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