Ex-St. Louis cop found not guilty of murder in on-duty shooting of black man in 2011

[laughing dog]

Not that ridiculous canard again. Obviously a police shooting does not involve a trial and conviction. But if that makes it a "summary execution", then there can be no such thing as a justified police shooting. That is obviously nonsense.

Your conclusion is obvious nonsense, since no one claimed the shooting itself is what made it an summary execution.

Nor was he armed at the time (there was no gun on his person).

Allegedly.

His car was stopped. Given the officer's statement prior to going to the suspect's car, summary execution is a reasonable description of the killing.

Says you.

The officer did not claim the gun was in the victim's hand. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is not an allegation. When a person is sitting in car without a gun in his hand and the officer says he is going to kill the victim before he actually approached the car, it is a reasonable description to call the resulting outcome a "summary execution" regardless of the trial verdict.

You are being obtuse, to the extent you are almost 180°. The crime they allege is "premeditated murder" for sure, but prosecution can advance their theory of how the alleged crime took place. For example, they could have claimed "summary execution" as way the alleged crime of murder was committed, but they didn't.

So, you are using their deliberate choice to advance their theory by adhering to the actual legal definition of the crime in bench trial as some sort of rebuttal to the notion that this killing fits the description of a summary execution? Your ridiculously lame point is noted.

But if he had been found guilty, the ends would not justify murder, but that does not mean Smith becomes a "good guy" who should be celebrated. Had he been murdered, both of them would be bad guy. Under no scenario does Smith get exonerated or become worthy of glorification by #BLM.

The difference being Smith is dead. The ex-police officer is alive and well, and remains free at large. Hopefully, he is not carrying a weapon as part of his employment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the end, the DA should have been more modest in her charging decisions. It wasn't really a first degree murder case. More like voluntary manslaughter.

Yup. The DAs try to show they're strong by going for the high level charges and the juries recognize that the charges are not warranted. Thus they walk even when lower charges might have been warranted. Note that this isn't specific to the police, but high profile cases in general.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...voluntary manslaughter...

If you could just not write all the misogynist stuff about the female prosecutor trying to make a name for herself and realize that this is how any prosecutor works not necessarily for fame and notoriety or because she's a "b*." Or if you could stop yourself from calling any and every black person a "thug" then maybe we could actually have a logical discussion about the very small part of your posts that are not you engaging in identity politics, getting triggered.

So...for example...if we can get rid of all the other bs you are saying and the mode in which you are saying it and just focus on this part, you might be right. Of course, a 1st degree murder charge may not be mutually exclusive with a voluntary manslaughter outcome and I think we've seen that before.

Some other points to consider without being triggered...

Touch DNA is a bit unreliable. It is possibly inadequate to prove guilt at the highest standard of burden of evidence. In particular items may lack DNA by coincidence or may get contaminated by multiple persons. In this specific legal case, the shooting victim may have touched the gun but not have measurable uncontaminated DNA present on the gun. Most likely he would have had measurable DNA on the gun, but not necessarily. His hands most likely would have been sweaty in the situation.

However, there is a question as to why the officer's DNA would be on the gun to begin with. All evidence is subject to collection methods that mitigate risk of contamination by police and others. If the officer did not follow procedures, then that ought to have been investigated and asked about. But this evidence is coupled with a video of the officer going to the police car to a bag prior to evidence collection. He should not have been collecting evidence since he was the shooter. If he was getting gloves to wear, then there should have been none of his DNA on the gun. So based on evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything else he could have been obtaining.

 

[RavenSky]

And even if the guy was "summarily executed" he was still a heroin dealing scumbag, unworthy of being glorified.

I will repeat - this is exactly the wrong attitude. I don't care if he was "a heroin dealing scumbag" - he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else. He does NOT deserve to be killed by a cop - especially not one who just got done announcing his intention to kill the suspect, and who very likely planted the gun used to justify the shooting.

men who frequent prostitutes are not "somebody on whose behalf people should be out protesting. The world is certainly better without [Johns] in it."

Well luckily for me I only infrequent them.
Also, is Frikki busy and has to outsource his obsession?

I use the example in the (faint) hope that it will get you to understand.

Just like YOU think Smith is "unworthy" of the same protections as everyone else, some dominionist like Pence could decide that you are unworthy of due process either.

Due process protections are for ALL of us - even the "heroin dealing scumbag" - and that is NOT "glorifying" any person. It is upholding a critically important human rights principle.

 

[RavenSky]

In the end, the DA should have been more modest in her charging decisions. It wasn't really a first degree murder case. More like voluntary manslaughter.

Yup. The DAs try to show they're strong by going for the high level charges and the juries recognize that the charges are not warranted. Thus they walk even when lower charges might have been warranted. Note that this isn't specific to the police, but high profile cases in general.

It is clear that you are chiming in without even a passing knowledge of the case.

1. There was no jury
2. The judge refused to consider lesser charges.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dangit, an activist right-wing judge. I should have known...

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yeah, that. You guys will do anything to excuse cops murdering people in the street. I bet that guy also pulled tags off of mattresses and didn't return the cart to the designated area after shopping.

It's as if it's physically painful to even entertain the idea of holding a cop accountable for his actions. That this goes on in so many heads in our society is why I call it a disease.

Right wing politics, Christianity, and Scientology are all examples of ideologies that punish questioning of authority and reward defending and excusing anything the authority says or does. The particular cognitive weaknesses that form the bases of these ideologies are what has made America so vulnerable to fascism.

Per my earlier post there is as usual a lack of information in the news, though CNN did broaden the report a bit.

Extremes of Socialist and Marxist ideologies also punish the questioning of authority. However right or left with politics has nothing to do with it.

Anyway Judge Timothy Wilson has in the past ruled both for and against the police in previous cases as shown here.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article173692531.html


In this case, Wilson ruled that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that Louis used disproportionate force against the deceased.

Nothing indicates any secret right wing conspiracy or other type of conspiracy.

This does not mean the cop was guilty or otherwise but there is nothing to suggest there was any corruption in the legal procedure.
It does not mean another investigation could or could not unearth something else.

There again to loosely linked mobs such as ANTIFA anything left of socialism is fascist and corrupt and the cop was definitely guilty regardless of whether a trial took place.

Anyway, without an excuse to riot, ANTIFA will just waste time burning American flags.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yup. The DAs try to show they're strong by going for the high level charges and the juries recognize that the charges are not warranted. Thus they walk even when lower charges might have been warranted. Note that this isn't specific to the police, but high profile cases in general.

It is clear that you are chiming in without even a passing knowledge of the case.

1. There was no jury
2. The judge refused to consider lesser charges.

As I understand the cop waived his right to a Jury trial.
What lesser charges would there be in this instance. The Cop carried an unauthorized AK47 but that was against department policy and not considered central to the case.

This is not to say the cop didn't do something wrong but was not proven to have. He didn't fire it.

The judge did not consider lesser charges per the post above where I copied the relevant part of page 29.

 

[Trausti]

In this case, Wilson ruled that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that Louis used disproportionate force against the deceased.

Not quiet. It's that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shockley did not act in self defense. Having failed to do so, the Judge did not consider the lesser offenses. The Judge wrote a lengthy and reasonable opinion explaining the evidence and his verdict.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-53a0-ba1f-18b659a7e569/59bbe0a450230.pdf.pdf

 

[whichphilosophy]

In this case, Wilson ruled that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that Louis used disproportionate force against the deceased.

Not quiet. It's that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shockley did not act in self defense. Having failed to do so, the Judge did not consider the lesser offenses. The Judge wrote a lengthy and reasonable opinion explaining the evidence and his verdict.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-53a0-ba1f-18b659a7e569/59bbe0a450230.pdf.pdf

Not unlike English cases, page 29 of the document you kindly provided statess further to your statement as follows:

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that self-defense in a homicide does not foreclose a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant was entitled to use force while acting in self-defense, but exceeding the scope of the self-defense by using an unreasonable amount of force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. The DAs try to show they're strong by going for the high level charges and the juries recognize that the charges are not warranted. Thus they walk even when lower charges might have been warranted. Note that this isn't specific to the police, but high profile cases in general.

It is clear that you are chiming in without even a passing knowledge of the case.

1. There was no jury
2. The judge refused to consider lesser charges.

I was talking about the general pattern.

In this case the judge felt the DA's whole theory was an improbable overreach and so he chucked it. This cop probably made some mistakes here but the DA was trying to prove it was intentional murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not quiet. It's that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shockley did not act in self defense. Having failed to do so, the Judge did not consider the lesser offenses. The Judge wrote a lengthy and reasonable opinion explaining the evidence and his verdict.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-53a0-ba1f-18b659a7e569/59bbe0a450230.pdf.pdf

Not unlike English cases, page 29 of the document you kindly provided statess further to your statement as follows:

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that self-defense in a homicide does not foreclose a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant was entitled to use force while acting in self-defense, but exceeding the scope of the self-defense by using an unreasonable amount of force.

That would refer to using more force than the situation warranted. This case basically comes down to whether he had a gun. The prosecution was arguing he didn't, that it was planted. That wasn't proven so it's assumed he did have a gun--and if he had a gun it's not excessive force. Lesser charges aren't relevant. The DA doesn't get to go back and say, oops, no, the problem is he didn't handle it right. They get one bite at the apple and wasted it on the fantasy the gun was planted.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not unlike English cases, page 29 of the document you kindly provided statess further to your statement as follows:

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that self-defense in a homicide does not foreclose a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant was entitled to use force while acting in self-defense, but exceeding the scope of the self-defense by using an unreasonable amount of force.

That would refer to using more force than the situation warranted. This case basically comes down to whether he had a gun. The prosecution was arguing he didn't, that it was planted. That wasn't proven so it's assumed he did have a gun--and if he had a gun it's not excessive force. Lesser charges aren't relevant. The DA doesn't get to go back and say, oops, no, the problem is he didn't handle it right. They get one bite at the apple and wasted it on the fantasy the gun was planted.

As implied the prosecution case was poor. However if a person was found to have acted in proportion to a real or genuine threat then logically (regardless of precedents) there could be no lesser charge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That would refer to using more force than the situation warranted. This case basically comes down to whether he had a gun. The prosecution was arguing he didn't, that it was planted. That wasn't proven so it's assumed he did have a gun--and if he had a gun it's not excessive force. Lesser charges aren't relevant. The DA doesn't get to go back and say, oops, no, the problem is he didn't handle it right. They get one bite at the apple and wasted it on the fantasy the gun was planted.

As implied the prosecution case was poor. However if a person was found to have acted in proportion to a real or genuine threat then logically (regardless of precedents) there could be no lesser charge.

I think what the judge was saying is that the prosecution's theory didn't permit lesser charges.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As implied the prosecution case was poor. However if a person was found to have acted in proportion to a real or genuine threat then logically (regardless of precedents) there could be no lesser charge.

I think what the judge was saying is that the prosecution's theory didn't permit lesser charges.

It's reinforced also in precedent. If the accused is judged to have acted correctly then he not could not logically have acted incorrectly in a lesser way as is also a too narrow a scope to adjudicate upon. This is was why judge gave reference to precedent in Missouri law regarding this.

- - - Updated - - -

Conversely, if he had been found guilty of unjustifiably killing the deceased, then there could have been a case for a lesser conviction.

1. Malice aforethought, intent to kill would be difficult to prove hence point 2 would have a wider scope
2. Acted recklessly using excess force in a given situation.

 

[Derec]

So much for "peaceful protests" ...
Dozens arrested, several cops injured after ex-St. Louis cop acquitted in shooting of black man

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So much for "peaceful protests" ...

- christianity, the religion of peace.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So much for "peaceful protests" ...

- christianity, the religion of peace.

Many faiths have been the religion of pieces. (A piece here and a peace there as the old joke goes).

 

[Malintent]

nor does it make Smith somebody on whose behalf people should be out protesting. The world is certainly better without Smith in it.

THIS is exactly the WRONG time to turn a blind eye, Derec. If you think it is fine for cops to summarily execute "thugs", what happens when the likes of V.P. Pence decides that men who frequent prostitutes are not "somebody on whose behalf people should be out protesting. The world is certainly better without [Johns] in it."

ya? well.. what happens when they take all the cops guns away and open all the prisons up and let the fine people (on all sides) out and they line up to rape you for months on end?

or.. we can avoid the hypotheticals and just acknowledge that the criminal that was shot was a FUCKING HEROINE DEALER, and in fact NOT your hypothetical "john".

- - - Updated - - -

- christianity, the religion of peace.

Many faiths have been the religion of pieces. (A piece here and a peace there as the old joke goes).

That's all Hitler ever really wanted.. Peace...

A little piece of England, a little piece of France...

 

[Malintent]

So much for "peaceful protests" ...
Dozens arrested, several cops injured after ex-St. Louis cop acquitted in shooting of black man

Why did the Chicago Tribune choose to refer to the shooting of a "Black Man" instead of an "Armed Heroine Dealer"?