list of aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes. For your reference, the code is 565.032. The Missouri statute on first degree murder is 565.020. That literally just says it's first degree murder if you kill someone else, deliberately, after having had time to think about it. That's it.

Going for a 1st degree murder conviction in Missouri in light of the fact that a cop almost cannot meet the definition is legal negligence. It isn't a matter of guilt, it is a matter of being almost impossible to prove guilt within the confines of the Missouri law system.

I don't even know what the term "legal negligence" would mean in the sense of a prosecutor always going for too high of crimes. It doesn't really matter because a cop could absolutely be found guilty of a first degree murder charge. It is only "almost impossible" because of self-defense rules.

To answer your question, the prosecution should have gone for a voluntary manslaughter charge. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one person intentionally kills another, but acted out of passion or anger before he or she had time to calm down. Voluntary manslaughter often happens when a person is acting in self-defense, but overreacts and kills another person. It is also virtually the only way for a cop to be charged for the killing of another person in Missouri (which again, is a product of the state's individual laws).

If a cop is acting in self-defense, they're going to get off. Period. No matter the charge. No matter the facts. Period.

Voluntary manslaughter is a Class B felony with a penalty of range of 5-15 years jail time and up to $5,000 fine. I think the prosecution should have argued for a minimum sentence of 5 years with the possibility of a pardon, and no fine. For comparison, 1st degree murder is punishable only by the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense. If the prosecutor could've proven a case for voluntary manslaughter, it would've happened during their attempt to prove a case for first degree murder.

Stockley got off because of self-defense.

[CBB_Fan]

There's a lot that's wrong with your post. I don't know if you're a lawyer. I don't know if you practice in Missouri. I don't know you from Adam. But a lot of this isn't accurate, and I think it's important to clarify a few things.

Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense. If the prosecutor could've proven a case for voluntary manslaughter, it would've happened during their attempt to prove a case for first degree murder.

Stockley got off because of self-defense.

IANAL, but my point is that a first degree murder clause should never have even been a goal. Without aggravating circumstances or a protected victim class it instantly ends the case.

I don't care if voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense. If you spend your time arguing for the death of the officer and then say "but really, at least jail the guy" you are going to fail. A minimum prison sentence has to be the goal from the beginning and the legal battle built around that. The prosecution should have only gone for voluntary manslaughter charges from the start. Because they went too far, they preconditioned the jury to throw out even lesser charges.

[jdshock]

IANAL, but my point is that a first degree murder clause should never have even been a goal. Without aggravating circumstances or a protected victim class it instantly ends the case.

I don't care if voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense. If you spend your time arguing for the death of the officer and then say "but really, at least jail the guy" you are going to fail. A minimum prison sentence has to be the goal from the beginning and the legal battle built around that. The prosecution should have only gone for voluntary manslaughter charges from the start. Because they went too far, they preconditioned the jury to throw out even lesser charges.

First of all, they did not precondition a jury in anyway because there wasn't a jury. There was just a single judge. A judge with 30 years of experience. If they'd managed to prove to the judge the elements for voluntary manslaughter, he would've been convicted of it.

Second of all, you still aren't quite right about first degree murder. You only have to prove it was deliberate, there was intent to kill, and he had a chance to think about it. At the conviction stage there is nothing about aggravating or mitigating circumstances. There's a second stage for sentencing when that comes into play.

[Aargh]

Since it was just a judge, I am somewhat less convinced the right verdict was given. There are judges who are heavily biased toward absolute trust of every word LE utters. It is easy for a judge to become a part of the prosecutorial team than a true independent arbiter. Judges work with LE and the same prosecutors for years, can develop strong relationships, and in the huge majority of cases LE is proven correct. If LE ever goes in with dirty hands, it's easy for judges to fail to see.

[WuDrWu]

Since it was just a judge, I am somewhat less convinced the right verdict was given. There are judges who are heavily biased toward absolute trust of every word LE utters. It is easy for a judge to become a part of the prosecutorial team than a true independent arbiter. Judges work with LE and the same prosecutors for years, can develop strong relationships, and in the huge majority of cases LE is proven correct. If LE ever goes in with dirty hands, it's easy for judges to fail to see.

lol because juries are so smart. I've served on 3 juries in my life. Maybe 6 total intelligent people combined, and that's counting me twice.

[shockmonster]

The next time a cop kills a black man, the left needs to start from the absolute bottom.

So if they kill a white man/woman (maybe statistics show it happens less, it happens more than you think), they need to start from the top? How about a policeman needs to be convicted if they intentionally kill anyone (no matter what color)?

[wufan]

Here's the thing:

People that run from cops risk getting killed. Don't run from cops. Did this guy ever look like he was surrendering?

People that get shot by cops need protection under the law. The law worked its course, and I can see where this case was going to end up alienating a large group of people regardless of the outcome. The optics were bad, but the evidence was scant.

When the legal channels fail, people should not riot. There's nothing ever correct about that.

[SHOXJOCK]

lol because juries are so smart. I've served on 3 juries in my life. Maybe 6 total intelligent people combined, and that's counting me twice.

You are so right. I've served on 2 juries both criminal trials. On the first one, we get back to the jury room for the first time. Older women says "I new he was guilty the minute I saw him". On the second one, multiple guilty votes 11-1 for two days. One women admits she's the one voting not guilty. We ask her why, " I'm worried about what's going happen to her children."

[wufan]

You are so right. I've served on 2 juries both criminal trials. On the first one, we get back to the jury room for the first time. Older women says "I new he was guilty the minute I saw him". On the second one, multiple guilty votes 11-1 for two days. One women admits she's the one voting not guilty. We ask her why, " I'm worried about what's going happen to her children."

What I've found is that only idiots can't get out of jury duty.

[jdshock]

People that run from cops risk getting killed. Don't run from cops. Did this guy ever look like he was surrendering?

People who hide illegal things risk getting caught. Doesn't mean we shouldn't require warrants.

People that get shot by cops need protection under the law. The law worked its course,

Kind of. The purpose of this trial wasn't to protect the victim. It was to punish the cop, if needed. The law to protect the victim ran its course years ago when they settled for $900k with the victim's family.

The optics were bad, but the evidence was scant.

What do you mean the evidence was scant?

When the legal channels fail, people should not riot. There's nothing ever correct about that.

The protests have been almost entirely peaceful. There have been some bad behavior at night the last few nights, but you can't fault the 99% peaceful protestors for the 1%.

[wufan]

People who hide illegal things risk getting caught. Doesn't mean we shouldn't require warrants.

Did the cops make an illegal stop? Is it legal to hit a police car and flee?

[wufan]

Rather than trying to quote on my iPad;

Evidence was scant in that there was a gun in the car of a fleeing suspect that didn't surrender.

The protests have been mostly peaceful.

[CBB_Fan]

First of all, they did not precondition a jury in anyway because there wasn't a jury. There was just a single judge. A judge with 30 years of experience. If they'd managed to prove to the judge the elements for voluntary manslaughter, he would've been convicted of it.

Second of all, you still aren't quite right about first degree murder. You only have to prove it was deliberate, there was intent to kill, and he had a chance to think about it. At the conviction stage there is nothing about aggravating or mitigating circumstances. There's a second stage for sentencing when that comes into play.

You are right, I didn't need to say "the jury." But you are wrong if you think it changes my point. You can't expect any judge or jury in this country to give a guilty verdict to cop for a 1st degree murder charge committed in the line of duty, barring other circumstances. Yes, I assumed a jury trial because of usually in cases of 1st degree murder a jury is preferred because of the chance for a hung jury. I did not know the specifics in Missouri, as it is one of 2 states where a judge decides in the case of a hung jury.

But my point is that prosecutor decided whether to file charges and which charges to file. There is no doubt that filing 1st degree murder charges was a mistake, and that isn't about preconditioning a jury. I don't care if it is a 30 year judge or a jury of peers, you aren't going to get that charge because the conviction would put an officer behind bars for the rest of their life. The simple fact of the matter is that voluntary manslaughter with a minimum sentence still gives the officer a life, and 1st degree murder doesn't. It is going to be far easier to prove that the officer "with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person ... except that he or she caused the death under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause" especially considering the difference in verdicts.

And from an outsider's perspective it seems that these losing legal battles have negative effects outside the field of law. Each time they swing and miss, the black community feels like the justice system is deliberately failing them. And when the other side sees police officers potentially getting sentences for one bad day on the job, they likewise get agitated. I get that these feelings shouldn't change what happens in the court of law, but I feel they are symptoms of the failure of the prosecution in these cases failing to put forth reasonable cases. In my opinion both the best legal argument and the most ethical decision is to go for the lightest possible sentence and crime.