The Jason Stockley Verdict
When the verdict was rendered in the Jason Stockley decision, there was a quick, collective exhale from St. Louis, a city which had been holding its breath for too long. What followed was a series of marches and protests, mostly peaceful in nature but peppered with unfortunate violence. The black community within St. Louis was prepared for the possibility of a “not guilty” verdict. It was indeed expected. The outrage within the community on the street was palpable.
From the outset of this case, it was clear that the arguments presented by the defense were unlikely to be accepted by a large percentage of the public. To some, this case was always simply another example of a racist justice system, executing a man for the crime of being black. The people who held this view did not concern themselves with the facts of the case. Instead, they caricaturized Stockley as a modern day Klansman, and marched through the streets calling for his head. This is not to say that everyone in the protest, or even the majority, advocated for violence, but on the streets there was an undeniable undercurrent of acceptance.
Stockley was a graduate of the West Point Military Academy. He won an Army Bronze Star during a 15-month combat tour in Iraq. Prior to the shooting, he had been a law enforcement officer for five years. Nothing in his history to suggests brewing racism or prejudicial tendencies. The FBI, the DOJ, and internal affairs all conducted independent investigations which found no criminal wrongdoing. Prior to Stockley being charged, the newly-elected St. Louis prosecutor faced backlash for failing to bring charges against another officer involved in a shooting. Therefore, the decision to charge Stockley appears as though it was not based upon the evidence, which other agencies had used to clear Stockley. Instead, it was based on an emotional decision, brought about from political pressure, which was unsubstantiated by the evidence.
On the day of the shooting, Stockley and his partner observed Anthony Lamar Smith interacting in a possible drug transaction. When they attempted to confront Smith, he fled in his vehicle. Both officers stated they observed a gun during the initial interaction. Smith rammed the police cruiser with his vehicle while leaving the parking lot and proceeded to side swiped the cruiser during the pursuit. Smith’s speed reached upwards of 87 miles per hour and endangered the lives of everyone who happened to be on the street. This act alone is a felony. When his vehicle crashed, Stockley and his partner attempted to get Smith out of the vehicle. A witness stated that Stockley made three attempts to open the door, prior to firing his service piece. Stockley testified that he feared for his life, from a resisting felon with a gun in his vehicle. This scenario seems as though it could be used as a prime example of when police are justified in using deadly force.
The controversy stems from the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Stockley was observed returning to his vehicle. He removed his winter gloves, and then he entered the back seat of the suspect’s vehicle. When a gun was later recovered and analyzed, investigators found only Stockley’s DNA present. This finding, coupled with the video of Stockley entering the car, was immediately seized by the public and used as proof of Stockley’s guilt. The assumption being that he must have planted it.
In the verdict, the judge broke down the multitude of ways in which this narrative crumbled under scrutiny. Stockley returned to his vehicle to retrieve his “quick clot.” This is a coagulant substance which police officers are trained to use to stop bleeding if they arrived on scene of a trauma before the paramedics. He removed his winter gloves to open the package, but also to give him the ability to feel what he was doing, from the back seat of the vehicle. He then secured the suspect’s revolver by removing the cartridges and setting it on the passenger seat. This statement appeared consistent with the examination of Smith’s body. There were three videos examined during the trial: the dash cam from the police cruiser, the back seat camera also from the cruiser, and a cell phone video taken by a bystander immediately during the aftermath. None of these videos showed Stockley with the revolver in question. None of the officers on scene ever saw Stockley with the revolver. When he returned to his vehicle, he was not observed with any bulge, which may have suggested he was concealing a pistol. Also, he was not wearing cargo pants or a shirt which could easily be used to hide a throw-away gun.
The fact that only Stockley’s DNA was found on the pistol was also easily explained by Ms. Kwiatkowski, an expert in the field of DNA collection. “In 2011, it was rare to find DNA on a gun, and the absence of a person’s DNA on a gun did not mean they did not touch the gun.” It was not uncommon for DNA collection from guns to encounter a variety of issues. For example, on a cold rainy day, such as the day of the incident, fingerprints may not be able to be recovered. DNA may also be covered by other DNA, so when Stockley picked up the weapon to render it safe, it could have potentially prevented Smith’s DNA from showing up on the subsequent tests. When all of these facts are examined, there is nothing to support the public’s notion that the gun was planted.
In the interim between the initial confrontation and the fatal incident, Jason Stockley was captured on the cruiser’s video uttering the phrase, “We’re going to kill this motherfucker.” This alone may be the reason he was charged with first degree murder. As if Stockley planned to execute Smith regardless of what occurred when he made contact? As if in the heat of the pursuit, with a dangerous felon, in possession of a gun, a slip of human frustration is tantamount to pre-planning a murder? Stockley said something he should not have in a moment of passion, but it is an incredibly uncharitable view to attribute to him the type of malice which would had resulted in Smith’s death regardless of what happened at the end of the chase.
Stockley did not use deadly force when he initially made contact with Smith. He did not use deadly force when Smith rammed his vehicle to escape the parking lot. He did not use deadly force upon exiting his vehicle after forcing Smith to stop. He did not use deadly force when trying to open Smith’s door and force him outside. It was only after he and his partner observed a gun which was an immediate threat that Stockley fired and killed Smith. If Smith had submitted to arrest, he would be alive today. As it stands, Smith sold drugs, resisted arrest, endangered the lives of the public and the officers involved in the chase, and was ultimately shot and killed by an officer doing his duty. Smith is not a martyr, and Stockley made for a bad patsy.
It cannot be overstated that one person wrongly killed by the police is one too many. In any area of society where racism or prejudice rears its ugly head, it should be stamped out. That being said, there is a reflex among activist communities to conflate every police shooting to a miscarriage of justice, when it is not always the case. It was an outrage when the officer involved in the shootings of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile walked free from prosecution or accountability, but when cases like Smith’s are met with the same outcry, it undercuts the credibility of the movement as a whole. The state of policing in the United States warrants serious discussion, but that will not be accomplished through the demonization of law enforcement, nor making the baseline assumption that every officer-involved shooting is a prosecutable offense. It is also foolish to toe the thin blue line when confronted with clear evidence of misconduct. Officers who participate in incompetent or unlawful behavior must be held accountable in order to make progress towards unity. Reconciliation begins with the belief that the overwhelming majority, on both sides, are good people who want nothing more than a safer, better America.
