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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yeah, the prosecution really blew it. I mean there is hardly any connection with the officer saying 'I'm going to kill that guy' and then killing him a few minutes later. It isn't like he bursted out of his car and shot the man. He waited 15 seconds after approaching the guy's car to shoot him. So clearly not premeditated. To prove premeditation, you need the officer to sign an affidavit indicating 'clear intention to kill' a person before hopping out of his car and then killing them.

And once again, the civilian Justice System seems completely incapable of handling officer related homicides because they are graded on a non-civilian curve.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

Yeah, the prosecution really blew it. I mean there is hardly any connection with the officer saying 'I'm going to kill that guy' and then killing him a few minutes later. It isn't like he bursted out of his car and shot the man. He waited 15 seconds after approaching the guy's car to shoot him. So clearly not premeditated. To prove premeditation, you need the officer to sign an affidavit indicating 'clear intention to kill' a person before hopping out of his car and then killing them.

And once again, the civilian Justice System seems completely incapable of handling officer related homicides because they are graded on a non-civilian curve.

Based on reading the transcript in my view the case was handled fairly. This is based on the evidence available on both sides.

You are right in that proving premeditation is very difficult to prove. The normal route is a lesser one where the accused would be charged with using excessive force that is disproportionate to the real or (genuinely) perceived threat.

Since the court ruled the cop acted proportionately to the perceived threat or real threat, a lesser charge could not apply.


The press reporting on this was generally sloppy, though to my surprise CNN gave a more detailed article than the others.


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

After page 8 it gets interesting.
This transcript is easy to read. It's about 30 pages, but double spaced.

 

[bilby]

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."

Petty fascists always think that the rules apply to other people, and will never apply to 'decent' folk, like themselves.

Until they do, but then it's too late.

 

[Derec]

Petty fascists always think

... that people who disagree with them are "petty fascists". That word is thrown around so much, it has lost all meaning. Just look at Antifa idiots. To them anybody to the right of Leon Trotsky is a "fascist".

 

[Derec]

THIS is exactly the WRONG time to turn a blind eye, Derec.

Nobody is advocating turning a blind eye. But the issue of whether the cop committed a crime (let alone first degree murder) is quite separate from the issue of whether the decedent was somebody who should be celebrated and somebody people should get very worked up about, especially if the verdict was just.
And the facts seem to back the judge in this case. Thus the acquittal was just. "Justice" does not necessarily mean conviction, even if #BLM types use them as synonyms. Convicting the police officer because of crowd reaction would be unjust, and protesting because a just verdict was rendered is stupid, especially when the guy who was killed was a scumbag.

If you think it is fine for cops to summarily execute "thugs",

No, it isn't. Literally nobody has said that. But this particular thug was not summarily executed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nobody is advocating turning a blind eye. But the issue of whether the cop committed a crime (let alone first degree murder) is quite separate from the issue of whether the decedent was somebody who should be celebrated and somebody people should get very worked up about, especially if the verdict was just.
And the facts seem to back the judge in this case. Thus the acquittal was just. "Justice" does not necessarily mean conviction, even if #BLM types use them as synonyms. Convicting the police officer because of crowd reaction would be unjust, and protesting because a just verdict was rendered is stupid, especially when the guy who was killed was a scumbag.

If you think it is fine for cops to summarily execute "thugs",

No, it isn't. Literally nobody has said that. But this particular thug was not summarily executed.

Well, all I can say, Derec, is that when the police shoot you, I will pity you for that tragic, avoidable result. Maybe you should have a more selfintetested opinion.

 

[Derec]

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

Because they want to make it all about race. But contrary to that ex-cop in Georgia, police do not only kill black people.
Three arrested in violent Georgia Tech protests after police shoot student
Sad to see that my alma mater is being overrun by this nonsense too. Sigh!

Anger over the police shooting of a Pride Alliance leader at Georgia Tech turned violent Monday night, as protesters who had attended a vigil on the campus set a police car ablaze.
Two police officers received minor injures and one of them was transported to Grady Memorial Hospital, a Tech spokesman said.

Even though the decedent is white, he gets some privilege points because he/she/it refuses to identify by gender. Otherwise I don't think there'd be violent protests.

Three people were arrested and charged with inciting a riot and battery of an officer. They were identified by authorities as Vincent Castillenti, Jacob Wilson, and Cassandra Monden. It was not immediately clear if they were students at Tech.

So there still may be hope that they are outside agitators.
Ok, a brief google search shows that Vincent Castillenti graduated in 2009 from USF. Jacob Wilson, I have no idea as the name is too common. Cassandra Monden was also a dead end.
As far as Vincent, I could even find his address from a previous arrest. I could not find the mug shot because DeKalb Co. made their previously excellent online system almost useless. This is the street view of the house.

The guy is a walking stereotype.

instead of an "Armed Heroine Dealer"?

Heroin dealer. He wasn't selling Wonder Woman and Catwoman.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, all I can say, Derec, is that when the police shoot you,

I have no intention to get shot by police.

 

[Derec]

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

Indeed. But only one has in recent history been unironically been referred to as that, including two US presidents (Bush II and Obama).

- christianity, the religion of peace.

I doubt the St. Louis rioters are rioting because of their Christian faith. Many are probably not even Christian. So that remark was a bit random.

Their motivating factor is not Christianity but Leftism and more specifically #BLM. You could even call them ersatz religions. And both tend to be quite fond of Islam (OG religion of peace), which is probably not a coincidence.

 

[bilby]

Petty fascists always think

... that people who disagree with them are "petty fascists". That word is thrown around so much, it has lost all meaning. Just look at Antifa idiots. To them anybody to the right of Leon Trotsky is a "fascist".

Just because a word is overused, that does not necessitate that it is either meaningless, or that it is being misused in any given case.

You can dismiss this characterization, if it makes you feel less uncomfortable; but it remains apt nonetheless. But for the sake of trying to get you to care about the substance of my argument, rather than the semantics, try this:

You are all for strict obedience to the rules and harsh penalties for those who break the law - except when it is you who is breaking the law. You seem to believe that your lobbying for harsh penalties will never lead to harsh penalties being applied to YOU; because you imagine a qualitative difference exists between the transgressions of others, and the transgressions in which you personally indulge. But no such difference exists in reality - you are making the exact same error that has been made by supporters of totalitarianism since forever.

You like the idea that THEY should be punished harshly; You cannot even comprehend that YOU could be one of those targeted for harsh punishment as a consequence of the very lobbying in which you are engaged. And you likely won't understand this until it is far too late.

There you go; That's my position, and I can restate it without having to point out that you are a petty fascist - which renders your flippant dismissal of it at the first sight of the dreaded 'F' word rather stupid. I presume that you will find some equally weak pretext to reject this reiteration, of course; It is important to your self-image that you don't confront this central flaw in your worldview, so a defensive response is a near certainty.

 

[bilby]

Well, all I can say, Derec, is that when the police shoot you,

I have no intention to get shot by police.

Nobody of your ideological bent does. (Loren Pechtel's recurrent meme of 'suicide by cop' notwithstanding; and whether or not we describe that bent as 'petty fascism').

But you seem hell-bent on lobbying for it to become ever easier for it to happen to you.

And when you get shot by the police, all your 'friends' will be online pointing out that you are 'no angel' and that the police acted perfectly reasonably and lawfully. There will probably be some hilarious memes and cartoons, and maybe a photo or two taken out of context showing you in a poor light.

And right up until it happens to you, you will believe that it is perfectly just, and that it only happens to others (neither of which is reliably true).

 

[Derec]

I will repeat - this is exactly the wrong attitude.

No it is not. The two issues - case against the cop and whether the dead guy should be celebrated are separate. If the cop were guilty

Now I do not think that him being a heroin dealer means that cop should get immunity even if he is guilty. But the protesters are doing the opposite. They are rioting because the cop was acquitted. They wanted the cop convicted regardless of the facts of the case. And that attitude is even less understandable when you consider that the decedent was a scumbag heroin dealer.

I don't care if he was "a heroin dealing scumbag" - he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else.

If he wanted a fair trial, he should have surrendered. If you lead the cops on a high speed chase and refuse to obey orders after they got you cornered, there is a relatively high chance you will not see any trial.

He does NOT deserve to be killed by a cop -

Deserve does not enter into it. A drunk driver does not exactly deserve to die either (we do not have death penalty for DUI) but riving drunk increases your chances of wrapping your car around a tree by several orders of magnitude. And when you behave like Smith did, you increase your chances of getting shot by police by many orders of magnitude. People like Smith are thankfully a small proportion of the population, yet they account for a big share of police shootings. That is not a coincidence.

especially not one who just got done announcing his intention to kill the suspect,

I think you are reading too much into it. If he really intended to commit premeditated

and who very likely planted the gun used to justify the shooting.

BS. The state's own forensic expert testified that the touch DNA evidence is inconclusive. Couple that with the high prior probability of a drug dealer in the city packing heat (especially when he has a history of doing the same) and your "very likely" is reduced to baseless opinion. Oh, and the gun was, as the judge noticed, too large to be easily concealed upon Shockley's person. The better choice of a "drop gun" would be a smaller piece, while drug dealers would prefer a larger one for intimidation if for nothing else.

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,

No, I do not think that. But he is unworthy of people getting worked up over it, calling him an "innocent black man", protesting, rioting etc.
Especially when the facts of the case are murky at best, and actually favor the judge's verdict.

some dominionist like Pence could decide that you are unworthy of due process either.

Who argued that Smith was not worthy of due process? But Shockley is worthy of it too. And a threat of a violent mob is not a reason to convict a person when there is insufficient evidence for conviction.

Due process protections are for ALL of us - even the "heroin dealing scumbag" -

Again, nobody is claiming he doesn't. But he chose a very dangerous course of action and lost. His due process rights are not violated by the choices he freely made. He should have surrendered at the Chruch's parking lot instead of taking off, almost hitting one of the cops. And at the very latest, he should have surrendered when the car stopped and they had him cornered. Then he would have had due process, which given that he was on parole meant going back in the slammer. That's why he didn't want to be taken alive. But that is on him, not on the cops.

and that is NOT "glorifying" any person.

The behavior of #BLM is.

It is upholding a critically important human rights principle.

Nobody is denying that principle. You are knocking over straw men. If you want to do that, go to Burning Man or something.

 

[Derec]

Nobody of your ideological bent does.

Most people of any ideological bent don't.

But you seem hell-bent on lobbying for it to become ever easier for it to happen to you.

How exactly? I have no intention of leading cops on a high speed chase and reaching for a gun when cornered. That's what got Smith killed, and that's pretty easy to avoid if you don't want to get shot by police.

And when you get shot by the police, all your 'friends' will be online pointing out that you are 'no angel' and that the police acted perfectly reasonably and lawfully.

Why do you insist it is a "when". Even in the US, chances of getting shot by police are very low. About 1000 per year, which is 0.0003%/year chance of getting killed by police. And that chance is not evenly distributed across the population. If you are a violent criminal (like Smith), if you attack police (like St. Mike Brown) etc. your chances are orders of magnitude higher, and for the rest of us correspondingly lower.
And most police shootings are justified, but #BLM types pretend none of them are, at least not when the decedent is black.

There will probably be some hilarious memes and cartoons,

Why? A police shooting being so noteworthy as to spark memes and cartoons are rare. Mike Brown and Freddie Gray spawned some, but I can't think of one in more recent history that did.
and maybe a photo or two taken out of context showing you in a poor light.

The only photo being shown of Smith is of him holding his daughter. The media is doing the same thing as with Trayvon Martin - trying to make him more innocent, more sympathetic. On the other side, the only photo of Shockley being shown is the mug shot. No photos in uniform or with family. And that is deliberate too - they are trying to make him look less sympathetic.
And what if a photo of Smith emerged selling smack? Why would you call that "out of context"? That's what he was doing for a living. That's what he was doing when confronted by the cops.

And right up until it happens to you, you will believe that it is perfectly just, and that it only happens to others (neither of which is reliably true).

Most police shootings are just. And chances are very high that it only happens to others, yes.

 

[bilby]

Most police shootings in the USA are NOT just, as evidenced by their sheer numbers, compared to the civilized world.

If we were to assume that ALL police shootings in the civilized world are just (with apologies to Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes); and that (for some unknown reason) US citizens are five times as criminal as those in the civilized world, then we would expect a police shooting rate in the US that never exceeded five times the civilized nations' rate. But in fact we see a VASTLY higher number of shootings in the USA. This analysis doesn't tell us WHICH shootings in the USA were justified; but it does imply that the VAST majority are NOT.

Of course, the idea that US citizens are five times as criminal as citizens in civilized nations is absurd.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Most police shootings in the USA are NOT just, as evidenced by their sheer numbers, compared to the civilized world.

If we were to assume that ALL police shootings in the civilized world are just (with apologies to Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes); and that (for some unknown reason) US citizens are five times as criminal as those in the civilized world, then we would expect a police shooting rate in the US that never exceeded five times the civilized nations' rate. But in fact we see a VASTLY higher number of shootings in the USA. This analysis doesn't tell us WHICH shootings in the USA were justified; but it does imply that the VAST majority are NOT.

Of course, the idea that US citizens are five times as criminal as citizens in civilized nations is absurd.

In this specific instance, based on the evidence the outcome is correct. However the US does have a huge amount of gun related incidents, much of it arising out of its high drug culture. In fact one Filipino senator claimed that the death rate in Detroit is higher than in the current Philippine drug war.

I can't vouch for the rest of the cases unless I have a chance to read at least some of the transcripts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Most people of any ideological bent don't.

But you seem hell-bent on lobbying for it to become ever easier for it to happen to you.

How exactly? I have no intention of leading cops on a high speed chase and reaching for a gun when cornered. That's what got Smith killed, and that's pretty easy to avoid if you don't want to get shot by police.

And when you get shot by the police, all your 'friends' will be online pointing out that you are 'no angel' and that the police acted perfectly reasonably and lawfully.

Why do you insist it is a "when". Even in the US, chances of getting shot by police are very low. About 1000 per year, which is 0.0003%/year chance of getting killed by police. And that chance is not evenly distributed across the population. If you are a violent criminal (like Smith), if you attack police (like St. Mike Brown) etc. your chances are orders of magnitude higher, and for the rest of us correspondingly lower.
And most police shootings are justified, but #BLM types pretend none of them are, at least not when the decedent is black.

There will probably be some hilarious memes and cartoons,

Why? A police shooting being so noteworthy as to spark memes and cartoons are rare. Mike Brown and Freddie Gray spawned some, but I can't think of one in more recent history that did.
and maybe a photo or two taken out of context showing you in a poor light.

The only photo being shown of Smith is of him holding his daughter. The media is doing the same thing as with Trayvon Martin - trying to make him more innocent, more sympathetic. On the other side, the only photo of Shockley being shown is the mug shot. No photos in uniform or with family. And that is deliberate too - they are trying to make him look less sympathetic.
And what if a photo of Smith emerged selling smack? Why would you call that "out of context"? That's what he was doing for a living. That's what he was doing when confronted by the cops.

And right up until it happens to you, you will believe that it is perfectly just, and that it only happens to others (neither of which is reliably true).

Most police shootings are just. And chances are very high that it only happens to others, yes.

I think you've erroneously put a quote under my name, which is possibly someone else's. It's easy to do when there's a chain of replies. I've done better when responding to my own post a couple of times.

 

[Malintent]

instead of an "Armed Heroine Dealer"?

Heroin dealer. He wasn't selling Wonder Woman and Catwoman.

LOL... well, in all fairness, the word Heroin comes from Hero.... Heroin was the "Hero's drug", as it was initially used broadly by the military as a pain killer for those that have had limbs blown off, etc... So, "Heroine" isn't TOO bad a misspelling.

 

[LordKiran]

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".

You must be a big fan of Judge Dredd. Raven's point is that if you let cops treat criminals however they want, what happens when its you and a crime you don't think is a big deal? Such as drinking publicly, perhaps? Remember, we all have the same rights, that means if one person's rights are tarnished, so too are yours. Ask not for whom the state trooper hunts, he hunts for thee.

 

[Derec]

I think you've erroneously put a quote under my name, which is possibly someone else's. It's easy to do when there's a chain of replies. I've done better when responding to my own post a couple of times.

I did. It was bilby and another one was RavenSky. Mea culpa. I am usually careful about fixing this, but not yesterday.

 

[Malintent]

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".

You must be a big fan of Judge Dredd. Raven's point is that if you let cops treat criminals however they want, what happens when its you and a crime you don't think is a big deal? Such as drinking publicly, perhaps? Remember, we all have the same rights, that means if one person's rights are tarnished, so too are yours. Ask not for whom the state trooper hunts, he hunts for thee.

No, Raven's point was an extreme strawman of a hypothetical situation, with which one can create the appearance of validity of an otherwise untenable standpoint. I mirrored her tactic with the extreme opposite hypothetical.

 

[LordKiran]

You must be a big fan of Judge Dredd. Raven's point is that if you let cops treat criminals however they want, what happens when its you and a crime you don't think is a big deal? Such as drinking publicly, perhaps? Remember, we all have the same rights, that means if one person's rights are tarnished, so too are yours. Ask not for whom the state trooper hunts, he hunts for thee.

No, Raven's point was an extreme strawman of a hypothetical situation, with which one can create the appearance of validity of an otherwise untenable standpoint. I mirrored her tactic with the extreme opposite hypothetical.

It was actually a slippery slope. Raven mirrored his attitude with onto something that would have personally impacted him if that attitude proved prevalent. This slippery slope is qualified because Pence is in a position where he may conceivably lead the country one day, and since top-down decisions like the war on drugs are what precipitated your attitude toward the rights of heroin dealers, it's not at all absurd to suggest it can happen again, fostering a similar attitude toward pimps and johns.