• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saint Louis is preparing for riots tomorrow

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
thilanliyan said:
Wait so the cop shot and killed him, then planted a gun on the guy, and got away with no conviction at all? What was his explanation for the gun?
Click to expand...
Presumably it would have qualified for a 2nd degree murder but since they went for 1st degree, a conviction couldn't be secured.

Iron Woode said:
possibly because saying something in the heat of the moment doesn't qualify as premeditation?

A good example of that is in the movie 12 Angry Men.
Click to expand...
I get that, but how long can 'heat of the moment' be defined for? within 2 minutes of murder? Within 5? It's too vague of a concept (imh, non-lawyer opinion) to be included in justice proceedings. He said he was going to do $thing, then chased down the guy, then did $thing. That's pretty premeditated to me.
 
Out of morbid curiosity, why doesn't our justice system simply apply a judgement of 'killed a person' first, then proceed to work down from the most severe to least severe rather than having these situations where 'oh, he killed someone, but it wasn't first degree like you went after so he walks'?
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Presumably it would have qualified for a 2nd degree murder but since they went for 1st degree, a conviction couldn't be secured.


I get that, but how long can 'heat of the moment' be defined for? within 2 minutes of murder? Within 5? It's too vague of a concept (imh, non-lawyer opinion) to be included in justice proceedings. He said he was going to do $thing, then chased down the guy, then did $thing. That's pretty premeditated to me.
Click to expand...
it's not just heat of the moment.

People v Harris:
"A verdict of deliberate and premeditated first degree murder requires more than a showing of intent to kill. Deliberation refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action; premeditation means thought over in advance.

"The process of premeditation and deliberation does not require any extended period of time. The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly."
Click to expand...
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Out of morbid curiosity, why doesn't our justice system simply apply a judgement of 'killed a person' first, then proceed to work down from the most severe to least severe rather than having these situations where 'oh, he killed someone, but it wasn't first degree like you went after so he walks'?
Click to expand...
that is how it works. Murder is classified by degrees. There is also manslaughter. all of these are based on culpability and intent.

also, if the prosecution would have included the lesser charge of manslaughter, the officer may have been convicted. Instead, the Prosecutor went all-in for 1st degree.
 
Iron Woode said:
that is how it works. Murder is classified by degrees. There is also manslaughter. all of these are based on culpability and intent.

also, if the prosecution would have included the lesser charge of manslaughter, the officer may have been convicted. Instead, the Prosecutor went all-in for 1st degree.
Click to expand...
That's the part that I meant. He isn't still sitting under the conviction of 'killed a guy'. He's acquitted because they couldn't secure a 1st degree charge. I feel like for justice sake, this should be automatically de-escalated to 2nd degree, then manslaughter, then self defense (plus whatever permutations exist between them).
 
Doesn't sound like first degree murder was the right charge. I think the video evidence shows that he was impulsive and out of control of his emotional state. Even if intent was clear, that's not premeditation or deliberation. Perhaps there was some evidence suggesting he had been more composed.

I suppose only charging on murder 1 was part pressure from society to seek vengeance. But perhaps they didn't want to give the judge a choice of a lesser charge as a safer option and thought he'd stretch to murder 1 to ensure some justice was served. Either way, didn't work.
 
Shocking verdict /sarcasm. Guy plants gun and used is own AK-47 to shoot the suspect. Jesus fucking christ this country is fucked up. But remember Blue Lives Matter!
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Out of morbid curiosity, why doesn't our justice system simply apply a judgement of 'killed a person' first, then proceed to work down from the most severe to least severe rather than having these situations where 'oh, he killed someone, but it wasn't first degree like you went after so he walks'?
Click to expand...
Iron Woode said:
that is how it works. Murder is classified by degrees. There is also manslaughter. all of these are based on culpability and intent.

also, if the prosecution would have included the lesser charge of manslaughter, the officer may have been convicted. Instead, the Prosecutor went all-in for 1st degree.
Click to expand...

That needs to be changed. The conviction needs to be first done to determine murder and/or wrongful death. Then the severity of it determined.
 
Just called the Antifa Hotline to report a code Black. They are sending their emergency response team to the locations to better assess the situation.
Carry on.

Pigs. And I don't normally use that word but this shit boils my blood.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
That's the part that I meant. He isn't still sitting under the conviction of 'killed a guy'. He's acquitted because they couldn't secure a 1st degree charge. I feel like for justice sake, this should be automatically de-escalated to 2nd degree, then manslaughter, then self defense (plus whatever permutations exist between them).
Click to expand...
this is the decision of the prosecutor. Maybe they were swayed by public emotion or politics but the problem is not considering the chance of conviction.

It also appears that they had hoped for a jury trial where they could parade emotion and politics in the court room. A bench trial is judged by the law alone.
 
I cannot blame people if they lose their shit over this one. It's the most egregious yet.

Though in the midst of pending rioting... what is a "proper" response? What does civil discourse look like when people are put up against a license to be killed?
 
Jaskalas said:
I cannot blame people if they lose their shit over this one. It's the most egregious yet.

Though in the midst of pending rioting... what is a "proper" response? What does civil discourse look like when people are put up against a license to be killed?
Click to expand...
There isn't a civil discourse, just uncivil ones. Social evolution will take place, and we'll either see increased policing and a continuation of things down the path they've been moving, or we'll have a massive overhaul more akin to the civil rights era.
 
Carrying a "drop gun" should qualify as premeditated murder. If you do not intend to commit first degree murder why acquire a weapon with intent to plant it to provide a defense "good shoot?"
 
Jaskalas said:
I cannot blame people if they lose their shit over this one. It's the most egregious yet.

Though in the midst of pending rioting... what is a "proper" response? What does civil discourse look like when people are put up against a license to be killed?
Click to expand...
first thing that needs to be done is for everyone to avoid inflammatory language. Police don't have a license to kill. That kind of talk causes people to become extreme in their views. It helps nothing.

The proper response would to make sure the D.A. doesn't overreach went considering a charge. Make sure they don't get trapped into emotion and politics and do what is feasible.

and rioting is absolutely pointless. All that does is make people who would otherwise support you distance themselves from you and give your movement a bad name.
 
Iron Woode said:
first thing that needs to be done is for everyone to avoid inflammatory language. Police don't have a license to kill. That kind of talk causes people to become extreme in their views. It helps nothing.

The proper response would to make sure the D.A. doesn't overreach went considering a charge. Make sure they don't get trapped into emotion and politics and do what is feasible.

and rioting is absolutely pointless. All that does is make people who would otherwise support you distance themselves from you and give your movement a bad name.
Click to expand...
It's hard to not consider it a license to kill, when an officer can, in what, 90% of situations? kill someone while on duty with no retaliation. Even when it's beyond a reasonable doubt, actual murder. Any practical person would look at this situation and say 'he had an intent to kill that man, and his actions surrounding the pursuit, shooting, and post-shooting behavior are beyond suspicious'.

I have a very real problem with blaming the prosecution for justice not being served.

What happens when the 'movement' consists of half the population? Rioting can't be quelled forever, and it's been escalating with nearly every one of these shootings.
 
A cop could gun down random people on the street, for no reason whatsoever, the whole thing could be caught on video from multiple angles, and he'd still be acquitted. And the self-labelled small government crowd would fall over themselves to lick his boots and blame the victims.
That's the state of blantant corruption and callous injustice in our government today.
 
Last edited:
brianmanahan said:
reading the judge's 30 page findings, it sounds like the verdict was right.
Click to expand...

All I got is a CNN article, and it has these details:

Ex-cop Jason Stockley found not guilty in black man's death
  • The gun was too large, Wilson said, for Stockley to hide it from the cameras at the scene.
  • The location of the wound, according to the doctor who conducted the autopsy and testified, could suggest Smith had been reaching to his right for something inside the vehicle, Wilson said.
  • Wilson said it wouldn't be unusual for Smith to have a gun, writing, "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."

That is an interesting case for reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top