Will St Louis Burn again?

So why are you still arguing his case...? I agreed with you..dude is dead.

Just like the president of the Philippines has declared anyone selling drugs or committing crimes is guilty and subject to exicition on the spot..no problem... clean them out.

So when you as a criminal know the rules of engagement have changed, and there is a great likelihood you will be killed.. then the odds are you will be more willing to kill to evade certain death.

 

Because he Elected to have a Judge decide his fate... knowing the odds with a jury of his peers.

 

They discussed this regarding Ferguson. Cops generally stand a better chance with a bench trial because judges are more likely to rule based on law instead of emotion/prejudice.

 

I wasn't arguing, I was discussing.

I think the kill/evade thing is almost a moot point. Most criminals that arm themselves or run realize/expect that they may be killed in the pursuit. I think they probably expect it way more often than it actually happens.

 

And strangely, in such cases, they are never labeled "activist judges."

 

Because an activist judge is one who attempts to change the law via their personal interpretation/ruling and setting a new precedent. In these types of cases, the defendant is looking for strict adherence to the existing law.

 

You'd think the dead guy (or family) would have some sort of say...

That said there's two people who knows what happened and unfortunately one of them is dead.

 

The whole reason we have a justice system is to remove that kind of bias from the process and determine guilt or innocence based on facts instead of emotion.

 

But there's always going to be some Grey areas. Personally I think the fucker is guilty as sin, only his DNA is on the gun and he reportedly said he was going to kill him during the chase. That said, it wasn't enough beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

You are found "not guilty", not "innocent".

 

FTFY.

 

I've seen judges who believed they were following the law and got the label. Seems to be more based on whether the "organization" in charge of giving the label agrees with the verdict or not.

 

A lot of what occurred concerning the gun is very odd.
If the gun was unsecured in the car after the shooting then why did the cop walk away from the car to retrieve first aid supplies before securing the gun? If he thought there was any chance that first aid would have helped the guy, then he would logically still count him as a threat.
Walking away and leaving the gun within reach of a live suspect would be foolhardy.
Then, when he does come back, he decides the gun can't just stay where it is near the dead guy until investigators get there (preserving the scene), he decides it needs to be picked up right that second without at least putting back on the gloves that he oddly took off to get first aid supplies.
And the perp is evidently such an OCD neat-freak that he handles his gun while wearing gloves and even polishes the bullets before loading. Then he buffs off every trace of his DNA and fingerprints before storing it carefully in the console of his hoopty.
And the cop was carrying a gun he wasn't allowed to have, so we know he's not a stickler for following the law, at least as far as his own actions are concerned.

 

The question is not what they "believe" the law is, the question is what the law actually is.
Activist judges use their political beliefs to interpret laws in such a way as to fit those beliefs.
It seldom involves reading the law as it is written.
That usually happens on the left.

 

The people handing out the activist label usually "believe" that the judges are wrong. It goes both ways. Claims to the contrary are the equivalent of "I know who's in charge and you don't."
And I have found, interestingly enough, that the louder they are, the least likely to have a law background. I have generally not been impressed with their reading skills either.

 

I wouldn't go that far. All indicators are he was a garbage human and the world is now a better place. That being said, that cop appears to be about as innocent as OJ and was very fortunate that he was not found guilty.

 

While I'm no fan of garbage drug dealers I'm far less a fan of power abusing murders disguised as cops. I'm betting if we looked into his past there'd be all sorts of other questionable cases. He just got caught (not convinced) this time.

 

That's the strange conundrum in all of this. Sometimes the best way to deal with an asshole is to send another asshole after them.