Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Dec 2016, 11:49 pm

An interesting article on implicit bias. The title is a little strong but the article is informative and not anti-police.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/ ... -prejudice
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Dec 2016, 11:57 am

freeman3 wrote:An interesting article on implicit bias. The title is a little strong but the article is informative and not anti-police.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/ ... -prejudice


I could not get past this falsehood:

went to NYU to learn what psychologists could tell me about racial prejudice in the wake of the shooting of a black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, Missouri. We may never really know the exact sequence of events and assumptions that led to the moment when Brown, unarmed and, according to witnesses, with his hands in the air, was shot multiple times.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Dec 2016, 12:54 pm

I posted the article because I think it provides good information about the science behind implicit bias. It certainly was not my intent to relitigate the Michael Brown case. If that statement in the article bothers you so much that you don't want to read further, that's fine. Others might find it useful.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Dec 2016, 2:19 pm

With that kind of garbage statement, how can one find anything of real insight? When it starts with a tremendous outlandish lie, it taints the entire story.
Brown's hands were not in the air and he was in fact chasing after the cop who shot him. That is what the facts bore out as well as most witnesses. This story does not take into account the facts and instead focuses on the few LIES that were told in court. Seeing this makes me want to pass on reading as well.

Maybe it does have some interesting insights but when it starts off with slanted lies, why am I to continue reading?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Dec 2016, 4:08 pm

Well, the article was published December 1, 2014. The grand jury did not come back saying there was no indictment until November 24, 2014. Clearly, this article was under way a long time before that. The DOJ report came out in March, 2015 well after the article. Michael Brown was unarmed (at the time of the fatal shots, anyway) and there some witnesses who described Brown as having his hands up. Ultimately, however, after the grand jury transcripts were assessed and the DOJ report came out it was clear that Officer Wilson's account was essentially supported by credible evidence. The author should have gone back and edited that statement to reflect the new reality after grand jury transcripts were released a week before the article . That he did not maybe shows he is too biased to be relied upon. Maybe. But it was only a week.

I simply thought that he did a good of summarizing what is going on with the study of implicit bias. I Does that mean people just accept those findings? No I am sure people can criticize the methods used with these tests, whether they fairly reflect underlying bias, whatever. But it seems a bit of a red herring to say I don't like a comment (I don't know how we call a statement a lie or a falsehood when there was evidence out there supporting it--we weren't there, no one knows for certain what happened, it's just that the judicial system has sorted through the evidence and the bulk of reliable, credible evidence does not support the assertion but this was less clear by December 1,2014 then it would be after the grand jury transcripts and DOJ were digested) and then say there is no reason to read on about the science in this area. No is one making you read about it. You can always read about the studies directly without his filter if you think he is unreliable.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Dec 2016, 8:26 am

I do "get" it regarding the facts at the time but even so, the facts used to describe the situation used only the facts that supported his feelings. Those other witnesses were known at the time as well, the author focused only on what suited him and that (to my thinking) shows he was biased from the very start and I will not bother reading something that was proven to be biased like this. It's a shame, maybe it doesn't change anything he wrote? But I'm not going to know...
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 15 Sep 2017, 3:04 pm

The battle continues in St. Louis with yet another white cop given the ability to avoid justice. And now? Now the mob is marching through the streets of downtown St. Louis. Paid protesters (thanks George) acting the fool, inciting violence that will only lead to more tragedy. The entire city and county are a virtual ghost town.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Sep 2017, 3:22 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:The battle continues in St. Louis with yet another white cop given the ability to avoid justice. And now? Now the mob is marching through the streets of downtown St. Louis. Paid protesters (thanks George) acting the fool, inciting violence that will only lead to more tragedy. The entire city and county are a virtual ghost town.


Did the cop avoid justice? I thought justice was a trial by a jury of one's peers. Is "justice" now only served by guilty verdicts?

Interesting standard.

I'd be fascinated to know why YOU believe you know more than the jury. What don't they know that you know?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 6:46 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:The battle continues in St. Louis with yet another white cop given the ability to avoid justice. And now? Now the mob is marching through the streets of downtown St. Louis. Paid protesters (thanks George) acting the fool, inciting violence that will only lead to more tragedy. The entire city and county are a virtual ghost town.


Did the cop avoid justice? I thought justice was a trial by a jury of one's peers. Is "justice" now only served by guilty verdicts?

Interesting standard.

I'd be fascinated to know why YOU believe you know more than the jury. What don't they know that you know?


I believe it was a judge and not a jury ... perhaps the defendant waived his right? ... the judge seems like a reasonable guy from what I've read. I like the question that you ask ... what does Dag know that the judge did not know or is he just assuming that the judge is biased?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Sep 2017, 9:12 am

Well, obviously we're not in the jury box (though as RJ said it was a bench trial)...but here is a summary of the trial:

"At the trial, Stockley testified that he saw the 24-year-old Smith holding a silver revolver as he sped away at the start of the chase. He said when he shot Smith, he felt he was in imminent danger.
Prosecutors said Stockley planted a gun in Smith’s car after the shooting — Stockley’s DNA was on the weapon but Smith’s wasn’t.
Dashcam video from Stockley’s police car captured him saying he was “going to kill this (expletive), don’t you know it.” Less than a minute later, he shot Smith five times."

So the officer said he was going to kill the guy...and then the officer's DNA--not the suspect's--winds up on the gun the suspect was supposed to have.

I don't know...I wasn't at the trial...I didn't hear all of the evidence...but it sure looks like you have an officer premeditation and deliberating about shooting an unarmed black man, then shot him five times, and then planted a gun on him.

I can't think of a good explanation as to why the officer's DNA is on the gun, but not the suspect's.

Perhaps maybe you could understand why the Black Community is upset about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 673560001/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 10:42 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, obviously we're not in the jury box (though as RJ said it was a bench trial)...but here is a summary of the trial:

"At the trial, Stockley testified that he saw the 24-year-old Smith holding a silver revolver as he sped away at the start of the chase. He said when he shot Smith, he felt he was in imminent danger.
Prosecutors said Stockley planted a gun in Smith’s car after the shooting — Stockley’s DNA was on the weapon but Smith’s wasn’t.
Dashcam video from Stockley’s police car captured him saying he was “going to kill this (expletive), don’t you know it.” Less than a minute later, he shot Smith five times."

So the officer said he was going to kill the guy...and then the officer's DNA--not the suspect's--winds up on the gun the suspect was supposed to have.

I don't know...I wasn't at the trial...I didn't hear all of the evidence...but it sure looks like you have an officer premeditation and deliberating about shooting an unarmed black man, then shot him five times, and then planted a gun on him.

I can't think of a good explanation as to why the officer's DNA is on the gun, but not the suspect's.

Perhaps maybe you could understand why the Black Community is upset about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 673560001/


You can read the judge's decision for yourself. http://fox2now.com/2017/09/15/read-the- ... rder-case/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 11:07 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Well, obviously we're not in the jury box (though as RJ said it was a bench trial)...but here is a summary of the trial:

"At the trial, Stockley testified that he saw the 24-year-old Smith holding a silver revolver as he sped away at the start of the chase. He said when he shot Smith, he felt he was in imminent danger.
Prosecutors said Stockley planted a gun in Smith’s car after the shooting — Stockley’s DNA was on the weapon but Smith’s wasn’t.
Dashcam video from Stockley’s police car captured him saying he was “going to kill this (expletive), don’t you know it.” Less than a minute later, he shot Smith five times."

So the officer said he was going to kill the guy...and then the officer's DNA--not the suspect's--winds up on the gun the suspect was supposed to have.

I don't know...I wasn't at the trial...I didn't hear all of the evidence...but it sure looks like you have an officer premeditation and deliberating about shooting an unarmed black man, then shot him five times, and then planted a gun on him.

I can't think of a good explanation as to why the officer's DNA is on the gun, but not the suspect's.

Perhaps maybe you could understand why the Black Community is upset about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 673560001/


You can read the judge's decision for yourself. http://fox2now.com/2017/09/15/read-the- ... rder-case/


I just finished it. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Sep 2017, 2:33 pm

"Allow me to retort..."

I read the decision. The underlying facts are that a suspect rammed the police car twice , there was a high-speed chase, the defendant shot the suspect because he thought he was reaching for a gun in his car. The defendant went back to his police vehicle and took off his gloves to get quick-clot, talked to a group of officers, went inside the suspect's vehicle to look for a gun and after finding it he rendered it safe. Here is evidence I found significant:

(1) Defendant Stockley's partner did not testify. Stockley testified that his partner told him at the start of the chase the suspect had a gun. His partner was also there when he shot the suspect. His partner's silence...speaks volumes.

(2) supposedly he was getting quick-clot...yet there is no evidence he used it.

(3) the judge argues the fact that the defendant did not know the suspect was significant, I guess to indicate a lack of motive. I thought what was significant and could piss off an officer was getting rammed, his hand getting hit and then having to chase after the guy.

(4) The judge said from what be seen that there was nothing in Stockley hands while looking in his bag "during the brief time his hands are in view on the video." So, by inference, much of the time his hands were not in view so he he could have gotten a throw-away gun without being seen. The judge said the gun was too big to conceal and a bulge would have been seen. Hmm...the judge also said that the officer when we went back to his police car took an AK-47 pistol and put it on his rear seat just prior to going to his bag. Presumably, he did so for a reason. To allow another gun to be put where he kept his Ak-47 pistol? I find it hard to believe that an officer could not find a way to conceal a gun on his person. Just because the judge could not see it...does not mean it wasn't there.

(5) Possession of the AK-47 pistol--in violation of department policy--is evidence of a police officer looking for extra gun power in a fight--indicative of perhaps an officer looking for a fight.

(6) I find it ridiculous that the officer involved in a shooting would be the one to look for it and retrieve it when there were several other officers who could have done that. He also contaminated the evidence. That seems ridiculous as well.

(7) The judge saying that in 30 years on the bench it would have been an anomaly for a drug dealer not to have gun. That indicates a certain bias and a prejudging of evidence.

What I see is a pissed off officer who shot a suspect who did not have a gun, went back to his vehicle, retrieved a throw-away gun and planted it. He took off his gloves because he knew his throw-a-way gun had his DNA on it and he wanted to explain how that could happen.

I have trouble with finding him guilty of first degree murder for two reasons (1) the high-stress of the chase, the provocation of the police vehicle being rammed could cause a police officer to get into a state of rage, which makes a voluntary manslaughter conviction more appropriate, (2) his service in Iraq and being involved in a bombing in Iraq may have affected his ability to handle-stress situations, as well.

I think a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been appropriate.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 5:40 pm

freeman3 wrote:"Allow me to retort..."

I read the decision. The underlying facts are that a suspect rammed the police car twice , there was a high-speed chase, the defendant shot the suspect because he thought he was reaching for a gun in his car. The defendant went back to his police vehicle and took off his gloves to get quick-clot, talked to a group of officers, went inside the suspect's vehicle to look for a gun and after finding it he rendered it safe. Here is evidence I found significant:

(1) Defendant Stockley's partner did not testify. Stockley testified that his partner told him at the start of the chase the suspect had a gun. His partner was also there when he shot the suspect. His partner's silence...speaks volumes.


Why yes it does! However, you're going the wrong way.

The partner has no right to refuse to testify. So, why didn't the prosecution compel his testimony?

Oh, because it wouldn't help their case?


(2) supposedly he was getting quick-clot...yet there is no evidence he used it.


So funny. So, absence of evidence is conclusive? Really?

How about the angle of entry of the wound in the deceased's abdomen? It could not have happened unless he was reaching for something--as the officer said.

(3) the judge argues the fact that the defendant did not know the suspect was significant, I guess to indicate a lack of motive. I thought what was significant and could piss off an officer was getting rammed, his hand getting hit and then having to chase after the guy.


But, witnesses said he didn't walk up and execute the decedent. Instead, the consistent testimony was that the officer ordered the suspect to open the vehicle door.

(4) The judge said from what be seen that there was nothing in Stockley hands while looking in his bag "during the brief time his hands are in view on the video." So, by inference, much of the time his hands were not in view so he he could have gotten a throw-away gun without being seen. The judge said the gun was too big to conceal and a bulge would have been seen. Hmm...the judge also said that the officer when we went back to his police car took an AK-47 pistol and put it on his rear seat just prior to going to his bag. Presumably, he did so for a reason. To allow another gun to be put where he kept his Ak-47 pistol? I find it hard to believe that an officer could not find a way to conceal a gun on his person. Just because the judge could not see it...does not mean it wasn't there.


You find it hard to believe, but the man who heard all the evidence and witnesses in person did not find it hard to believe.

(5) Possession of the AK-47 pistol--in violation of department policy--is evidence of a police officer looking for extra gun power in a fight--indicative of perhaps an officer looking for a fight.


That's opinion and not at all supported by anything in the trial.

(6) I find it ridiculous that the officer involved in a shooting would be the one to look for it and retrieve it when there were several other officers who could have done that. He also contaminated the evidence. That seems ridiculous as well.


When there's a weapon and a suspect, the person nearest to it is going to retrieve it. Full stop.

(7) The judge saying that in 30 years on the bench it would have been an anomaly for a drug dealer not to have gun. That indicates a certain bias and a prejudging of evidence.


Huh. Your comments about the officer "looking for a fight" are more prejudiced than this judge. Do you know how many drug cases he's heard? He might actually qualify as an expert in drug dealer trials. You want to prove that he's not?

What I see is a pissed off officer who shot a suspect who did not have a gun, went back to his vehicle, retrieved a throw-away gun and planted it. He took off his gloves because he knew his throw-a-way gun had his DNA on it and he wanted to explain how that could happen.


Newsflash: that was the State's case . . . and it went down in flames.

I have trouble with finding him guilty of first degree murder for two reasons (1) the high-stress of the chase, the provocation of the police vehicle being rammed could cause a police officer to get into a state of rage, which makes a voluntary manslaughter conviction more appropriate, (2) his service in Iraq and being involved in a bombing in Iraq may have affected his ability to handle-stress situations, as well.

I think a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been appropriate.


Do you know if lesser-included charges were a possibility? I don't know.

If not, the State definitely overcharged.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 6:35 pm

Having read some of the materials, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the officer killed him and planted the evidence. However, convicting on murder requires more than a simple wager. It requires beyond reasonable doubt, which is hard to get to.