Posted on 09/20/2017 7:42:50 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Why Did the Judge Acquit a St. Louis Police Officer of Killing a Black Man?
Bob Adelmann
The decision on Friday to acquit a white St. Louis police officer in the fatal shooting of a black man back in December 2011 predictably set off rioting in the city. It didn’t occur to the rioters that, according to the evidence in the case, Officer Jason Stockley’s use of force was reasonable, to defend his own life against a potentially lethal threat exhibited by Anthony Lamar Smith. It didn’t matter that the judge found that the state failed to prove its allegation that the gun found in Smith’s Buick that night was deliberately planted there by Stockley.
It didn’t matter that Judge Timothy Wilson has ruled both for and against the police during his 28 years on the bench. It didn’t matter that he is highly regarded by his peers, that he is viewed as an unbiased judge who has no ideological ax to grind except to get the facts straight and make the decision proper under the circumstances.
None of that mattered. Once Wilson’s decision was filed late Friday afternoon, the BLM rioters and their useful idiots brought out their pre-printed signs and started destroying property. When police arrived to quell the unrest, BLM thugs and others encouraged by them started attacking the police.
Much of the mainstream media have been willing — too willing — to uncritically circulate the anti-cop narrative that a white police officer should have been found guilty of murder for killing a supposedly unarmed black man, without including in their news accounts the evidence showing otherwise. Put simply: The white cop was guilty. Guilty. GUILTY! Let the rioting begin!
Yet the facts in the case tell a different story.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
The news brief said he was carrying a collapsible stock ak47 and a little Italian sidearm starts with a B
AK was in violation
Do you have a link it was a Draco style
Not that it matters
Bad kill in my view big time
Thug or not
Hard telling how you recall, old timer.
But I’ll sit right here eager for any morsels of wisdom you care to pass along.
Provided you stay on this forum of fools, that is.
I found some images of the AK as well as a video showing him putting it into his back seat. It doesn’t have a hinge for a collapsible stock or underfolder and appears to be the shorter barrel of the pistol.
This article also confirms it was a Draco.
Finally, if you go through the slideshow here it shows the Draco entered as evidence.
However, in reading some of the details it appears the officer killed Smith with his Beretta (normal service pistol), not the AK. He had the AK out in the encounter that began the chase, but he didn’t fire it for fear of having shots go wild. He did fire his Beretta at the fleeing car 7 times (to start the chase).
Facts, justice, truth ... These are abstractions. Some people don’t do well with that sort of thing. Future time orientation, impulse control, time preference ...
I hope so. Neither of cops should have even been charged.
I’m 59
And southern
An actual real fighting white guy
You ?
Gee. You got me shakin’ now, old man.
I bet you’re going to jump on a plane and come do something turrble to me, right?
Still the worst of it is you are too full of crap even to make good on your pissy little girly threat to leave FR.
Is everything you say just another runny old pantful?
I’m tempted, don’t have a black flag, but have lots of ammo
i mean, a guy is doing a drug deal, and when confronted, he rams a police car twice, and hits an officer with his car, before fleeing at high speed.
After a harrowing chase of the man who has already committed attempted murder with a deadly weapon (hitting the officer with a moving vehicle), the officer spends 15 seconds WITHOUT a gun in his hands telling the man to get out of the car with his hands up.
After that, the officer quickly pulls his gun and shoots the man. A gun is found in the car, which the judge notes would not have been able to be carried by the officer, noting that they have multiple video angles clearly indicating no bulges or any other signs of a weapon.
I don’t know what kind of man the officer is. But from the evidence we have, he seems like an officer who put his own life at risk, even AFTER being attacked by a man in a car, in order to TRY to get the man to surrender peacefully.
And in the end, his pronouncement in the car was correct, but more because the man left them no choice, not some sort of pre-meditation.
As for the bigger issue of BLM, the fact that they have to reach back to a questionable case from 2011 shows how few times this kind of thing happens, how absolutely rare it is for officers to behave in a bad way and NOT be punished for it.
You’re embellishing greatly Charles
What exactly is embellished? I admit I am assuming that the facts as expressed by the judge in the ruling are not embellished, and that could be a mistake, but I don’t have access to the court testimony. Some of it can be seen in the video though, so that parts about how long it was and the fact he did not have his weapon drawn I think are not embellished.
To me, it seems the case hinges on whether you believe the officer planted the gun. The evidence presented for that is that the gun have the officer’s prints, but not any other prints.
However, there is an explanation for the officer’s prints, as the gun was unloaded. I realize that if I was planting a gun, I’d then pick it up and unload it to give a reason for my prints. But it does mean that the prints do not prove anything, they merely “don’t prove” the officer didn’t touch it (and the officer could have used a glove to prevent the fingerprints, or wiped it, if there were no prints).
There apparently is no evidence of purchase of the gun by the victim, which again means we can’t prove it is the victim’s gun, but that doesn’t prove it can’t be, as a criminal drug dealer could easily get a gun without paperwork.
Further, the fact that there were no other prints could simply indicate the victim kept the gun clean. Not an obviously likely thing, but when you are looking for reasonable doubt, well within possibility.
If the officer intended to kill the perp, a more likely scenerio would have him running up to the car with his weapon drawn, and almost immediately firing, claiming that the perp was moving for a weapon. The 15-second delay guaranteed the victim a way out, simply by obeying the command shouted (unless the medical examiner is falsifying, it is clear from that evidence the perp was not sitting forward with his hands on the wheel when he was shot).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.