Here we go again. A judge who has thoroughly reviewed the evidence concludes that the prosecution charging premeditated murder will see an acquittal instead, because they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a shooting was not self-defense.

 

The result: more urban violence. Organized protesters swarming onto highways near a critically located hospital, endangering the lives of patients who because of their blockade may not be able to get there by ambulance on time.  Great potential to become uglier still.

 

And, I’m sure, critics of the verdict not having bothered to look at the judge’s carefully explained opinion, HERE.

40 COMMENTS

  1. Looking at several such cases in the past few years, and making no judgement as to whether any specific crime, charged or uncharged was committed, I see a pattern:

    City/district attorneys and prosecutors deliberately over-charging police officers in these incidents, virtually assuring a failed case.

    One can only surmise they do it for either political purposes, or virtue signaling. Perhaps both. I hate to think they would do it to inflame racial tensions, but I wonder sometimes.

    The judge stood with the legal standard and the defendant prevailed.

  2. “Stockley left the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department in August 2013. Later that year, the St. Louis police board settled a wrongful death suit with Smith’s survivors for $900,000.”

    Sheesh. Why the hell did they dole out all that money, before this trial? With a not guilty verdict it seems like a total waste.

  3. And, I’m sure, supporters of the judge’s carefully crafted excusal are happy to ignore the video evidence of the officer declaring in advance that he was going to kill the subject, and then going rummaging through his duty bag for a throw-down to place in the subject’s car — a gun that contained only the officer’s DNA.

    What happened to your sense of honor and duty, Mas?

    You used to be one of the bragging points about reasons to move to New Hampshire: “Mas Ayoob is a police captain here!”

    Since retiring, you seem to be more of a paid apologist for misconduct, and that makes me sad.

  4. Of Course,

    Again with the same. Frankly, I have stopped paying attention and really could care less, what any of them think! I agree with the Judge.

    Anyhow, thanks for the link.

  6. Dennis, thanks for the additional link.

    Z, $900K is cheaper than (A) another major civil disturbance and (B) a trial with a jury pool civil defense lawyers might have worried about under the circumstances.

    KBCraig, please re-read (if you did read at all) the judge’s explanation of how he balanced the evidence. You seem to have missed the critical reasonable doubt element. Oh, and let me know who’s paying me to be an apologist — their check doesn’t seem to have come in yet.

  7. Whenever I see a video of a mob in the streets, I am reminded of the classic scene in a Frankenstein movie of a crowd of locals with pitchforks bent on wreaking vengeance. I sympathize with those with sympathies of one kind or another, but: when a suspected felonious, armed heroin dealer goes berserk after a hard day of distributing often-lethal poisons to one and all, ramming a police car and driving at oncoming traffic, one can expect an unpleasant solution. Suppose a mad mob-hater drives a vehicle straight at a crowd, are the police just supposed to sit on their hands?

  8. The events leading to the trial occurred in 2011. Charges were brought in late 2016 (5 years later) shortly before the state circuit attorney filing those charges retired. None of the evidence had changed, no new evidence had been found. The case had been investigated and reviewed by the DOJ who found no civil rights violations.

    Prior to the soon to be retiring state’s attorney filing the charges against Stockley, her home and family were the target of a violent protest related to her decliningl to prosecute (attempt to lynch) another, more recent, white officer/black “victim” shooting death.

    Was Stockley being offered up as sacrifice to the “rule of mob” that appears to have taken over the St. Louis metropolitan area? Seems there is more evidence for that than the evidence against Stockley.

    Here are two links:

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/05/20/protesters-gather-at-circuit-attorneys-home/

    https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2017/05/05/charges-dropped-for-protesters-arrested-outside-home-of-circuit-attorney-jennifer-joyce

    The first link confirms the protest and arrests taking place. The second link would seem to suggest that the officers involved in the arrests felt that the state’s attorney’s decision to go after Stockley in the aftermath of those protests was unjustified and responded by not showing up to testify against those who targeted her.

    Their response was wrong. Just as her decision to prosecute Stockley was wrong.

    It’s interesting to note that, after waiting 5 years to decide to prosecute Stockley, she knew that her retirement would leave that prosecution in the hands of her successor.

    Liberal Dave, if Stockley had retained you as his attorney, would you have recommended his going to trial based on the evidence, or would you have suggested a plea bargain? If a trial, jury or TBC? If TBC, why?

  9. Why would anyone want to become a police officer in today’s America? The news media, police chiefs, sheriffs, and DAs sometimes not only won’t stand up for cops involved in physical and deadly force encounters but in some cases will throw them under the bus, mainly for political reasons. If our law enforcement agencies become so understaffed and can’t protect citizens because of what’s mentioned above perhaps the social justice warriors will fill in the gaps. Don’t bet on it, though.

  10. Spencer, one of my cousins, once removed (son of a first cousin), is nearing completion of the academy on the department that I, his paternal grandfather, and his great uncle all retired from. We all counseled him to choose another profession. Not because we regret having dedicated our lives to it, but because of the dramatic shift taking place in society.

    Hopefully this shift will swing back to reality, not based on propaganda and the resulting emotional responses that seems to have so much momentum today. You can’t pay enough money to entice an officer to risk being sent to prison as a sacrifice for political expediency, while ignoring the facts and the law.

  11. @ Dennis,

    Thank you for the link to the “Large Print” edition of the Judge’s decision. It allowed me to read it in detail.

    It seems pretty clear, from this order, that the State failed to meet the burden of proving this officer’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the Judge did not really find him to be totally innocent. Rather, the “Not Guilt” verdict simply denotes the failure of the State to prove their “theory” of the case and to prove intentional murder.

    The Judge’s decision seems well-reasoned and well-supported by law. The only quibble I have with the Judge’s decision is in regard to his description of the weapon used to fire the fatal shots. I seriously doubt that the weapon in question was the officer’s “Beretta Service Revolver”. 🙂

  12. Hey Mas, unrelated but since this seems to be most reliable comms, got sent a link to an interesting interview with Wyatt Earp that might be worth evaluating as a source for future articles/books. Seems the founder of one of the tactical shops has a family tie to Earp (his great-grandfather was a judge in 1880s Tombstone and later Earp’s business partner), and he just published an interview that’s been in the family a while.

    Interestingly, what Earp says about two-gun technique directly mirrors my own experience in experiments while shooting alongside local LEO’s in my college days, that with a gun in each hand the only effective ways to use them are to either empty one first then switch to the other or stagger your firing between them, either way you’re only actively running one at a time.

    Article’s at https://www.opsgear.com/blogs/opsgear-blog/wyatt-earp-interview-on-gunfighting if you or any of the other readers are interested.

    Between the St. Louis verdict and stuff here in the Northwet… the only way I’d want to pin on a badge today would be if I were working from a Department armorer’s bench–the Thin Blue Line is a thankless job, that’s for sure.

  13. TN_MAN,

    Yeh, I caught that too. The judge followed the law and the evidence that could be considered, not speculations.

    The state attempted to prove that Stockley made the decision to kill Smith at some point during the high speed chase that took place after Smith attempted to run over two officers. Yet, Stockley did not approach the suspect vehicle with his pistol drawn, after Smith wrecked out. In fact, he didn’t draw his weapon for 15 seconds, a long time in incidents such as this, and when he did, it appeared it was in response to what he saw happening inside the car.

    The other speculation the state wanted the court to believe was that Stockley planted the gun in the car. W/O the various videos before us, I can’t speculate on this possibility, but the judge did have these videos. He came to the conclusion that the transporting of a revolver from the police vehicle to the suspect vehicle, undetected by any of these videos, was very unlikely.

    DNA evidence as proof? The experts (plural, more than one) testified that absence of DNA on an object doesn’t mean the object has not been handled by someone. In other words, Mr. Smith could not be eliminated as to contact with the gun, based on absence of his DNA.

    I can’t, and won’t, say that Stockley is innocent. I can, and will, agree that the judge properly considered the evidence and came to the correct verdict.

    There are some lessons for everyone to consider in this case. The obvious one is to not run your mouth in the midst of an adrenaline rush, especially if being recorded.This can be very hard to do when you’re angry and afraid. Yet, I see posts on different blogs by folks, sitting in front of their computer screens in the comfort of their home, thumping their chests and bragging how they plan on handling possible future threats or scenarios with deadly violence. These posts are going to be retrievable for a very long time and could come back to haunt them.

  14. One telling thing in these “spontaneous protests” is the number of professionally printed signs in the hands of the “peaceful protesters”. Who knew that underemployed folks like these could afford print shops in their garages? But really, if we had a Justice Department that was worth spit, it would follow the money to the founders and funders of this crap. Why isn’t George Soros in jail, for example?

  15. Hi,
    I wonder if the madness against police and all the “stand downs” aren’t to shape public opinion to thinking that local police can’t handle anything more than a traffic ticket and to gradually get federal or gov’t police to be involved in this stuff… Seems like a good way to do it..

    Paul

  16. @ Dennis:

    Yes, the case against this officer was based upon speculation rather than fact. The State wanted the judge to believe:

    1) That rash words spoken during the heat of a car chase were, in fact, a cold-blooded threat to kill the suspect.

    2) That the officer delivered a “coup de grace” shot, separate from the initial volley, to make sure that the suspect died on the scene.

    3) Finally, the State wanted the Court to believe that the officer “planted” a firearm so as to make it look like self-defense on his part.

    The problem was, as the Judge pointed out, there was no real hard evidence to back up any of this speculation and theory.

    It reminds me a lot of the Zimmerman case. As we know, a whole lot of theory and speculation was put forward, by the mainstream media and the prosecutor, in that case without any evidence to back it up either.

    I am very glad to see that the Courts still follow the evidence in deciding these cases. Speculation and theory just don’t hold up in a Court of Law nor should they!

  17. at least this go-round in St, Louis the local constabulary are arresting at least a few of the disorderly troublemakers.
    I hope, as these are processed by the DA, they spend a bit of time examing the detained suspects on a few specific matters of public significance: arethey local to St Louis? If not, where are they legal residents? WHY were they in St. Louis? HOW did they get there? What was the soros of the funds used to get them there?

    If the present riots, seemingly pretty well planned in advance and following a pattern we’ve seen a time or two of late, are much like the others we’ve seen these past months, it would be a good idea to identify the funding, organisation, communication, etc, for THIS event, and try and connect these to previous similar ones.

    Any individual operatives found to have been involved in other ones like this, and/or funded to participate, need to be charged with things liie interstate travel to participate in civil disturbance, conspiracy to riot, whatever else of that sort of charges can be laid in addition to whatever illegal conduct led proximally to their present arrest.
    If they are from outside the St. Louis area, deny bail on the basis of a high flight risk. Illinois and Indiana are not far away. A determined guy could WALK to either of those states from St. Louis in a short afternoon.

  18. Quote from Mas below”
    “…$900K is cheaper than (A) another major civil disturbance and (B) a trial with a jury pool civil defense lawyers might have worried about under the circumstances…”

    It might have been difficult for the police department to win in a civil trial even if the jury pool was unbiased given the lower standard of proof. Who knows, but I agree would be difficult to find an unbiased jury pool.

    Yes and riots could have occurred. So this really represents a bad situation, where the police department does not have faith in the jury system and decisions are made based on fear of the mob.

  19. Constantly looking for an excuse to riot, loot, and destroy, all in the name of race.

    Then express shock and outrage that people have “racist” opinions about them.

    Doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on here.

  20. I will reserve my opinion and comments regarding the riots, persecution and civil unrest as it speaks for it self, senseless.

    What I will point out, the official document filed, is riddled with inaccuracies, which to some, mean nothing, but to this keen observer, WORDS mean everything. I didn’t know LEO’s of today are issued Beretta, 9mm service revolvers that leave shell casings. A 9mm revolver would require moon clips to house the cartridges, and when “dumped” will remain in the moon clip. Maybe I am a nit-pick for words, but why would a department issue a 9mm revolver to their officers?

    If true, I can understand why the officer carried his personal AK-47 “pistol”.

  21. jack76590,

    Most city/county governments carry liability insurance policies to cover civil judgements against them. In most, if not all, it’s the insurance company who makes the decision on settling out of court. They don’t consider the right and wrong of the lawsuit, just the dollars to defend the city. In this case, the $900,000 figure was probably close to their cost estimate to defend the city in court, even if the city prevailed.

  22. Larry, last I knew the issue gun for SLPD was the Beretta 92D 9mm, a double action only semiautomatic pistol. That appears to be what was used by the officer in the evidence video.

  23. NW D-Back: Thanks for giving the Wyatt Earp article address. Historical exceptions to Wyatt’s selective dual-wield rule have probably obtained, but it is interesting that he doesn’t mention any. Likely the closer that adversaries are, the more likely that both guns will be fired simultaneously in defense. Also the more likely that defeat is imminent. No second-place winner, for sure. So a little practice shooting at short range with both hands at the same time might not be all bad. Best to be wearing tough gloves to protect from cylinder-gap blast, though, when shooting revolvers that way.

  24. You just don’t get it Mas. It’s all about Mob rule. After all, the Mob knows best. Hey, at least the officer was not dragged out of the jail and hung the way it happened in the past.

    Regarding your assertion that critics of the verdict have not bothered to look at the judge’s carefully explained opinion, this is probably true. Not that it would do the majority of them any good to look at it as it is likely most of them are illiterate.

  25. .45StayAlive,

    I don’t claim to speak for Mas, but I suspect he understands well the current social atmosphere. As a professional whose expert testimony is sought after in deadly force trials, he would be prudent to keep such thoughts to himself, lest they come back in an attempt to impeach his testimony later.

  26. Dennis asked: “Liberal Dave, if Stockley had retained you as his attorney, would you have recommended his going to trial based on the evidence, or would you have suggested a plea bargain? If a trial, jury or TBC? If TBC, why?”

    I’ve not read the verdict and don’t have enough of a grip on the facts at this time to really have an even semi-valid opinion for your first question. As for the second, however, if we were going to trial I’d want a bench trial unless the judge is known to be a law and order, hanging judge type (and even then I might consider it unless the judge has a record of being anti-law enforcement). The evidence that Stockley said that he was, “going to kill this [expletive], don’t you know it.” would be far too likely to inflame and prejudice a jury. Juries are far too likely to act out of emotion rather than cold deliberation.

    That, by the way, is probably one main reason that the City settled the civil claim. In a civil case if either party requests a jury then the case will be heard by a jury. Combined with the lower standard for winning (“preponderance of the evidence” in civil vs “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal), there would have been a very good chance they could have lost the civil case due to the prejudicial effect of that statement if they had gone to trial.

  28. I read the judge’s report. I am a bit confused on two issues. One is that the judge found him not guilty because his guilt was not sufficiently proven. Yet, I’ve been told that in most states the burden of proof when claiming self-defense is on the defendant — and that the laws concerning the justifiable use of lethal force are the same for police officers as for private citizens. (I see no easy answers on this, as it’s just as bad for an honest defender to be prosecuted / convicted as for a liar to get away with murder.) I presume states differ, but I would like some clarification as to who has the burden of proof, and whether it differs in the case of police shootings (either by statute or in practice).

    My second concern is about the accusation that the officer planted the gun on the man he shot. They said that the gun found had DNA on it from the officer, but none from the deceased. I know that decades ago you wrote convincingly to discourage police officers from even thinking about carrying an “alibi gun” — that computer research techniques make it increasingly likely that the officer would be found out and this would nail a case of murder against him. I didn’t read anything about research into this gun’s past — whether it had ever been checked in a ballistics database. (I suppose it might be possible to get away with it if the officer took it off a criminal without reporting it long after it had been stolen from its rightful owner.)

    I suppose it would be less suspicious if the deceased did in fact have a criminal record of violent crime. I suppose that such information might not be admissible in court, especially if the officer did not have that information during the chase and its aftermath — but I don’t see any reason readers couldn’t have such information after the fact.

  29. Mas,

    Again, the MAIN factor being ignored by commenter’s in this case, both here and in the media, is that the police are being used to enforce unconstitutional rules of social behavior, in this case “witnessed what they believed was a drug transaction”.

    “Mala Prohibita” rules against a person’s freedom, also called “victimless crimes”, whether “illegal drugs”, carrying a weapon or buying beer on Sunday, are being enacted by naïve legislators and sponsored by well meaning do gooders or monopoly seeking corporate sponsors, are what is increasing the divide between LEO’s and many of the public. They are and have historically been used against minorities (whether of color or custom) as a method of profit and/or control.

    Until our thin blue line recognizes this and refuses to obey these totalitarian edicts, they will remain enforcers, instead of Peace Officers and the chasm will widen. Nuremberg decisions recognized that “following orders” is not a sufficient reason to violate the rights of a people.

    The dead man clearly had harmed no one and was merely trying to escape (perhaps stupidly) the mob enforcers who are paid to control what was intended to be a supposedly free market in a supposedly free country.

    Let the men and women of the thin blue line, stop being enforcement thugs and return to being honored peace officers and maybe, just maybe this country can return to being truly free and the great nation it once was. With more and more “victimless crimes” being enacted daily, the only hope I can see for this to end peacefully, is for police officers to respect the rights of all Americans and refuse to enforce such tyrannical rules.

    Concerning the rioters/protesters, two wrongs don’t make a right, although many of them, I suspect don’t know or care. For peaceful protesters, good for them. For the rioters, I would prefer a shotgun.

  30. It seems to me that the officer in this case made two (2) big mistakes. These mistakes landed him in court with a murder charge hanging over his head. These mistakes were:

    1) During the heat of the car chase, he opened his mouth and gave vent to some wild talk. This wild talk was recorded. By “shooting off his mouth”, he placed himself in a very false position when he was forced to “shoot off his gun” a few minutes later.

    2) He handled the .38 special revolver, that was found in the suspects car, after the shooting was over. As I understand it, he unloaded the revolver so as to “make it safe”. By doing so, he put his DNA on the gun and may well have wiped off any of the suspect’s DNA that was already there.

    I believe that, if he had kept his mouth shut during the car chase and avoided giving vent to his rash statements and if he had stood aside and allowed the suspect’s firearm to be more carefully handled (perhaps by evidence technicians), then this case would have never went to trial.

  31. Tahn, you think pushing heroin (found in his car, and he was a known drug dealer) in a depressed community in the time of the opioid crisis is malum prohibitum? Seriously? And that the cop he tried to run over with his car is a “mob enforcer” and an “enforcement thug”?

    Not much for establishing credibility for your opinions, are you?

  32. fsilber, ONCE A SELF-DEFENSE ARGUMENT IS ALLOWED, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self-defense, in every state but Ohio. There, self-defense must be shown to a preponderance of evidence (a greater than 50% certainty, i.e., more likely than not).

    However, the courts require some evidence in support of the claim of self-defense, and that — known as “burden of production” — is a shifting of the burden of proof to the defense right there.

    In a jury trial, you have to overcome the wide misconception among the general public that any homicide is equivalent to murder. In real world jury psychology, that’s a definite shifting of the burden of proof to the defense.

    Fortunately, this was a bench trial — decided, not by a jury, but by a very experienced judge who deeply understands the law. All that was required was reasonable doubt. Every allegation — DNA on the gun, consistency of wound trajectory with the officer’s account, and the videos themselves — clearly created ample reasonable doubt, and might well have risen to the preponderance of evidence standard that it was indeed self-defense.

  33. With regard to the Judge’s comments about a “Beretta Service Revolver”, these were clearly wrong. The words “Beretta” and “Revolver” simply don’t go together.

    Beretta is, as I understand it, the oldest firearms manufacturer in the World with a history that dates back to the 16th Century. However, they mainly concentrated upon long arms until the early 20th Century. As I understand it, their first commercial handgun was their Model of 1915. It was a semi-automatic pistol as are, to my knowledge, every pistol they have made since.

    No doubt, Mas is correct and the firearm in question is a 9mm semi-automatic. Clearly, while this Judge is very knowledgeable about the law, his knowledge of firearms is poor.

    I am not particularly bothered by this error. Nobody is an expert in everything and all human beings can make mistakes. Especially in areas outside of their expertise. In this case, it was more important for the Judge to get the legal questions correct rather than technical details about the firearm. I feel the Judge was right on the legal issues at play.

  34. TN_MAN,

    No doubt the judge misspoke describing Stockley’s duty handgun, but since this site is, in part, meant to further our weapon knowledge, Beretta did/does(?) produce a single action revolver.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_Stampede

    Doesn’t altar your thought, just for future reference. (I would not be surprised to find that this example is actually manufactured by Uberti, but it is sold under the Beretta name)

  36. @ Dennis,

    It is true that the Beretta Holding Group is a global business. They control a number of brands including Benelli, Franchi, Uberti, Sako, Tikka, Stoeger. and Burris in addition to Beretta itself.

    Uberti has certainly produced a lot of Cowboy-Action type revolvers so, if one takes the “Big Picture” view of the matter, one can certainly say that the Holding Group is in the revolver business along with just about anything else related to firearms.

    However, the police and military end of the business is pretty much associated with semi or fully automatic weapons nowadays. I doubt that the “Lawman” in this incident pulled out a “Hogleg” and “gunned down” the bad “Outlaw” in question. After all, this incident took place in 2011 not 1881! 🙂

  38. Mas,

    Please excuse my delay in answering.

    I am not arguing about the good or bad effects of pharmaceutical drugs versus the natural pharmacopeia. Some of each may harm and others may not. The choice and responsibility is up to the user, perhaps in consultation with their Doctor, perhaps not. Regardless, it is not the business of the Government. Having the Federal or State governments in charge of what you can take, drink or smoke would have been a ludicrous concept to the Founding Fathers.

    When they outlawed the manufacture and sale of alcohol (not the use) they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to do so. Where is the amendment giving government the power to regulate natural plants or manufactured drugs or even raw milk?

    The police state created by the drug war has subverted the Constitution. Concerning buying or selling, Article1 (10) “No State shall……pass any law….impairing the obligation of contracts.” We have removed an entire “industry” from our legal system by denying them access to the Courts to settle arguments and disputes. I have yet to hear of Wal-Mart and Costco settling their differences by drive by shootings. We have removed this “industry” from access to proper lab testing for safety standards. We have in effect, given a monopoly to the pharmaceutical industry and support that monopoly, using incarnation and violence enforced by LEO’s. God help us, we are attacking our own people daily and then wonder why they don’t respect the system or its enforcers?

    The ones caught in the middle of this fiasco is the Thin Blue Line. They are the ones who jeopardize their lives daily in the enforcement. They used to be called “Peace Officers” rather than “Enforcers” because that is what they did, kept the peace. As Thomas Jefferson stated “”No man has a natural right to commit aggression against the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”. He also said “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

    The only group that can possibly save our country peacefully and unite us again, are our men and women in blue. Merely by refusing to enforce any law where there is no actual victim. Not a concept victim or scary straw man victim but someone who has actually been harmed.

    I apologize for not previously defining the terms.

    “Mala in se”, is the Latin term denoting that which is inherently evil in itself, such as murder, arson, rape, robbery etc. Everyone recognizes these acts as wrong and “laws” against such acts have been on the books forever.

    “Mala prohibita” is that which is decided is evil by some legislative or state decision. There need be no victim per se, but can claim the state or society is the victim. Sunday beer sales, drugs or raw milk can be the target.

    Regardless, no one is actually harmed, except possibly the user. That is their choice, although being robbed of the ability to purchase safe drugs or raw milk from established and reputable suppliers, limits their ability to make responsible decisions. Regardless, it is not the states job or within its authority to control any part of this process. Where is their constitutional authority?

    Every Officer has sworn an Oath to “Support and defend the Constitution”. By upholding this oath, they alone, in my opinion, could change our Country, peacefully and almost overnight. Stop enforcing ALL rules of “mala prohibita”. These are the rules that a police state uses to maintain control. Return to being “Peace Officers” and save America.

    Mass, when you stated that “drugs”, can possibly cause harm that is exactly the argument that is used against firearms. Yes they might but the right to choose is the individuals, not the government.

    In a hypothetical scenario, if you know that two actual Mafia enforcers want to stop you and seize your property (evidence), probably kidnap you (arrest) and imprison you for years (sentence), and could use any level of force, even lethal force to do so, would you not attempt to escape their clutches by whatever means?

    As compared to Jefferson’s quote above, these two are from Mao and Hitler.

    “At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate them to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence, selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight, and so on, are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one’s energy, whole-hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.” Mao Zedong

    “National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.” Adolf Hitler

    All of us must choose which philosophy we choose but as for me, I will follow Mr. Jefferson and the founding fathers.

    Mas, thank you for your blog and allowing me to respond. I have learned a lot from reading you over the years but our current situation is not caused entirely by incorrect techniques, bad training or Officer failures but primarily by elected officials insistence that Officers enforce arbitrary rules of social behavior and control. Our Thin Blue Line can stop this travesty of freedom by refusing to enforce their edicts, while still protecting society by catching real criminals, those that actually threaten or harm others.

    Dennis;
    The rise of the cartels, the mafia and all other “black market” traders is a direct result of “government” prohibiting them in a free market. If you could go down to your local pharmacy (drug store) and purchase them, there would be no cartels. Please understand, I am in no way advocating the benefits of any drugs, authorized or illegal. I am stating that it is not governments business to control them. That “control” is what brought into being, the evils you linked to.

  39. @ Tahn,

    While I do not totally share your “Libertarian” point of view and while I think that criminals who supply the various types of black markets found around the world are dangerous, despicable and evil people, I still must confess some sympathy for your point of view.

    Unfortunately, prohibition policies enjoy broad support in society. Support that comes from both the right-wing and left-wing ends of the political spectrum. Right-wingers (especially the religious right) tend to view certain vice-related activities as inherently wrong and sinful. So, Right-wingers tend to support prohibition policies based upon moral grounds.

    The left-wing support may be even broader than that on the right. Leftists have a worldview whereby they believe that all human beings are inherently good. This gives them a firm (even zealous) belief that all the world’s evils can be traced back to social or environmental sources. Leftists have a mindset whereby they continually “scan the world” for environmental or social items upon which to blame mankind’s woes. Prohibition policies fit this worldview like a hand fits a glove. Leftist love the concept of identifying a negative environmental source of evil and then banning it so as to “make the world a better place”. This makes them feel all warm and superior and important inside. It strokes their ego to feel that they have contributed to “change” that has “made the world a better place”. As I have noted before, the most dangerous person in the world is such a “do-gooder” who is grimly determined to make the world a better place and who does not care who he must kill to do it!

    Because of this broad-spectrum political support, there are a host of prohibition policies written into the legal system by various “do-gooders” on both sides. The Prohibition of Alcohol experiment, of the early 20th Century, was one such effort. The “War on Drugs” is another major one. There are a host of others such as gun control laws (the Prohibition of Firearms), anti-smoking laws, anti-gambling laws, anti-prostitution laws. Heck, in NYC, the leftists even tried to restrict imbibing too much soda pop!

    All these laws are based upon the same concept: To “save” mankind from himself by banning environmental objects or substances or activities that someone deems to be too “harmful” for one’s fellow citizens to handle. If there is a demand for these items, all these laws accomplish is to create black markets that foster organized crime and violence.

    So, in principle, I agree with you. I think all these Prohibition Policies end up causing more harm than good. Nevertheless, a completely open market is probably not the answer either since a certain segment of the population is (due to lack of willpower, genetics, etc.) prone to addiction. Addiction to these substances or activities is, indeed, harmful.

    Personally, I favor regulation over prohibition. I do not mean excessive regulation that approaches prohibition either. If people want to own guns, drink, smoke, use drugs, have sex, gamble or drink large amounts of soda pop, then I feel that less harm is done by letting them go ahead and give in to temptation. Once they have done so, maybe they can turn their minds to other matters! 🙂

    I feel that society would be better served by regulating these activities in a controlled manner so as to try to limit the worst of the damage and by having robust anti-addiction programs in place. If done correctly, this would undercut and ruin the black markets that currently flourish in our “Prohibition” society.

    I truly do not believe that Prohibition Policies provide the answer and, as you point out, one addition negative side-effect of these policies is to place police officers in a bad spot as they are forced to be “moral guardians” for an often-unwilling populace. These Policies are also related to the high incarceration rate currently prevailing in the United States.

  40. KBCraig-unless you have met the author, spoken to him in depth, personally, asking something as simple-crap questions, as Columbo would [I have, seeking answers], you may want to “mind your manners”. A paid shill? Seriously? As a student of Massad from the year 1998, in reading books and articles in print, years ago, I came to appreciate Massad’s message and manner of communicating. Fortunately the digital age has allowed me to meet, train at several levels of threat management, as the Armed Citizen in person.

    A PAID SHILL? Sir/Madam, Unless the TOS here prohibits me from posting links, the following link is a paid shill construct. https://www.weaselzippers.us/358125-st-louis-honors-drug-dealer-anthony-lamar-smith-with-resolution/

    THANK YOU TAX PAYERS! Rewarding bad behavior, KBCraig, do you think this forms a bias? Think of the Baltimore 6, who endured the trial of a century, all were acquitted yet the family of this crack addict/dealer received more than $6,000,000.00 BEFORE it was adjudicated. The list can go on.

    My point, yes Massad can be influenced and biased, that is HUMAN NATURE. the FACT IS, he maintained his integrity by adhering to the facts of LAW and the case.

    Granted, I heard the audio, saw what i could and to be honest, it is not likely an Armed Citizen could have beaten any charges applied, given the audio, to me, was the incriminating evidence. But I digress.

    I wasn’t there from the beginning to end, so I cannot form an opinion as to “what would I do?” The bench trial explained several things, but there were errors in the affidavit that was filed. For example, STLPD is issued a 9mm, semiautomatic, Beretta, DAO, not a service revolver, 9mm. To me, this error throws some caution to the wind as I have been taught that words matter.

    Aside from everything stipulated here, Massed is not a paid shill, yet he may form a biased opinion on an already formed biased opinion, therefore questioning his “opinion” on any subject matter. The stockily case is tough.

    Of all the variables involved, the audio is the most damning. I have carried a firearm for several years and even prior to that, I have never uttered the words Stockley did, ever.

    There again, I was not present at the incident from beginning to end. In thinking about it, if I were a cop, in the environment we are today, and someone just tried to run me or my partner over with a car, then take me on a high speed chase, only to disobey my orders as an arrest was in effect, I may and can see the officers point of view, sort of.

    Stay safe!

Comments are closed.