Charlottesville riots

[Wuchalk]

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.

I had a totally different experience. I have served on two juries, and I was impressed with the depth of our discussions. We took our responsibility seriously and did our best to render a fair verdict. Unfortunately we were wrong, but not for lack of considering the evidence.

[WuDrWu]

I had a totally different experience. I have served on two juries, and I was impressed with the depth of our discussions. We took our responsibility seriously and did our best to render a fair verdict. Unfortunately we were wrong, but not for lack of considering the evidence.

I don't doubt that one bit. All 3 juries I sat on took things very seriously, but most people just weren't that sharp, and twice we got it wrong (both times we couldn't turn one person) and there were 2 mistrials. My point was simply that pretty much every judge, if not every judge, is sharp and understands the law, and the jury pool is iffy at best. Serious about their job? Yes, I think much more often than not, but sharp? Read the judge's decision, specifically paragraph 2 and tell me if even a plurality of folks would follow that law.

[jdshock]

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

My point is that you don't just say "well... don't run from cops and you won't get shot." If that were a persuasive argument, it would work with illegal searches. If an officer comes to my house without a warrant and finds something illegal and I get arrested, I'm going to argue that my constitutional rights protect me. You could just as easily argue "well... don't have illegal stuff in your house and you won't go to jail for illegal stuff."

As a baseline, that's absolutely accurate, but it is totally irrelevant to the more specific debate.

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

I also don't really understand this point. This was the whole issue in the case. I've been saying it since the beginning: if the judge found that the gun was in the car, the cop was going to be found innocent; if the judge found the gun was planted, it was going to be first degree murder.

But just because he found that the gun was in the car doesn't mean there was "scant" evidence on the other side. To be found innocent you just have to show a reasonable doubt. There was plenty of evidence to think the gun was planted. The only DNA on the gun belonged to the cop. The video showed the cop going back and forth between the police SUV and the car several times before anyone else arrived. He took off his gloves to investigate the scene, for some reason. In fact, there was enough evidence that they settled for close to a million dollars in the civil suit.

We cannot in hindsight say definitively "that there was a gun in the car." The judge's opinion found that there was at least reasonable doubt that there may have been a gun and the victim was reaching for it. The civil suit concluded without findings of fact since it settled.

[jdshock]

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.

This has absolutely nothing to do with why it was a bench trial. It was a bench trial because it was a white police officer who shot a black man in St. Louis city. If you're the cop, you reject that jury every single day, and twice on Sunday.

I'm obviously not going to persuade you of the rest of it. It's all inconsequential. Cops get off because of self-defense. It has nothing to do with intent or deliberation or anything else that would be the difference between a first degree murder charge and some other one. It is always because of self-defense. And with self-defense you're going to get off whether it's first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. It doesn't matter. The specific findings by the judge in this case specifically mean that a conviction for voluntary manslaughter would be impossible.

[wufan]

My point is that you don't just say "well... don't run from cops and you won't get shot." If that were a persuasive argument, it would work with illegal searches. If an officer comes to my house without a warrant and finds something illegal and I get arrested, I'm going to argue that my constitutional rights protect me. You could just as easily argue "well... don't have illegal stuff in your house and you won't go to jail for illegal stuff."

As a baseline, that's absolutely accurate, but it is totally irrelevant to the more specific debate.

How is this irrelevant? If a cop legally stops you, and you illegally hit the car and flee, there is a chance of force. Don't flee and nobody gets shot. Irrelevant would be to change the debate to illegal search of a house.

I also don't really understand this point. This was the whole issue in the case. I've been saying it since the beginning: if the judge found that the gun was in the car, the cop was going to be found innocent; if the judge found the gun was planted, it was going to be first degree murder.

But just because he found that the gun was in the car doesn't mean there was "scant" evidence on the other side. To be found innocent you just have to show a reasonable doubt. There was plenty of evidence to think the gun was planted. The only DNA on the gun belonged to the cop. The video showed the cop going back and forth between the police SUV and the car several times before anyone else arrived. He took off his gloves to investigate the scene, for some reason. In fact, there was enough evidence that they settled for close to a million dollars in the civil suit.

We cannot in hindsight say definitively "that there was a gun in the car." The judge's opinion found that there was at least reasonable doubt that there may have been a gun and the victim was reaching for it. The civil suit concluded without findings of fact since it settled.

Perhaps scant is a word you don't like. The judge found that there was not enough evidence to say the gun was planted. I call that "scant". Besides, I think you know that settling a civil suit is much different than obtaining a guilty verdict.

[jdmee]

My point is that you don't just say "well... don't run from cops and you won't get shot." If that were a persuasive argument, it would work with illegal searches. If an officer comes to my house without a warrant and finds something illegal and I get arrested, I'm going to argue that my constitutional rights protect me. You could just as easily argue "well... don't have illegal stuff in your house and you won't go to jail for illegal stuff."

As a baseline, that's absolutely accurate, but it is totally irrelevant to the more specific debate.



I also don't really understand this point. This was the whole issue in the case. I've been saying it since the beginning: if the judge found that the gun was in the car, the cop was going to be found innocent; if the judge found the gun was planted, it was going to be first degree murder.

But just because he found that the gun was in the car doesn't mean there was "scant" evidence on the other side. To be found innocent you just have to show a reasonable doubt. There was plenty of evidence to think the gun was planted. The only DNA on the gun belonged to the cop. The video showed the cop going back and forth between the police SUV and the car several times before anyone else arrived. He took off his gloves to investigate the scene, for some reason.

But the prosecution's witnesses said that just because there wasn't DNA of the victims on the fun doesn't mean it didn't belong to him or he never touched it. The video evidence also, if I remember reading correctly, showed other cops taking off their gloves. The video evidence doesn't show a large object that would ve the size of the gun to be on the cop. Most of the "evidence" the prosecution had, their own witnesses explained away.

In fact, there was enough evidence that they settled for close to a million dollars in the civil suit.

We cannot in hindsight say definitively "that there was a gun in the car." The judge's opinion found that there was at least reasonable doubt that there may have been a gun and the victim was reaching for it. The civil suit concluded without findings of fact since it settled.

Couldn't you settle a civil court for any reason? PR, It's not worth the time/effort to fight it, appease a community, ... It doesn't mean they thought they would lose necessarily. At the time the DAs office and the DOJ (under Holder/Obama) didn't peruse the case because of lack of evidence.

[jdshock]

How is this irrelevant? If a cop legally stops you, and you illegally hit the car and flee, there is a chance of force. Don't flee and nobody gets shot. Irrelevant would be to change the debate to illegal search of a house.

I'm not changing the debate to illegal searches. I'm using an analogy to show that it's not a logical line of reasoning. It's irrelevant because hitting the police car and fleeing is not sufficient grounds to kill the suspect. When Stockley fired shots at the fleeing vehicle, he violated department policy. I agree that the victim would've never been in the position to have been shot if he had not fled the scene. That doesn't mean that it can't be murder, though. Warning: I'm about to use another analogy. I'm not changing the subject. Just like all the re-hashed debates about Cle and the strip club. Maybe you shouldn't be at strip clubs at 3am, but that's completely irrelevant at the criminal hearing of the thief.

Perhaps scant is a word you don't like. The judge found that there was not enough evidence to say the gun was planted. I call that "scant". Besides, I think you know that settling a civil suit is much different than obtaining a guilty verdict.

The judge found that there was not enough evidence to say the gun was planted beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a huge difference. Would you say there was "scant" evidence in the OJ case just because he was acquitted in the criminal trial?

[WuDrWu]

That's a huge difference. Would you say there was "scant" evidence in the OJ case just because he was acquitted in the criminal trial?

No, he was acquitted because of stupidity, race (having nothing to do with the law) and a borderline incompetent prosecution. You want to talk about a stupid jury?

[WuDrWu]

My point is that you don't just say "well... don't run from cops and you won't get shot." If that were a persuasive argument, it would work with illegal searches. If an officer comes to my house without a warrant and finds something illegal and I get arrested, I'm going to argue that my constitutional rights protect me. You could just as easily argue "well... don't have illegal stuff in your house and you won't go to jail for illegal stuff."

This is why so many people don't like lawyers. You're taking something, twisting it around and trying to confuse everyone in a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" sort of way.

There is no incident without the criminal. There is no incident without him fleeing, AGAINST the law. We've asked these men and women to protect and serve, at their peril. I agree, not to be judge and executioner, but again, there is no incident without the criminal.

This isn't about someone getting off on a technicality plain sight illegal search and seizure. That has nothing to do with it and don't try to compare it. The guy wasn't walking his dog. Don't be a ****ing criminal! Don't deal drugs to our kids. Don't be a menace to society. Hell, don't be a menace to your own race! You don't think this guy is responsible for dozens in the community, if not hundreds, likely blacks, who are strung out on drugs, probably committing their own acts of theft and violence because of it?

The fault is not with the police. The fault is with the criminals. When we, we as a society, can buck up and tackle THAT real problem, we'll be able to move forward. Until then, the divide will grow.

Which is the bigger problem? Gang violence or real racist white cops killing innocent blacks? Would you say it's 10-1? 100-1? 1000-1? 10,000-1???? Why isn't black on black gang violence leading EVERY news cycle? Is it because there's no money in it?

And who exactly is to blame for that? Work the problem folks. Until then, I guess all we can do is stay divided.

[wufan]

I'm not changing the debate to illegal searches. I'm using an analogy to show that it's not a logical line of reasoning. It's irrelevant because hitting the police car and fleeing is not sufficient grounds to kill the suspect. When Stockley fired shots at the fleeing vehicle, he violated department policy. I agree that the victim would've never been in the position to have been shot if he had not fled the scene. That doesn't mean that it can't be murder, though. Warning: I'm about to use another analogy. I'm not changing the subject. Just like all the re-hashed debates about Cle and the strip club. Maybe you shouldn't be at strip clubs at 3am, but that's completely irrelevant at the criminal hearing of the thief.



The judge found that there was not enough evidence to say the gun was planted beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a huge difference. Would you say there was "scant" evidence in the OJ case just because he was acquitted in the criminal trial?

Back to my initial points that you objected to (restated for clarity):

You shouldn't run from cops. Bad things happen when you do, even though it doesn't justify being shot.

Regardless of the verdict, this was going to be a controversial case. The optics were bad for the cop. The optics of a fleeing suspect are bad for the alleged perpetrator/victim. It's difficult to convict a cop under those circumstances.

Protests that attempt vandalism or blocking interstate traffic are not a good solution. I'm glad the police were there to block protestors from walking onto the highway and to halt the attack on the mayors house.

[ShockingButTrue]

This is why so many people don't like lawyers. You're taking something, twisting it around and trying to confuse everyone in a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" sort of way.

There is no incident without the criminal. There is no incident without him fleeing, AGAINST the law. We've asked these men and women to protect and serve, at their peril. I agree, not to be judge and executioner, but again, there is no incident without the criminal.

This isn't about someone getting off on a technicality plain sight illegal search and seizure. That has nothing to do with it and don't try to compare it. The guy wasn't walking his dog. Don't be a ****ing criminal! Don't deal drugs to our kids. Don't be a menace to society. Hell, don't be a menace to your own race! You don't think this guy is responsible for dozens in the community, if not hundreds, likely blacks, who are strung out on drugs, probably committing their own acts of theft and violence because of it?

The fault is not with the police. The fault is with the criminals. When we, we as a society, can buck up and tackle THAT real problem, we'll be able to move forward. Until then, the divide will grow.

Which is the bigger problem? Gang violence or real racist white cops killing innocent blacks? Would you say it's 10-1? 100-1? 1000-1? 10,000-1???? Why isn't black on black gang violence leading EVERY news cycle? Is it because there's no money in it?

And who exactly is to blame for that? Work the problem folks. Until then, I guess all we can do is stay divided.

This is most american's world view, which explains the aversion to Holder. This isn't the conversation he wants to have.