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: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Gryphon66

there are several types of of monsters walking the streets, completely disregarding law and order and acting on emotions and testosterone ; both killer cop and 'protestors' fall under the same categories, different conviction, same reactions to actions. ..


... and right or wrong, what is fueling the fire in St. Louis tonight is that the killer cops go free time after time after time.

Rioting is stupid and counter-productive. Inflicting violence in repayment for violence is not the answer.

Focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause is not going to cure anything.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Black_Fox
So if the gun only had the officers DNA, it wouldn't be that surprising.


Well, it's a little surprising since cops are trained to collect evidence without getting their own DNA all over it.

At least that is how they used to be trained. Ya know, before society decided to just allow them to do whatever the hell they want regardless of what crimes they may commit while on the job.
edit on 15-9-2017 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

So you heard some folks discussing something and you want me to do your research for you?

You're interested in the explication of the judge's decision; you post it (might want to read it first.)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Here is the judges words...again.




Judge Wilson said he wasn’t convinced after “[a]gonizingly” going over the evidence. He argued that the gun was too large for Stockley to have successfully hidden it from the cameras, and, citing expert witnesses, that the lack of DNA evidence doesn’t mean Smith didn’t own the gun. And he said it would be strange if Smith didn’t have a gun, given that he was believed to be a drug dealer: “Finally, 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.”


www.vox.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I hadn't heard he bought it from anywhere.

It's more likely it's a throw away.

And you would be surprised to the lengths thugs go to leave no trace.

They are thugs, but thugs are at least street smart.

And I saw the video, never saw the cop leave his car with the rifle, saw him return from the thugs car with it.

And as far as what I tell myself?

I tell myself he sealed his fate when he hit the cops car, almost hit the cops and went on a high speed chase.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

And I could care less that he is dead.

You think I care if one less thug is off the street?

He is a thug, and as the record stands, a thug , with a AK-47.

Do you think he was going to do neighborhood watch?

Or kill gang members and drug dealers?




edit on 15-9-2017 by Black_Fox because: SpElliNg



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah, because a cop that's carrying a throwaway weapon in a duffel bag doesn't know where the camera is in the police vehicle ...

Yeah, because you know, every Black drug dealer obviously owns a gun (and yet, doesn't touch it.)

Yeah, because the fact that the guy was an urban (read Black) drug dealer proves he deserved to be shot.

Again, why are these folks in St. Louis upset?




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
It's starting.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

So, you're okay with assuming that this drug dealer had a gun that he'd never touched.

Fine.

What was the officer doing in the duffel bag? According to you and the judge, he had nothing in his hands.

Why would he have a sudden need to rummage around in the back of the police vehicle, right after he'd just shot a man five times at close range?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Live stream update






posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Still pretty weak when coming from an actual Judge or Court Ruling. After all what he's saying is despite the actual Evidence which is a gun without the suspects DNA on it and just the cops DNA. In the Judges opinion, the Suspect did have a gun because he's a drug dealer so it must have been his gun.

Actual Evidence: Gun. Without any solid link to the suspect, but with a solid link to the cop.

I thought the legal system was supposed to be based off Evidence. Real Evidence, not opinions. But I guess Opinions of what "Should" be true is worth more than what can actually be shown to be true now???

Can't say I like the sound of that as a third party looking at this from an outside perspective.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

But mOjOm ... Black guy. Drug dealer. Ran from the cops.

Case closed.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Yeah, because a cop that's carrying a throwaway weapon in a duffel bag doesn't know where the camera is in the police vehicle ...


Yea because criminals aren't known for carrying weapons that have zero identifiers or prints/dna.




Yeah, because you know, every Black drug dealer obviously owns a gun (and yet, doesn't touch it.)


From cases that I've seen personally, it is typical for a dealer of narcotics to also have a firearm in their possession if not on their premises. This is anecdotal, sure. Skin color doesn't matter in this scenario nor is it mentioned. You added that.




Yeah, because the fact that the guy was an urban (read Black) drug dealer proves he deserved to be shot.


Again, your own addition. He was in violation of multiple felonies and threatening the public with his actions up until his apprehension/death.




Again, why are these folks in St. Louis upset?


Rhetorical? Perhaps a better question would be, do they think this is the correct path to justice they seek.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're conveniently leaving some things out.

1. Nothing the prosecution asserts or believes is evidence. There's a good reason they're required to present evidence instead of just making accusations. For instance: They asserted there was a kill shot, however witnesses testified all the shots came in rapid succession with no delay. Implying he shot him 4x in the shoulder, waited a second, then decided to execute him is baseless and not supported by the evidence. This shows right from the beginning that the prosecution was dishonest to even insinuate this and make this assertion. It wasn't supported by any evidence or sworn testimony, but it helped their case so they threw it in. That's pretty malicious. This throws doubt on everything else they asserted, and probably makes any reasonable person not trust anything further they assert without a fair bit of evidence. If anything they damaged their case by pulling this kind of crap in a bench trial.

2. Stockley saying he's gonna kill the guy is meaningless unless other evidence can be presented that he carried out the threat in an unlawful manner. So let's move on and see if any other evidence was presented.

3. Your own quote states there was zero evidence showing Stockley planted a gun. Despite dozens of witnesses, no one saw him carrying or concealing a full-size revolver. Cops routinely return to their cars and go into bags and boxes while working crime scenes, this is meaningless, but they were just hoping you wouldn't know that so you'd think it sounded suspicious. The gun was too large for Stockley to fit in his pocket or stuff in his belt without anyone seeing. This makes it highly unlikely the gun was planted.

4. DNA doesn't work like it does in CSI shows. There are all kinds of reasons why the perp's DNA wouldn't be on the gun. This happened in December. Last time he brought the gun out to the car he could've been wearing gloves. If he had just got done cleaning it or just wiped it off recently that could remove DNA. Criminals, which we know for a fact this guy was, wipe their guns off sometimes specifically just so their prints/DNA isn't on it, especially if they're a prohibited possessor, which this guy was. Depends how long it was there, what other materials it had come in contact with. This is not evidence it wasn't his gun.

Bottom line, the case is suspicious, that's why it went to trial. People riot when the cops don't get charged and tried and say that's evidence of corruption. How did he even get tried then? He got tried because there were enough suspicious circumstances, but in the end the prosecution couldn't prove anything it asserted. The only thing that even sounds suspicious is the no DNA on the gun, and there's a myriad of explanations for that. There was no way he was getting convicted, even if it was a jury trial. There was no evidence. Your feelings aren't evidence.

All of my sources are from the article you linked. If anyone is interested in reading the judge's statement explaining his verdict, it can be found here. There doesn't appear to be a link to it in the article you sourced. Gee, wonder why they left that out?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Case closed.



Pretty much.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

(ABCNEWS.com)-Smith had a 1-year-old daughter when he died. His family has not disclosed much about him. Court records show he had a criminal record that included convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and drug distribution. At the time of the shooting, he was on probation for a theft charge related to a 2010 crime in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. In 2013, the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners reached a $900,000 settlement with Smith's family, ending a wrongful-death lawsuit filed on behalf of Smith's daughter.


abcnews.go.com...

I'm sure Mr. Smith was a fine upstanding citizen, and he had a previous for unlawful possession of a firearm, who would have thought.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
National Guard on standby !!




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

A gun without his DNA but in his possession, is his ruling.

Drug dealer is pretty broad, the judge emphasized 'heroin' dealer later in the quote. Narcotics and guns typically go hand in hand.

Possession is his link and the judge decided it was in his possession. That is the evidence.

Now I am fairly confident that this case can be appealed and should be.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ya know what. I'm not even saying the Judge is wrong in his opinion. I mean how would I know, I wasn't there.

But none of that matters.

Even if we assume the Judge is 100% correct in his "Opinion". Trial isn't about what you think is True. It's about what you can Prove is True.

Maybe it was his gun, or maybe it wasn't. But the facts do not show it being his gun at all. Therefore until it can be proven as his, it's not his and that should never have been made a fact without it being proven. That's how the law is supposed to work.

But ya, I mean it's just some Drug Dealer anyway so why would anyone care about principles.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The fun is starting.


Masks are now on.
edit on 15-9-2017 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I get what you're saying. But what I'm looking at is that such a claim needs to be proven with Evidence not an opinion.

If anything, it should just be dismissed as evidence until it can be shown to be his that's all.

I mean we know cops plant evidence when they need it. Happens quite a bit and I'm sure they're pretty good at it too. Which is why good solid evidence is important in this kid of stuff.

I'm not saying this guy wasn't a "Bad Dude" up to some nasty sh*t. But there is a proper way to do things and there is a really criminal way of doing things and a good clear line between the two should always be there.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join