It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like the Left will be destroying St. Louis tonight

page: 34
31
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

He committed a crime when he fled a lawful detention / arrest / stop. He compounded that by failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. He exceeded posted speed limits / traffic control devices. His actions placed the public at large in danger. He failed to comply with officer commands.

The vehicle was seized as an incident to arrest and lawfully searched - not corrupted.

He was shot when he failed to comply with officer commands and when he began resisting the officer in the car. He kept making furtive movements - a red flag.


Was the interior of the vehicle a crime scene or not? Was it subject to normal rules regarding forensic evidence or not?

I mean, I know you're the expert and all ... but you seem to be avoiding answering the direct question ... kind of like the cops at Stockley's trial...




After Smith was removed from the driver's seat — another officer testified Wednesday that Smith was still alive at this point — Stockley was permitted to enter the Buick to search for evidence.

Stockley was not wearing gloves. He exited the Buick moments later, and the designated seizing officer, John Baumgartner, then entered the Buick to recover the evidence. Baumgartner testified Wednesday that he saw an unloaded .38 revolver and three cartridges on the passenger seat, where Stockley had placed them after the search.


Was Stockley's search legal? Apparently, there's no law or procedure against it. However ...



After asking Simpson to discuss best practices for a police shooting, Steele brought the questioning back to Stockley. Isn't it "strange," Steele asked, that Stockley was allowed to search the Buick himself?

"Yes," answered Simpson.



Of course it is. Nine cops are standing around a car and the guy who just shot someone (the last shot was apparently from six inches away, isn't that odd?) watch while Stockley goes back and forth to his vehicle FOUR TIMES. For WHAT?

Source: River Front Times
edit on 18-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

So, to avoid all the talky-talk ... it's your theory that if cops are excessively violent and/or cross the legal line, it's the fault of the area they work in, not their own responsibility?

Yes or no?
edit on 18-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Another source adds credence to Stockley's "odd behavior". ..



One of Stockley’s fellow officers at the time who arrived on the scene immediately after the shooting, Elijah Simpson, had testified that he didn’t see a gun in the vehicle when he lifted up the airbag and looked in the car. Simpson also testified that it was strange that Stockley was allowed to go back and forth between his own car and the scene of the shooting, and that Stockley was the only officer to remove his gloves during evidence gathering.


Source


edit on 18-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Sep 18 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to fix BB code



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
And another ..




Prosecutors in the Stockley case argue that Smith did not have a gun, that Stockley fired his gun five times at Smith following the car chase (including a final shot an estimated 6 inches from Smith), and that the officer planted the revolver found in Smith's car and did not follow police procedure by handling evidence while wearing gloves. Police reports showed that only Stockley’s DNA was found on the revolver. Stockley’s attorney argued that the officer was not on trial for violating policy and that “no conclusions can be drawn from Stockley’s DNA on the gun because he unloaded it and ‘rendered it safe’ after the shooting,” according to the Post.


St. Louis Magazine



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler





It appears as if around 30 have been confimred killedd, though I didn't delve deep into it.


Any chance of a link ?

I'm only curious as I'm betting the stats don't add up, its not that I think you love numbers, its simply if you are using stats as a base for an argument you have to be 100% sure those stats you are using are accurate.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What is the 'upside' to the officer risking his job and career to lie? Just wondering. I do not think this was murder. Manslaughter? There may be a case. It is not however murder. The person killed if he was not killed would have been charged with evading, eluding, resisting and attempted murder of an officer. Let that sink in. It is not like this was an innocent kid walking to high school who was gunned down.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 2Baaka

No - he was shot when he kept reaching for a weapon in the car instead of complying with officer commands. 15 seconds lapsed from the time he was giving verbal commands to the point he was forced to fire his weapon.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Was the interior of the vehicle a crime scene or not? Was it subject to normal rules regarding forensic evidence or not?


The inside of the car, the outside of the car, where the patrol cars were located and a buffer zone outwards to secure the scene. All is considered a crime scene.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
I mean, I know you're the expert and all ... but you seem to be avoiding answering the direct question ... kind of like the cops at Stockley's trial...

No im answering your questions. Apparently since your not an expert you just dont understand the responses and opt instead to just make it up as you go along. Just like your non understanding of the officer's testimony.

Still waiting for you to link us to STLMP policy / procedure / guidelines.



originally posted by: Gryphon66

After Smith was removed from the driver's seat — another officer testified Wednesday that Smith was still alive at this point — Stockley was permitted to enter the Buick to search for evidence.

Stockley was not wearing gloves. He exited the Buick moments later, and the designated seizing officer, John Baumgartner, then entered the Buick to recover the evidence. Baumgartner testified Wednesday that he saw an unloaded .38 revolver and three cartridges on the passenger seat, where Stockley had placed them after the search.


Was Stockley's search legal? Apparently, there's no law or procedure against it. However ...


Yup - it was legal and no, gloves are not required in certain circumstances. The only issue that might arise is if there are policies / procedures / guidelines in place, what they state and what actually occurred in relation to them.

Securing a weapon, especially in a situation like this, is near / at the top of the priority list. Once made safe you move down the list.


originally posted by: Gryphon66

After asking Simpson to discuss best practices for a police shooting, Steele brought the questioning back to Stockley. Isn't it "strange," Steele asked, that Stockley was allowed to search the Buick himself?

"Yes," answered Simpson.


Of course it is. Nine cops are standing around a car and the guy who just shot someone (the last shot was apparently from six inches away, isn't that odd?) watch while Stockley goes back and forth to his vehicle FOUR TIMES. For WHAT?

Source: River Front Times


It all depends on when the other officers arrived on scene. As I stated securing a firearm / making it safe is a priority. As for searches, again depends on their policies etc but general rule of thumb is you dont keep introducing foreign dna into the scene.

As for the search what I am getting from that is it was limited to locating a weapon. According to your source the only thing touched was the firearm and it was left in the vehicle.

Unless your suggesting the officer also planted the felony drugs in the car as well?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet 3 different video recordings dont show him planting a gun.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And another ..




Prosecutors in the Stockley case argue that Smith did not have a gun, that Stockley fired his gun five times at Smith following the car chase (including a final shot an estimated 6 inches from Smith), and that the officer planted the revolver found in Smith's car and did not follow police procedure by handling evidence while wearing gloves. Police reports showed that only Stockley’s DNA was found on the revolver. Stockley’s attorney argued that the officer was not on trial for violating policy and that “no conclusions can be drawn from Stockley’s DNA on the gun because he unloaded it and ‘rendered it safe’ after the shooting,” according to the Post.


St. Louis Magazine


and the defense counsel is correct. Policy and procedures / guideline violations are not law violations. Prosecution can make an argument that by violating policies etc that evidence somehow became tainted and try to have it excluded but that usually occurs during pre trial motions. Raising that issue is done to also cast doubt on the officers credibility. Apparently that tactic didnt persuade the judge.


General rule of thumb -
If you are guilty you request a jury trial. All it takes is for 1 juror to be swayed.
If you are innocent you choose a bench trial. Judges can see through the games lawyers like to play, on both sides, and has a better understanding of the laws and their application than what jurors do.

Judges are also, usually, inclined to apply logic without emotion where jurors have a tendency to use their emotions.

As a side note the officer was cleared of a 42 USC 1983 violation (civil rights violation by a person acting under color of law). When an officer shoots to stop the threat they are technically seizing the suspect under the 4th amendment. That plays into the criminal portion since the federal investigation is saying they found no evidence that the officers actions violated a persons constitutional rights.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra





Policy and procedures / guideline violations are not law violations. Prosecution can make an argument that by violating policies etc that evidence somehow became tainted and try to have it excluded but that usually occurs during pre trial motions. Raising that issue is done to cast doubt on the officers credibility. Apparently that tactic didnt persuade the judge.


It should, these are the reasons we have stories like the one with the nurse being manhandled by the rogue cop, who obviously feels he is right, even though he was wrong....



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

In the US 3 separate investigations occur for law enforcement.

* - Criminal Investigation - usually performed by an outside agency (state police / larger department). Did the officers actions violate any laws and if so were they justified or not justified.

* - Internal Affairs Investigation - performed by the IA detective / officer in the department. This investigation determines what, if any, policies / procedures / guidelines were violated and if they were violated were they justified.

* - Civil Rights Investigation - Usually performed by the FBI. It looks at the officers actions to determine if they violated a persons constitutional rights.

Being cleared of criminal charges doesnt always protect the officer. If they violated policy they can be terminated and the employing agency / government entity can disassociate themselves from the officer. In the lawsuit realm it means the officer can lose their immunity and can face any monetary judgment on their own.

Lets leave the other thread out of this one ok.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

You really need to read the judges ruling and apply his logic to the facts of the case.


Um, no, actually, I don't need to do anything...

To the contrary, I can and am clearly taking objection to the judge's ruling, his logic, and the color of law used to make the ruling.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

You really need to read the judges ruling and apply his logic to the facts of the case.


Um, no, actually, I don't need to do anything...

To the contrary, I can and am clearly taking objection to the judge's ruling, his logic, and the color of law used to make the ruling.


Then protest in ignorance then.

Your choice.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler





It appears as if around 30 have been confimred killedd, though I didn't delve deep into it.


Any chance of a link ?

I'm only curious as I'm betting the stats don't add up, its not that I think you love numbers, its simply if you are using stats as a base for an argument you have to be 100% sure those stats you are using are accurate.


Can't link now but this is not a very good argument.

If the American heart association says 1 million people died of heart attacks last year and so people should watch their weight, you saying actually is was only 999,997 that died therefore we can't look at those numbers, so there is no need to watch your weight, that would be ridiculous.

So I linked the study's and stats from the fib and other places regarding violent crime numbers in these communities.

In adsition, a cursory look at a newspaper in these communities will show you how much violence there is there.

So please feel free to show me how these numbers are so massively wrong.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow, you mean breaking a rule of evidence is not the same as breaking the law? Corrupting a crime scene is not the same as murder?

Awesome. Can you quote my saying either of those absurd things?

Also, newsflash, I posted info on the Civil Rights charge hours ago; way out in front of you again.

Here's the deal. It's more than obvious that Officer Stockley ignored multiple rules (like carrying his own AK 47, for which he was "suspended" for a week) and best practices (wearing gloves to process a crime scene) in this situation.

It's obvious that his fellow LEOs provided cover for his actions, and will continue to act the same way in the future.

It's obvious that you, in whatever capacity you actually are a LEO, are doing the same thing.

Some of you have abused the public's trust. Those that have can only hide behind technicalities for so long.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet 3 different video recordings dont show him planting a gun.


And yet, he went back and forth from Smith's vehicle to his vehicle four times, while nine of his colleagues in blue watched.

And yet, he also claimed he was retrieving first aid materials ... which was a lie.

And yet, his friends also watched him contaminate evidence by taking off his gloves.

And yet, another officer stated that the gun was not present upon his observation, until after Stockley's multiple trips.

And yet,

And yet,



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Hey, if we can agree on a source of statistics, care to go another few rounds so long as we agree to keep the personal bickering out of the discussion?

Washington Post has been monitoring police shootings for the last three years or so, and has developed a pretty smooth interface to do searches, linked previously at Washington Post

Here is a description of the methodology used.

I'd love to have a rational discussion if you're willing and we can agree on the sources.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

In rough order of your offering ...

Good deal. So, as opposed to your previous statement that no crime scene was involved, we now have established that basic fact at least. Magnificent.

I don't pretend to be an expert, indeed. That doesn't mean that I can't look at the facts and make reasonable observations, even though it is your silly tactic to suggest that only an "expert" can make observations here, when you, who always present yourself as an "expert" continue to make the most bone-headed mistakes in your "analysis" that it's hardly any fun to even argue with you.

For example, you tried to suggest that the interior of Smith's car was not a crime scene. You tried to suggest that there was nothing wrong with Stockley's handling of evidence without proper protection, thereby contaminating it, only to reverse yourself and accuse me of not understanding procedures.

You're squirming an awful lot here.

Gloves aren't required? Why did all the other officers working the scene have them on then? Why did Stockley have them on and then take them off?

These kinds of statements have zero credibility.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Then protest in ignorance then.


Not ignorance.... although many would like us all to be ignorant about what's really happening and has been happening, eh? Us uppity citizens refusing to comply with the abuse of powers being forced on us must be quite frustrating for the thugs and bullies.








 
31
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join