Judge's ruling in STL is troubling
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I don't think everything revolves around me. I just couldn't tell what your point was.
Now that you've explained it, since you didn't read my OP, let me tell you my problem with this specific passage.
The judge is basically giving judicial notice that heroin dealers carry guns. That's not what judicial notice is for. Judicial notice is for things so obvious that evidence isn't needed (like the day of the week of a certain date, or the existence of a certain intersection within the court's jurisdiction, or the address of the courthouse, you get the picture). Evidence of his ownership of the gun should have been produced. The judge should not have substituted "Well, he probably owned a gun" in place of actual evidence.
As I've said multiple times, the judge may have well made the right ruling here, but that's an example of bad...judging, I guess.
Of course it's OK to say the region is screwed up because of religion. It's not acceptable among certain political circles to say that same religion might have anything to do with the religiously inspired terrorism that is one of our biggest issues of the day.
Wipe away your tears, Mr. Victim. Jews and Christians are hardly blameless in all of this.
Nope. I think it was a legitimate observation as someone that has spent considerable time in the Middle East. All together, I've spent close to two years in the Middle East and Muslim majority countries. I also personally know dozens of people from those countries through the course of my military and now civilian work. I like most and have reservations about some. How about you?
Tears? You must be a simpleton. Of course, I've long thought you were. Remember when you used to email me long and idiotic crap? I do.
I wasn't referring to your observation of the Middle East, but rather your "observation" of "certain political circles."
So you just barged into a conversation you didn't bother to listen to. And your takeaway is that Goat is an asshole because he assumed you'd had the respect for others to read before posting. I guess no one will make that mistake again.
Roger that. However, don't you think that certain political circles have different views about this?
No, I think certain people attack politicians of the other party for making politically pragmatic choices. Bush and Obama both publicly described a terror threat that wasn't...entirely accurate, in terms of its relationship to religion. But they did it for good reason. Sometimes you have to suck it up and just make the smart play.
I'm probably derailing the conversation, but it was always clear why Obama kept "Islamic" out of his rhetoric about Islamist terrorism. Reasonable people could disagree, I guess, but the disagreement wasn't reasonable. Instead it ignored the obvious explanation and gratuitously insisted instead that people publicly refrained from demonizing all Islam because they were soft on terror. This was deeply stupid and quintessentially Republican.
Since this is probably a hijack, and I may be off on an unprovoked rant, let me also emphasize that researchers who seek to understand cancer aren't soft on cancer -- any more than people who advise consuming fewer carcinogens are soft on cancer. But make this about terrorism instead of cancer, and lots of people have a hard time not being stupid.
Having said so, maybe this is orthogonal to what others have said. Never mind.
Not a hijack; you're spot on. Let's not forget, "Bush was wrong, too" only became an excuse after Obama started making similar statements.
Do you think another judge, perhaps one not so checked out (isn't he not long from retirement?), would have come to a similar conclusion? Don't most serious drug dealers carry weapons because they have to (protect their stash and themselves)?
Does the fact that the suspect had prior gun charges and have any bearing on this judicial notice or not?
Hell, I'll play...
Video shows Heroin Dealer and his buddy, Rap Sheet, pull into a fast food restaurant, leave the car running.
Rap Sheet walks to the john.
HD goes in and out of the restaurant a couple of times.
Robbery?
Drug deal(s)?
Innocent behavior?
Time will tell.
Video shows cops (Rook and Killer) pull into the lot and park behind HD to block the egress of HD's car.
They get out to check things out.
Why? We aren't told.
Do they have probable cause to suspect any crime has been, is being, is about to be committed?
We aren't told.
Time will tell.
Video shows HD rams the cop car and drives close enough to Rook and Killer that they can break a window AND have an arm struck.
HD drives off, apparently leaving Rap Sheet behind.
Rook and Killer give high speed chase.
I don't even need trial testimony to know what happens next, or what Rook and Killer will say happened.
HD can survive this in only 3 scenarios:
1. He gets away.
Not gonna happen. You can't outrun Motorola.
2. He lays his ass down in the middle of the street with his hands stretched out and empty before they catch up and wreck him.
He doesn't strike me as a quitter.
3. He gets wrecked, lives, and OBEYS to the HIGHEST POSSIBLE degree. Maybe, but 1 furtive move and he is dead.
In a very high percentage of these fact scenarios, everything we learn from this point forward is from the police, who have followed their training, often taught by government lawyers who will be future judges, emptied their clips, and lived to tell the story in court.
What we know:
During the chase, Killer says "we are killing this MFer." (Audio clip).
May mean "I'm gonna shoot this bastard dead no matter what."
May mean "we'll have to kill this dude to stop him."
May mean "we're doing this really good."
May mean several more things.
Even in the heat of the moment, it's evidence - but not dispositive - of intent.
HD gets wrecked by Rook and Killer.
They both approach the drivers side, full of adrenaline, guns drawn, knowing this dude just ran from cops, almost hit them. From video, we know they do NOT just jump out and start shooting.
What we are told:
They believe he is armed.
Do we believe they believe?
You try and decide based on all facts.
If you have a doubt, and you think it's reasonable, the state loses/defendant wins your vote.
What else are we told:
They talk through the window for 15-ish seconds. (This is also apparently on cell phone video, and cop car video, but no sound.)
What else are we told:
HD rejects the option of precisely, carefully and wisely following orders to keep his hands exactly where Rook and Killer say. Furtive move. Empty clip.
Rook doesn't testify.
Hmmm.
Killers DNA is on the gun found in the car.
No HD DNA on the gun.
DNA folks say he could touch gun and not leave any.
(This is not consistent with "common assumption" - which is that DNA will be on everything you touch.)
Was Rap Sheet DNA on the gun?
We aren't told.
Video appears to support claim gun was not planted.
DA says 4 shots, then a kill shot.
Witnesses and video say no.
Doc says shot in back left probably made when HD was reaching/turning toward his right side.
We can "law" all over this.
No judge I ever met would convict a cop of Murder 1 under this scenario.
Lesser included offense?
No.
Killer raised self defense.
It's a defense to all lesser included offenses too.
If state did not disprove it as to Murder 1, they didn't disprove it as to the lessers either.
It is what it is.
I wouldn't lift a finger to help protest for HD.
He was a misery merchant.
A miserable human being.
Doesn't mean a cop has license to just shoot a heroin dealer.
But don't cry to me when your life of crime leads exactly where your grammaw told you it would.
Video shows Heroin Dealer and his buddy, Rap Sheet, pull into a fast food restaurant, leave the car running.
Rap Sheet walks to the john.
HD goes in and out of the restaurant a couple of times.
Robbery?
Drug deal(s)?
Innocent behavior?
Time will tell.
Video shows cops (Rook and Killer) pull into the lot and park behind HD to block the egress of HD's car.
They get out to check things out.
Why? We aren't told.
Do they have probable cause to suspect any crime has been, is being, is about to be committed?
We aren't told.
Time will tell.
Video shows HD rams the cop car and drives close enough to Rook and Killer that they can break a window AND have an arm struck.
HD drives off, apparently leaving Rap Sheet behind.
Rook and Killer give high speed chase.
I don't even need trial testimony to know what happens next, or what Rook and Killer will say happened.
HD can survive this in only 3 scenarios:
1. He gets away.
Not gonna happen. You can't outrun Motorola.
2. He lays his ass down in the middle of the street with his hands stretched out and empty before they catch up and wreck him.
He doesn't strike me as a quitter.
3. He gets wrecked, lives, and OBEYS to the HIGHEST POSSIBLE degree. Maybe, but 1 furtive move and he is dead.
In a very high percentage of these fact scenarios, everything we learn from this point forward is from the police, who have followed their training, often taught by government lawyers who will be future judges, emptied their clips, and lived to tell the story in court.
What we know:
During the chase, Killer says "we are killing this MFer." (Audio clip).
May mean "I'm gonna shoot this bastard dead no matter what."
May mean "we'll have to kill this dude to stop him."
May mean "we're doing this really good."
May mean several more things.
Even in the heat of the moment, it's evidence - but not dispositive - of intent.
HD gets wrecked by Rook and Killer.
They both approach the drivers side, full of adrenaline, guns drawn, knowing this dude just ran from cops, almost hit them. From video, we know they do NOT just jump out and start shooting.
What we are told:
They believe he is armed.
Do we believe they believe?
You try and decide based on all facts.
If you have a doubt, and you think it's reasonable, the state loses/defendant wins your vote.
What else are we told:
They talk through the window for 15-ish seconds. (This is also apparently on cell phone video, and cop car video, but no sound.)
What else are we told:
HD rejects the option of precisely, carefully and wisely following orders to keep his hands exactly where Rook and Killer say. Furtive move. Empty clip.
Rook doesn't testify.
Hmmm.
Killers DNA is on the gun found in the car.
No HD DNA on the gun.
DNA folks say he could touch gun and not leave any.
(This is not consistent with "common assumption" - which is that DNA will be on everything you touch.)
Was Rap Sheet DNA on the gun?
We aren't told.
Video appears to support claim gun was not planted.
DA says 4 shots, then a kill shot.
Witnesses and video say no.
Doc says shot in back left probably made when HD was reaching/turning toward his right side.
We can "law" all over this.
No judge I ever met would convict a cop of Murder 1 under this scenario.
Lesser included offense?
No.
Killer raised self defense.
It's a defense to all lesser included offenses too.
If state did not disprove it as to Murder 1, they didn't disprove it as to the lessers either.
It is what it is.
I wouldn't lift a finger to help protest for HD.
He was a misery merchant.
A miserable human being.
Doesn't mean a cop has license to just shoot a heroin dealer.
But don't cry to me when your life of crime leads exactly where your grammaw told you it would.
Similar threads
