• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former St. Louis officer Jason Stockley found not guilty in murder case

The "kill shot" wasn't the one 6 inches from his face. That was the gunshot to his shoulder which wouldn't have killed him (the prosecution's expert said). I've had to say this several times tonight for some reason -- in order to get a guilty verdict in a murder trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's experts, the witness testimonies and the video provided that doubt.

The facts that some articles aren't telling you ---

Smith was a convicted drug dealer and thief.
The officers saw what they suspected was a drug deal so they stopped behind Smith's car to confront him.
He immediately rammed his car into the police car (and another car) after seeing the officers stop behind him. There is video of all of this. He hit one of the officers in the hand with his vehicle as he sped away.
Stockley's partner yelled "GUN!" as he sped away because he saw a gun in the car.
They sped after him. Stockley said "we're killing this mother****er, don't you know". He claims that he doesn't remember saying it because of the highly stressful situation you say lots of things, but we know he (or his partner did) because it's on the video/radio.
They finally cornered Smith whose airbags had deployed from crashing. Stockley yelled at him to keep his hands where he can see them and to open the door. Back-up officers had arrived by then. Stockley told them to watch his hands (which meant that he knew there was a gun in the car).
Stockley said Smith then reached down to his right which Stockley assumed was him reaching for his gun (which his partner said he saw). Stockley shot in quick succession - witnesses say there was no pause in shots.
Stockley goes to his vehicle to get first aid. He takes off his gloves (thick gloves because it was chilly that night) so he can quickly feel around to grab it out of the bag. He realizes that Smith is already dead.
The video shows no evidence of Stockley hiding the .38 on his body in order to plant it in the vehicle. No witnesses or other officers on the scene say they saw Stockley plant the .38 in the car.
They search the vehicle. Stockley finds the .38 and a bag of narcotics. Stockley unloads the cartridges and lays everything on the front seat.
The medical examiner said the close-range shot was to his shoulder and not a kill shot. There was, however, a gunshot to his lower flank which would be impossible unless Smith was leaning over (which corroborates Stockley's testimony that Smith leaned down to his right).
The DNA evidence on the gun was Stockley's. Makes sense since he was touching it to take out the cartridges. The expert witnesses for the prosecution said that lack of DNA evidence isn't proof that the gun wasn't handled by Smith. You can handle an object without leaving DNA evidence.

Looking through the evidence, expert testimonies and witness testimonies -- there WAS doubt. You cannot convict someone of murder if there's any doubt that he/she might not be guilty.

What is suspicious in my mind, the only thing, is that Stockley handled the perp's gun, unloaded it and left it on the seat of the car. Had he not done that, there would have been no reason for his fingerprints to be on it. I wonder if that's protocol...

Regardless, one can't convict the guy of murder, imo. If the guy reached? Which, in my opinion, the prosecutor would have to disprove? I'd have shot him, too. There was nothing in that video to disprove the officer's account.

I hope the cop with him was disciplined. He had to know, or should have known, the cop had an illegal weapon.
 
Another career gun toting drug dealing thug meets up with a questionable cop.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
What is suspicious in my mind, the only thing, is that Stockley handled the perp's gun, unloaded it and left it on the seat of the car. Had he not done that, there would have been no reason for his fingerprints to be on it. I wonder if that's protocol...

Regardless, one can't convict the guy of murder, imo. If the guy reached? Which, in my opinion, the prosecutor would have to disprove? I'd have shot him, too. There was nothing in that video to disprove the officer's account.

I hope the cop with him was disciplined. He had to know, or should have known, the cop had an illegal weapon.

I agree with you. Him handling the gun and only his DNA on the gun was the part of the story I read when there was minimal information that I was like ..... ummmmmm....... this could be shady. But after reading the rest of the evidence and the experts' testimonies, the judge came to the right conclusion. That doesn't mean he's innocent of everything -- it just means they couldn't prove his guilt.
 
On the plus side maybe the hoodlums are learning that being a dick to our agents the Police is a bad idea...

Perhaps people are also learning that calling the Police to report a sexual assault you fear was happening in an alleyway behind your house is a bad idea too. You might end up dead like Justine Damond. Shot dead, by an Officer who put his own partners life in danger as well by shooting a person dressed only in PJ's outside the vehicle whilst his partner was between them.

I wonder if her family will have to wait six years to get a ruling as to what the heck actually went wrong there too.
 
What you think about it absolutely matters. If you can bring yourself to admit that its likely and perhaps even probable that he planted the gun, though not provable beyond a reasonable doubt, it might go a bit of a way to bridge the distance between those that dont feel heard. It might even go a little way to express empathy. It can certainly go a long way to show honesty.

How about a convicted drug dealer, illegal gun possessor on parole facing years in prison if caught with a weapon and narcotics would go to extreme measures and even tthreaten police if they attempt to search his car and take himinto custody.

Can you admit that? Can those who engage in the knee jerk all cops are guilty?
 
Perhaps people are also learning that calling the Police to report a sexual assault you fear was happening in an alleyway behind your house is a bad idea too. You might end up dead like Justine Damond. Shot dead, by an Officer who put his own partners life in danger as well by shooting a person dressed only in PJ's outside the vehicle whilst his partner was between them.

I wonder if her family will have to wait six years to get a ruling as to what the heck actually went wrong there too.


The officer that murdered Damond, Mohamed Noor, has yet to offer any statement to investigators, and he is still on paid leave.

Minneapolis Police Officers Federation president Bill Kroll has written a letter of support for the murderer, Mohamed Noor.

This whole fiasco smells of **** & piss ...........
 
The officer that murdered Damond, Mohamed Noor, has yet to offer any statement to investigators, and he is still on paid leave.

Minneapolis Police Officers Federation president Bill Kroll has written a letter of support for the murderer, Mohamed Noor.

This whole fiasco smells of **** & piss ...........

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread. But what the heck lets just smear every police officer.

People forget that each case is fact specific!! A fact finding Judge found Stockley not guilty.
 
People forget that each case is fact specific!! A fact finding Judge found Stockley not guilty.

I'm glad you mentioned that each case is fact specific. There's a couple of things that don't make much sense when reading the Judgement. The first one is there was quite a bit of discussion about the only DNA being found on the gun as belonging to the defendant but experts did testify possible reasons behind that. Despite no physical evidence that the gun was the property of the deceased, that fact was ignored and the Judge actually said that based on his experience on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly. In one of the opening statements the Judge made specific references to only dealing in factual events but he's contradicted that by basing his thoughts on his experience on the bench in other cases.

The second one is why didn't the defendant's partner testify at the trial?
 
A group of maybe 20 to 30 people has moved into an intersection blocking some traffic. Downtown St. Louis.
You can read the Judge’s decision here.


Former St. Louis officer Jason Stockley found not guilty in murder case

Former St. Louis officer Jason Stockley found not guilty in murder case | FOX2now.com

Stockley fatally shot 24-year-old Anthony Lamar Smith in December 2011 after a three-mile police chase through city streets. The incident started as a police stop following a reported drug sale. Surveillance video showed officers block Smith in, who then backed his vehicle into a police car as the officers approached. Stockley ran after the suspect’s car, firing seven shots with his service pistol.

The prosecution called 17 witnesses during the five-day trial. Stockley testified at his own trial and the defense presented only one other witness.

The thing that bothers me most about this case is the number of times (4 or more?) that the shooting officer was in and out of the dead victim's vehicle while many (up to ten?) other officers appear to have thought that was an acceptable way of "preserving" (rather than presenting?) a crime scene.

Video shows Stockley appeared to have free reign of the scene and the suspect's vehicle while as many as ten officers stood nearby. During a play by play of the video in court, two officers described seeing Stockley go into the suspect’s car four times. One officer acknowledged to the prosecutor he thought that was strange.

Meanwhile, defense attorney Neil Bruntrager argued the lack of evidence wasn’t evidence. Bruntrager said there was no visual evidence of Stockley with the gun prosecutors allege he planted.

The the lack of evidence is not evidence BS means, basically, even if no gun was found then the claim of "I thought he was reaching for a gun" (that nobody else saw until the shooter had already paid multiple visits to the "crime scene") is good enough. A gun with nothing (other than its location inside the car) tying it to the one that was "reaching for it" but plenty of physical evidence tying it to the one that would benefit the most from it actually being there, and who had clearly been inside that car numerous times after the suspect was known to have been dead. I bet the multiple visits to the "crime scene" was to ensure more (expert witness?) folks clearly remembered that Stockley handled the gun after it was "found" (by Stockley himself?) inside the car.

If the fact that the shooter (also?) brought along his "AK-47" from home leads considerable credibility to the planted evidence theory. Why look for another gun from home if other officers seeing the first one thought it was no big deal? There is also no evidence that Stockley did or did not have underwear on, did or did not have an (empty?) ankle holster or did or did not have identifiable objects in his pockets.

The point being that the entire defense was based on the credibility of the shooter having seen a gun to make the "he was reaching for a gun" become a credible deadly threat used to justify killing the very person that he, mere moments ago, had said "we're killing".

It is no wonder that this guy waived his right to a jury trial.
 
Last edited:
What you think about it absolutely matters. If you can bring yourself to admit that its likely and perhaps even probable that he planted the gun, though not provable beyond a reasonable doubt, it might go a bit of a way to bridge the distance between those that dont feel heard. It might even go a little way to express empathy. It can certainly go a long way to show honesty.


It is something how you are so hellbent on standing up for a convicted felon with a bad rap sheet instead of a police officer.
 
How about a convicted drug dealer, illegal gun possessor on parole facing years in prison if caught with a weapon and narcotics would go to extreme measures and even tthreaten police if they attempt to search his car and take himinto custody.

Can you admit that? Can those who engage in the knee jerk all cops are guilty?
I have, several times. In fact if you read my first comment (as well as others) you would see I expressed that same sentiment.

I take it from your refusal to answer the question that you acknowledge it at least looks pretty convincing that he planted the gun.
 
It is something how you are so hellbent on standing up for a convicted felon with a bad rap sheet instead of a police officer.

Is it OK for police to shoot each and every convicted felon so long as they first assert they were reaching for a gun?
 
It is something how you are so hellbent on standing up for a convicted felon with a bad rap sheet instead of a police officer.
I think your vision is a bit twisted. Do you realize that you can be repulsed by the felon AND recognize that sometimes some cops do wrong things?
 
Forget about the conviction for a second...do you think its likely...even probable that the cop planted the gun?

The gun was a full-sized revolver, the cop wasn't wearing a jacket so would have had a problem concealing it, the state didn't call any other witnesses who might have offered evidence to that point, and the state's own witness said the absence of DNA evidence did not mean the victim didn't handle it. So, once again, the state didn't meet its burden of proof.
 
It is something how you are so hellbent on standing up for a convicted felon with a bad rap sheet instead of a police officer.

I can see you've only been a member here for a few months so likely not familiar with all of our members positions overall. Welcome to DP by the way.

You're off the mark here. I've seen Vance very openly supportive of Police Officers overall over the years here. It's ok to have questions over individual incidents, irrespective of what the topic is. He's far from a non supporter of Police Officers overall. Just a heads up.
 
Absolutely nothing to do with this thread. But what the heck lets just smear every police officer.

People forget that each case is fact specific!! A fact finding Judge found Stockley not guilty.


if you would like some cheese to go with your whine then I suggest you try Wisconsin first?

I reside in Minnesota & I really don't give a **** about your problem .......
 
Perhaps people are also learning that calling the Police to report a sexual assault you fear was happening in an alleyway behind your house is a bad idea too. You might end up dead like Justine Damond. Shot dead, by an Officer who put his own partners life in danger as well by shooting a person dressed only in PJ's outside the vehicle whilst his partner was between them.

I wonder if her family will have to wait six years to get a ruling as to what the heck actually went wrong there too.

This is a tough one for me because I both condemn general police practices of being too quick to use force and the tendencies in some communities to challenge and disrespect societies agents the police.
 
I'm glad you mentioned that each case is fact specific. There's a couple of things that don't make much sense when reading the Judgement. The first one is there was quite a bit of discussion about the only DNA being found on the gun as belonging to the defendant but experts did testify possible reasons behind that. Despite no physical evidence that the gun was the property of the deceased, that fact was ignored and the Judge actually said that based on his experience on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly. In one of the opening statements the Judge made specific references to only dealing in factual events but he's contradicted that by basing his thoughts on his experience on the bench in other cases.

The second one is why didn't the defendant's partner testify at the trial?

You have every right to 2nd guess the Judge. All I would say is he has years of experience in the court room and he
listened to all of the testimony and he found that the prosecution did not meet the burden necessary and found the officer not guilty.
 
if you would like some cheese to go with your whine then I suggest you try Wisconsin first?

I reside in Minnesota & I really don't give a **** about your problem .......

Anger is bad for the soul.......
 
Anger is bad for the soul.......


maybe you could relay that morsel of knowledge to FORMER officer Stockley, the man that stated, "we're killing this mother****er, don't you know" and then proceeded to commit a homicide within just about one minute after stating his intention to kill a mother****er.

Yes, FORMER officer Stockley could likely utilize your words of wisdom; dunno.

Pretty sure Stockley has some anger management issue but I'm just guessin' ..................
 
Last edited:

Thanks for posting the decision. Judge lays out a reasonable case for not guilty, tho I don't buy why a lesser charge wouldn't have stuck. He gives the officer a break on the statement that he planned to kill the driver, suggesting it happened in the heat of the moment, but then says gratuitously that a drug dealer without a gun would be an anomaly, though some dealers no doubt deliberately do not carry. Family of the dead guy got lots of money, so some form of justice was done.

My police captain ex father-in-law used to instruct at the police academy. He would have been furious at the cops for engaging at an unnecessary chase based on a drug deal (and of course, hit and run) thus presumably endangering bystanders. Cops had video, presumably a description plus a license plate, etc.

Sad that we live in a society with so many guns the cops are justificably nervous, with so many dead black kids that their parents have to give them "the talk," with the need for a movement like Black Lives Matter. Had to laugh (sicko me) at the story of the cop who supposedly said to a nervous white woman he had stopped, something like, "Don't worry, we only shoot black people."
 
I think your vision is a bit twisted. Do you realize that you can be repulsed by the felon AND recognize that sometimes some cops do wrong things?

Good point. Human rights (of suspects... or police) are not rewards for good behavior.
 
Thanks for posting the decision. Judge lays out a reasonable case for not guilty, tho I don't buy why a lesser charge wouldn't have stuck. He gives the officer a break on the statement that he planned to kill the driver, suggesting it happened in the heat of the moment, but then says gratuitously that a drug dealer without a gun would be an anomaly, though some dealers no doubt deliberately do not carry. Family of the dead guy got lots of money, so some form of justice was done.

My police captain ex father-in-law used to instruct at the police academy. He would have been furious at the cops for engaging at an unnecessary chase based on a drug deal (and of course, hit and run) thus presumably endangering bystanders. Cops had video, presumably a description plus a license plate, etc.

Sad that we live in a society with so many guns the cops are justificably nervous, with so many dead black kids that their parents have to give them "the talk," with the need for a movement like Black Lives Matter. Had to laugh (sicko me) at the story of the cop who supposedly said to a nervous white woman he had stopped, something like, "Don't worry, we only shoot black people."
Cops are not "justifiably nervous". If they're really that scared then the bulk of them are too cowardly to actually have their jobs. No, the reason why they use that as an excuse is because it's a literal get out of jail free.
 
Cops are not "justifiably nervous". If they're really that scared then the bulk of them are too cowardly to actually have their jobs. No, the reason why they use that as an excuse is because it's a literal get out of jail free.

Have to disagree. I think cops would be far less likely to shoot if there were fewer guns in our society. NYC Cops nearly shot me once cause they mistook me for a Puerto Rican truck hijacker. It was stupid, racist, all that, but they also acted out of fear, since they assumed I was armed. Didn't make it right, mind you, and they apologized profusely. To top it off, one of the cops was Puerto Rican.

No doubt any cop will explain a bad shooting by exaggerating his fear. But it doesn't mean he wasn't afraid or that was the only factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom