Support NeoGAF

[Dishwalla]

We need more Christopher Dorners

Uh no

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Just a reminder to people that mods will ban people for calling someone a piece of crap even if they're intentionally being an asshole. Don't lose your account over a troll. It's not worth it.

 

[Beartruck]

Ah, yes, I like to be on waiting list, just to spew 3 comments before someone bans the account.

Now back to topic:
The hate the police gets is just, wrong.

Yes, I'm Swedish, and I don't live in the US, but I can comment on the issue anyway.

FACTS show that people of color don't get shot anymore than white people, but they get shot because the try to run from the cops more.

If you live in Sweden and not the US you really can't comment here. I imagine in most european countries cops are fairly well trained in held accountable for their actions. In a lot of US police departments, there is little to no training and even less oversight. Not to mention that some departments refuse to hire intelligent people because of fear they might get bored of the job (that is not a joke).

 

[schwabdizzle]

From what the judge said, he is not convinced either way whether is was murder or self defense. So instead of a hung jury it was a hung judge.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Things have gotten more volatile though and that's the crazy part is there willing to fan these flames and put all their supposed "brotherhood" in danger of retribution just to protect "the bad ones" I mean it shows how false #notallcops is and how far they are willing to go to be complicit. I'm not saying I wish or want something to happen but as we've seen in the past couple years some people are being pushed to the edge now. And instead of looking at these key events that are the fuse when something does happen everybody will suddenly come down with memories of goldfish and blame BLM or now antifa.

They want to have a trial and discuss when cops kill, and put the victims on trial and their history. But its inappropriate and "not the time" to discuss when retribution hits the police. There's nothing to discuss for some strange reason except BLM incited the incident. Ignoring it won't make it stop, but I'm wondering how long will the supposedly good cops keep protecting their own when shit keeps getting escalated. And the morbid irony of the ones doing the escalation usually aren't even on the front lines standing by them anymore.

Shit hasn't gotten more volatile. It's always been this way. Just now with technology White moderates and liberals can't stick their head so deep in the sand. We been saying this shit from the jump.

 

[Ishan]

Obviously haven't seen the video or listened to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

 

[Enzom21]

Obituary haven't seen the video or listen to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

And I am sure everyone is shocked by this.

 

[Username1198]

Obituary haven't seen the video or listen to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

Why exactly? It seems pretty clear the pig murdered a man. No dna on gun, shot him as he ran away, had an AK, said he was gonna murder him.

So why exactly would you acquit him?

Edit shit did I fall for bait again???? I'm so bad at the internet

 

[Jmanunknown]

From what the judge said, he is not convinced either way whether is was murder or self defense. So instead of a hung jury it was a hung judge.

The judge is racist he even used coded language to describe the person who was murdered.
His mind was already made up he just had to try to weasel his way into some sort of explanation for his obviously biased decision to appeal to the white moderate. He wanted to appear impartial while being biased.

 

[Enzom21]

Why exactly? It seems pretty clear the pig murdered a man. No dna on gun, shot him as he ran away, had an AK, said he was gonna murder him.

So why exactly would you acquit him?

Edit shit did I fall for bait again???? I'm so bad at the internet

Naw, post history.

 

[MisterR]

Yes, though the point here that is that the failure was to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Why I wouldn't blame prosecution is that the judges "reasonable doubt" was provably shaded by his racial dispositions.

His doubt assumes the victim had the weapon because he's a black drug dealer, and assumes the cops words weren't intent because he trusts a white cop.

I'd be interested to see his level of doubt in similar cases with reversed race.

In this thread you have somewhat a public jury or peers that, based on the evidence, believe beyond reasonable doubt. Who knows what a selected jury would choose.

You have a somewhat public jury who hasn't seen any of the evidence, and quiet a few who haven't likely even read the judges report. From what is in the report, there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was planted. Experts testified that the DNA evidence meant nothing on the gun. There was no visual evidence of it being planted. Nobody testified as to seeing anything relating to planting a gun. I get the emotion for sure, and cops sure aren't above planting evidence, but there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in this specific case, that the gun was planted.

 

[Heroman]

Obviously haven't seen the video or listen to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

This is why we will never change as a country.

 

[Jenov]

I know this will be very unpopular, but I read all of the judges statement and from a legal perspective, it makes sense. The only evidence of the gun being planted is the DNA from the cop and none from the victim, but both experts who testified stated that that didn't mean the victim hadn't handled the gun and we know the cop handled the gun. The wound to the lower left flank would tend to support that the victim was reaching to the right. Basically, there is reasonable doubt in this case.

None of that changes the fact that there is underlying racism all through the criminal justice system and is basically systematic throughout American life. I just think after reading it all, the Judge's ruling is not as crazy as it sounds if you just read the blurbs.

Yeah, after reading the statement, I came to a similar conclusion. Legally, it looks like they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer had planted the gun. Video on scene never showed it happening, and DNA specialists themselves cast doubt on use of the DNA evidence to come to any conclusions. Of course this does nothing at all to help the very real problem minorities have with police and systemic racism in general. It just wasn't a solid case to hinge a Murder in 1st degree on. Perhaps a lesser charge could have stuck though.

 

[Nabs]

Obviously haven't seen the video or listen to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

No one is surprised.

 

[schwabdizzle]

The judge is racist he even used coded language to describe the person who was murdered.
His mind was already made up he just had to try to weasel his way into some sort of explanation for his obviously biased decision to appeal to the white moderate. He wanted to appear impartial while being biased.

Even if the judge was racist which I personally don't know him so I wont make that judgement, if it went to trial by jury it would of probably resulted the same way because of a hung jury. I am really not sure how the judge was appointed in the trial or what the process is, but the city itself is fairly democratic or liberal.

 

[MisterR]

Why exactly? It seems pretty clear the pig murdered a man. No dna on gun, shot him as he ran away, had an AK, said he was gonna murder him.

So why exactly would you acquit him?

Edit shit did I fall for bait again???? I'm so bad at the internet

Read the actual evidence in the case. He didn't shoot him as he ran away. He shot him in the vehicle. Two DNA experts noted that the DNA evidence didn't prove in any way that the victim hadn't handled the gun. There was lots of video evidence, none of which showed any evidence of a gun being planted. The AK had nothing to do with the case. The victim had a lower left flank gunshot wound that would indicate he was reaching to the right when he was shot. These are the actual facts. Now I certainly wouldn't put it past the cop to have planted the gun, but there is really no evidence that he did.

 

[Ishan]

Why exactly? It seems pretty clear the pig murdered a man. No dna on gun, shot him as he ran away, had an AK, said he was gonna murder him.

So why exactly would you acquit him?

Edit shit did I fall for bait again???? I'm so bad at the internet

Basically what the others are saying . Such as below . The witnesses cast doubt on the plant evidence themselves . Plus the seperate fifth kill shot is contradicted by the coroner and the smoke puff doesn't make sense cause the witnesses say consecutive gun shots no gap etc ... State didn't make a good case simply

You have a somewhat public jury who hasn't seen any of the evidence, and quiet a few who haven't likely even read the judges report. From what is in the report, there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was planted. Experts testified that the DNA evidence meant nothing on the gun. There was no visual evidence of it being planted. Nobody testified as to seeing anything relating to planting a gun. I get the emotion for sure, and cops sure aren't above planting evidence, but there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in this specific case, that the gun was planted.

Yeah, after reading the statement, I came to a similar conclusion. Legally, it looks like they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer had planted the gun. Video on scene never showed it happening, and DNA specialists themselves cast doubt on use of the DNA evidence to come to any conclusions. Of course this does nothing at all to help the very real problem minorities have with police and systemic racism in general. It just wasn't a solid case to hinge a Murder in 1st degree on. Perhaps a lesser charge could have stuck though.

 

[TAJ]

I'd love to ask this judge what would be an acceptable context for saying "I'm gonna kill this fucking guy." about a cop, especially if you then later killed him.

 

[Ishan]

Ppl convinced this is a bad judgement should read the transcript I normally don't in such cases but this one seemed to be so obviously straightforward I read to try and get why he went not guilty . And it makes sense . I do have certain concerns on the case issues . On the judge definitely the judge is well respected seemingly but he does make one generalization on drug dealers but no generalization on possible racial issues etc but thats a bit subtle . But in general the state simply doesn't seem to have made a great case here .

 

[PatzCU]

How is saying you are going to kill someone and then doing it not some kind of premeditated homicide or at least grounds to be removed from the police force? This guy made up his mind well before confronting true suspect that he was going to murder.

I don't know anything about the aftermath of this event but the guy should at the very least be banned from being able to enforce the law at will. Unfortunately these shootings follow the same pattern of gun control in this country. The shooting deaths of elementary school children did nothing. The shooting deaths of countless, defenseless and innocent African Americans will also do nothing. Disgusting.

 

[Ishan]

I'd love to ask this judge what would be an acceptable context for saying "I'm gonna kill this fucking guy." about a cop, especially if you then later killed him.

The actual quote is worse . It's something like .... we're gonna kill this fucking mofo .you know ... But the problem is it's half a line with intelligible sounds before and after seemingly . So that's what saved him on that count .

Edit also the victim nearly ran him over earlier hit his hand driving by . I'm sure ppl say crap in the heat of the moment etc etc. that combined with the garbled audio is what made this contribute to reasonable doubt

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Obviously haven't seen the video or listen to the ppl testifying but reading the judgement . While I have some concerns for sure I would probably have acquitted him too .

?? This sounds like "I havent seen the movie or heard anything about it but I agree with this one critic that the movie is shit"

 

[MisterR]

?? This sounds like "I havent seen the movie or heard anything about it but I agree with this one critic that the movie is shit"

No, he's read the actual judgment which details all the evidence. He hasn't seen the videos that were presented as evidence. Have you read the judgment?

 

[LookAtMeGo]

No, he's read the actual judgment which details all the evidence. He hasn't seen the videos that were presented as evidence. Have you read the judgment?

I think I confused reading the judgement with reading his sentencing.

 

[To Far Away Times]

When I was growing up I was told we hold cops to a higher standard.

Now it seems we don't hold cops to any standards as at all.

Moral and Ethical failings one after another, with the lack of acccountability being an almost forgone conclusion.

 

[Jmanunknown]

Even if the judge was racist, if it went to trial by jury it would of probably resulted the same way because of a hung jury. I am really not sure how the judge was appointed in the trial or what the process is, but the city itself is fairly democratic or liberal.

It would not have been a hung jury the Prosecutor would not have put forward a convincing enough case to convict a former on duty cop of murder. They still have to work with police officers and that could hamper their future interactions.
Also just because a city leans democrat or liberal does not preclude the city from having racial issues. Look at Baltimore or Chicago as shining examples of this. St.Louis even has its own past and recent issues with racism.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

When I was growing up I was told we hold cops to a higher standard.

Now it seems we don't hold cops to any standards as at all.

Moral and Ethical failings one after another, with the lack of acccountability being an almost forgone conclusion.

It was never true to begin with. We've NEVER held cops to a higher standard, and as Mammoth has said, what's happening here is not new.

We've been propagated to believe lies about police officers since we were children.

 

[Ishan]

I think I confused reading the judgement with reading his sentencing.

Yeah that's what I meant I read the document detailing the evidence and the Judge explaining why he went with not guilty . Like I said this case seemed so cut and dry guilty I read it to understand why he went not guilty

 

[Htown]

Fuck this judge.

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

. . .

I'm not gonna get pissed off. I'm not gonna get pissed off. I'm just gonna relax. Breathe in, breathe out. Just let it go.



Fuck, I'm so fucking sick of this shit.

 

[schwabdizzle]

It would not have been a hung jury the Prosecutor would not have put forward a convincing enough case to convict a former on duty cop of murder. They still have to work with police officers and that could hamper their future interactions.
Also just because a city leans democrat or liberal does not preclude the city from having racial issues. Look at Baltimore or Chicago as shining examples of this. St.Louis even has its own past and recent issues with racism.

I disagree. I think it would have been a pain in the ass to put a jury together for this trial since it was already pretty divided. There was just not enough clear evidence to convict the police officer of first-degree murder Without A Reasonable Doubt. I think a lesser charge would have been an easier reach for prosecuting attorney's tool and the officer jail time. Again I am no lawyer but that is just my perspective looking at the evidence and all this

 

[SapientWolf]

You have a somewhat public jury who hasn't seen any of the evidence, and quiet a few who haven't likely even read the judges report. From what is in the report, there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was planted. Experts testified that the DNA evidence meant nothing on the gun. There was no visual evidence of it being planted. Nobody testified as to seeing anything relating to planting a gun. I get the emotion for sure, and cops sure aren't above planting evidence, but there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in this specific case, that the gun was planted.

Yeah, this case falls apart if they can't prove the gun was planted. I hope that mandatory body cameras become more prevalent going forward.

 

[schwabdizzle]

Yeah, this case falls apart if they can't prove the gun was planted. I hope that mandatory body cameras become more prevalent going forward.

I agree.

 

[Meowster]

Even my diet-racist uncle from St. Louis agrees that the man was guilty.

 

[Jmanunknown]

I disagree. I think it would have been a pain in the ass to put a jury together for this trial since it was already pretty divided. There was just not enough clear evidence to convict the police officer of first-degree murder Without A Reasonable Doubt. I think a lesser charge would have been an easier reach for prosecuting attorney's tool and the officer jail time. Again I am no lawyer but that is just my perspective looking at the evidence and all this

No they could not have even got the former officer on manslaughter. Its really really hard to bring charges against an on duty police officer let alone convict one especially when the case involves a former convict black man that increases the case from a very unlikely to nearly impossible you have a better chance of winning the lottery or getting super powers odds.

 

[Ishan]

Yeah, this case falls apart if they can't prove the gun was planted. I hope that mandatory body cameras become more prevalent going forward.

Agree

 

[Ponn]

Shit hasn't gotten more volatile. It's always been this way. Just now with technology White moderates and liberals can't stick their head so deep in the sand. We been saying this shit from the jump.

To be clear when I say volatile I don't mean stuff like civil unrest, rioting or protests. That has been around. I was talking more specifically about police ambushes. Things that specifically effect police and those that otherwise felt they were untouchable. It's important to not forget where those escalations started and not allow the "this is not the time" hand waiving that happens.

 

[Permanently A]

"The heat of the moment" is truly getting quite a bit of mileage for assholes.

 

[schwabdizzle]

No they could not have even got the former officer on manslaughter. Its really really hard to bring charges against an on duty police officer let alone convict one especially when the case involves a former convict black man that increases the case from a very unlikely to nearly impossible you have a better chance of winning the lottery or getting super powers odds.

That could be very true, but you have to keep in mind that the state were the ones who chose to go after him for first-degree murder though.

 

[pompidu]

So the cop says he reached for the gun but no one knows who gun it is, so it's automatically used as evidence that he was reaching for a gun, even though noone can determine whos gun it is. This sound right?

 

[Kill3r7]

So the cop says he reached for the gun but no one knows who gun it is, so it's automatically used as evidence that he was reaching for a gun, even though noone can determine whos gun it is. This sound right?

More or less. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove that the D planted the gun. They failed to do so. The state witnesses agreed that the wound was similar to an individual reaching to grab a gun. The prosecution should have corrected this on redirect.

 

[JavyOO7]

Long time lurker here, and I know gaf is a tad left and I've stayed quiet but recent comments are just.. nope.

If the police say tell you to lay down, you do it, simple as fuck.
You don't start to argue, just don't, just do as they tell you.

Then, if you feel you're wronged, you deal with it after.

Use your brain, but if you're being chased by the cops you have done something wrong.

I think a cop just said 'drop the weapon' to Tamir Rice and two seconds later shot him dead. He was 12...

John Crawford was chilling at at Walmart talking to his SO over the phone, and 2 cops didn't even say nothing to him and he died not too long after the cops saw him.

You really can't say what you just said with a straight face. There's probably been many cases over the years where a white cop sees a black dude and the cop immediately goes into 'threat mode' and murders a black person for no reason...

Its probably going to keep going for my entire lifetime. Minorities, especially black people, have it too rough in the USA. For no reason. Just because they have a darker shade of skin than a white person does. What bull...

And look what happens if you protest something about this if you are a minority? Poor Kaepernick. We know what his protest is about but yet an NFL owner say something like this...

http://www.theroot.com/to-all-the-black-men-watching-the-nfl-heres-what-phila-1809950229

 

[Ishan]

So the cop says he reached for the gun but no one knows who gun it is, so it's automatically used as evidence that he was reaching for a gun, even though noone can determine whos gun it is. This sound right?

The judge also states it seems planting is implausible as it is a larger gun and there is no visible bulge on the officers clothing plus 4 other cops there etc etc. and as others have said you have to show he planted it otherwise cops words etc etc

 

[pompidu]

More or less. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove that the D planted the gun. They failed to do so. The state witnesses agreed that the wound was similar to an individual reaching to grab a gun. The prosecution should have corrected this on redirect.

The judge also states it seems planting is implausible as it is a larger gun and there is no visible bulge on the officers clothing plus 4 other cops there etc etc. and as others have said you have to show he planted it otherwise cops words etc etc

I just find the whole thing so weird, dude says he's was going to kill him, goes up and kills him. It's premeditated murder even without the gun.

 

[Kill3r7]

I just find the whole thing so weird, dude says he's was going to kill him, goes up and kills him. It's premeditated murder even without the gun.

The presence of the gun and Bianchi shouting "he has a gun" introduces self defense into the equation. The gun matters. The entire case depends on it.

 

[heyf00L]

I just find the whole thing so weird, dude says he's was going to kill him, goes up and kills him. It's premeditated murder even without the gun.

https://www.scribd.com/document/358...tockley-found-not-guilty-of-murder#from_embed

On pages 6 and 7 it goes over the video and eye-witness evidence of the time after crash and before shooting. The judge points out that Stockley approached the car with his weapon holstered, the officers tried to open the door, there was a struggle, and then the shooting. Seems the judge felt that if it had been premeditated he would have had his gun out and not waited.

 

[MisterR]

I just find the whole thing so weird, dude says he's was going to kill him, goes up and kills him. It's premeditated murder even without the gun.

Read the actual judgement. Would do a ton of people in here a world of good. I read it because of my outrage about how the guy got off. After reading it, the judge basically had no choice but to acquit. The states case against the cop was weak as hell, with tons of reasonable doubt.

 

[norm9]

They always shout he's got a gun, he's going for my gun, or just plain gun! It's much more manly to shoot someone after saying that instead of I was scared, which he probably also said at some point.

Impossible to be guilty of murder after those two magical statements. Three if you count saying Mr Mxyzptlk's name backwards.

 

[F0rneus]

How is saying you are going to kill someone and then doing it not some kind of premeditated homicide or at least grounds to be removed from the police force? This guy made up his mind well before confronting true suspect that he was going to murder.

That's the part that gets my blood boiling. He said he'd kill him. Then he did. Exactly 45 seconds later. And the "judge" decided that it was ambiguous, and that his upcoming actions will speak for themselves...

Abhorrent.

 

[jay]

Yeah, this case falls apart if they can't prove the gun was planted. I hope that mandatory body cameras become more prevalent going forward.

Mandatory cameras they turn off or break.

 

[Dude Abides]

Read the actual judgement. Would do a ton of people in here a world of good. I read it because of my outrage about how the guy got off. After reading it, the judge basically had no choice but to acquit. The states case against the cop was weak as hell, with tons of reasonable doubt.

Not really. The judgment is a good example of a judge who's reached a conclusion and framing the evidence to justify it.