13 protesters arrested, 4 cops injured after ex-St. Louis cop acquitted in shooting of black man

Not even close. Need to read more than just one article, from one reporter. And then on top of it not the liberal side of the world. If the case take six years before someone is finally charged. You have to look at that and do some self evaluation and going what the F is wrong with this. Something doesn't add up. Especially in a world where the political cave to a society that screams the loudest

If you: read the entire court ruling, you are aware of the limitations of retrieving identifiable DNA, are aware of the politics involved regarding Prosecuting Attorneys, etc, then you would not be surprised to know that this case should never have gone to trial.
1) The shooting occurred 6 years ago. Both the officer who fired and his partner stated they saw the gun prior to the shooting. Previous Prosecuting Attorneys knew there was no evidence that showed the Officer had done anything wrong. The Prosecutor that brought the case to trial, filed it last year when so many other Prosecutors were filing cases such as the Freddy Grey case where 6 Officers were charged with murder over failure to use a seatbelt
2. The prosecution alleged the officer planted a gun. The judge stated this is not supported by evidence. No one saw it planted, no one saw the officer with it prior to it being found in the vehicle, nothing connects the gun to the officer, video of the officer at the scene prior to finding the gun shows he could not have hidden a pistol that large without it being seen, none of the other officers at the scene were called as witnesses by the prosecution regarding the gun.
3. DNA- The prosecution alleged the absence of the suspects DNA on the gun meant it wasn't his. The prosecution's own DNA witnesses stated the absence of DNA does not mean anything. It could have been contaminated, the suspect could have used gloves, etc.
4. The judge stated in his experience, it is an anomaly that an urban drug dealer is not armed with a handgun. I agree. I have 31 years experience in civilian law enforcement and many of the dealers had some sort of weapon.
The politics of prosecuting attorneys is they want to be re-elected. In some cases such as my area, this results in a refusal to take a case to trial unless it is a slam dunk. This gives the prosecutor a "win" record but leaves many cases dropped such as "he said, she said" cases. In other high profile cases, Prosecutors have tried to make cases where they either overcharged or withheld evidence to appease the public.
Examples are the Duke Lacrosse case http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16cnd-nifong.html;
Baltimore MD Freddy Grey case http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/07/13/officers-baltimore-prosecutor-not-immune-from-lawsuit/
As for the AK-47 pistol, it was against department policy but never used.

According to the news reports, the planting of the gun was not an issue. So how was this scumbag acquitted. I am having misgivings about the mental state of the police in this country. San Diego had a cop plant evidence but it was caught on a video and the charges against the citizen were dropped and the cop is out of a job.