Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/16/us/jason-stockley-st-louis-officer-shooting-protests/index.html

Remember no Cop is ever guilty... Ever!

inb4 bootlicking apologists

The judge seemed to play a critical role in his aquittal.

Indeed the guy apparently waived his right to a jury trial.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
inb4 bootlicking apologists

What do you prefer to lick when you apologize Bashy?

This is a very long read


http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/ferguson-police-shooting/

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/16/us/jason-stockley-st-louis-officer-shooting-protests/index.html

Remember no Cop is ever guilty... Ever!


#triggered

Originally posted by Flyattractor
#triggered

Just go with it, I mean surely even if you spent like 10 whole minutes searching you couldn't ever find an example of a cop being found guilty of murder.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just go with it, I mean surely even if you spent like 10 whole minutes searching you couldn't ever find an example of a cop being found guilty of murder.


Not if you have aa narrow a world view as Little Stevie you probably wouldn't.


I wonder what cops ever did to Little Stevie to make him hate them so much....

So the only DNA found on the gun was the policemans and he was recorded as saying he was going to kill the guy.

Nothing to see here, unless of course the gun would have had the victims DNA then it would have been irrfetable.

Originally posted by snowdragon
So the only DNA found on the gun was the policemans and he was recorded as saying he was going to kill the guy.

Nothing to see here, unless of course the gun would have had the victims DNA then it would have been irrfetable.

You bring up some good points and I'd wonder how the defense explained away the fact no DNA but the cops was on the gun. Do you know?

Yeah but that goes against the threads ALL Cops are Bad and Always Guilty Opinion!?

Originally posted by Surtur
You bring up some good points and I'd wonder how the defense explained away the fact no DNA but the cops was on the gun. Do you know?

Nope, just have to read steves and shivs articles.

I didn't mean to sound like I was doubting you or anything, I'm genuinely curious as to how they explained these things.

If the evidence was sound and the judge still found him not guilty the judge needs to be removed.

Well it was done by Lawyers so....I am sure it reads as clears as Glass!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
inb4 bootlicking apologists


N3SHNjsajzs

Originally posted by cdtm
N3SHNjsajzs

eFuF8Y1H06Q

Originally posted by shiv
This is a very long read


http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/ferguson-police-shooting/

Longer then the Diplomacy article by far.

It doesn't really blame the police either. If anything, a lot of the questions and scenerios it poses proves police officers are held to an impossibly high, if even unfair, standard.

Originally posted by cdtm
Longer then the Diplomacy article by far.

It doesn't really blame the police either. If anything, a lot of the questions and scenerios it poses proves police officers are held to an impossibly high, if even unfair, standard.

Just because they are supposed to be master negotiators, able to diagnose mental illness at a single glance, keepers of the peace, and superb hand to hand fighters that can disarm anyone does NOT mean they are being held to an unfair standard. Because they trained extensively in every single thing I just mentioned before they got a badge.

Plus on top of that they do not need to worry about death threats and being labeled as a racist if they shoot a gang banging thug who just happens to be a member of a minority. Ohh and the cops lucky enough to *be* minorities are treated more or less as heroes by their communities.

Stockley testified that after the shooting he found the gun tucked down between the seat and the center console, and he rendered the gun safe by unloading cartridges from the cylinder and then left the gun and cartridges on the passenger seat.

This is one of the things that sounds fishy to me. No DNA on the handgun and it was tucked away when he was killed.

We also seem to have a system where DNA found on the gun is enough to prosecute but in this case a lack of DNA isn't enough to show "innocence."

Originally posted by snowdragon
Stockley testified that after the shooting he found the gun tucked down between the seat and the center console, and he rendered the gun safe by unloading cartridges from the cylinder and then left the gun and cartridges on the passenger seat.

This is one of the things that sounds fishy to me. No DNA on the handgun and it was tucked away when he was killed.

We also seem to have a system where DNA found on the gun is enough to prosecute but in this case a lack of DNA isn't enough to show "innocence."

But according to witnesses you can touch a gun without leaving dna on it. I have to assume "witnesses" means experts on dna and shit right? Cuz it's not like a dude that was there could just eyeball a gun and decide "you can touch it without DNA being left on it".

This is quite an important detail. If it's possible the guy touched the gun and yet didn't leave DNA on it...well, then how do we know if he did or did not try to touch the gun? This is why I assume the judge ruled the way he did.

Also the article talks about the guys partner yelling "gun!". So see this is what bugs me about these cases. Whenever a cop is found innocent people just scream racism must be the reason, that systemic racism protected the cops. But often when you actually look at the specific details of the case it is never as cut and dry as those who think racism is why the cop got off say.

You do not hear these details usually mentioned, I certainly didn't. So until I looked more into it all I knew is "No dna on gun, dude must have planted it".

And yet "witnesses" testified you could hold a gun without leaving DNA on it. That is key to me. Either its possible or its not. If it is possible...how could the judge for sure declare the guy didn't go for it then?

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet "witnesses" testified you could hold a gun without leaving DNA on it. That is key to me. Either its possible or its not. If it is possible...how could the judge for sure declare the guy didn't go for it then?


All the witnesses were doing was providing reasonable doubt. Yet we still have the officer handling the gun after the guy was killed without gloves and leaving dna on it.

Why did the officer tamper with evidence in this case the gun, the idea he was unloading it for safety reasons is garbage.

In the case of the judge he was stated as saying drug dealers carry guns, evidence or not that was his position.

If the gun was held

And the gun was tucked away

This tells us:

The gun brushed against a surface / a surface which may or may not have been a soft microfiber compressing surface

The gun was tucked away for some length of time (unspecified)

If that was a microfiber surface, synthetic or natural fiber or a surface with a fine animal hair finish any salt / sweat would be efficiently wiped and wicked away

The judge would have access to information about upholstery / interior of the vehicle / contents of the vehicle, The gun may have been tucked away in a discarded item of clothing. The gun may have been tucked away in a microfiber mitt (the kind you use to wipe your windshield / wash your car / buff your car / etc.

Most people drive around with things on the passenger seat, things in the car door, the glove compartment under the seat on the back seat, etc.

The driver of the vehicle wasn't driving real slow either, so if the gun was moving around it could absolutely have been shedding dna.


The article on page 1 is a very long read, but Its one of those where I don't think you can be exactly the same person before and after you make it to the end

And now some people wanna burn down the city over it.

Recent white kid on a college campus was shot and killed for walking towards a cop with a knife. I bet we won't see folk burning shit down, smashing windows, or throwing bricks at cops over it.

To be fair, there's a world of difference between that, and a lot of these other cases where it's ambigious what actually happened.

Originally posted by cdtm
To be fair, there's a world of difference between that, and a lot of these other cases where it's ambigious what actually happened.

But that gets negated by the instances where it's not ambiguous and they still burnt stuff down. Like Milwaukee.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/16/us/jason-stockley-st-louis-officer-shooting-protests/index.html

Remember no Cop is ever guilty... Ever!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
inb4 bootlicking apologists


Par for the course

"feed me that nightstick, daddy"

Originally posted by snowdragon
All the witnesses were doing was providing reasonable doubt. Yet we still have the officer handling the gun after the guy was killed without gloves and leaving dna on it.

Why did the officer tamper with evidence in this case the gun, the idea he was unloading it for safety reasons is garbage.

In the case of the judge he was stated as saying drug dealers carry guns, evidence or not that was his position. Yea this cop sounds guilty to me.

To bad you weren't on that jury then.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
To bad you weren't on that jury then.

There wasn't a Jury