Jason Stockley

St. Louis references in the news. Oh yeah, don't forget our favorite "Top Lists."
I really predict a guilty verdict.
However, God help our region if its not guilty..
I predict guilty of 1st degree manslaughter. 20yrs. mild civil unrest but nothing major.
Not guilty would've been released earlier, imo.

I think there's going to be trouble.

Hope I'm wrong.
I haven't studied the case very closely, but from what I've read, I doubt that the judge will find enough evidence to convict him (at least not of 1st degree murder).

Something very strange about the way the whole shooting happened, but again, it's awfully hard to convict someone of 1st degree murder without really solid facts. I once served on a jury where we all believed the suspect probably did kill the victim, but we just didn't feel that the prosecutor proved it. So, following the letter of the law, we had to let him go.
Can a judge render a lesser guilty verdict than what the prosecutor asked for? I didnt follow the day by day proceedings but from what ive read i dont see how he can be guilty of first degree. This case is a bit different because we know he DID shoot and kill this guy, if both were civilians its a easy case but law gives police so much leeway when it comes to shooting at a person.
small world story, i went to high school with the other police officer that was with Stockley.
framer wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:26 pm
I haven't studied the case very closely, but from what I've read, I doubt that the judge will find enough evidence to convict him (at least not of 1st degree murder).

Something very strange about the way the whole shooting happened, but again, it's awfully hard to convict someone of 1st degree murder without really solid facts. I once served on a jury where we all believed the suspect probably did kill the victim, but we just didn't feel that the prosecutor proved it. So, following the letter of the law, we had to let him go.
My understanding is that his partner plead the 5th (which is the standard in law enforcement-- because you never "sell out" another cop), and that's the only real witness to the entire unfolding of events. What a tough spot for the partner-- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:26 am
framer wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:26 pm
I haven't studied the case very closely, but from what I've read, I doubt that the judge will find enough evidence to convict him (at least not of 1st degree murder).

Something very strange about the way the whole shooting happened, but again, it's awfully hard to convict someone of 1st degree murder without really solid facts. I once served on a jury where we all believed the suspect probably did kill the victim, but we just didn't feel that the prosecutor proved it. So, following the letter of the law, we had to let him go.
My understanding is that his partner plead the 5th (which is the standard in law enforcement-- because you never "sell out" another cop), and that's the only real witness to the entire unfolding of events. What a tough spot for the partner-- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
No, it's really help convict someone of murder/get off of murder charges if you do, damned if you don't. If he was witness to something more nefarious, he should testify - IDGAF if they're both cops. That's part of the problem. If these were two plant scientists, we wouldn't be saying, "well, they're both plant scientists, they can't rat on each other." If there wasn't anything foul that occurred, it seems odd he'd be unwilling to testify.
dbInSouthCity wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:20 am
Can a judge render a lesser guilty verdict than what the prosecutor asked for? I didnt follow the day by day proceedings but from what ive read i dont see how he can be guilty of first degree. This case is a bit different because we know he DID shoot and kill this guy, if both were civilians its a easy case but law gives police so much leeway when it comes to shooting at a person.
small world story, i went to high school with the other police officer that was with Stockley.
I'm not an expert, but I believe I read that the judge does have leeway to render a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. Would not surprise me at all if that's where this goes.
ricke002 wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:54 am
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:26 am
framer wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:26 pm
I haven't studied the case very closely, but from what I've read, I doubt that the judge will find enough evidence to convict him (at least not of 1st degree murder).

Something very strange about the way the whole shooting happened, but again, it's awfully hard to convict someone of 1st degree murder without really solid facts. I once served on a jury where we all believed the suspect probably did kill the victim, but we just didn't feel that the prosecutor proved it. So, following the letter of the law, we had to let him go.
My understanding is that his partner plead the 5th (which is the standard in law enforcement-- because you never "sell out" another cop), and that's the only real witness to the entire unfolding of events. What a tough spot for the partner-- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
No, it's really help convict someone of murder/get off of murder charges if you do, damned if you don't. If he was witness to something more nefarious, he should testify - IDGAF if they're both cops. That's part of the problem. If these were two plant scientists, we wouldn't be saying, "well, they're both plant scientists, they can't rat on each other." If there wasn't anything foul that occurred, it seems odd he'd be unwilling to testify.
I don't think we disagree that the system-wide, centuries old protocol of "brotherhood first" or whatever is messed up. I think we do disagree in that, if the partner had not plead the 5th, he'd have to find a new line of work in a new city. I don't think a plant scientist would have to rebuild his life somewhere else.
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:17 am
ricke002 wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:54 am
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:26 am


My understanding is that his partner plead the 5th (which is the standard in law enforcement-- because you never "sell out" another cop), and that's the only real witness to the entire unfolding of events. What a tough spot for the partner-- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
No, it's really help convict someone of murder/get off of murder charges if you do, damned if you don't. If he was witness to something more nefarious, he should testify - IDGAF if they're both cops. That's part of the problem. If these were two plant scientists, we wouldn't be saying, "well, they're both plant scientists, they can't rat on each other." If there wasn't anything foul that occurred, it seems odd he'd be unwilling to testify.
I don't think we disagree that the system-wide, centuries old protocol of "brotherhood first" or whatever is messed up. I think we do disagree in that, if the partner had not plead the 5th, he'd have to find a new line of work in a new city. I don't think a plant scientist would have to rebuild his life somewhere else.
Agreed. But if the system never gets broken, the system never gets fixed. I think if "we" always just place cops into the "they'll never rat each other out" bucket, they'll never rat each other out. "We" need to expect more out of police (and witnesses), in general. No one is looking for a cop to rat out a cop - the expectation is a cop would rat out a(n) [alleged] murderer.

Doctors can get sick.
Teachers can be dumb.
Chefs can be hungry.
Cops can break the law.

It's not overly complicated.
The union that primarily represents black police officers has called for conviction in this case. It would be really interesting if Stockley had been black; then who would they publicly support?
ricke002 wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:20 am
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:17 am
ricke002 wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:54 am


No, it's really help convict someone of murder/get off of murder charges if you do, damned if you don't. If he was witness to something more nefarious, he should testify - IDGAF if they're both cops. That's part of the problem. If these were two plant scientists, we wouldn't be saying, "well, they're both plant scientists, they can't rat on each other." If there wasn't anything foul that occurred, it seems odd he'd be unwilling to testify.
I don't think we disagree that the system-wide, centuries old protocol of "brotherhood first" or whatever is messed up. I think we do disagree in that, if the partner had not plead the 5th, he'd have to find a new line of work in a new city. I don't think a plant scientist would have to rebuild his life somewhere else.
Agreed. But if the system never gets broken, the system never gets fixed. I think if "we" always just place cops into the "they'll never rat each other out" bucket, they'll never rat each other out. "We" need to expect more out of police (and witnesses), in general. No one is looking for a cop to rat out a cop - the expectation is a cop would rat out a(n) [alleged] murderer.

Doctors can get sick.
Teachers can be dumb.
Chefs can be hungry.
Cops can break the law.

It's not overly complicated.
Witnesses can refuse to cooperate.

(snitches end up in ditches)
whitherSTL wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:10 pm
ricke002 wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:20 am
kinger wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:17 am


I don't think we disagree that the system-wide, centuries old protocol of "brotherhood first" or whatever is messed up. I think we do disagree in that, if the partner had not plead the 5th, he'd have to find a new line of work in a new city. I don't think a plant scientist would have to rebuild his life somewhere else.
Agreed. But if the system never gets broken, the system never gets fixed. I think if "we" always just place cops into the "they'll never rat each other out" bucket, they'll never rat each other out. "We" need to expect more out of police (and witnesses), in general. No one is looking for a cop to rat out a cop - the expectation is a cop would rat out a(n) [alleged] murderer.

Doctors can get sick.
Teachers can be dumb.
Chefs can be hungry.
Cops can break the law.

It's not overly complicated.
Witnesses can refuse to cooperate.

(snitches end up in ditches)
100% accurate. But they'd only want to keep (or be kept) quiet if there was something to be quiet about. I wouldn't think he'd be super-quiet if his partner was overly innocent.
Sounds like 3 pm tomorrow it comes down. I figured they would wait til the Cards are out of town. Probably a smart move.
framer wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:49 am
The union that primarily represents black police officers has called for conviction in this case. It would be really interesting if Stockley had been black; then who would they publicly support?
If Stockley were black he would be sitting in prison by now. I also don't recall any black police officer unions supporting killer cops.
Not guilty...best of luck to everyone...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
KSDK reporting not guilty as of 8:59 this morning:

https://twitter.com/ksdknews/status/908691573818392576
Hold on to your butts
I would expect to see some pretty catastrophic damage downtown today. Hopeful that police will do their best to stem the violence that will definitely occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not surprising, but sickening.

Really, truly, officers of the law are above it.
Chalupas54 wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
I would expect to see some pretty catastrophic damage downtown today. Hopeful that police will do their best to stem the violence that will definitely occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh the irony!
Given events of last week or so, verdict isn't surprising.

All is quiet right now DT.

We'll see what the day brings.
Image
U2 concert will be cancelled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chalupas54 wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:38 am
U2 concert will be cancelled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ (reasonable) speculation?