Is St Louis set to burn with acquittal of ex-cop Jason Stockley?

All I know is that I would never, ever want to be cop in today's world. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Right or wrong, you can't win.

Fox News now reporting police are pepper spraying the protesters.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The defendant also has the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. He can waive this right and
be tried by a judge alone.

moadvocacy.org

Yes, the sixth amendment gives us a right to be tried before a jury of our peers, but a defendant also has the right to way that right and be judged by a jury alone. The charges on which the defendant is indicted does not change that fact, at least as far as I've ever seen or read.

AS for how this started,

In Smith's [suspect] case, the encounter began when Stockley [police officer] and his partner tried to corner Smith in a fast-food restaurant parking lot after seeing what appeared to be a drug deal.

Stockley testified he saw what he believed was a gun, and his partner yelled "gun!" as Smith backed into the police SUV twice to get away. Stockley's attorney, Neil Bruntrager, argued Smith, a parole violator with previous convictions for gun and drug crimes, tried to run over the two officers. Stockley fired seven shots as Smith sped away. A chase ensued.

Sounds like the suspect was not quite the upstanding citizen that this protest might think. I mean, they are protesting about a scumbag criminal.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: matafuchs

Until something is done to address the problem with police shootings in this country, cities are going to burn.

Do you expect the people who have to worry about things like this daily to just sit at home and do nothing?

a reply to: matafuchs

There is no way that this can end good.

I totally and completely agree: No good can come from this.

I am not here to debate the action but the consequence of this judgement. There will be rioting and looting and for what? It will not bring anyone back. It will not change any outcomes.

But what will??? There are legitimate and very serious concerns about this killing and the events following with no apparent way to address and correct the problems. It's easy to point fingers at these folks for their bad behavior. But blaming the reaction and not addressing the provocation is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

What it does do is further spread hate and division.

Yup. And by design. Because there are no adults on either side of the room providing any better options. And that's not by accident or coincidence.

a reply to: matafuchs

If it burns (and it probably will...we've seen what these St. Louisans do when they feel slighted by police and the legal system), it will not be because of the verdict, but because these people can't control their emotions enough to act like civilized human beings.

It is absolutely uncivilized to riot--it's pretty much an exact reflection of the definition of the word.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Fox News now reporting police are pepper spraying the protesters.

I'm sure that'll help. :eyeroll:

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...

A gun a drug dealer carried long and often (judge - "it would be strange if Smith didn’t have a gun, given that he was believed to be a drug dealer") doesn't have a trace of his DNA, but does have DNA of an officer who may have never touched it or he picked it up without gloves to enter it as evidence.

Yep, perfect sense.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
AS for how this started,

In Smith's [suspect] case, the encounter began when Stockley [police officer] and his partner tried to corner Smith in a fast-food restaurant parking lot after seeing what appeared to be a drug deal.

Stockley testified he saw what he believed was a gun, and his partner yelled "gun!" as Smith backed into the police SUV twice to get away. Stockley's attorney, Neil Bruntrager, argued Smith, a parole violator with previous convictions for gun and drug crimes, tried to run over the two officers. Stockley fired seven shots as Smith sped away. A chase ensued.

Sounds like the suspect was not quite the upstanding citizen that this protest might think. I mean, they are protesting about a scumbag criminal.

He was a multiple offending drug dealer.

The judge wrote a 30 page statement concerning his judgement on this.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ketsuko

That's a major problem, then.

The right to waive a jury trial has been around for almost a hundred years. It's not exactly a new thing.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The main issues in this case are that Stockley is caught on the dashcam saying something that isn't clear but sounds like it could be "I'll kill that, MFer" after he has rammed them and sped away.

And then how Stockley handled things after they finally get Smith run off the road.

Even Stockley admits what he says sounds like it could be that.

I keep wondering why prosecutors keep reaching for Murder 1 in these cases when something like Murder 2 seems to be pretty clear to me here.

a reply to: coop039


Exactly. Had this person not been dealing drugs, not been convicted of gun related crimes, and not tried to run over the police (in this instance), it may have ended differently.

Protesting the death of such a scum bag criminal is, IMO, only an excuse to cause trouble, riot, burn, and loot to get "free stuff". How can anyone rightly defend the actions of this criminal, who, during a parole violation, was killed after a high speed chase. Knowing full well he was headed back to jail if caught.

Yeah, I think its time BLM and the others picked a better poster child to protest about.

Maybe it's time for the death penalty after the 3rd drug conviction. They can let the officer of the month kill the person.

a reply to: ketsuko
Yes, murder 1 has a very high hurdle (and rightly so). The prosecution did not have enough for that given the history of their client. Wishing is not a legal strategy....unless....the protest and riot is exactly what they hoped to gain by doing that.

I bet busloads are on the highways headed for St Louis.

Be afraid.

Be VERY afraid !!

Congressional Black Caucus reference "Hands up, don't shoot" on House floor. When you have 'leaders' celebrate felons what else can we expect.

Are there bad cops? Yes. But there are bad people in all jobs. How about doctors. There are at least 100,000 deaths per year by negligence. Look at the list of killed by police. Last year there were 182. You have a better chance being killed at the hospital than by a rogue police officer.

St Louis live stream

a reply to: Krakatoa

Perhaps the conspiracy isn't in the trial process itself but in how the prosecutors hand down the charges.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I bet busloads are on the highways headed for St Louis.

Be afraid.

Be VERY afraid !!

Rumors here in St. Louis are saying there are over 100,000 here to protest. Also heard that all of the hotels downtown are booked solid. Im sure it will be an interesting weekend here.