• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ex-St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley found not guilty of murder

R

Random Painted HIghway

Member
Kill3r7 said:
The D requested a bench trial. Bianchi sounds like a bad state's witness. Unless you are about to catch the D red handed you probably want to avoid putting on a state's witness that will support the D claims.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Missouri laws but the states I've practiced in, criminal law including a similar mid western state, the state has to agree to the waiving of jury as well.

Re: bianchi- yes, that's the implication here, that he would have supported the defense theory. Still, as the prosecutor, I think you out to put that out there and have him perjur himself. Easy for me to say.
 
S

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew

Banned
I'm so sorry America. Truly sorry that the small percentage of assholes are defining your ideologies and roles and morals and responsibilities. It happens to every country and minority and majority and group, and yet time and time again we have to remind ourselves that a small group of people are defining what America should be about, and it shouldn't be this way.

Stand up for Justice, no matter what the Judge, the Jury, the Executioner or the President says. This was straight up murder, and murder cover-up.

Fuck St. Louis.
 
Dusktildawn48

Dusktildawn48

Member
I'll just never understand whats the point of not convicting him. Like he's clearly guilty, and they know that rioting is gonna happen.
 
K

Kill3r7

Member
Random Painted HIghway said:
I'm not familiar with Missouri laws but the states I've practiced in, criminal law including a similar mid western state, the state has to agree to the waiving of jury as well.

Re: bianchi- yes, that's the implication here, that he would have supported the defense theory. Still, as the prosecutor, I think you out to put that out there and have him perjur himself. Easy for me to say.
Click to expand...

Neither am I but based on what I read online the state filed a motion in opposition.
 
F

FTF

Member
Sadly expected...smfh.

Enzom21 said:
DOB0LpP.png

Fuck this judge.
Click to expand...

Yup, fuck this judge.
 
N

Nephtis

Member
Dusktildawn48 said:
I'll just never understand whats the point of not convicting him. Like he's clearly guilty, and they know that rioting is gonna happen.
Click to expand...

A cop's life and well being is worth more than 2 white people's lives, more than 4 Asian people, more than 8 brown people, and more than 25 black people.

There's no way justice was gonna be served.
 
S

SolarPowered

Member
Dusktildawn48 said:
I'll just never understand whats the point of not convicting him. Like he's clearly guilty, and they know that rioting is gonna happen.
Click to expand...
These verdicts are like confederate statues put up in diverse communities. They're just there to tell minorities their lives and opinions don't matter.
 
C

CornDogg

Member
idlewild_ said:
Not guilty verdicts are binding.
Click to expand...

I guess that's good in some cases, but that's really unfortunate here. Dude needs to be brought to justice.

wienke said:
I think the protestors are trying to get onto 64 to block it off
Click to expand...

Flo_Evans said:
Protesters trying to get on highway police blocking on ramp.
Click to expand...

Welp. I don't have to be on 64/40 very long usually, but it looks like an alternate route home for me today just in case.
 
S

SpiralZilla

Member
cwmartin said:
T5wmzqV.png


I have no problem saying without any doubt. This judge is a racist piece of shit. Fuck him.
Click to expand...

Wait, so because it's technically possible to hold a gun without getting fingerprints on it, but at the same time because it's "unusual" for a drug dealer to not have a gun (and thus likely to have had the gun for some time going by that assumption), that means the gun with only the cop's fingerprints must have belonged to the victim?

No, wait, it's technically, maybe possible under bizarre, invented circumstances if you grasp enough straws and thus no longer "beyond a doubt."

Not to mention the phrase "I'm going to kill him" within the context of actually killing someone is somehow "ambiguous" and "out of context."

There's no doubt at all as to why the shooter opted for a bench trial with this "judge" on the bench.
 
V

Vossler

Member
Just got out of work downtown -- also live downtown, so this will be an interesting weekend....Gaming and locking the door pretty much....Market is closed off already.
 
P

Paz

Member
Please add this to the list of things you can now safely do as a white police officer in the USA: Tell people you are going to murder someone (on tape) and then obviously plant a gun on the victim.

Insane.
 
C

cwmartin

Member
SpiralZilla said:
Wait, so because it's technically possible to hold a gun without getting fingerprints on it, but at the same time because it's "unusual" for a drug dealer to not have a gun (and thus likely to have had the gun for some time going by that assumption), that means the gun with only the cop's fingerprints must have belonged to the victim?

Not to mention the phrase "I'm going to kill him" within the context of actually killing someone is somehow "ambiguous" and "out of context."

There's no doubt at all as to why the shooter opted for a bench trial.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll ever be able to twist our logic into making sense for this.

DNA on gun, but the assumption that the black man would have a gun overrides the physical evidence presented. And the evidence that excludes the victim from having the gun, is hand waived away.
 
F

Frustrated_me

Member
"we're killing this mother fucker" (on tape)

*kills the man*

*is let free, because...*

"we're killing this mother fucker" didn't mean "killing the man"

Conte-shocked.png
conte-stunned.png


Can you just imagine if a black man did this? Just imagine for a second if the court case lasted this long, if he got away with it, if he "didn't mean it". Can you just fucking imagine that?
 
S

SpiralZilla

Member
cwmartin said:
I don't think we'll ever be able to twist our logic into making sense for this.

DNA on gun, but the assumption that the black man would have a gun overrides the physical evidence presented. And the evidence that excludes the victim from having the gun, is hand waived away.
Click to expand...

I edited a bit too late, but it looks like grasping enough straws magically makes it not beyond a doubt anymore.
 
S

ShyMel

Member
Disgusting. Racism runs so deep in this country that you can plant evidence on your black victim, that you also stated you were going to kill, and get a not guilty verdict.
 
V

Vicetrailia

Member
Stuff like this reminds you how shitty this country is, and how skin color alone dictates so many things for you. Stl is everywhere in the U.S., and everywhere is stl.
 
TheThreadsThatBindUs

TheThreadsThatBindUs

Member
There are so many logical inconsistencies in this verdict by the Judge.

He acknowledges the prosecution's claim that the defendant planted the gun, but claims that the evidence shows (i.e. lack of testimony) that the defendant didn't go near the vehicle or wasn't seen planting the weapon.

And yet, the DNA evidence shows DNA consistent with the defendant, yet this judge handwaves it away with a claim that the defendant took off his gloves to rifle through his bag in his own car.

You can either have one or the other. You can't have both!

If the evidence (testimony) shows that Stockely didn't go near the car, then how did his DNA get on the gun?

And if you accept his DNA on the gun because he went to the car and retrieved it, then THAT IS evidence that he went to the car and clear opportunity for him to plant the weapon.

Also, the bit about heroine dealers without a firearm is uncommon... I just don't... wow!
 
A

Apharmd

Member
That's insane. This is insane. They're being totally transparent about this. The state just sanctioned this killing.

I can't even say the cop is a piece of shit for going Judge Dredd on this because Dredd actually upholds the law.
 
N

Netherscourge

Banned
Who are we kidding?

If there was no gun in the car, the cop would still be found not guilty.

Judge would have said, "Well, the guy LOOKED like he was grabbing for something. May have been a wallet, may have been a baby bottle, may have been a gun. Gotta be sure, right?"
 
B

Beartruck

Member
The fact that that the guy is so gauranteed to get off scot free that they started putting up barricades before the verdict came out tells you everything you need to know: Hes guilty, you know it, the judge knows it, and fuck you anyway.
 
M

Mark L

Member
I'm totes sure that if a black man killed a dude after saying "we're killing this motherfucker" on tape they would get the same level of nuanced scrutiny and contextual forensics that we see here. Yup. That's what would happen alright.
 
HellforLeather

HellforLeather

Member
Wait so the officers DNA was on the gun and the suspects was not? So, Im not a DNA expert but if it was your gun, wouldnt it have trace amounts of your DNA on it?
 
Interfectum

Interfectum

Member
Random Painted HIghway said:
It really strains credulity to think that the owner of the guns dna would not be found on the gun at all, like he just picked it up at churches while wearing gloves.
Click to expand...

And the cop's DNA is on the gun because for some reason he decided to touch evidence without gloves and unload the gun just cause. Right... is that standard procedure for an officer involved shooting for said officer to start touching evidence and unload weapons?
 
S

sturgboski

Member
Frustrated_me said:
"we're killing this mother fucker" (on tape)

*kills the man*

*is let free, because...*

"we're killing this mother fucker" didn't mean "killing the man"

Conte-shocked.png
conte-stunned.png


Can you just imagine if a black man did this? Just imagine for a second if the court case lasted this long, if he got away with it, if he "didn't mean it". Can you just fucking imagine that?
Click to expand...

EVE Online gave someone who has been playing for 13 years a lifetime ban for saying "use your have while you still can." Cop says "I'm going to kill this person" and then does it's given a clean bill.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Enzom21 said:
DOB0LpP.png

Fuck this judge.
Click to expand...
Listen, just because you say you gonna kill someone and then go and kill that person it doesn't mean that you meant to kill him.

You see, it was...
THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT

Fuck this judge.

Oh and also -
cwmartin said:
T5wmzqV.png


I have no problem saying without any doubt. This judge is a racist piece of shit. Fuck him.
Click to expand...
So folksy wisdom about drug dealers is now admissible in court?
Neat.

Fuck this judge.
 
N

NimbusD

Member
How can you waive your right to a jury trial? Juries aren't just a right of the accused bit of the people to prevent shit like this.
 
V

Vossler

Member
Downtown isn't bad yet - but we do have a huge bull/bear statue outside our building that was being boarded up this morning, interestingly enough.
 
K

Kill3r7

Member
TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
There are so many logical inconsistencies in this verdict by the Judge.

He acknowledges the prosecution's claim that the defendant planted the gun, but claims that the evidence shows (i.e. lack of testimony) that the defendant didn't go near the vehicle or wasn't seen planting the weapon.

And yet, the DNA evidence shows DNA consistent with the defendant, yet this judge handwaves it away with a claim that the defendant took off his gloves to rifle through his bag in his own car.

You can either have one or the other. You can't have both!

If the evidence (testimony) shows that Stockely didn't go near the car, then how did his DNA get on the gun?

And if you accept his DNA on the gun because he went to the car and retrieved it, then THAT IS evidence that he went to the car and clear opportunity for him to plant the weapon.

Also, the bit about heroine dealers without a firearm is uncommon... I just don't... wow!
Click to expand...

Excellent post highlighting the inconsistencies. Too bad the prosecution failed to nail the D on cross. No assumptions would need to be made if they established that the D handled the weapon which would inturn establish a window for him to plant the weapon. Insinuating only gets you so far.
 
H

HazySaiyan

Banned
I'm sorry America but your justice system is utterly broken, almost beyond repair. The fact that this continues to happen in a supposedly free, developed nation shows that you have no rule of law. Not really.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
"Well it's possible for someone to possess a gun but not have DNA on it, therefore the lack of DNA means nothing."

Some real hackwork by this judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

143 ppl arrested (inc. journalists) in 19th straight day of St. Louis BLM protests.
2
67
11K
double jump replied
St. Louis Restaurant Owner gives details on incident with police during protests
2
92
13K
Brakke replied
St. Louis officer shoots black off-duty cop responding to gunfight
2 3 4 5
203
25K
HP_Wuvcraft replied
Officer Yanez Found Not Guilty On All Counts In Castile’s Death
6 7 8 9 10
483
56K
hbkdx12 replied
  • Locked
St. Louis County Police Officer murdered.
2
81
12K
McBryBry replied
Top Bottom