quote:

A Only the officers DNA was on the gun, this means the gun was cleaned or someone elases DNA would have been on it.
B The people going after the cop insit that the other evidence was tampered with but that one is not only sacred but somehow proves something.
C I thought yu promised never to burden me with your "thoughts".

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

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.

I seriously doubt that the procedure you describe is in the drug dealers handbook.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A Only the officers DNA was on the gun, this means the gun was cleaned or someone elases DNA would have been on it.
B The people going after the cop insit that the other evidence was tampered with but that one is not only sacred but somehow proves something.
C I thought yu promised never to burden me with your "thoughts".

As usual your comments are garbled and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. But answer me this: did police officers attorney raise the issue of tampered DNA? And how was it explained during the trial and in the judge’s opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

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.

I seriously doubt that the procedure you describe is in the drug dealers handbook.

You asked how the cop's DNA was on the gun. I'm sure what I described is in the police handbook.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A Only the officers DNA was on the gun, this means the gun was cleaned or someone elases DNA would have been on it.
B The people going after the cop insit that the other evidence was tampered with but that one is not only sacred but somehow proves something.
C I thought yu promised never to burden me with your "thoughts".

As usual your comments are garbled and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. But answer me this: did police officers attorney raise the issue of tampered DNA? And how was it explained during the trial and in the judge’s opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A Only the officers DNA was on the gun, this means the gun was cleaned or someone elases DNA would have been on it.
B The people going after the cop insit that the other evidence was tampered with but that one is not only sacred but somehow proves something.
C I thought yu promised never to burden me with your "thoughts".

As usual your comments are garbled and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. But answer me this: did police officers attorney raise the issue of tampered DNA? And how was it explained during the trial and in the judge’s opinion?

It wasn't relevant. the judge agreed.
If his lawyer thought it mattered he would have made an issue of fighting it.
The fact that his lawyer didn't fight it shows how little it mattered.
You have watched to much CSI.
You promised not to talk to me any more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

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.

I seriously doubt that the procedure you describe is in the drug dealers handbook.

You asked how the cop's DNA was on the gun. I'm sure what I described is in the police handbook.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

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.

I seriously doubt that the procedure you describe is in the drug dealers handbook.

You asked how the cop's DNA was on the gun. I'm sure what I described is in the police handbook.

It may be but I don’t see where it explains the presence of the officers DNA on the gun. Could you be a little more explicit in your answer? Thank you very much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkRavisher

It is a state of mind and being - a futility if you will.
I too am befuddled with two key aspects of that case.
His declaration he was going to murder him and the DNA.

Police in St Louis, Missouri, have come under fire for chanting after clearing protests over the acquittal of an officer who shot dead a black man.
The chant, "whose street, our street", is a phrase often repeated by those demonstrating against the verdict.
Jason Stockley, 36, was cleared on Friday of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith, 24, who was fatally shot after a police pursuit in 2011.
More than 80 people were arrested after a third night of raucous protests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The great American justice system. Kill a man, plant evidence and get clean away with it...

Unless you have hard evidence that would hold up in court of a gun being planted, I believe that qualifies as slander.

You may want to look up the meaning of slander...just sayin

Oh, I think accusing someone of a crime without evidence to back it up on a public venue qualifies.

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

http://www.breitbart.com/news/former-st-louis-officer-acquitted-in-killing-of-black-man/

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A white former police officer was acquitted Friday in the 2011 death of a black man who was fatally shot following a high-speed chase, with the judge declaring that he would not be swayed by “partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.”

The acquittal of Jason Stockley in the death of Anthony Lamar Smith had stirred concerns about possible civil unrest for weeks. Several hundred protesters were marching in the streets of downtown St. Louis within hours of the verdict, but only a single arrest had been reported as of midday.

The case played out not far from the suburb of Ferguson, which was the scene of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, the unarmed black 18-year-old who was killed by a white police officer in 2014. That officer was never charged but eventually resigned.

Stockley, who was charged with first-degree murder, insisted he saw Smith holding a gun and felt he was in imminent danger. Prosecutors said the officer planted a gun in Smith’s car after the shooting. The officer asked the case to be decided by a judge instead of a jury.

“This court, in conscience, cannot say that the State has proven every element of murder beyond a reasonable doubt or that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense,” St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson wrote in the decision .

and it ends with this : The gun found in Smith’s car did not have his DNA on it, but it did have Stockley’s.

All this from Breitbart, what gives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

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.

No body said he cleaned it while he was being chased.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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.
Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

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.

No body said he cleaned it while he was being chased.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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.
Butch

Nobody argued that Smith was not a drug dealer. But there is no room in a court case for your histrionics about his possibly killing little children. We are going to deal with the evidence or we are not.

Why the residents in St. Louis, particularly the black residents, are protesting this verdict, it is not because they wanted to defend a drug dealer. It is because they have in their minds, now after Ferguson, that another black man without a gun was shot down by a police man. In his opinion the judge was very careful in trying to push aside those outside forces and attitudes.

The State did not prove their case. But it was a hard case to prove. No one would testify that they saw Stockley with 38 revolver in his hand. That doesn’t mean that he never carried it and that doesn’t mean that nobody saw it. It only means that nobody testified on it.

The defendant, Stockley, testified that he took his gloves off to retrieve a blood clot device from his personal bag. That he could not have found the blood clot device if he had his gloves on. That explains why he took off one glove but not the other.

The state contends that Stockley took his gloves off because his DNA was all over the gun he was going to plant. The judge says oh no the gun was too big; he could not have carried it without anybody noticing. Of course, never mind that there are about six police officers hanging out around the drivers door of the dead man’s vehicle, a rather convenient blue screen.

The judge points out that there were two DNA experts, who testified for the state that the absence of James DNA could be due to the possibility that he never touched the gun. To my mind if James owned that gun and had it in his possession he would’ve done more than just touch it one time or another. I think the judge's assumption here was very weak.

Then the judge says that the wound to James left hip was consistent with his reaching over to his right to grab the gun. The judge doesn’t consider the possibility that after James was shot several times in the torso he would’ve slumped over to his right as well. It is unlikely that he is going to slump over toward the force of the bullets.

I read the whole opinion and I can see where the state did not prove its case. But to me the case boils down to the gun. No DNA from the dead man on the gun. DNA from the cop on the gun. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the cop planted the gun. I think it was a reasonable assumption from his behavior that he was out to get this drug dealer who had rammed into his car twice and allegedly hit him in the shoulder. Both offices claim they saw James drive away with a gun in his hand. We don’t drive the streets at 78 miles an hour with one hand on the steering wheel and the other holding a gun. That’s crap. And where was the gun found allegedly? Between the drivers seat and the center console. I’d be interested to know the distance between those two objects. In my car it is pretty slim.

So another get out of jail free card for a cop who shot a black man. The deceased probably deserved it but that's not what justice ls about in our system.