Judge's ruling in STL is troubling

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

One of the complaints people make about the police violence is that juries generally don't want to hold them accountable, that they are generally given the benefit of the doubt in any court proceeding. The case against Jason Stockley was resolved by a bench trial, so there was no jury. But I've been over the entire 30-page ruling (which you can read here), and I have to say, without passing judgment one way or the other on Stockley's actual innocence, there are aspects the ruling that bother me, and seem to suggest those complaints have justification.

The judge resolves every issue of fact in Stockley's favor, and some of them seem a bit like a stretch. For example:

1. Defense did not deny that, less than a minute before the chase ended, Stockley said, "We're killing this motherf***er." Defendant claimed he couldn't recall saying it, and therefore could not explain it or give it context. That's not a very satisfying answer, but the judge was happy with it, accepting the claim that a lot of things get said during a chase, and therefore, actually saying you are going to kill someone you later do kill is not evidence of intent.

2. Before the chase, the deceased had backed his vehicle into the patrol car while trying to escape. Prosecution offered this as motive. The judge made a point to explain that the collision was not "gentle," but pretty darn violent...and then rejected that it showed motive, although the judge did accept this collision as evidence that the officers felt the suspect was dangerous. Both the state and the defense could have a point here, and they would not be mutually exclusive, but the judge was only convinced by the defense.

3. The gun, part 1: A key point was a gun Stockley himself claimed to find in the car between the console and the seat, which he then emptied of shells, and placed on the passenger seat. Prosecution argued he planted the gun. His DNA was on the gun. The deceased's DNA was not. Another officer who had looked into the car after the shooting, but before Stockley returned to the car and found the gun, testified that he did not see a gun.

4. The gun, part 2: Stockley was the only officer who took off his winter gloves. Prosecution claimed he was thinking ahead, and providing a reason for his DNA to be on the gun he planted. He claimed he wanted to administer some sort of emergency blood clotting thing that is apparently standard equipment, and needed to take off his gloves to find it in his bag. This emergency medicine was never administered. Stockley claimed he could tell it was a lost cause, despite the fact that the driver appeared to still be alive at that time.

5. The gun, part 3: The previous two entries are certainly not necessarily outrageous. Stockley's story could well be true. However, the most disturbing part of the judge resolving all these facts in Stockley's favor is how he ended it: by taking judicial notice that a heroin dealer would probably have a gun.

There were some other facts that were more obviously favorable to Stockley. For example, while the prosecution argued that he fired four shots, then paused, then took a "kill shot," at least one witness testified that there was no pause between shots. So, it's not like the prosecution's case didn't have holes. It's just troubling that the judge resolved every single question of fact in one direction, and how he did it.

But, to me, perhaps the most disturbing is a question of law. The judge made it a point to specify that the state had not disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an affirmative defense, it's not normally the state's job to do this, but rather the defense's job to prove it. However, in Missouri, once it is raised, the state must disprove it, and it becomes an issue for the jury (or judge).***

The reason this is especially troubling is that, even if the judge believed the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof on the elements of murder, it was the prosecution's failure to disprove self-defense that was used to dismiss any consideration of conviction on lesser charges, such as manslaughter. The judge should have looked at the issue of self-defense more closely when considering lesser charges, at the very least.

Long story short, and again, without making any judgment as to Stockley's actual innocence, the ruling paints a picture of a judicial system in which it would be effectively impossible to convict a police officer for committing murder in the line of duty. The judge essentially set an impassable bar, which the prosecution, predictably, failed to clear.

*** PS: After doing some more reading, I'm surprised at just how many states (most of them) now follow the same law as Missouri. Since I studied law in Ohio, I was introduced to the traditional rule that any affirmative defense requires the defense to prove it by at least a preponderance of the evidence, with self-defense being no different. Ohio appears to be a dinosaur in this regard now.

With that now in mind, I'd say the real problem here is that this rule does not seem to be applied fairly by triers of fact, going back to the original problem raised at the very beginning of this post: juries (and judges) tend to believe cops. So, since it is a matter for the jury, a cop will successfully prove self-defense in situations where a non-cop, with the same fact pattern, probably would not.

Edited for clarity.
Edited again for postscript.

 

[Optimist13]

Could the cop have used a taser which is less deadly?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Reading your post and a couple news sites, the explanations provided by the judge fit a pattern of making a decision then justifying it rather than using the data to arrive at a conclusion.

It is getting awful hard to even pretend the system works.

 

[Noodle]

Were lesser charges even a possibility? I thought I heard that they were not.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

One of the complaints people make about the police violence is that juries generally don't want to hold them accountable, that they are generally given the benefit of the doubt in any court proceeding. The case against Jason Stockley was resolved by a bench trial, so there was no jury. But I've been over the entire 30-page ruling (which you can read here), and I have to say, without passing judgment one way or the other on Stockley's actual innocence, there are aspects the ruling that bother me, and seem to suggest those complaints have justification.

The judge resolves every issue of fact in Stockley's favor, and some of them seem a bit like a stretch. For example:

1. Defense did not deny that, less than a minute before the chase ended, Stockley said, "We're killing this motherf***er." Defendant claimed he couldn't recall saying it, and therefore could not explain it or give it context. That's not a very satisfying answer, but the judge was happy with it, accepting the claim that a lot of things get said during a chase, and therefore, actually saying you are going to kill someone you later do kill is not evidence of intent.

2. Before the chase, the deceased had backed his vehicle into the patrol car while trying to escape. Prosecution offered this as motive. The judge made a point to explain that the collision was not "gentle," but pretty darn violent...and then rejected that it showed motive, although the judge did accept this collision as evidence that the officers felt the suspect was dangerous. Both the state and the defense could have a point here, and they would not be mutually exclusive, but the judge was only convinced by the defense.

3. The gun, part 1: A key point was a gun Stockley himself claimed to find in the car between the console and the seat, which he then emptied of shells, and placed on the passenger seat. Prosecution argued he planted the gun. His DNA was on the gun. The deceased's DNA was not. Another officer who had looked into the car after the shooting, but before Stockley returned to the car and found the gun, testified that he did not see a gun.

4. The gun, part 2: Stockley was the only officer who took off his winter gloves. Prosecution claimed he was thinking ahead, and providing a reason for his DNA to be on the gun he planted. He claimed he wanted to administer some sort of emergency blood clotting thing that is apparently standard equipment, and needed to take off his gloves to find it in his bag. This emergency medicine was never administered. Stockley claimed he could tell it was a lost cause, despite the fact that the driver appeared to still be alive at that time.

5. The gun, part 3: The previous two entries are certainly not necessarily outrageous. Stockley's story could well be true. However, the most disturbing part of the judge resolving all these facts in Stockley's favor is how he ended it: by taking judicial notice that a heroin dealer would probably have a gun.

There were some other facts that were more obviously favorable to Stockley. For example, while the prosecution argued that he fired four shots, then paused, then took a "kill shot," at least one witness testified that there was no pause between shots. So, it's not like the prosecution's case didn't have holes. It's just troubling that the judge resolved every single question of fact in one direction, and how he did it.

But, to me, perhaps the most disturbing is a question of law. The judge made it a point to specify that the state had not disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an affirmative defense, it's not normally the state's job to do this, but rather the defense's job to prove it. However, in Missouri, once it is raised, the state must disprove it, and it becomes an issue for the jury (or judge).***

The reason this is especially troubling is that, even if the judge believed the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof on the elements of murder, it was the prosecution's failure to disprove self-defense that was used to dismiss any consideration of conviction on lesser charges, such as manslaughter. The judge should have looked at the issue of self-defense more closely when considering lesser charges, at the very least.

Long story short, and again, without making any judgment as to Stockley's actual innocence, the ruling paints a picture of a judicial system in which it would be effectively impossible to convict a police officer for committing murder in the line of duty. The judge essentially set an impassable bar, which the prosecution, predictably, failed to clear.

*** PS: After doing some more reading, I'm surprised at just how many states (most of them) now follow the same law as Missouri. Since I studied law in Ohio, I was introduced to the traditional rule that any affirmative defense requires the defense to prove it by at least a preponderance of the evidence, with self-defense being no different. Ohio appears to be a dinosaur in this regard now.

With that now in mind, I'd say the real problem here is that this rule does not seem to be applied fairly by triers of fact, going back to the original problem raised at the very beginning of this post: juries (and judges) tend to believe cops. So, since it is a matter for the jury, a cop will successfully prove self-defense in situations where a non-cop, with the same fact pattern, probably would not.

Edited for clarity.
Edited again for postscript.

I'd like to see the stats on how common it is for cops to choose a judge over a jury when they are on trial for something. I believe this happened with all the cops on trial in Baltimore over Freddie Gray. I just wonder if a judge is less likely to convict because he/she would be the singular focus of any backlash from other law enforcement and/or other servants of the court. Backlash from random people on the street yelling and holding signs can be largely ignored if you're the judge. It would be much harder to ignore backlash from colleagues and law enforcement that could jeopardize your career if they wanted to.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Were lesser charges even a possibility? I thought I heard that they were not.

According to the judge's ruling, they technically were, but he shut it down in the span of a short paragraph.

 

[Noodle]

I'd like to see the stats on how common it is for cops to choose a judge over a jury when they are on trial for something. I believe this happened with all the cops on trial in Baltimore over Freddie Gray. I just wonder if a judge is less likely to convict because he/she would be the singular focus of any backlash from other law enforcement and/or other servants of the court. Backlash from random people on the street yelling and holding signs can be largely ignored if you're the judge. It would be much harder to ignore backlash from colleagues and law enforcement that could jeopardize your career if they wanted to.

I think it probably depends on the judge assigned to your case as to whether a cop opts for a bench trial, as well as a lot of other factors. I would like to think that the issue you raised is not a factor, but a judge's overall relationship with the police would be. Also, it's the prosecutor that has a much closer relationship with police. Judges are usually much less affected by any animosity from police.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think it probably depends on the judge assigned to your case as to whether a cop opts for a bench trial, as well as a lot of other factors. I would like to think that the issue you raised is not a factor, but a judge's overall relationship with the police would be. Also, it's the prosecutor that has a much closer relationship with police. Judges are usually much less affected by any animosity from police.

In this case, the judge is about to retire anyway. I suspect the defendant chose a bench trial because of the current public climate and fear that he might get a jury full of angry citizens.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'd like to see the stats on how common it is for cops to choose a judge over a jury when they are on trial for something. I believe this happened with all the cops on trial in Baltimore over Freddie Gray. I just wonder if a judge is less likely to convict because he/she would be the singular focus of any backlash from other law enforcement and/or other servants of the court. Backlash from random people on the street yelling and holding signs can be largely ignored if you're the judge. It would be much harder to ignore backlash from colleagues and law enforcement that could jeopardize your career if they wanted to.

O.J. Simpson! 'Nuff said.

Except, I'll say more. Generally speaking, when a case is dry, technical and without emotion, I'd opt for bench trial. When you want to stir up passion and emotion, I'd opt for a jury. The emotions in a police excessive force case are never with the cops.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Reading your post and a couple news sites, the explanations provided by the judge fit a pattern of making a decision then justifying it rather than using the data to arrive at a conclusion.

It is getting awful hard to even pretend the system works.

Result oriented judging is common. SCOTUS does that all the time. Roe v. Wade is probably the epitome of this. When on the losing side, we like to bitch and moan about it. But in the big picture, I think it is probably okay.

Here, the decedent's daughter got a $900,000 civil settlement which is not a lot for a clear case of excessive force resulting in death. So that shows the case had problems in my view.

While the judge probably would be required to briefly recite his view of the law and how it applied to the case, he was under no obligation to detail his view of the facts in a not guilty decision.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

How was that cop allowed to process the car in the first place so he could plant the gun? He shouldn't have been allowed near it.

A white cop could walk up to unarmed black guy on national TV, execute him by shooting him between the eyes, look into the camera and admit to it, and STILL be found innocent.

And most Righties would cheer it.

Disgusting.

Did you see this fireman?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a97e4b0edff971c0fbc?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

 

[Noodle]

O.J. Simpson! 'Nuff said.

Except, I'll say more. Generally speaking, when a case is dry, technical and without emotion, I'd opt for bench trial. When you want to stir up passion and emotion, I'd opt for a jury. The emotions in a police excessive force case are never with the cops.

True, but I think it also depends on the kind of jury you expect to be able to get, and even the current social environment of the locale. Perhaps that last one is the biggest reason to go bench trial in St. Louis these days. Here in Cincy a local cop took his chances with a jury twice and both times got a hung jury. I suspect he might have been convicted by a judge.

 

[iu_a_att]

Result oriented judging is common.

If this concept of "result oriented judging" has any meaning it must mean that the judge reached an outcome that was different than the outcome that would have been reached had he followed the law. I.e., had the judge followed the law Stockly would have been convicted. The verdict thus represents, among other things, an endorsement of murder of black people by cops. It is not the results oriented judging that is the problem as much as it is the values being endorsed.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

it must mean that the judge reached an outcome that was different than the outcome that would have been reached had he followed the law.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that the judge decided who should win or lose, or decided on a legal interpretation of the law, and worked backwards to justify it. It doesn't mean the judge is wrong. As I said above, this usually isn't a problem, but it obviously happens.

One clear signal is that a during a trial the judge will make all the close rulings about evidence and procedural matters in favor of the party the judge will likely rule against. This to eliminate possibility of giving that side arguments on appeal.

 

[UncleMark]

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that the judge decided who should win or lose, or decided on a legal interpretation of the law, and worked backwards to justify it.

So the trial is what, theater?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So the trial is what, theater?

Not at all. The judge is always looking for arguments and evidence to support what he or she wants to do. In those cases where the judges decided against Trump's travel ban, they knew going in they were going to knock it down. The briefs and court arguments were all about giving the judge ammunition.

 

[iu_a_att]

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that the judge decided who should win or lose, or decided on a legal interpretation of the law, and worked backwards to justify it. It doesn't mean the judge is wrong.

The judge decided what he thought was the proper result and then worked backwards to justify it. This is what you claim. By this logic it is not the law that decides the result it is the preferences of the judge. What is revealed by the judgement is the judges preferences. The problem is not simply that this turns the law on its head. The deeper problem is that judge's preferences are revealed to be perverse. He bends the law to produce injustice.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The judge decided what he thought was the proper result and then worked backwards to justify it. This is what you claim. By this logic it is not the law that decides the result it is the preferences of the judge. What is revealed by the judgement is the judges preferences. The problem is not simply that this turns the law on its head. The deeper problem is that judge's preferences are revealed to be perverse. He bends the law to produce injustice.

It isn't as bad as you make it sound. In this case, the judge may have had an idea how he would rule after hearing opening statements and what the attorneys said about self defense. He may have focused on how the prosecution would overcome that. You must remember in a criminal case, going into the case, the Defendant has the presumption of innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to overcome that presumption. There is not a level playing field, and that is the way it should be.

Contrast that with what the judges did in the Trump travel pause cases. The presumption was in favor of Trump's order. The judges obviously disregarded all of that and looked for any feeble straw to grasp in order to overturn the order.

 

[iu_a_att]

It isn't as bad as you make it sound. In this case, the judge may have had an idea how he would rule after hearing opening statements and what the attorneys said about self defense. He may have focused on how the prosecution would overcome that. You must remember in a criminal case, going into the case, the Defendant has the presumption of innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to overcome that presumption. There is not a level playing field, and that is the way it should be.

You are trying to have it both ways. You say the decision is result based...i.e., the judge wants a result and bends the law to get the result he wants. That means that if he had wanted a different result he could have bent the law differently and gotten that result. It follows that the judgement is a reflection of the judges preferences and not the law. So, I follow your logic and say that the problem with the judgment is not simply that it is result based but that it reveals a preference to allow cops to kill black people with impunity. At that point you backtrack and imply the judge made the decision on a point of law...i.e., the defendant should enjoy the presumption of innocence. If law was the determining factor then the result was not result based. I agree with your original assertion that the judgement was result based. All that remains is to argue about what that fact reveals about the judge's preferences.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are trying to have it both ways. You say the decision is result based...i.e., the judge wants a result and bends the law to get the result he wants. That means that if he had wanted a different result he could have bent the law differently and gotten that result. It follows that the judgement is a reflection of the judges preferences and not the law. So, I follow your logic and say that the problem with the judgment is not simply that it is result based but that it reveals a preference to allow cops to kill black people with impunity. At that point you backtrack and imply the judge made the decision on a point of law...i.e., the defendant should enjoy the presumption of innocence. If law was the determining factor then the result was not result based. I agree with your original assertion that the judgement was result based. All that remains is to argue about what that fact reveals about the judge's preferences.

FWIW, according to the judge's own ruling, the only issue that was decided as a matter of law was the refusal to consider a lesser charge. The explanation for this is short and confused. It's hard to really understand what the prosecution's argument in even asking for such consideration was.

In all other respects, the judge's ruling is based on points of fact. He was not convinced by the prosecution. If he did arrive at this by working backwards from a not-guilty result, I agree with you that it's highly improper. Not ethically improper, mind you. As the trier of fact, the judge's decisions on these matters can't really be questioned, unless he was shown to be under some sort of undue influence. But improper in the sense of intellectually dubious. The judge seems to imply that this was a close case for him, using the word "agonizing" at one point. But the fact pattern he described wasn't close at all. He was describing a slam dunk for the defense.

Again, I'm not claiming the judge was wrong in his ruling. I'm just saying that his decision reads like the product of a system in which punishing a murderous cop would be nigh impossible.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

judge wants a result and bends the law to get the result

This most definitely is not what I said.

Result oriented decision making does not necessarily imply that judges bend the law, act in violation of the law, or use their personal preferences to guide their result. But there are exceptions, like the rulings on the Trump travel ban clearly show. The vast majority of decisions are in gray areas where either decision would be supported by evidence and law and thus correct. There few certainties trials and the law as interpreted and applied is far from an exactitude.

When I made my result oriented decision comment, it was intended to be a general statement, in that result oriented judging frequently happens--and by in large there is nothing wrong with that. I haven't read the decision in this case and I don't intend to. So don't take my comments about this case as anything more than a general comment.

Goat is the one who is troubled by this decision. Take up your comments with him if you want to pursue this.

 

[iu_a_att]

Again, I'm not claiming the judge was wrong in his ruling. I'm just saying that his decision reads like the product of a system in which punishing a murderous cop would be nigh impossible.

Is it your claim that the judge was simply following law that makes punishing cops for murder "nigh impossible" or was there an alternative path the judge could have legally followed that would make punishing cops for murder possible? In either case we have a systemic problem in this country. In the former case the problem is legislatures effectively endorsing murder and the courts doing nothing to protect victims from abuse by the state. In the latter case our problem is bad judges. The latter problem is the one we have traditionally faced in this country post civil war with a legal system that would not protect black victims despite the law. The former problem was the one we had prior to the civil war and civil rights laws when the system legislated injustice.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is it your claim that the judge was simply following law that makes punishing cops for murder "nigh impossible" or was there an alternative path the judge could have legally followed that would make punishing cops for murder possible? In either case we have a systemic problem in this country. In the former case the problem is legislatures effectively endorsing murder and the courts doing nothing to protect victims from abuse by the state. In the latter case our problem is bad judges. The latter problem is the one we have traditionally faced in this country post civil war with a legal system that would not protect black victims despite the law. The former problem was the one we had prior to the civil war and civil rights laws when the system legislated injustice.

I'm not really claiming either one. I'm noting that some have complained that juries seem to always give the cop the benefit of the doubt, and while in this case the judge replaced the jury, his ruling seems to imply that he did just that. It reads as though he resolved every single issue of fact in favor of the officer, even when that officer couldn't offer an explanation any better than "I can't remember." I'm not saying the judge's decision or reasoning is wrong, per se. I'm just saying the ruling reads as though there is a heavy thumb on one side of the scale.

Let me put it another way. If juries (and judges) approached all murder cases the way this judge did in this case, I don't think there would be a whole lot of murder convictions.

 

[iu_a_att]

I'm not saying the judge's decision or reasoning is wrong, per se. I'm just saying the ruling reads as though there is a heavy thumb on one side of the scale.

Let me put it another way. If juries (and judges) approached all murder cases the way this judge did in this case, I don't think there would be a whole lot of murder convictions.

Let me ask do you think that all judges and juries should approach cases like this judge i.e., it should be well nigh impossible to convict or do you think they shouldn't approach cases like this judge and convictions should be possible? In any event neither judges nor juries routinely approach cases like this judge did. The race of the victim has been demonstrated to play a significant role in court outcomes. It seems altogether plausible it played a role here too.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Let me ask do you think that all judges and juries should approach cases like this judge i.e., it should be well nigh impossible to convict or do you think they shouldn't approach cases like this judge and convictions should be possible? In any event neither judges nor juries routinely approach cases like this judge did. The race of the victim has been demonstrated to play a significant role in court outcomes. It seems altogether plausible it played a role here too.

I'm sorry, but I can't answer that, because it still sounds like you are assigning to me something other than I'm actually saying. I'm not criticizing how this individual judge approached the case. I'm saying that it appears, based on the judge's ruling, that those who complain there may be something of a double standard in how cops are treated by triers of fact have a point. Inasmuch as someone knowingly gives a cop a bigger benefit of the doubt (absent any specific reason to do so), I think that is wrong. But this all may be subconscious, in which case the problem, endemic as though it may be, is something deeper and more subtle.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

In his ruling, Wilson wrote that “a fact issue that is central” to the case is whether Smith had the gun when he was shot. He found the state’s contention that the officer planted the gun is not supported by evidence.

A full-sized revolver was too large for the officer to hide in his pants pockets and he was not wearing a jacket, the judge said. If the gun had been tucked into his belt, it would have been visible on a bystander’s video that showed Stockley walking between the police car and Smith’s car, he found.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

In his ruling, Wilson wrote that “a fact issue that is central” to the case is whether Smith had the gun when he was shot. He found the state’s contention that the officer planted the gun is not supported by evidence.

A full-sized revolver was too large for the officer to hide in his pants pockets and he was not wearing a jacket, the judge said. If the gun had been tucked into his belt, it would have been visible on a bystander’s video that showed Stockley walking between the police car and Smith’s car, he found.

perhaps you have a link to said video that shows there was no way the officer could have had it on him.

is there also a video showing the initial officer who searched the car couldn't have planted it either?

i'd be interested in seeing said videos.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In his ruling, Wilson wrote that “a fact issue that is central” to the case is whether Smith had the gun when he was shot. He found the state’s contention that the officer planted the gun is not supported by evidence.

A full-sized revolver was too large for the officer to hide in his pants pockets and he was not wearing a jacket, the judge said. If the gun had been tucked into his belt, it would have been visible on a bystander’s video that showed Stockley walking between the police car and Smith’s car, he found.

What's your point? Since you didn't reply to anyone, I can only assume you are replying to the thread in general, and in my OP, I explicitly stated that some of the facts more clearly worked in defense's favor. Why are you highlighting one specific exculpatory piece of evidence? And from an article about the case, no less, instead of from the ruling I linked? What point do you think this makes?

 

[Lucy01]

In his ruling, Wilson wrote that “a fact issue that is central” to the case is whether Smith had the gun when he was shot. He found the state’s contention that the officer planted the gun is not supported by evidence.

A full-sized revolver was too large for the officer to hide in his pants pockets and he was not wearing a jacket, the judge said. If the gun had been tucked into his belt, it would have been visible on a bystander’s video that showed Stockley walking between the police car and Smith’s car, he found.

"Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly, " the judge wrote.

 

[iu_a_att]

I'm sorry, but I can't answer that, because it still sounds like you are assigning to me something other than I'm actually saying. I'm not criticizing how this individual judge approached the case. I'm saying that it appears, based on the judge's ruling, that those who complain there may be something of a double standard in how cops are treated by triers of fact have a point. Inasmuch as someone knowingly gives a cop a bigger benefit of the doubt (absent any specific reason to do so), I think that is wrong. But this all may be subconscious, in which case the problem, endemic as though it may be, is something deeper and more subtle.

If it appears (to you) that those who complain of a double standard in how cops are treated have a basis for that complaint in the judge's ruling then that appears (to me) to be a criticism of the judge's approach to the case. In any event I am grateful for your thoughtful and thorough read through the case and the care you put into the opening post.

For my part, I think the case highlights two endemic problems. First, our legal system assigns undeserved credence to testimony from law enforcement. Second, minority crime victims do not enjoy the same measure of justice as do white victims. You have made the argument that the case illustrates the first problem. The second problem is already well documented in the criminal justice literature that shows defendants are treated more leniently when the victim is black. Co's post on result oriented judging prompts the thought that all of us evaluate judgements in terms of outcomes. In the case of crime I think people start with an assessment of the merits of the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. A standard approach by defense attorneys is to, in effect, blame the victim. If the victim can be made less sympathetic or the perpetrator more sympathetic even in ways that are legally irrelevant judgments can be biased. Underlying conscious and unconscious racial biases will skew judgements in predictable ways. The judge's decisions in this case appear (to me) to be consistent with BOTH kinds of biases. They are consistent with an unjustified valorization of the defendent because he was a cop. They are also consistent with a racially driven animus against the victim.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If it appears (to you) that those who complain of a double standard in how cops are treated have a basis for that complaint in the judge's ruling then that appears (to me) to be a criticism of the judge's approach to the case. In any event I am grateful for your thoughtful and thorough read through the case and the care you put into the opening post.

For my part, I think the case highlights two endemic problems. First, our legal system assigns undeserved credence to testimony from law enforcement. Second, minority crime victims do not enjoy the same measure of justice as do white victims. You have made the argument that the case illustrates the first problem. The second problem is already well documented in the criminal justice literature that shows defendants are treated more leniently when the victim is black. Co's post on result oriented judging prompts the thought that all of us evaluate judgements in terms of outcomes. In the case of crime I think people start with an assessment of the merits of the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. A standard approach by defense attorneys is to, in effect, blame the victim. If the victim can be made less sympathetic or the perpetrator more sympathetic even in ways that are legally irrelevant judgments can be biased. Underlying conscious and unconscious racial biases will skew judgements in predictable ways. The judge's decisions in this case appear (to me) to be consistent with BOTH kinds of biases. They are consistent with an unjustified valorization of the defendent because he was a cop. They are also consistent with a racially driven animus against the victim.

I agree with your read on the biases baked into the system. The reason I was tentative to sign on to your previous posts is that I didn't want to imply that this was something the judge did consciously and purposefully. And also, because I am not claiming that the judge's decision is even wrong in this case, even if I find the whole of his ruling troubling. It's just sort of the overall picture painted by his reasoning that disturbs me.

 

[iu_a_att]

I agree with your read on the biases baked into the system. The reason I was tentative to sign on to your previous posts is that I didn't want to imply that this was something the judge did consciously and purposefully. And also, because I am not claiming that the judge's decision is even wrong in this case, even if I find the whole of his ruling troubling. It's just sort of the overall picture painted by his reasoning that disturbs me.

One cannot establish, for example, that lifelong smoking is the cause of any one individual's death by lung cancer. But, like the lung cancer death of the lifelong smoker, the outcome in this case reinforces the hypothesis that something malign is at work.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

One cannot establish, for example, that lifelong smoking is the cause of any one individual's death by lung cancer. But, like the lung cancer death of the lifelong smoker, the outcome in this case reinforces the hypothesis that something malign is at work.

Good analogy.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

One cannot establish, for example, that lifelong smoking is the cause of any one individual's death by lung cancer. But, like the lung cancer death of the lifelong smoker, the outcome in this case reinforces the hypothesis that something malign is at work.

You have your emphASSis on the wrong syLOBble.

The outcome of this case isn't indicative of anything unusual. First degree murder is always a very difficult case to prove. To convict a cop of first degree murder in an arrest situation is even more difficult.

Yet another death at the hands of police gun-fire is troubling and on the increase. What does this trend indicate?

• are cops more racist than before?
• are cops not as well trained as before?
• are cops more violent than before?

I don't think any of that is true. Points to consider?

• Street cops always wear ballistic vests now. That in and of itself can put one on edge.
• more guns in vehicles.
• most, if not all, cop related deaths and violence begin with the subject failing to obey a police command. This trend is worsening.
• violent crime is increasing
• the image of law enforcement is under constant political attack in many quarters.
• Mind altering drugs are more prevalent.

There are a lot of factors in play here. I don't see the trend as a "malign" one, but it is disturbing and shows a breakdown in many social levels.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

.

Yet another death at the hands of police gun-fire is troubling and on the increase. What does this trend indicate?

• are cops more racist than before?

s.

They've been racists for decades......it's just now they're getting caught on camera planting evidence and murdering them.

I grew up in Fort Wayne and my step-dad belonged to the Street Rod Association......as did a TON of cops.

The cops openly broke the law and used the n-word constantly.

 

[T.M.P.]

Mind altering drugs are more prevalent.

Beer has been around for a long time.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Beer has been around for a long time.

Ah, beer was first femented in the Tigrius/Euphrates valley. That must be why the ME is so f--ked up.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

What's your point? Since you didn't reply to anyone, I can only assume you are replying to the thread in general, and in my OP, I explicitly stated that some of the facts more clearly worked in defense's favor. Why are you highlighting one specific exculpatory piece of evidence? And from an article about the case, no less, instead of from the ruling I linked? What point do you think this makes?

LOL, not everything revolves around you. I didn't read your lengthy post, so I have no idea what you said or didn't say, but I'm sorry I got my news from ABC instead of you.

I placed this into the post to address the troubling accusations that an officer committed what I would call one of the most egregious crimes (e.g. planting evidence), as another poster brought up. The circumstances around the situation seem to support the necessary use of a deadly weapon (drug bust, high-speed chase, suspect with history of violence and gun charges - not sure if that was known at the time). However, the officer clearly had his mind made up before things unfolded, which in obviously not good.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

They've been racists for decades......it's just now they're getting caught on camera planting evidence and murdering them.

I grew up in Fort Wayne and my step-dad belonged to the Street Rod Association......as did a TON of cops.

The cops openly broke the law and used the n-word constantly.

"I will vote for the blackest n***er before I'll vote for a Republican" -- prominent Democrat

I've posted this before, but I heard this comment back when I was a Democrat in college at a Democratic meeting. Of course he wasn't talking to any of the many minorities there. It shocked the hell out of me so it has stuck with me. My takeaway was that racist Democrats hate Republican policies more than they hate n***ers.

 

[T.M.P.]

Ah, beer was first femented in the Tigrius/Euphrates valley. That must be why the ME is so f--ked up.

The ME is so fk'd up because of religion - it has nothing to do with beer.

Read. A. Book.