quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadesDecadent

I stated the facts virulent pox and you avoided them all whilst shitting your nappy and screaming like a bitch faggot smearing your arse everywhere.

I have spoken with facts
You have spoken avoiding the facts
We will let the true readers decide

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadesDecadent

I stated the facts virulent pox and you avoided them all whilst shitting your nappy and screaming like a bitch faggot smearing your arse everywhere.

I have spoken with facts
You have spoken avoiding the facts
We will let the true readers decide

No I have spoken the facts and you have refused to consider them unless I can disprove what
you take as an article of faith.

Again do you think that it is possible that the judge knows a little bit more about the case than you do?
If it is still possible try to answer with a degree of civility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama the evidence on the so called planted gun is laid out in the Judges decision. Criminals are not stupid... they make sure they have a clean gun... the officers DNA was on the gun because according to police procedure he unloaded it and secured it. Remember he was going for the gun... he didn't get it. The read really is interesting and laid out in an orderly intelligent manner... People just have to read it before they make these irresponsible claims.

Butch

So this guy is being chased through city streets at 87 mph and he has time to clean all his DNA from the gun? It is simply amazing the lengths at which you will go to torture the story so that it comes out in favor of the police.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadesDecadent

Maybe chip in from time to time? (on the actual topic)

e.g. why could his case be decided by a Judge and not a jury of his Peers? Your nemesis would have helped me out with those questions and nuances.

I am actually a nationalist ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

No, I think you’ve got that wrong. False testimony was given on “pattern” evidence like hair and bite marks. There were about 35 cases in which the defendants were exonerated by DNA after the “pattern” evidence was shown to be false testimony, or pseudoscience. Or maybe after the defendants were exonerated by the DNA evidence someone went back and checked the “pattern” evidence. And found it woefully lacking.

In this case the cop's DNA was on the gun. I don't understand how the judge could rationalize that away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

No, I think you’ve got that wrong. False testimony was given on “pattern” evidence like hair and bite marks. There were about 35 cases in which the defendants were exonerated by DNA after the “pattern” evidence was shown to be false testimony, or pseudoscience. Or maybe after the defendants were exonerated by the DNA evidence someone went back and checked the “pattern” evidence. And found it woefully lacking.

In this case the cop's DNA was on the gun. I don't understand how the judge could rationalize that away.

VML, haven't you ever watched an episode of "COPS" on TV? Cop finds a gun. Cop takes gun in hand. Cop take gun apart sufficiently to unload and make safe the gun. Cop is always going to be the last to handle it before it goes in the evidence bag. As far as the guy who was shot, I don't know why his DNA wasn't on the gun. But I'll give you an easy example of why it might not have been. I have a concealed weapons permit. I keep a handgun in my car. I know for a fact that where my finger prints are on the gun are most likely to rust first and start rust on other parts of the gun. So, what do I do? I clean the gun thoroughly, oil it, and put it in the car being careful not to get my finger prints on it. Hence I'll lay you odds if they did a DNA test on my gun in my car, it would come up zilch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

No, I think you’ve got that wrong. False testimony was given on “pattern” evidence like hair and bite marks. There were about 35 cases in which the defendants were exonerated by DNA after the “pattern” evidence was shown to be false testimony, or pseudoscience. Or maybe after the defendants were exonerated by the DNA evidence someone went back and checked the “pattern” evidence. And found it woefully lacking.

In this case the cop's DNA was on the gun. I don't understand how the judge could rationalize that away.

VML, haven't you ever watched an episode of "COPS" on TV? Cop finds a gun. Cop takes gun in hand. Cop take gun apart sufficiently to unload and make safe the gun. Cop is always going to be the last to handle it before it goes in the evidence bag. As far as the guy who was shot, I don't know why his DNA wasn't on the gun. But I'll give you an easy example of why it might not have been. I have a concealed weapons permit. I keep a handgun in my car. I know for a fact that where my finger prints are on the gun are most likely to rust first and start rust on other parts of the gun. So, what do I do? I clean the gun thoroughly, oil it, and put it in the car being careful not to get my finger prints on it. Hence I'll lay you odds if they did a DNA test on my gun in my car, it would come up zilch.

Keeping the gun in your car seems risky. Other than that I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Since the prosecutor was playing to the mob tampering on his part is a reasonable possibility.

It is bewildering and kind of amusing in a tragic sort of way to see you take the most essential, crucial piece of evidence, and spin it with a conspiratorial fantasy. I am talking about the DNA, of course. You seem to have no concept of DNA test protocol. Perhaps you can explain what is going on in your muddy mind to leave us believe that somehow that evidence could be tampered with. How the hell is that supposed to happen? Are you saying that the prosecutor altered the report? Or are you saying the lab technician was aware of the identity of the standards that he was using to test the specimen? Surely you don’t think that there were separate tests, do you? One for the dead man’s DNA and one for the officer’s DNA? It doesn’t work that way! Tell us if you can how you account for only the police officer’s DNA on the gun? Just freakin amazing!

The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

None of those tamperings happened! It was brought out in court. The police officers DNA was on the gun. Nobody else’s. How could that have possibly happened without the officer planting the gun?

Didn't the FBI have hundreds of cases tossed recently for fucking with DNA evidence?

No, I think you’ve got that wrong. False testimony was given on “pattern” evidence like hair and bite marks. There were about 35 cases in which the defendants were exonerated by DNA after the “pattern” evidence was shown to be false testimony, or pseudoscience. Or maybe after the defendants were exonerated by the DNA evidence someone went back and checked the “pattern” evidence. And found it woefully lacking.

In this case the cop's DNA was on the gun. I don't understand how the judge could rationalize that away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince when you read the report and have some sensible comments on the gun I'll be glad to discuss the possibilities with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

The report is less than 20 pages and addresses each accusation with evidence and expert testimony. No fair minded Judge could convict the officer and I do not see how any objective person, after reading the report, could say there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The great American justice system. Kill a man, plant evidence and get clean away with it and particularly it seems, if the shooter is white. We see the angst and racism in Trump's election.

Did you read what the Judge said about the decision? I'll bet you didn't... if you did you would see how wrong you are as the evidence matched the video and the officers report and the report of witnesses... absolutely. There was no planted gun and the officer shot the asshole as he went for a gun between the seats.

Remember... there was never a dispute that this punk was selling poison... when caught in a transaction he raced through the city streets at up to 87 miles an hour refusing to stop... he could have killed your child or mine with either drugs or irresponsible fleeing at high speed. He deserved every damn thing he got.

What is it with people when they want to defend drug dealers with a gun and at the same time they are killing each other ... not only men and women... but CHILDREN... and they get mad because a drug dealer with a gun is killed and don't protest when a 4 year old is shot dead... Bullshit... I have no sympathy for them and hope they catch the rioters damaging property ...throw them in jail and throw the damn key away.


READ IT HERE


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince when you read the report and have some sensible comments on the gun I'll be glad to discuss the possibilities with you.

quote:

VML, haven't you ever watched an episode of "COPS" on TV? Cop finds a gun. Cop takes gun in hand. Cop take gun apart sufficiently to unload and make safe the gun. Cop is always going to be the last to handle it before it goes in the evidence bag. As far as the guy who was shot, I don't know why his DNA wasn't on the gun. But I'll give you an easy example of why it might not have been. I have a concealed weapons permit. I keep a handgun in my car. I know for a fact that where my finger prints are on the gun are most likely to rust first and start rust on other parts of the gun. So, what do I do? I clean the gun thoroughly, oil it, and put it in the car being careful not to get my finger prints on it. Hence I'll lay you odds if they did a DNA test on my gun in my car, it would come up zilch.