|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Castile's death garnered widespread attention -- and sparked nationwide protests over the use of force by police -- after his girlfriend broadcast the shooting's aftermath on Facebook Live.... "I didn't want to shoot Mr. Castile," Yanez testified."That wasn't my intention. I thought I was going to die." Yanez's lawyers alleged Castile had been smoking marijuana the day of the shooting, which they said affected his judgment. Castile was bleeding heavily in the Facebook video but managed to say he wasn't reaching for his gun, which he had a permit to carry. His girlfriend said Castile was reaching for his ID in his back pocket when he was shot. Castile's fully loaded gun was found in his shorts pocket, Ramsey County prosecutors said. Reynolds issued a statement Friday, saying Castile was pulled over because he had "a wide nose," like a robbery suspect who was being sought. "He did nothing but comply with Officer Yanez's instructions to get his driver's license. He was seat belted and doing as he was told, when he was shot by Officer Yanez who fired seven shots into the vehicle where my .... daughter and I also sat. It is a sad state of affairs when this type of criminal conduct is condoned simply because Yanez is a policeman. God help America." |
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I believe he was reaching for his ID that was located right by his gun.
Quote:
end well.
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I'm not sure but I'm guessing a lot of jurors who are black fear that the police can find out where they live and make there life hell. That would be in the back of my mind.
I think one of the jurors who was black in the Charleston police murder case didn't find the officer guilty.
Quote:
Quote:
end well.
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I'm not sure but I'm guessing a lot of jurors who are black fear that the police can find out where they live and make there life hell. That would be in the back of my mind.
I think one of the jurors who was black in the Charleston police murder case didn't find the officer guilty.
On May 2, 2017, Slager pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law as part of a plea agreement, which has a potential maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
I don't think a long jail sentence is required but Yanez should be kicked off the force and have to pay 10% of his future earnings to that poor little girl, who had to witness that.
Gotta say too, that the civilian was armed didn't help this situation; it I usually does not.
What is most frustrating is that we don't seem to be leaning from these gun violence tragedies. Every day it's more of the same. Decent people needlessly being killed by guns. Every day.
The officer's supervisor testified (and police audio confirmed) that the officer said he didn't see the gun. When asked about that statement, the officer said he meant he didn't see it until he did. Another officer testified that the gun fell out of Castile's pocket as he was moved onto a backboard. However, a paramedic testified that an officer had to reach deep into his pocket to remove the gun.
As earlier mentioned, LE almost never gets prosecuted for this type of shooting. Removing race from the equation.
I dont think that was their argument. Fwiw, they argued it impaired his judgement.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
No one disputes that people in law enforcement have a tough job, but the risks and challenges involved in their line of work should not absolve them of accountability.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
He was reaching for his ID. Which the officer asked him to provide.
The cop also told him to get ID, which is what he was reaching for. Also, if the cop thought that Castile matched a robbery suspect, which was the purported reason he was pulled over for the 49th time in 13 years, then procedure was to have all occupants exit the vehicle while the police are covered with guns drawn, precisely to avoid a situation like this.
This is always a cop out to me (no pun intended). LE job is very difficult; we know that and they know that. However, it doesn't absolve them from holding a far higher level of standard than their regular civilian counterparts. If a police officer is so damn scared to do his job at the risk of himself over that of the public, then he needs to stop being a cop. The whole idea that at the end of the day the police need to ensure they come home alive is missing the whole point of such a position and authority. They are given such authority over others, and in return, they assume the risk to themselves over putting such risk on others.
The fact of the matter is that none of us have to immerse ourselves into their situations to understand how difficult their jobs are. It's given, and at the same time, it's fully expected that these individuals choosing such a profession are held to a higher standards than your everyday citizen. To put us all on the same plain or standards is the wrong way to look at the entire LE profession.
maybe procedures weren't followed. that doesn't equal up to murder.
Quote:
the evidence showed the victim said he had a gun, cop said don't reach for it, and then the victim reached for something. when a cop tells you not to reach after you've just admitted you have a gun, you don't reach. how fucking hard is that to understand?
The cop also told him to get ID, which is what he was reaching for. Also, if the cop thought that Castile matched a robbery suspect, which was the purported reason he was pulled over for the 49th time in 13 years, then procedure was to have all occupants exit the vehicle while the police are covered with guns drawn, precisely to avoid a situation like this.
we'd need to hear the audio and without it would be tough to know.
Did the cop ask for the ID and then Castile informed him he had a gun and then the cop told him not to reach for it?
That is the only thing that makes sense since the cops would have disarmed Castile themselves before caring about ID. Did this happen in quick succession or was Castile ignoring commands or distracted in any other way?
Did the cop think he matched the robbery suspect or did he match a vague description of the local population?---so I looked up the demographics of the area and:
The racial makeup of the city was 90.58% White, 2.06% African American.
So, I am just speculating of course, but that leaves me to believe he should have done a high risk stop. So why didn't he?
The town has 8,000 people in it and is pretty well off--it would be interesting to see how many stops like that he has done, maybe none. In contrast, a friend of mine who is a cop worked in Maryvale, Phx, AZ and would do multiple a night on illegal gang members.
A tangent, but I agree the situation should have been avoided with a proper stop and the cop should be fired and the department should look into hiring only cops with experience that they won't get in saint Anthony, MN.
But really all that matters criminally would be if Philando was asked to stop reaching at the vicinity of his gun and he didn't. This also happened the day after the Alton Sterling shooting so I wonder if that had an impact on either men.
I would be interested in his GF's detailed description or testimony of events because the video was vague. She is being charged with a 3 on 1 attack with her wielding a hammer against another lady and then driving back with bear mace to spray the already seriously injured victim--so I don't know how credible I would find her though.
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I have and I have been in my share of firefights as well and know how difficult those situations are. However, as a law abiding and tax paying citizen, I feel that it is our place to criticize when we believe that there is injustice. This police officer may be a great guy or not, and it doesn't matter. All that matter is that his actions led to another man's death needlessly. And because he's an officer of the law, he is given a pass. There is something so wrong with that.
maybe procedures weren't followed. that doesn't equal up to murder.
It wasn't a murder charge. That's a pretty important part here. This completely fit the bill for all 3 charges. 2nd degree manslaughter, and two counts of intentional discharging of firearm that endangers safety. Remember, girlfriend AND child were both in the car. And this guy ripped off 7 shots.
So that said. If he'd been convicted, Yanez could have been sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $20,000 on the manslaughter charge and five years and fined $5,000 on each of the other charges.
God knows the judge could have lessened the sentence.
Unfortunately, we'll never know. All we get to know is that at this point, white or black, if a cop shoots and kills you in this country, the south park defense of 'it's coming right for us' basically gets you off the hook most of the time.
People aren't asking for cops to be hanged here. But I think a lot of folks are right to wonder where the fuck the justice is.
I sure as hell am.
I think if there were lesser penalties, juries would be more likely to convict. Yanez should not be a field officer. you just can't panic the way he did and be trusted or effective
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I have and I have been in my share of firefights as well and know how difficult those situations are. However, as a law abiding and tax paying citizen, I feel that it is our place to criticize when we believe that there is injustice. This police officer may be a great guy or not, and it doesn't matter. All that matter is that his actions led to another man's death needlessly. And because he's an officer of the law, he is given a pass. There is something so wrong with that.
Given a pass? Unless I'm mistaken, he went in from of a jury of his peers and was found not guilty, but he was also dismissed from the police force. I don't see that as a pass. I agree fully with your comment we should seek justice. That's a given.
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
The officer's reaction in this incident not only resulted in Castile's death but also endangered the lives of two other people, including a young child.
Summary of witness testimony - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Yanez said he saw Castille gripping the pistol.
The other officer never saw the gun.
Yanez said he "Didn't know where the gun was" to his supervisor, which was caught on police audio.
Yanez later said on the stand "what he meant was" he didn't know where the gun was initially, but then he saw it in Castile's hand.
Prosecutors asked Yanez why he didn't initially tell investigators about Castile handling the gun with as much certainty as he was now doing at the trial. They pointed out he used words like, "Gripping something"... "It looked like"... "It appeared"... without ever definitively saying it was a gun.
The prosecutor's toxicology expert said it was impossible to tell when Castille had last smoked weed since that test doesn't work properly on blood samples from a decomposing body. The defense toxicology expert said his test indicated Castile had just smoked weed within 2 hours of his death. He later admitted that most experts say postmortem blood tests are unreliable and that this was the first time they ever used that test on a sample from a dead body.
Quote:
In comment 13502885 rebel yell said:
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Because someone is dead, you dolt. It was completely avoidable. If someone is riding passenger, with their kids, and they disclose that they have a firearm, I don't think the officer was in immediate danger. You bootlickers are something else.
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
Quote:
In comment 13502969 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502885 rebel yell said:
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Because someone is dead, you dolt. It was completely avoidable. If someone is riding passenger, with their kids, and they disclose that they have a firearm, I don't think the officer was in immediate danger. You bootlickers are something else.
Nice response. Shrill, hysterical...attack someone with a different point of view. Did you watch the entire trial? Do you have any clue what really happened? If you say yes, you're a liar.
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
Person said he had a gun and a permit - officer feared for his life. IMO, this is similar to the Tulsa case, fear may well have been unreasonable. if you listen to police officer's voice during the event - does not seem in control of his emotions, very excited, very stressed. The fear has to be what a reasonable officer would think constituted an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Talk about finding pot in his system is nothing more than dirtying up the victim.
I was surprised and disappointed by this and the Tulsa verdicts.
RE: South Carolina - in state trial, one juror refused to convict and resulted in hung jury. he pleaded guilty at the federal trial
If you're in fear - how about waiting for a backup and like Deej said - conduct a felony traffic stop?
Remember, police officers voluntarily take these positions, fully aware that at some point they will be in harms way.
Quote:
In comment 13503017 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
. . . precisely the kind of flawed thinking that has lead to the acquittal of all of these cops recently - the idea that the life of a police officer is somehow "more valuable" than all others.
In most of the recent high profile cases with video evidence - Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, Terence Crutcher, Philando Castile - it was found to be conclusive that the officers were in no actual imminent danger.
We all want our police officers to be as safe as they can be while in the line of duty, but we should also be demanding that our law enforcement only use lethal force when the threat is clear, not just perceived. No one should ever end up dead because of a hunch.
Quote:
In comment 13503017 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
I think this is it. Like any quarternary event, Civilian shot/shoot or Cop shot shoot, the errors should be equally distributed. As it is now, the preponderance lethal errors falls upon the civilians, who by and large still have the presumption of innocence. Since the errors are so heavily skewed, one side is natrally going to be very resistant to change anything.
Might as well ban these threads along with political threads.
Honestly, I have no idea how anyone is surprised. Police are rarely convicted for shootings. Let's set aside whether you agree or disagree with the convictions, and all admit they are never convicted.
So what are the people who think this shooting was okay aiming for? The mere fact these judgements are criticized you compels you to take up the metaphorical arms? The system already acts how you want it to - police are rarely ever convicted for shootings/killings/murders, regardless of how controversial, and all effort this decade to bring greater accountability has failed.
You guys win!
Link - ( New Window )
The method of lethal force isn't that important to the discussion, whether it's Eric Garner or Freddie Gray - the point is that the course of action chosen by the officers in those situations was either excessive or abusive.
As of now, we can only quantify the people that ultimately ended up dead in their encounters with the police. I'd suspect that if we also had knowledge of how often police officers engaged in an excessive use of force which didn't result in a death it would probably be even more troubling.
lethal for an individual in normal average physical condition. The only fault to be found in that encounter was the cops not recognizing and/or responding to his his infirmities as he laid there on the sidewalk.
The more relevant issue to be examined in this encounter is what was the government interest in confronting Garner at that point? The street team that contacted Garner had been temporarily reassigned to enforcing the illegal sales of loose cigarettes on the streets of NYC. Not a heinous crime by any definition yet one that caused NYPD brass to respond. This street team was basically taken from their normal duties of stopping violent crimes and reassigned to enforce the collection of taxes on cigarette sales by legit sales outlets. It was a bullshit, politically driven assignment.
Garner had several prior offenses for the unlawful sale of "loosies" and was uncooperative. He should not have died but the city politicians hands were filthy in this case.
And yet, he'd still be alive today if he wasn't put into a choke hold for no reason.
lethal for an individual in normal average physical condition.
The POINT is that the 'force' shouldn't have been used on him in the first place.
Oh... that's the ONLY fault? First off, that's a pretty big 'fault' seeing as how they caused him to be in the condition he was in... again, for no reason. Secondly, that wasn't the 'only' fault... they had no reason to bother him in the first place as he was doing nothing illegal. Matter of fact, he actually had just broken up a fight before the police arrived. So the only reason why any attention was given to this man was because he'd done a good deed a few minutes before the police decided to show up... assume that since he'd been arrested for selling 'loosies' that he must be still doing it.
So that makes it ok they decided to harass and ultimately kill this man?
So what? That means police are given a free pass to harass someone because of a prior conviction(s)? Too many times a person's past transgressions are allowed to give acceptance to a person being harassed or killed, even when that person isn't committing any unlawful acts at the time. It happens time and time again in these cases. I know it may be hard for some to believe, but sometimes... people learn from their past mistakes and try their best to not make them again. If I recall from the video (and I may be mistaken), I believe Garner repeatedly stated he doesn't sell loosies anymore because he has a wife and kid at home. But evidently there are some who believe what they see in the movies are real and think that just because they saw Crockett and Tubbs shake down a guy who broke the law in his past that it means that they're always breaking the law again. That's not always the case and is fantasy.
He should not have died... period. He hadn't done anything.
Out of all the killings like this, this one pissed me off the most because the way they surrounded him was like a pack of jackals cornering an elephant and it was sickening to see... only because Garner hadn't done anything wrong (and, in fact, had actually done something good just a few minutes earlier). To somehow try and place blame on Garner is mind-boggling but par for the course in these instances. You can hear Garner (along with bystanders who had no reason to lie for him) continuously say he didn't do anything wrong and yet these clowns were determined to arrest and charge him with SOMETHING simply because they were bored and had nothing better to do.
That definitely deserves an extrajudicial death penalty.
They can kill anyone. That's what irritates me about the way these cases are discussed - the threat exists for anyone.
Link - ( New Window )
Also, this comes up every time these high profile shootings/deaths are brought up, yes, proportionately African Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites by LE, but the numbers of whites killed by police is much higher and much less publicized, my point is I don't believe it's always racial, I think it's as much that some people are bad fits for the job they're in AND some victims don't comply, that combination is explosive and sometimes turns tragic.
This encounter never happens until someone in authority, not the guys on the street, decides that "tax collection" is the mission of the day.
Also, this comes up every time these high profile shootings/deaths are brought up, yes, proportionately African Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites by LE, but the numbers of whites killed by police is much higher and much less publicized, my point is I don't believe it's always racial, I think it's as much that some people are bad fits for the job they're in AND some victims don't comply, that combination is explosive and sometimes turns tragic.
Quote:
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
Those are my thoughts as well.
Also, this comes up every time these high profile shootings/deaths are brought up, yes, proportionately African Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites by LE, but the numbers of whites killed by police is much higher and much less publicized, my point is I don't believe it's always racial, I think it's as much that some people are bad fits for the job they're in AND some victims don't comply, that combination is explosive and sometimes turns tragic.
Quote:
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
Media can give a shit about white people killed by cops. racism sells views and ads
This encounter never happens until someone in authority, not the guys on the street, decides that "tax collection" is the mission of the day.
Are you a cop? Honest question as I'm wondering if you actually KNOW this or are projecting your own thoughts?
Again... the issues is that they had no reason to 'encounter' Garner. I agree that he should've been more cooperative (although I wonder if he'd cooperated if they'd just found some other reason to arrest him, which happens quite often) but it's real easy to say that when you're not dealing with the harassment that some of us are continuously put through. You can hear the frustration in his voice. I also disagree that 'he appears to have been walking away' because he was surrounded with his back against a wall.
I also disagree with your last paragraph because these kind of encounters happen whether it's appointed by government officials or because, as pj said, you just have a cop that's unable to handle the stressful environment that usually that cop has put himself in. You trying to say it's the city's government's fault that Garner is not alive today appears to be an attempt to redirect who was really at fault... which was the police officers who decided to harass a man who hadn't done anything illegal simply because they could and knew they'd get away with it (which they did).
In this particular situation, the defense suggesting that the victim being high (questionable assertion) having anything to do with the shooting is just disingenuous and stinks of demonizing the victim to the jury. And our justice system is far from being fair, as I'm sure the jury gave this police officer a great bit of benefit of doubt and in part bought into the idea that since the victim may have been high, he had some part in his death. While vast majority of police officers are great people, many of them have no business being in that profession for many reasons. And if your number one priority is to go home alive to your family each day (as understandable as that may be for any human being) instead of ensuring that you serve and protect your fellow citizens at the cost of your own safety, you get incidents like this even from good police officers.
We can talk about even the incident in Cleveland with the kid, who was shot and killed for having a BB gun by those two police officers, who came in like a bat out of hell to the scene and shot the kid within five seconds of arriving as another instance of justice not being fair. And there are many more instances like them.
In the end, while these incidents are rare, the enormity of each incident due to who are involved (those entrusted to serve and protect and should be held to the highest standards due to their incredible authority) and the fatal outcome of the victims makes each case all that much more important. So I see why each incident like this out of hundreds of thousands of great interactions that police officers have with the public are scrutinized so much.
Also, this comes up every time these high profile shootings/deaths are brought up, yes, proportionately African Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites by LE, but the numbers of whites killed by police is much higher and much less publicized, my point is I don't believe it's always racial, I think it's as much that some people are bad fits for the job they're in AND some victims don't comply, that combination is explosive and sometimes turns tragic.
Quote:
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
pj - the only question I have is does that poll mean ALL people killed by cops or those that appear to be bad kills? I think there's a very big difference there. As you said, of course there's more white people who get killed by cops because there's more white people in this country. But how many of those killed (white, black and other) were killed while being unarmed or killed under questionable circumstances? Whites may still have greater numbers, but I'd be interested to see if those numbers are a bit closer or farther apart.
Are you a cop? Honest question as I'm wondering if you actually KNOW this or are projecting your own thoughts?
If you're a cop, you have to tell us
Quote:
is the kind of job where from what I can tell you really cannot simulate the stressful and unique situations the LE officer will face until he/she faces it and then if they react poorly it's possibly cost someone their life. Don't know the solution, but my guess is this is 75% of the reason for these incidents.
Also, this comes up every time these high profile shootings/deaths are brought up, yes, proportionately African Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites by LE, but the numbers of whites killed by police is much higher and much less publicized, my point is I don't believe it's always racial, I think it's as much that some people are bad fits for the job they're in AND some victims don't comply, that combination is explosive and sometimes turns tragic.
Quote:
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
pj - the only question I have is does that poll mean ALL people killed by cops or those that appear to be bad kills? I think there's a very big difference there. As you said, of course there's more white people who get killed by cops because there's more white people in this country. But how many of those killed (white, black and other) were killed while being unarmed or killed under questionable circumstances? Whites may still have greater numbers, but I'd be interested to see if those numbers are a bit closer or farther apart.
that's all people. whether the killing was justified or not is what the debate is really about.
The article is linked below, slightly dated - it's from a year ago. Sometimes you see a video or read about a case (like Castille) and you say, that police officer is likely going to jail and then you're surprised when he doesn't (at least I am), but my point was while probably tragic, I don't know that particular case was more a racial issue than it was an incompetent police officer issue.
I also felt like Lavoy Finicum (Oregon wildlife refuge standoff) was killed unnecessarily but the reaction was the same you'd see from someone like Alton Sterling from the masses. He could have avoided it if he complied with LE instructions.
Link - ( New Window )
I am currently assigned to a US Marshal Fugitive task force. I'm not sure how much more I will do once this temporary assignment is concluded.
Quote:
the system codifies the notion that it's a-ok for a cop to kill a black person for basically any reason and in any number of ways.
They can kill anyone. That's what irritates me about the way these cases are discussed - the threat exists for anyone. Link - ( New Window )
Sure, they can. I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that not all ethnicities get the same treatment or benefit of the doubt by police officers that white folks do.
Nobody is immune. Bottom line, you don't comply with a police officer, you are playing roulette.
CNN: Michigan teen's family files federal lawsuit over fatal traffic-stop shooting - ( New Window )
I am currently assigned to a US Marshal Fugitive task force.
And you're not out there cracking down on "loosies"?
I am currently assigned to a US Marshal Fugitive task force. I'm not sure how much more I will do once this temporary assignment is concluded.
Gotcha. Thanks!
Police brutality is wrong no matter who it is against. The race of the officers involved and/or the race of the 'victims' of this harassment really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Police brutality is wrong no matter who it is against. The race of the officers involved and/or the race of the 'victims' of this harassment really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
My sentiments too. It's tiresome. If there was a game of bingo for these type of threads you'd have squares for "white people get killed too", "what about black and black crime?", and of course "why does everything have to be about race?!"
I'm just saying that the statistics don't back up that police officers are killing members of a certain race with prejudice, but rather it's a certain type of behavior (no matter the ethnicity of the person doing it), that often results, often needlessly, in these deaths.
Finally, if you ever encounter an officer in an instance like this, if you choose non compliance or physical resist, you are increasing your odds of becoming a part of the statistic.
so yeah, race was mentioned, but only because I feel like race is not always or maybe even usually the cause for these incidents.
But carry on with your self righteous bingo game.
Also, there is a time within living memory where racial segregation was enforced quite violently by police and other mechanisms of the state. Jim Crow laws, etc. were not that long ago.
The relationship between that community and law enforcement is tense for a lot of reasons, and that tension certainly contributes to these issues.
Police need the cooperation of the communities they serve to do their job effectively. Good officers earn cooperation through respect and service. Bad officers fuck it up for everyone.
We need the good officers to stop rationalizing egregious violence against the public by the bad officers.
Also, there is a time within living memory where racial segregation was enforced quite violently by police and other mechanisms of the state. Jim Crow laws, etc. were not that long ago.
The relationship between that community and law enforcement is tense for a lot of reasons, and that tension certainly contributes to these issues.
Police need the cooperation of the communities they serve to do their job effectively. Good officers earn cooperation through respect and service. Bad officers fuck it up for everyone.
We need the good officers to stop rationalizing egregious violence against the public by the bad officers.
"They said that Deven's focus on these videos was recent, sudden, out of the ordinary, and may have influenced Deven in this traffic stop," Lloyd wrote in the report.
Society is buying into the false narratives that are being spewed through the media, to dangerous proportions.
The media would have you believe that Michael Brown was gunned down in cold blood for doing nothing but being an innocent child in the wrong place at the wrong time and coming into contact with a big bad police officer who was out on the prowl looking for somebody to kill.
We know now that all of that was completely false, yet an entire movement built it's foundation over it, and the more impressionable people that buy into that, are now pushing lines and boundaries in encounters with law enforcement, like that kid in the traffic stop, that end with deadly consequences.
It's behavior driven, not race driven.
Nobody is immune. Bottom line, you don't comply with a police officer, you are playing roulette.
CNN: Michigan teen's family files federal lawsuit over fatal traffic-stop shooting - ( New Window )
White kid case: kid was resisting arrest, the taser failed to subdue him, kid got free and got on top of officer and was hitting him in the face. Video cuts out, but shortly thereafter cop shoots kid.
Black guy case: sitting in car with woman and baby, reaches for ID when cop asks him to get ID. Cop shoots him.
Those are not the same thing.
Quote:
of an unarmed, white teen being shot and killed during a routine traffic stop for which he had flashed his high beams at a police car, then proceeded with non compliance, and ultimately led to him being shot and killed when he supposedly "attacked" the officer.
Nobody is immune. Bottom line, you don't comply with a police officer, you are playing roulette.
CNN: Michigan teen's family files federal lawsuit over fatal traffic-stop shooting - ( New Window )
White kid case: kid was resisting arrest, the taser failed to subdue him, kid got free and got on top of officer and was hitting him in the face. Video cuts out, but shortly thereafter cop shoots kid.
Black guy case: sitting in car with woman and baby, reaches for ID when cop asks him to get ID. Cop shoots him.
Those are not the same thing.
I was not comparing them directly.
so yeah, race was mentioned, but only because I feel like race is not always or maybe even usually the cause for these incidents.
But carry on with your self righteous bingo game.
PJ, problem with your math is that it is a very superficial number that doesn't touch on differences in population across ethnicities. What your numbers leave out says more to me than the actual numbers you shared.
Quote:
is the only reason I mentioned race is because a poster had to say "cases like this are why we need #blacklivesmatter."
so yeah, race was mentioned, but only because I feel like race is not always or maybe even usually the cause for these incidents.
But carry on with your self righteous bingo game.
PJ, problem with your math is that it is a very superficial number that doesn't touch on differences in population across ethnicities. What your numbers leave out says more to me than the actual numbers you shared.
It's all in the article that I linked from the Washington Post, my post said absolutely that African Americans are killed by LE at a higher proportional percentage, by that I meant per population, but my opinion is exactly what I stated, the incidents are not always racially biased, but more a LE training issue as I mentioned.
what's possibly and maybe even probably racially biased is the number of times non-whites are pulled over, and maybe that's the root of the issue, since more encounters probably equals more opportunity for incidents, but that's not the same thing and not why blacklivesmatter should or should not exist.
Quote:
In comment 13504729 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
of an unarmed, white teen being shot and killed during a routine traffic stop for which he had flashed his high beams at a police car, then proceeded with non compliance, and ultimately led to him being shot and killed when he supposedly "attacked" the officer.
Nobody is immune. Bottom line, you don't comply with a police officer, you are playing roulette.
CNN: Michigan teen's family files federal lawsuit over fatal traffic-stop shooting - ( New Window )
White kid case: kid was resisting arrest, the taser failed to subdue him, kid got free and got on top of officer and was hitting him in the face. Video cuts out, but shortly thereafter cop shoots kid.
Black guy case: sitting in car with woman and baby, reaches for ID when cop asks him to get ID. Cop shoots him.
Those are not the same thing.
I was not comparing them directly.
Then what is your point?
Quote:
In comment 13504924 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 13504729 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
of an unarmed, white teen being shot and killed during a routine traffic stop for which he had flashed his high beams at a police car, then proceeded with non compliance, and ultimately led to him being shot and killed when he supposedly "attacked" the officer.
Nobody is immune. Bottom line, you don't comply with a police officer, you are playing roulette.
CNN: Michigan teen's family files federal lawsuit over fatal traffic-stop shooting - ( New Window )
White kid case: kid was resisting arrest, the taser failed to subdue him, kid got free and got on top of officer and was hitting him in the face. Video cuts out, but shortly thereafter cop shoots kid.
Black guy case: sitting in car with woman and baby, reaches for ID when cop asks him to get ID. Cop shoots him.
Those are not the same thing.
I was not comparing them directly.
Then what is your point?
It was in response to a tangent of the thread and not the original threadstart.
But then pj says this with regards to the article he posted:
A post you had no problem co-signing on at 10:37 am.
So which is it? Either they do or they don't?
But let's put that aside for a moment because you also said:
and later...
And yet Castile WAS complying with the officer's orders.
The guy who got shot WITH HIS HANDS UP AND LAYING ON HIS BACK ON THE GROUND (per the officers orders I might add) who was trying to help an autistic child WAS complying with the officer's orders.
Just like the Mike Brown incident is always brought up as a way of saying 'Maybe if the guys complied they wouldn't be getting killed!', there are plenty of other cases where that narrative doesn't fit.
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How?
How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
I just don't believe, perhaps I just don't want to believe, that the situation would have been any different had a person of another race been in the car.
Police officers are human, not robots. They react to situations differently. Textbook goes out the window when human emotion takes over. Fear, anxiety, anger, whatever...
Not every police officer is going to react the same in every situation. There is such a complex sequence of thoughts, emotions, and events that none of us can imagine what it's like to be in either position on that tape. Who knows how we would react. Another officer might have arrived and it would never have gone down like that.
I just don't believe police are killing people because they are black. I don't believe it is that the situation is that simplistic.
I just don't believe, perhaps I just don't want to believe, that the situation would have been any different had a person of another race been in the car.
Police officers are human, not robots. They react to situations differently. Textbook goes out the window when human emotion takes over. Fear, anxiety, anger, whatever...
Not every police officer is going to react the same in every situation. There is such a complex sequence of thoughts, emotions, and events that none of us can imagine what it's like to be in either position on that tape. Who knows how we would react. Another officer might have arrived and it would never have gone down like that.
I just don't believe police are killing people because they are black. I don't believe it is that the situation is that simplistic.
While admirable that it's so hard for you to believe, yes... it does happen. I'm not trying to say it's the case in all... or even most cases... but it does happen. Racism is alive... well... and seemingly thriving in this day and age unfortunately.
Perhaps it you should've been on that jury because evidently there are about 12 people (and I'm sure many, many more) who believe that the officer WAS justified in shooting Castile (let alone into a car with another person and child in it) and believe Castile did something wrong... or else that officer would've at least not gotten away with NO charges sticking don't ya think?
You want to believe that the situation would've been different had someone from a different race been in that car? Go right ahead. It's probably best you have such... innocent... thoughts. But that's not the reality that I'm living in. Philando Castile could just as easily be me, my father or brother... or my 2 year old son in about 20 years. And that's a scary ass thought. It's a scary thought that some people can say 'Textbook goes out the window when human emotion takes over.', and that be an excuse for why a trained professional can get away with not only manslaughter but also firing a gun in the vicinity of a child. I'd bet you wouldn't be so forgiving had that been your wife and child in that car now would you?
"White Man's World" - Jason Isbell - ( New Window )
It wasn't any different for Daniel Shaver. Or Richard Ferretti. Or Francisco Cerna. Etc., etc.
Police violence is something that can happen to anyone.
Where there any African American men or women on the jury?
I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is a racism issue, when there men and women of all ethnicity involved in many of these situations.
As far as the Textbook going out the window when emotions get involved comment, how can emotion not take over when you're faced with a perceived life or death situation no matter how trained or experienced you are? I'm not saying it because I think it's right, I'm saying it because it's a matter of fact. It's easy for you and me to comb through the evidence and video over years and months, and Monday Morning QB the situation in a vacuum void of any real consequence in a discussion on a football message board... But the officer involved didn't have that luxury. He had about 5 seconds to make what he felt was a life and death decision in real time with real consequences.
He chose wrong, but it was reactionary, not intentional or premeditated. Perhaps the jury thought something similar.
It's undoubtedly a major factor in why more black people come into contact with cops in the first place, but once an encounter begins the risk of being shot to death is there for practically anyone of any race.
In this case, the robbery suspect was described as being black, and a black person was being pulled over. the cop was on edge. maybe racism played a part, maybe it didn't. automatically assuming skin color was the reason he's dead borders on racism, if not over the line racist.
absolutely racism is alive and well, but not every black person who dies is a victim of it.
Quote:
You want to believe that the situation would've been different had someone from a different race been in that car?
It wasn't any different for Daniel Shaver. Or Richard Ferretti. Or Francisco Cerna. Etc., etc.
Police violence is something that can happen to anyone.
And it does... as has been said, over... and over... and over again.
That said, I still don't believe THAT incident would've been the same had Castile been a white man... but now that I think about it, who cares? Not interested in getting in to hypotheticals.
Where there any African American men or women on the jury?
I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is a racism issue, when there men and women of all ethnicity involved in many of these situations.
As far as the Textbook going out the window when emotions get involved comment, how can emotion not take over when you're faced with a perceived life or death situation no matter how trained or experienced you are? I'm not saying it because I think it's right, I'm saying it because it's a matter of fact. It's easy for you and me to comb through the evidence and video over years and months, and Monday Morning QB the situation in a vacuum void of any real consequence in a discussion on a football message board... But the officer involved didn't have that luxury. He had about 5 seconds to make what he felt was a life and death decision in real time with real consequences.
He chose wrong, but it was reactionary, not intentional or premeditated. Perhaps the jury thought something similar.
Whether it was race related or not, point is that it shouldn't have happened.
Regarding your statements about the 'textbook going out the window', so then the manslaughter charge should've stuck right? Or at the very least the child endangerment charge (or whatever the other two charges were), correct?
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Quote:
but a factor in many
It's undoubtedly a major factor in why more black people come into contact with cops in the first place, but once an encounter begins the risk of being shot to death is there for practically anyone of any race.
The same risk of being shot?
Quote:
There have been plenty of shootings in the news where the officer that did the fatal shooting was an African American, correct?
Where there any African American men or women on the jury?
I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is a racism issue, when there men and women of all ethnicity involved in many of these situations.
As far as the Textbook going out the window when emotions get involved comment, how can emotion not take over when you're faced with a perceived life or death situation no matter how trained or experienced you are? I'm not saying it because I think it's right, I'm saying it because it's a matter of fact. It's easy for you and me to comb through the evidence and video over years and months, and Monday Morning QB the situation in a vacuum void of any real consequence in a discussion on a football message board... But the officer involved didn't have that luxury. He had about 5 seconds to make what he felt was a life and death decision in real time with real consequences.
He chose wrong, but it was reactionary, not intentional or premeditated. Perhaps the jury thought something similar.
Whether it was race related or not, point is that it shouldn't have happened.
Regarding your statements about the 'textbook going out the window', so then the manslaughter charge should've stuck right? Or at the very least the child endangerment charge (or whatever the other two charges were), correct?
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Agreed. So so why this is a "Black Lives Matter" issue, and not a "Police vs. American Citizens" issue... That's the biggest thing I've had trouble with over the past couple of years.
I don't know, T-bone, I wasn't in the courtroom or privy to all of the arguments and evidence as to why they ultimately didn't stick.
The police officers are fathers, brothers, and sons too, that want to return to their family at the end of the day, as well.
In this case, the robbery suspect was described as being black, and a black person was being pulled over. the cop was on edge. maybe racism played a part, maybe it didn't. automatically assuming skin color was the reason he's dead borders on racism, if not over the line racist.
absolutely racism is alive and well, but not every black person who dies is a victim of it.
And if the cop is so 'on edge', perhaps he should've called for back up?
Not every black person who dies is a victim of it, but it's ignorant to think that it doesn't happen.
Exactly.
"I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job." - Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
If you are willing to kill an innocent person out of fear for your own life, then you have no business being a cop. The risk is inherent in the position. With the immense power bestowed on cops comes responsibilities. The #1 priority of a cop can't be self-preservation at all costs.
Quote:
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Exactly.
"I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job." - Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
If you are willing to kill an innocent person out of fear for your own life, then you have no business being a cop. The risk is inherent in the position. With the immense power bestowed on cops comes responsibilities. The #1 priority of a cop can't be self-preservation at all costs.
That is human nature and human instinct, it is in all of us, and we don't know what we're going to do until we are faced with what is perceived as imminent death.
He did face the consequences of his actions. He faced a trial by jury of his peers and was acquitted.
Quote:
In comment 13505133 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
There have been plenty of shootings in the news where the officer that did the fatal shooting was an African American, correct?
Where there any African American men or women on the jury?
I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is a racism issue, when there men and women of all ethnicity involved in many of these situations.
As far as the Textbook going out the window when emotions get involved comment, how can emotion not take over when you're faced with a perceived life or death situation no matter how trained or experienced you are? I'm not saying it because I think it's right, I'm saying it because it's a matter of fact. It's easy for you and me to comb through the evidence and video over years and months, and Monday Morning QB the situation in a vacuum void of any real consequence in a discussion on a football message board... But the officer involved didn't have that luxury. He had about 5 seconds to make what he felt was a life and death decision in real time with real consequences.
He chose wrong, but it was reactionary, not intentional or premeditated. Perhaps the jury thought something similar.
Whether it was race related or not, point is that it shouldn't have happened.
Regarding your statements about the 'textbook going out the window', so then the manslaughter charge should've stuck right? Or at the very least the child endangerment charge (or whatever the other two charges were), correct?
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Agreed. So so why this is a "Black Lives Matter" issue, and not a "Police vs. American Citizens" issue... That's the biggest thing I've had trouble with over the past couple of years.
I don't know, T-bone, I wasn't in the courtroom or privy to all of the arguments and evidence as to why they ultimately didn't stick.
The police officers are fathers, brothers, and sons too, that want to return to their family at the end of the day, as well.
You've had trouble with it because you have a hard time believing it happens as often as it does. You've already stated that.
And there it is (again):
Also as RC02XX said earlier, that doesn't make their lives more valuable than the citizens they've sworn to protect. Like it says in that pic I posted yesterday (on this or the Kaepernick) thread, we live in a world where TRAINED officers are excused for panicking but untrained civilians are killed for panicking with a gun in their faces. I get that police officers are people too... but so was Castile dammit! He had a family he wanted to go home to as well but won't now because a cop PANICKED and shot him 7 times for no reason. Being a police officer doesn't give you any more right to get home safely than anyone else. You shouldn't be allowed to kill a person (of ANY color) just because you're afraid of not going home that night and damn whether you're in any kind of real danger or threat... just the THOUGHT of maybe being in a threatening position is enough to kill someone... and that's ok?
Quote:
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Exactly.
"I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job." - Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
If you are willing to kill an innocent person out of fear for your own life, then you have no business being a cop. The risk is inherent in the position. With the immense power bestowed on cops comes responsibilities. The #1 priority of a cop can't be self-preservation at all costs.
Perfectly stated.
Quote:
If you can't face that, don't be a cop.
He did face the consequences of his actions. He faced a trial by jury of his peers and was acquitted.
Oh yeah... and we all know those are always fair and just *rolls eyes*.
Among the interesting outcomes:
- Massive differences between white and black officers on how they view police relations with the black community
- Massive differences between white and black officers on whether further advancements are needed to ensure equal rights for blacks in this country
- White officers are almost twice as likely than black officers to have had a physical altercation with a suspect in the past month
- Most white and hispanic officers believe fatal encounters with black are isolated incidents, while a majority of black officers believe this is a sign of a broader problem.
- 72% of officers do NOT believe that officers who consistently do a bad job are held accountable.
What Police Think About Their Jobs - ( New Window )
I don't understand what the jury saw to think that these couldn't stick beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the record there was one black man and one black woman on the jury I believe. 8-4 men vs women.
We need to hold cops to a higher standard. Period. As it stands, as a cop, you can claim self defense in 9/10 situations and get off free for killing an innocent person, of any color. That's the message we send when we fail to convict officers in situations such as these.
I don't understand what the jury saw to think that these couldn't stick beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the record there was one black man and one black woman on the jury I believe. 8-4 men vs women.
We need to hold cops to a higher standard. Period. As it stands, as a cop, you can claim self defense in 9/10 situations and get off free for killing an innocent person, of any color. That's the message we send when we fail to convict officers in situations such as these.
Thanks for that info LTS. I didn't know the make up of the jury at all and hadn't had time to look into it.
Are you trying to suggest something but want to scramble back?
Kinda hard to live in America over decades and somehow suggest that you can torture the data into confessing it's just the nature of stressful jobs. So I am sure that is not your intent?
It is a complicated situation and I don't have any answers for it.
Quote:
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Exactly.
"I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job." - Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
If you are willing to kill an innocent person out of fear for your own life, then you have no business being a cop. The risk is inherent in the position. With the immense power bestowed on cops comes responsibilities. The #1 priority of a cop can't be self-preservation at all costs.
I think this is where a lot of the issue lies. No one really knows how they will react in a specific situation until they are in it. In other words, does someone panic when involved in a confrontation (or even a non-confrontational encounter).
In people's minds they probably feel like they'll remain calm and act fairly in the properly trained manner. I don't think any LE officer expects themselves to panic. Like mistakenly shooting someone you intend to taze (which tragically actually happened).
And that's not to say racism doesn't exists, of course it does, but as I've stated IMO I don't think it's the primary reason for most LE involved shootings.
If there was a way to screen officers and omit the ones who may panic or act irrationally in a confrontation or simple stop don't you think they would or if not they should.
What is the statistical conclusion?
Is it close or hard to discern or kind of a clear pattern.
We won't solve it until it's acknowledged. That's why it's important to get it right
Power corrupts. Give a small minded man a badge and he fancies himself a local warlord, and many of his colleagues who don't act that way nevertheless will do nothing to stop him or hold him accountable.
Quote:
In comment 13505163 T-Bone said:
Quote:
As some poster, like RC02XX, have said, that's an occupation THEY chose to do. Sorry but I'm not accepting that 'it was just a reaction' for an excuse why my father, brother or friend is dead. You accept the job, you accept the risk, you accept that 'reactions' like that are unacceptable.
Exactly.
"I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job." - Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
If you are willing to kill an innocent person out of fear for your own life, then you have no business being a cop. The risk is inherent in the position. With the immense power bestowed on cops comes responsibilities. The #1 priority of a cop can't be self-preservation at all costs.
I think this is where a lot of the issue lies. No one really knows how they will react in a specific situation until they are in it. In other words, does someone panic when involved in a confrontation (or even a non-confrontational encounter).
In people's minds they probably feel like they'll remain calm and act fairly in the properly trained manner. I don't think any LE officer expects themselves to panic. Like mistakenly shooting someone you intend to taze (which tragically actually happened).
And that's not to say racism doesn't exists, of course it does, but as I've stated IMO I don't think it's the primary reason for most LE involved shootings.
If there was a way to screen officers and omit the ones who may panic or act irrationally in a confrontation or simple stop don't you think they would or if not they should.
But what I... and I think others... are saying is that just because an officer 'panicked' in a situation, doesn't mean they shouldn't face any kind of consequences... and in some cases punishment... for not properly being able to do their jobs. In a lot of the cases, the cops involved aren't having to face any consequences except for paid leave (which is really a vacation!). They don't go to jail... shit, most don't even lose their jobs! So what exactly is the deterrant for an officer to NOT kill what turns out to be an unarmed... and in some cases, innocent... person (of any color)?
Quote:
If you can't face that, don't be a cop.
He did face the consequences of his actions. He faced a trial by jury of his peers and was acquitted.
And therein lies the problem. The legal system apparently is set up to stack the deck in a certain way.
I don't get how people can reasonably expect a prosector to prosecute an officer in a department he works with to the fullest extent, or how it can be expected for a precinct or police department to not protect their own/fully investigate a crime/hold their peers accountable.
That IS human nature, and pretending the system works when we see videos of people shot in the back only to find out they are acquitted is ignoring the problem.
I don't get how it's reasonable to expect the police to police the police.
The victims and their families deserve justice for unnecessary or illegitimate LE actions.
And too often they certainly seem to be favored in court proceedings.
My only commentary on here is that while these unwarranted use of deadly force incidents are tragic I do not believe race is always the primary motivator.
I wouldn't have even commented on the thread, you had it under control, but when the poster said "cases like this are why we need blacklivesmatter" that's when I felt the inclination to respond. Racism sucks, it's alive and well, but it's not the answer to every issue.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just my opinion.
Ok. We agree that there are many factors involved and they vary in each incident
" I don't understand why race is an issue"
1) So which is it? Complicated or simple?
2) Race is not an issue or even a big issue is the conclusion you tried to posit
3) That race is one of the issue in the lopsided statistical outcomes is kinda hard to ignore. Again multiply one number for violent deaths by 8% and the other by 92%. This is complicated?
Multiply conviction rate. Incarceration rate. Unemployment rates. On and on for over 100 years.
" I don't understand why race an issue"
We live in America Britt. Does not matter how it got here. How are we going to go forward if we do so while downsizing inconvenient reality?
The opposite argument is "all or many police are bad" is patently absurd by data and our own personal experiences.
Defending police, or attacking those who make bad arguments that shade police, by going to the other end of the spectrum does not produce a good outcome.
Both extremes are absurd places to start.
I do agree its very complicated. That's why its important for people who care about children and the nation to not make simple arguments.
I am sure we agree
Quote:
If you can't face that, don't be a cop.
He did face the consequences of his actions. He faced a trial by jury of his peers and was acquitted.
What would a cop have to do to be convicted?
Now, people will then argue about why it is that experiences with the people vary so much along race. Some will see the distribution as justified and others won't. So it goes.
Oh I don't know... maybe the fact that he told the officer that he was a registered gun owner and had his gun on him? Don't know of too many folks who'd tell a cop that he has a gun on him if he intends to shoot him with it... but maybe that's just me.
Now... what evidence do you have beyond a reasonable doubt that he was?
I don't know why I'm choosing to engage you, of all posters, in this but I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not going to have the stance you ALWAYS have had with respect to threads like these.
The victims and their families deserve justice for unnecessary or illegitimate LE actions.
And too often they certainly seem to be favored in court proceedings.
My only commentary on here is that while these unwarranted use of deadly force incidents are tragic I do not believe race is always the primary motivator.
I wouldn't have even commented on the thread, you had it under control, but when the poster said "cases like this are why we need blacklivesmatter" that's when I felt the inclination to respond. Racism sucks, it's alive and well, but it's not the answer to every issue.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just my opinion.
I dont think you can mix the standards of conduct. LE officers have a duty to stay involved where people like you and me would rightfully retreat.
I mean, what is the comparable duty that Deej has when executing a traffic stop? It's a nonsense question.
And right or wrong, most citizens on a jury are going to cut cops a break because the do a job that's we're not willing to do ourselves. Just like we cut a break to common military tragedies.
I think the key is whether cops are acting reasonably under the circumstances attendant to their job, and step #1 in that is usually to ask what the training says. It seems, from my 30,000 foot view, that juries may be letting cops gets away with stuff because at the moment of the shooting, the fear/reaction was legit... but that the cop's mistake was 20 seconds before the shooting. E.g. pulling the car up way to close to Tamir Rice, or the Castile cop not having him exit the vehicle while the cop was in a cover position with gun drawn.
The victims and their families deserve justice for unnecessary or illegitimate LE actions.
And too often they certainly seem to be favored in court proceedings.
My only commentary on here is that while these unwarranted use of deadly force incidents are tragic I do not believe race is always the primary motivator.
I wouldn't have even commented on the thread, you had it under control, but when the poster said "cases like this are why we need blacklivesmatter" that's when I felt the inclination to respond. Racism sucks, it's alive and well, but it's not the answer to every issue.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just my opinion.
Sorry pj... forgot to respond to this post.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I also don't think ALL of these incidents are racially based... I'm not even 100% sure I'd say most are (although it wouldn't surprise me one bit if somehow it was found that they were). I think most people like yourself (and perhaps Britt) find it hard to believe that race plays a role in most of these incidents mainly because you may have no been exposed to it much besides what you see in the news. Meanwhile, those of us who have had to deal with it many times in our lives (whether it be because of our own personal experiences or seeing it happen to an associate or friend of ours) have seen it often enough to know it happens more frequently than others may think.
Now, people will then argue about why it is that experiences with the people vary so much along race. Some will see the distribution as justified and others won't. So it goes.
Juries are also subject to voir dire. You cant just say "oh there was a black person on the jury". You need to know what questions were asked and what rules the court was applying to jury service.
Last time I was in a criminal jury pool, they asked if anyone had any "interactions" with police or had family who had "interactions" with the police. Most of the people of color raised their hands (and some whites too). One by one the people were questioned in side bar, and basically all of them were excused. Im not 100% sure that they were excused "for cause" but it seemed likely.
So how representative is the jury pool if everyone who has a shitty experience with a cop, or a family member had a shitty experience, is excused? What you end up with is a pool of jurors with relatively positive views of L.E. officers vs. society writ large.
Quote:
different experiences with the police. Those experiences largely vary along race. If your experience with the police has been positive, you're going to have a much more expansive notion of what is "reasonable' cop conduct or you'll be much more willing to believe a cop when s/he says s/he had probable cause. If your experience with the police is very negative, the fact that a jury acquitted a cop is no argument.
Now, people will then argue about why it is that experiences with the people vary so much along race. Some will see the distribution as justified and others won't. So it goes.
Juries are also subject to voir dire. You cant just say "oh there was a black person on the jury". You need to know what questions were asked and what rules the court was applying to jury service.
Last time I was in a criminal jury pool, they asked if anyone had any "interactions" with police or had family who had "interactions" with the police. Most of the people of color raised their hands (and some whites too). One by one the people were questioned in side bar, and basically all of them were excused. Im not 100% sure that they were excused "for cause" but it seemed likely.
So how representative is the jury pool if everyone who has a shitty experience with a cop, or a family member had a shitty experience, is excused? What you end up with is a pool of jurors with relatively positive views of L.E. officers vs. society writ large.
Yep. I gave a pretty simplified account of the issue, but voir dire intensifies the issue. Batson can and is sidestepped very easily as in your example.
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How? How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
But that quote: "How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America" also can explain the negative reaction of others (whites). The 2015 WaPo article said there were 1502 fatal police shootings. That's less than 5 per day in a nation of over 300 million people. 381 were black. That's just over 1 per day. Now the percentage might be debatable, but a significant number of those were righteous shootings. So cases like Castile are not the rule, they are the exception. Tragic exception. Exception where acquittal can be vigorously debated. But they are not the rule. So when Noah makes a statement that says it IS the rule you get blowback.
Quote:
beyond a reasonable doubt that Philando wasn't reaching toward his gun and too impaired to react adequately as a responsible gun owner?
Oh I don't know... maybe the fact that he told the officer that he was a registered gun owner and had his gun on him? Don't know of too many folks who'd tell a cop that he has a gun on him if he intends to shoot him with it... but maybe that's just me.
Now... what evidence do you have beyond a reasonable doubt that he was?
I don't know why I'm choosing to engage you, of all posters, in this but I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not going to have the stance you ALWAYS have had with respect to threads like these.
why would a reasonable doubt that he was be needed in court?
Where does the burden of proof lie?
Quote:
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How? How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
But that quote: "How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America" also can explain the negative reaction of others (whites). The 2015 WaPo article said there were 1502 fatal police shootings. That's less than 5 per day in a nation of over 300 million people. 381 were black. That's just over 1 per day. Now the percentage might be debatable, but a significant number of those were righteous shootings. So cases like Castile are not the rule, they are the exception. Tragic exception. Exception where acquittal can be vigorously debated. But they are not the rule. So when Noah makes a statement that says it IS the rule you get blowback.
But the point is that those exceptions 1) happen way too often and 2) when those exceptions do occur, there are no consequences faced by those officers who committed the act. So those 'exceptions' continue to happen over and over again because in most cases, the officer in trouble never even gets a slap on the wrist.
Quote:
In comment 13505248 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
beyond a reasonable doubt that Philando wasn't reaching toward his gun and too impaired to react adequately as a responsible gun owner?
Oh I don't know... maybe the fact that he told the officer that he was a registered gun owner and had his gun on him? Don't know of too many folks who'd tell a cop that he has a gun on him if he intends to shoot him with it... but maybe that's just me.
Now... what evidence do you have beyond a reasonable doubt that he was?
I don't know why I'm choosing to engage you, of all posters, in this but I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not going to have the stance you ALWAYS have had with respect to threads like these.
why would a reasonable doubt that he was be needed in court?
Where does the burden of proof lie?
I don't know... because the cop shot him supposedly under the assumption that he was reaching for his gun (after he told him to get his ID, which is what he was doing)? That was his claim. What proof can he bring to the table that would suggest that THAT is the action Castile was about to take (again, taking into account that he'd already told the cop that he was armed and was a registered gun owner)?
I'd tend to think the burden of proof would lie with the police officer who made the claim that he shot him because he thought he was reaching for his gun. I'm guessing you think it lies with Castile? Well... it'd be nice to see if you were right except that the officer filled his body with 7 shots to the body and he's dead now. So unfortunately, as with many of these cases, we can't get HIS side of the story now can we?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13505258 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13505248 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
beyond a reasonable doubt that Philando wasn't reaching toward his gun and too impaired to react adequately as a responsible gun owner?
Oh I don't know... maybe the fact that he told the officer that he was a registered gun owner and had his gun on him? Don't know of too many folks who'd tell a cop that he has a gun on him if he intends to shoot him with it... but maybe that's just me.
Now... what evidence do you have beyond a reasonable doubt that he was?
I don't know why I'm choosing to engage you, of all posters, in this but I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not going to have the stance you ALWAYS have had with respect to threads like these.
why would a reasonable doubt that he was be needed in court?
Where does the burden of proof lie?
I don't know... because the cop shot him supposedly under the assumption that he was reaching for his gun (after he told him to get his ID, which is what he was doing)? That was his claim. What proof can he bring to the table that would suggest that THAT is the action Castile was about to take (again, taking into account that he'd already told the cop that he was armed and was a registered gun owner)?
I'd tend to think the burden of proof would lie with the police officer who made the claim that he shot him because he thought he was reaching for his gun. I'm guessing you think it lies with Castile? Well... it'd be nice to see if you were right except that the officer filled his body with 7 shots to the body and he's dead now. So unfortunately, as with many of these cases, we can't get HIS side of the story now can we?
innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13505019 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How? How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
But that quote: "How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America" also can explain the negative reaction of others (whites). The 2015 WaPo article said there were 1502 fatal police shootings. That's less than 5 per day in a nation of over 300 million people. 381 were black. That's just over 1 per day. Now the percentage might be debatable, but a significant number of those were righteous shootings. So cases like Castile are not the rule, they are the exception. Tragic exception. Exception where acquittal can be vigorously debated. But they are not the rule. So when Noah makes a statement that says it IS the rule you get blowback.
But the point is that those exceptions 1) happen way too often and 2) when those exceptions do occur, there are no consequences faced by those officers who committed the act. So those 'exceptions' continue to happen over and over again because in most cases, the officer in trouble never even gets a slap on the wrist.
Then focus in on those exceptions like a laser and don't intimate that is par for the course. Noah blasted the NRA for it's silence in this (specific) case. Fine. No problem. But he framed it like there are hundreds of these incidents per week.
And now he's dead.
Seems to only work one way sometimes to me...
Jesus fucking christ..
Disgusting how quickly that escalated. I thought the video was edited or something at first.
Quote:
In comment 13505304 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13505019 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How? How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
But that quote: "How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America" also can explain the negative reaction of others (whites). The 2015 WaPo article said there were 1502 fatal police shootings. That's less than 5 per day in a nation of over 300 million people. 381 were black. That's just over 1 per day. Now the percentage might be debatable, but a significant number of those were righteous shootings. So cases like Castile are not the rule, they are the exception. Tragic exception. Exception where acquittal can be vigorously debated. But they are not the rule. So when Noah makes a statement that says it IS the rule you get blowback.
But the point is that those exceptions 1) happen way too often and 2) when those exceptions do occur, there are no consequences faced by those officers who committed the act. So those 'exceptions' continue to happen over and over again because in most cases, the officer in trouble never even gets a slap on the wrist.
Then focus in on those exceptions like a laser and don't intimate that is par for the course. Noah blasted the NRA for it's silence in this (specific) case. Fine. No problem. But he framed it like there are hundreds of these incidents per week.
How often does it need to happen for it to be enough?
Subd. 1a.Felony crimes; suppressors; reckless discharge. (a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b)
(2)intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another
and
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;
I find it really hard to tell black people that they don't have a legitimate gripe, especially given the history of treatment of blacks in this country by LE.
Quote:
In comment 13505320 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13505304 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13505019 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Trevor Noah does a good job of expressing what many people... particularly black, and other minority, people... are feeling in my link below. How? How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America? - ( New Window )
But that quote: "How does a black person NOT get shot by LE in America" also can explain the negative reaction of others (whites). The 2015 WaPo article said there were 1502 fatal police shootings. That's less than 5 per day in a nation of over 300 million people. 381 were black. That's just over 1 per day. Now the percentage might be debatable, but a significant number of those were righteous shootings. So cases like Castile are not the rule, they are the exception. Tragic exception. Exception where acquittal can be vigorously debated. But they are not the rule. So when Noah makes a statement that says it IS the rule you get blowback.
But the point is that those exceptions 1) happen way too often and 2) when those exceptions do occur, there are no consequences faced by those officers who committed the act. So those 'exceptions' continue to happen over and over again because in most cases, the officer in trouble never even gets a slap on the wrist.
Then focus in on those exceptions like a laser and don't intimate that is par for the course. Noah blasted the NRA for it's silence in this (specific) case. Fine. No problem. But he framed it like there are hundreds of these incidents per week.
How often does it need to happen for it to be enough?
1 is too many, but not enough to allege it's standard procedure.
Wow... he even offered up the fact that he had a weapon on him.
smh
Quote:
I just don't get it. Link - ( New Window )
Wow... he even offered up the fact that he had a weapon on him.
smh
he also said, "don't get it out" three times and looked panicked as he shot.
Quote:
In comment 13505326 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
I just don't get it. Link - ( New Window )
Wow... he even offered up the fact that he had a weapon on him.
smh
he also said, "don't get it out" three times and looked panicked as he shot.
Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care right now.
Quote:
In comment 13505347 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13505326 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
I just don't get it. Link - ( New Window )
Wow... he even offered up the fact that he had a weapon on him.
smh
he also said, "don't get it out" three times and looked panicked as he shot.
Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care right now.
that's what he said, so I don't think belief matters.
Forgetting the manslaughter charge for a moment, in what world did that officer not endanger the lives of everyone else in that car?
No problem, I'm just typing on a message board and am not watching the video. Very different perspective.
This officer has no business ever being an officer again. He got lucky by getting off with any punishment, but he should find another profession that requires him to deal with little stress.
This officer has no business ever being an officer again. He got lucky by getting off with any punishment, but he should find another profession that requires him to deal with little stress.
it shows police giving chest compressions at the 6 minute mark of the video.
what does it take not to get shot? comply with simple orders. you don't tell a cop you have a gun and then reach for something.
what does it take not to get shot? comply with simple orders. you don't tell a cop you have a gun and then reach for something.
Cops can shoot someone just because they're scared - doesn't matter if they are actually in danger.
The one refreshing thing about discussing the issue with those who think black and brown communities are properly surveilled and policed is that they acknowledge that these communities are treated differently; they just happen to think it's deserved for one reason or another.
what does it take not to get shot? comply with simple orders. you don't tell a cop you have a gun and then reach for something.
The cop told him "don't reach for it" meaning the gun. In addition, he pretty much started to shoot as soon as he pulled out his gun. I don't know how anyone can watch that video and not think the cop was in the wrong.
The one refreshing thing about discussing the issue with those who think black and brown communities are properly surveilled and policed is that they acknowledge that these communities are treated differently; they just happen to think it's deserved for one reason or another.
can an area with high murder or gang violence rates be policed the same as a low crime area and still protect police?
Quote:
when "voices of reason" respond to criticisms of police violence by emphasizing the need to tone down rhetoric or simply deny that different communities are treated differently.
The one refreshing thing about discussing the issue with those who think black and brown communities are properly surveilled and policed is that they acknowledge that these communities are treated differently; they just happen to think it's deserved for one reason or another.
can an area with high murder or gang violence rates be policed the same as a low crime area and still protect police?
Of course not, but this is a question-begging rhetorical question.
it was irresponsible gun ownership. I would bet they have safety rules about driving with your gun while high and not letting police disarm you or at least follow directions.
Actually the NRA and multiple concealed carry organizations have reacted. Just something the media doesn't report on. I get multiple emails daily from various concealed weapons organizations on a number of topics that would be of concern. Interaction with LE is and has been a common topic.
These organizations support police and the 2nd amendment. Except for using this as a teachable incident for both, which is happening, what kind of reaction were you expecting?
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
Quote:
As more people carry this will be more common. It's mind boggling when you think about it. The odds of accidental death are much greater than using a gun to save your life.
Actually the NRA and multiple concealed carry organizations have reacted. Just something the media doesn't report on. I get multiple emails daily from various concealed weapons organizations on a number of topics that would be of concern. Interaction with LE is and has been a common topic.
These organizations support police and the 2nd amendment. Except for using this as a teachable incident for both, which is happening, what kind of reaction were you expecting?
You are correct. They even support gays owning guns
“The reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated,” the influential gun rights group said in a statement Friday afternoon. “In the meantime, it is important for the NRA not to comment while the investigation is ongoing.”
The NRA faced accusations of racism for not officially decrying the shooting of Castile by a police officer during a traffic stop near St. Paul on Wednesday. According to Castile’s girlfriend, who posted a Web video immediately after he was shot, Castile had informed the officer that he was carrying a legal firearm as he reached for his wallet. An officer shot Castile four times.
“The NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation,” the group’s statement said Friday.
Cops are like walking demigods. We live and die by their discretion.
First off, he started reaching because the officer asked for his ID first, which is what he was getting I'm assuming. While beginning to get his ID he informed the officer that he had a gun on him (info which he freely gave without being asked) and that's when the officer... for whatever reason... figured 'Oh, he's not reaching for his ID, HE MUST BE REACHING FOR THE GUN HE JUST TOLD ME HE HAD IN ORDER TO SHOOT ME!!!'. The illogical path he took to come to that conclusion should worry anyone. To assume that a man... who JUST told you that he had a gun on him... would then turn around and shoot him with that gun (with his girl and child in the car mind you) is quite possibly the dumbest conclusion I think a person could take.
And IF the cop came to that dumbass conclusion and feared for his life, he could've very easily moved away from right in front of the window to slightly behind the driver's side seat so that IF the guy... who just told him he had a gun... was stupid enough to try and shoot him with it he would've had to reach back behind him in order to get a shot.
Also, on what planet would a person who intends to ambush and shoot another person... much less an officer of the law... tell that person that they have a gun on them beforehand? Much less shoot the cop with his girlfriend and child in the car? Is it POSSIBLE it could happen? Sure, I guess so. Just as it's possible I could be hit with a meteor at some point today. But common sense (which seems to be in limited supply these days apparently) tells me that the chances of being hit by a meteor is extremely rare so I don't have to stare into the sky all day watching for one... just as you'd think it would tell this dumbass that a guy who just told me that he has a gun on him probably isn't going to try to shoot me with it... if that was his plan, I doubt he would've told me.
Lastly, I have no idea how at the very least the cop wasn't charged and convicted of child endangerment at the VERY least. You fire you gun into a car with a child in it... a few of the bullets supposedly inches away from hitting her... all the while in no apparent danger to yourself (except for the danger you created in your own mind)... and you don't get in any kind of trouble for it? So let me get this straight... giving your kids a spanking in order to discipline them is bad... but firing 7 rounds into a car a child is in is ok? That's the message we're trying to send here?
As has been said many times already, when you take the oath to be a cop, you take that oath knowing that there are certain risks you have to take because you are now licensed to take a life and evidently not face any consequences of taking that life if it turns out you were wrong to do so. That's a HUGE responsibility and it's becoming all too easy for 'He/she panicked' to be a valid excuse for why a life was taken. I wonder that had that been one of your family members in that car and the same thing happened, if you'd be so open-minded to try to find excuse after excuse as to why it's ok your father, brother, uncle, whatever was killed that day?
Quote:
and are not trained to think broadly. As someone mentioned on another thread, they are taught to protect themselves, and this will be at the expense of civilians, even after their sworn oath to uphold and protect.
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
or you can say Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this man created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
did we find out if he thought he was the suspect or did he just resembled the suspect and so it could be him? Pulling someone out of their car at gunpoint 4 days after the event on a vague description is also a big decision if you aren't confident it is him.
Is driving high with a firearm is also an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation?
Quote:
In comment 13505803 WideRight said:
Quote:
and are not trained to think broadly. As someone mentioned on another thread, they are taught to protect themselves, and this will be at the expense of civilians, even after their sworn oath to uphold and protect.
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
or you can say Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this man created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
did we find out if he thought he was the suspect or did he just resembled the suspect and so it could be him? Pulling someone out of their car at gunpoint 4 days after the event on a vague description is also a big decision if you aren't confident it is him.
Is driving high with a firearm is also an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation?
You keep on saying he was high but that's been called into question (disputed by the other office on the scene). So although I'm sure you'll keep stating it as a fact because it helps your case (in your mind... it really doesn't though), it is not a fact at all. At least from what I've read and seen.
Also, asking a guy to get out of the car so as to keep yourself safe makes a bunch more sense than walking up to the window of a car of a suspected bank robber don't ya think? Nevermind... don't answer that question because I already know your answer. I'm sure Castile wouldn't have minded being inconvenienced being told to get out of the car if it decreased his chances of getting killed that day.
Lastly, yeah... you could say that Castile created the 'unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation'... but then that'd show your agenda.
Quote:
In comment 13505907 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 13505803 WideRight said:
Quote:
and are not trained to think broadly. As someone mentioned on another thread, they are taught to protect themselves, and this will be at the expense of civilians, even after their sworn oath to uphold and protect.
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
or you can say Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this man created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
did we find out if he thought he was the suspect or did he just resembled the suspect and so it could be him? Pulling someone out of their car at gunpoint 4 days after the event on a vague description is also a big decision if you aren't confident it is him.
Is driving high with a firearm is also an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation?
You keep on saying he was high but that's been called into question (disputed by the other office on the scene). So although I'm sure you'll keep stating it as a fact because it helps your case (in your mind... it really doesn't though), it is not a fact at all. At least from what I've read and seen.
Also, asking a guy to get out of the car so as to keep yourself safe makes a bunch more sense than walking up to the window of a car of a suspected bank robber don't ya think? Nevermind... don't answer that question because I already know your answer. I'm sure Castile wouldn't have minded being inconvenienced being told to get out of the car if it decreased his chances of getting killed that day.
Lastly, yeah... you could say that Castile created the 'unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation'... but then that'd show your agenda.
it was reported he had THC in his system and it could explain why he didn't comply. I like that explanation better than he was just an idiot.
Quote:
In comment 13505929 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
In comment 13505907 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 13505803 WideRight said:
Quote:
and are not trained to think broadly. As someone mentioned on another thread, they are taught to protect themselves, and this will be at the expense of civilians, even after their sworn oath to uphold and protect.
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
or you can say Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this man created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
did we find out if he thought he was the suspect or did he just resembled the suspect and so it could be him? Pulling someone out of their car at gunpoint 4 days after the event on a vague description is also a big decision if you aren't confident it is him.
Is driving high with a firearm is also an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation?
You keep on saying he was high but that's been called into question (disputed by the other office on the scene). So although I'm sure you'll keep stating it as a fact because it helps your case (in your mind... it really doesn't though), it is not a fact at all. At least from what I've read and seen.
Also, asking a guy to get out of the car so as to keep yourself safe makes a bunch more sense than walking up to the window of a car of a suspected bank robber don't ya think? Nevermind... don't answer that question because I already know your answer. I'm sure Castile wouldn't have minded being inconvenienced being told to get out of the car if it decreased his chances of getting killed that day.
Lastly, yeah... you could say that Castile created the 'unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation'... but then that'd show your agenda.
it was reported he had THC in his system and it could explain why he didn't comply. I like that explanation better than he was just an idiot.
Then doesn't mean he was high when the incident happened. That can stay in your system for weeks. But I'm sure you like that explanation more than he was just an idiot.
Quote:
In comment 13505950 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13505929 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
In comment 13505907 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 13505803 WideRight said:
Quote:
and are not trained to think broadly. As someone mentioned on another thread, they are taught to protect themselves, and this will be at the expense of civilians, even after their sworn oath to uphold and protect.
People should also understand that cops are not trained to pull over people they suspect of committing armed robbery and then casually saunter over to the driver side window and stick their mugs in like that. Rather, if this cop was telling the truth on the video when he radio'd in re why he was pulling Castile over, he was required to order PC out of the car while maintaining a covered position. PRECISELY so shit like this doesnt happen.
Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this cop created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
or you can say Castile is dead, first and foremost, because this man created an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation.
did we find out if he thought he was the suspect or did he just resembled the suspect and so it could be him? Pulling someone out of their car at gunpoint 4 days after the event on a vague description is also a big decision if you aren't confident it is him.
Is driving high with a firearm is also an unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation?
You keep on saying he was high but that's been called into question (disputed by the other office on the scene). So although I'm sure you'll keep stating it as a fact because it helps your case (in your mind... it really doesn't though), it is not a fact at all. At least from what I've read and seen.
Also, asking a guy to get out of the car so as to keep yourself safe makes a bunch more sense than walking up to the window of a car of a suspected bank robber don't ya think? Nevermind... don't answer that question because I already know your answer. I'm sure Castile wouldn't have minded being inconvenienced being told to get out of the car if it decreased his chances of getting killed that day.
Lastly, yeah... you could say that Castile created the 'unnecessary, unduly dangerous situation'... but then that'd show your agenda.
it was reported he had THC in his system and it could explain why he didn't comply. I like that explanation better than he was just an idiot.
Then doesn't mean he was high when the incident happened. That can stay in your system for weeks. But I'm sure you like that explanation more than he was just an idiot.
this is what it always comes down to: beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt the cop is innocent, but that is not how it works.
Would you have liked a different verdict even if there wasn't enough evidence to establish that? How about on future cases?
Judging by the majority of posters reactions upon seeing the video it seems to me that a majority of people seem to think that a different verdict should've been reached. Again, at the very least child endangerment charges (which I've noticed you've never responded to). I don't want to see cops... or anyone... get disciplined if they did nothing wrong... but I also don't want to see cops... or anyone... get away with committing a crime (even if that crime was a mistake) because of a position they hold.
609.66 DANGEROUS WEAPONS
Subd. 1a.Felony crimes; suppressors; reckless discharge. (a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b)
(2)intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another
and
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;
Unless of course, those statutes don't apply to police officers because their jobs are dangerous...
Judging by the majority of posters reactions upon seeing the video it seems to me that a majority of people seem to think that a different verdict should've been reached. Again, at the very least child endangerment charges (which I've noticed you've never responded to). I don't want to see cops... or anyone... get disciplined if they did nothing wrong... but I also don't want to see cops... or anyone... get away with committing a crime (even if that crime was a mistake) because of a position they hold.
This is a NY based website. Other sites lean the other way.
If the manslaughter charge stuck, then I can see the child endangerment sticking of course--but if somebody goes for a gun, even with a child around, you aren't required to be shot or face child endangerment charges.
I know I didn't explain them well, but they would have went hand in hand.
Do you know how fast a person can bleed out, especially with multiple gunshot wounds? Full four minutes pass by before the victim is pulled out and given first aid. I've seen gun shot woulds and have administered first aid, four minutes is an eternity and can determine life or death. While the victim may have die either way from his wounds, the fact that for the next four minutes, the shooting officer just stood there says a lot about his mental state and inability to function as a cop. Thankfully, he will never be able to do this again since he's been fired, but who knows if he'll be given another chance based on the outcome of the trial.
Quote:
it doesn't seem to always come down to 'reasonable doubt'... particularly when it comes to LE officials in cases like these. That's my point.
Judging by the majority of posters reactions upon seeing the video it seems to me that a majority of people seem to think that a different verdict should've been reached. Again, at the very least child endangerment charges (which I've noticed you've never responded to). I don't want to see cops... or anyone... get disciplined if they did nothing wrong... but I also don't want to see cops... or anyone... get away with committing a crime (even if that crime was a mistake) because of a position they hold.
This is a NY based website. Other sites lean the other way.
If the manslaughter charge stuck, then I can see the child endangerment sticking of course--but if somebody goes for a gun, even with a child around, you aren't required to be shot or face child endangerment charges.
I know I didn't explain them well, but they would have went hand in hand.
To think that the opinions expressed on here regarding this issue are divided along political lines is exactly what's wrong with this country right now. Instead of doing, saying and acting with common decency, everything seems to be based on left or right... which is simply the dumbest thing going on in this country right now (among a lot of dumb things).
And again, I feel pretty confident in saying he wasn't going for his gun. So it's ok that the child was placed in danger because the officer THOUGHT he was going for his gun?
Yeah... that makes (no) sense....
Quote:
it shows police giving chest compressions at the 6 minute mark of the video.
Do you know how fast a person can bleed out, especially with multiple gunshot wounds? Full four minutes pass by before the victim is pulled out and given first aid. I've seen gun shot woulds and have administered first aid, four minutes is an eternity and can determine life or death. While the victim may have die either way from his wounds, the fact that for the next four minutes, the shooting officer just stood there says a lot about his mental state and inability to function as a cop. Thankfully, he will never be able to do this again since he's been fired, but who knows if he'll be given another chance based on the outcome of the trial.
Yeah... he'll just go to another city and join the force there. Isn't that what the cop in the Tamir Rice situation did?
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
And maybe, just maybe, he wasn't fit to be a cop in the first place if the stress of trying to save the life of someone he tried to kill for no reason was too much for him to bear?
Quote:
In comment 13505752 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
it shows police giving chest compressions at the 6 minute mark of the video.
Do you know how fast a person can bleed out, especially with multiple gunshot wounds? Full four minutes pass by before the victim is pulled out and given first aid. I've seen gun shot woulds and have administered first aid, four minutes is an eternity and can determine life or death. While the victim may have die either way from his wounds, the fact that for the next four minutes, the shooting officer just stood there says a lot about his mental state and inability to function as a cop. Thankfully, he will never be able to do this again since he's been fired, but who knows if he'll be given another chance based on the outcome of the trial.
Yeah... he'll just go to another city and join the force there. Isn't that what the cop in the Tamir Rice situation did?
this situation was probably the toughest one for me. i think the cop should be fired, but not criminally prosecuted and it seems the jury and police department felt the same way.
tamir rice was a much easy case to make.
You know there are procedures for how to handle this situation and the cop didnt follow them. He created the situation. He purportedly pulled over a guy who he thought looked like an armed robbery suspect and then failed to have the guy exit the car in a safe manner. Even when told the guy was armed. Having fucked it up by approaching the car, he should have unfucked it by backing away. Instead, he shot his way out of the situation, and now people want to (and a jury did) excuse it because in the very last split second the decision to shoot was potentially justified.
It doesnt make a lot of sense to me. Ultimately Im not sure it was manslaughter. But there is no need to exonerate his conduct. He fucked the situation.
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
And maybe...just maybe he was never fit to be a cop. I mean, the situation escalates within two minutes from a traffic stop with the police officer just sauntering up to the driver side window to him being informed about the gun to him warning the victim to him shooting the victim at point blank range. If I can take the words of others defending his actions, he made the right decision and didn't actually panic and made a terrible mistake, which means that he should still be able to assess the situation instead of continuing to panic to the point that others have to pull out the victim. So either he panicked throughout the ordeal and was in shock, which means that he was not fit for the job and killed the driver unjustifiably or he acted appropriately with good judgement and was in full control, which means him standing there for four minutes was a conscious decision.
Which is it? You can't have your cake an eat it too in this situation. Either he panicked and continued to panic. Or he didn't panic and should have been able to decided that the victim needed first aid right away.
But what about the fact that he TOLD him he had the gun in the first place? I mean... am I the only one who doesn't see the sense in thinking that a man who was intending to shoot someone would tell the person he intended to shoot that he has a gun on him? I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around that. I've tried putting myself in the same situation and imaging if I'd have reacted the same way and I can pretty confidently state that I most likely woulnd't... nor do I think most people who aren't under the impression that black man+gun = automatically fill him full of lead because he's a danger to society!
Thanks and I appreciate the kind words... I really and truly do... but it's just hard for me to understand how some folks who I've known for years and believe to be very smart (talking about fkap here, who I've known for at least over a decade now... I don't know madcow from a can of paint but do know what his MO has been with regards to these kinds of threads so I'm not surprised at all by his responses) cannot see how the officer is completely wrong in this instance... and I'm not trying to imply that fkap is dumb now because we disagree on this situation but I'm just like... wow... really?
Then not everyone needs to be a police officer. You'd hope that a trained police officer is able to keep control of his emotions even after killing someone for the first time. I know there are times when the emotion of the kill overtakes someone... particularly if it's their first kill and it looks like it was the wrong decision.... but c'mon man. He went from 0-60 in less than 3 seconds. I don't think it's wise to put a firearm in the hands of someone who's emotions can swing so wildly. If he wants to be a cop so bad, put him behind a desk and let his ass stay there.
I can't wrap my head around saying I have a gun and then diving my hand into my pocket despite being told not to.
I'm not sure that snide remarks really help out this discussion but whatever.
The point is that you can't say he made the right decision and then say that it's totally understandable that he stood there for four...FOUR...minutes in a state of shock because it was his first shooting. Reacting within four minutes of knowing that you shot someone (even at point blank range) doesn't require balls of steel. Seriously, doesn't that just go counter to the argument that he knew what he was doing? And if he is so susceptible to being in such a state of shock, he doesn't need to wield such power or wear that uniform.
And
I can't wrap my head around saying I have a gun and then diving my hand into my pocket despite being told not to.
I'm sorry but you're never going to convince me that him informing the police officer he was armed should've done anything but DE-ESCALATE the sense of danger in the police officer. That's what's so funny about this... if he HADN'T offered the fact that he was armed to the police officer, he'd probably still be alive today because they would've just gotten their ticket and been about their way. But Castile did the responsible thing and informed that cop that he was armed... and for some reason that was cause to be MORE alarmed? With his girl and kid in the back seat? And another officer on the other side of the car? So you think that the cop was correct in being afraid that this guy was going to want to go out in a blaze of glory and take his family with him?
I can't wrap my head around saying I have a gun and then diving my hand into my pocket despite being told not to.
Who knew what was going through the victim's mind. Maybe he thought that by showing the officer his permit, he would deescalate the situation (I'm sure being stopped 40+ times in the past may have had something to do with his decision making process) and that made him make the mistake of continuing to search for his wallet.
In the end, one dude panicked while the other dude made a mistake of not listening to instructions. The result seems wholly disproportionate to what the situation started out as.
But I guess that's too much to ask of a trained police officer.
Quote:
Maybe,just maybe, being the first time killing another human feet away and watching him die could induce a state of shock?
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
And maybe...just maybe he was never fit to be a cop. I mean, the situation escalates within two minutes from a traffic stop with the police officer just sauntering up to the driver side window to him being informed about the gun to him warning the victim to him shooting the victim at point blank range. If I can take the words of others defending his actions, he made the right decision and didn't actually panic and made a terrible mistake, which means that he should still be able to assess the situation instead of continuing to panic to the point that others have to pull out the victim. So either he panicked throughout the ordeal and was in shock, which means that he was not fit for the job and killed the driver unjustifiably or he acted appropriately with good judgement and was in full control, which means him standing there for four minutes was a conscious decision.
Which is it? You can't have your cake an eat it too in this situation. Either he panicked and continued to panic. Or he didn't panic and should have been able to decided that the victim needed first aid right away.
looks like he was unfit to be a cop, but sometimes it take an actual incident to determine that. Departments hire people who can pass a background check and lie detector--often want a college degree. It might take 500 applications to get 3 or 4 people that pass all those requirements and that may leave people who are practically better at the job with no chance to do it.
If you are a strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, and not a hypocrite, then this case should absolutely outrage you.
Castile had a conceal permit and legal ownership of his gun. As the video illustrated, he demonstrated compliance during the traffic stop by providing his insurance card. He calmly disclosed to the police officer that he had his firearm on him. Compounded with the presence of a young child in the car it was not reasonable for the officer to perceive a threat.
I'm not sure why anyone would be comfortable with the precedent that has been set here that involves excusing a person of authority from killing someone just because the mere presence of a man's (legally owned) firearm.
Quote:
In comment 13505752 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
it shows police giving chest compressions at the 6 minute mark of the video.
Do you know how fast a person can bleed out, especially with multiple gunshot wounds? Full four minutes pass by before the victim is pulled out and given first aid. I've seen gun shot woulds and have administered first aid, four minutes is an eternity and can determine life or death. While the victim may have die either way from his wounds, the fact that for the next four minutes, the shooting officer just stood there says a lot about his mental state and inability to function as a cop. Thankfully, he will never be able to do this again since he's been fired, but who knows if he'll be given another chance based on the outcome of the trial.
Yeah... he'll just go to another city and join the force there. Isn't that what the cop in the Tamir Rice situation did?
The cop in the Tamir Rice case hadn't been involved in a shooting like this before he joined the Cleveland PD. With the publicity surrounding this case this guy is radioactive for an absolute minimum of 5 years and much more likely for life, which is actually the way it should be.
I agree. And I have nothing against police officers, as I believe that they have a very difficult job that don't pay them enough.
As for situations like this, we have to hold people accountable for their actions and mistakes. While there will continue to be debates regarding the verdict, I think most of us can (hopefully) agree that this officer should never have been given a badge based on many factors of this event.
Quote:
In comment 13506115 fkap said:
Quote:
Maybe,just maybe, being the first time killing another human feet away and watching him die could induce a state of shock?
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
And maybe...just maybe he was never fit to be a cop. I mean, the situation escalates within two minutes from a traffic stop with the police officer just sauntering up to the driver side window to him being informed about the gun to him warning the victim to him shooting the victim at point blank range. If I can take the words of others defending his actions, he made the right decision and didn't actually panic and made a terrible mistake, which means that he should still be able to assess the situation instead of continuing to panic to the point that others have to pull out the victim. So either he panicked throughout the ordeal and was in shock, which means that he was not fit for the job and killed the driver unjustifiably or he acted appropriately with good judgement and was in full control, which means him standing there for four minutes was a conscious decision.
Which is it? You can't have your cake an eat it too in this situation. Either he panicked and continued to panic. Or he didn't panic and should have been able to decided that the victim needed first aid right away.
looks like he was unfit to be a cop, but sometimes it take an actual incident to determine that. Departments hire people who can pass a background check and lie detector--often want a college degree. It might take 500 applications to get 3 or 4 people that pass all those requirements and that may leave people who are practically better at the job with no chance to do it.
Sorry but 'Oops, my bad' shouldn't cut it. It shouldn't take someone being killed in order to determine that and if it does that shouldn't allow that officer to be taken off the hook. You do that, then that's what any and all officers can say to get off the hook... whether it's true or not.
Quote:
In comment 13506140 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 13506115 fkap said:
Quote:
Maybe,just maybe, being the first time killing another human feet away and watching him die could induce a state of shock?
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
And maybe...just maybe he was never fit to be a cop. I mean, the situation escalates within two minutes from a traffic stop with the police officer just sauntering up to the driver side window to him being informed about the gun to him warning the victim to him shooting the victim at point blank range. If I can take the words of others defending his actions, he made the right decision and didn't actually panic and made a terrible mistake, which means that he should still be able to assess the situation instead of continuing to panic to the point that others have to pull out the victim. So either he panicked throughout the ordeal and was in shock, which means that he was not fit for the job and killed the driver unjustifiably or he acted appropriately with good judgement and was in full control, which means him standing there for four minutes was a conscious decision.
Which is it? You can't have your cake an eat it too in this situation. Either he panicked and continued to panic. Or he didn't panic and should have been able to decided that the victim needed first aid right away.
looks like he was unfit to be a cop, but sometimes it take an actual incident to determine that. Departments hire people who can pass a background check and lie detector--often want a college degree. It might take 500 applications to get 3 or 4 people that pass all those requirements and that may leave people who are practically better at the job with no chance to do it.
Sorry but 'Oops, my bad' shouldn't cut it. It shouldn't take someone being killed in order to determine that and if it does that shouldn't allow that officer to be taken off the hook. You do that, then that's what any and all officers can say to get off the hook... whether it's true or not.
that would be true if the officer should have been guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he shouldn't have. If you have a weapon and start reaching and ignore 3 lawful orders it's going to be hard to win any case. This guy was a CCW--he should have known better.
But he was also stopped more than 40 times in the past with many (I'm assuming) based on profiling, so who's to say this is how he conducted himself previously without deadly consequences?
walter scott.
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
walter scott.
Really? State jury declared a mistrial, and Slager pleaded guilty to violating Walter Scott's civil rights (and part of the deal was that all federal and state charges would be dropped, including the retrial on the murder charge). Slager has yet to be sentenced as far as I can tell. He can get anything from probation to life in prison.
Justice.
Quote:
In comment 13506227 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
walter scott.
Really? State jury declared a mistrial, and Slager pleaded guilty to violating Walter Scott's civil rights (and part of the deal was that all federal and state charges would be dropped, including the retrial on the murder charge). Slager has yet to be sentenced as far as I can tell. He can get anything from probation to life in prison.
Justice.
that's a case the cop should be held accountable. I didn't answer it with the outcome in mind.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
I think that's the one with 20 animals threatening his life as he tried to make the arrest to somebody resisting. He should be held accountable for his actions, but the stress of being attacked from behind from an angry mob made me feel bad for him (if it's the same case).
Quote:
In comment 13506227 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
I think that's the one with 20 animals threatening his life as he tried to make the arrest to somebody resisting. He should be held accountable for his actions, but the stress of being attacked from behind from an angry mob made me feel bad for him (if it's the same case).
Not the same case. This is the one where this old geezer, who donated a lot of money to the local PD was "deputized." He was involved in a sting against an illegal gun seller, and he joined in on taking the criminal down. At which point, he said "I'll taze him" as he was on his back. Pulled out a handgun instead and shot the guy point blank while the criminal was lying on the ground with other officers pinning him down. Sort of like the case in Oakland years ago of Oscar Grant.
Quote:
In comment 13506227 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
I think that's the one with 20 animals threatening his life as he tried to make the arrest to somebody resisting. He should be held accountable for his actions, but the stress of being attacked from behind from an angry mob made me feel bad for him (if it's the same case).
I think you may be confused. In this case the suspect ran after a sting operation or something where he was buying drugs or guns, and he was tackled by LE, and then the old guy rolled up on the scene went to taze the suspect as they struggled to cuff him and shot him instead of tazing him.
there was no one threatening him from what I recall.
Quote:
In comment 13506256 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13506227 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
I think that's the one with 20 animals threatening his life as he tried to make the arrest to somebody resisting. He should be held accountable for his actions, but the stress of being attacked from behind from an angry mob made me feel bad for him (if it's the same case).
I think you may be confused. In this case the suspect ran after a sting operation or something where he was buying drugs or guns, and he was tackled by LE, and then the old guy rolled up on the scene went to taze the suspect as they struggled to cuff him and shot him instead of tazing him.
there was no one threatening him from what I recall.
yeah, that's way different.
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
walter scott.
I see. So you don't hold him running away from the officer and not heeding his directions against him? Just curious.
Also, is that the only one or is there another?
Quote:
Has there ever been a case where a LE officer was correctly punished for killing someone in your eyes? If so, what case? I'm sure it's so rare for you that you surely have one or two cases where there was absolutely no excuse... even in your eyes... for the officers actions and I'm just trying to find out what it takes for you.
the case that really bothered me the most was the old insurance agent volunteer police officer (or whatever he was) in Oklahoma or somewhere who went to taze a suspect and shot him instead.
That guy is in jail i believe and the municipality who "hired" him should be or probably was sued for a lot of money, in that case from what I remember the person was clearly unfit for law enforcement (before any incidents happened).
Yeah... that one was pretty bad too. Not to make light of it, but the funny thing was the guy's face after he realized what he'd done accidentally.
Quote:
I'm guessing cops are scared through much of their daily duties. a lot of people have brought up the number of people killed by cops and the sensationalized, rare, incidents like this. What about the number of cops killed during these stops, or the ambush killings of cops? Yes. I'd sure as hell be scared (a better word is cautious) if I were a cop. So when a cop says don't reach, don't fucking reach because you might know you're only going for your wallet, but the cop doesn't. People keep saying he panicked. How about he was in fear for his life because a guy who was told three times not to reach went ahead and reached any way? Castile had presence of mind to alert the cop that he had a gun. he should have had presence of mind enough to keep his hands in plain sight.
First off, he started reaching because the officer asked for his ID first, which is what he was getting I'm assuming. While beginning to get his ID he informed the officer that he had a gun on him (info which he freely gave without being asked) and that's when the officer... for whatever reason... figured 'Oh, he's not reaching for his ID, HE MUST BE REACHING FOR THE GUN HE JUST TOLD ME HE HAD IN ORDER TO SHOOT ME!!!'. The illogical path he took to come to that conclusion should worry anyone. To assume that a man... who JUST told you that he had a gun on him... would then turn around and shoot him with that gun (with his girl and child in the car mind you) is quite possibly the dumbest conclusion I think a person could take.
And IF the cop came to that dumbass conclusion and feared for his life, he could've very easily moved away from right in front of the window to slightly behind the driver's side seat so that IF the guy... who just told him he had a gun... was stupid enough to try and shoot him with it he would've had to reach back behind him in order to get a shot.
Also, on what planet would a person who intends to ambush and shoot another person... much less an officer of the law... tell that person that they have a gun on them beforehand? Much less shoot the cop with his girlfriend and child in the car? Is it POSSIBLE it could happen? Sure, I guess so. Just as it's possible I could be hit with a meteor at some point today. But common sense (which seems to be in limited supply these days apparently) tells me that the chances of being hit by a meteor is extremely rare so I don't have to stare into the sky all day watching for one... just as you'd think it would tell this dumbass that a guy who just told me that he has a gun on him probably isn't going to try to shoot me with it... if that was his plan, I doubt he would've told me.
Lastly, I have no idea how at the very least the cop wasn't charged and convicted of child endangerment at the VERY least. You fire you gun into a car with a child in it... a few of the bullets supposedly inches away from hitting her... all the while in no apparent danger to yourself (except for the danger you created in your own mind)... and you don't get in any kind of trouble for it? So let me get this straight... giving your kids a spanking in order to discipline them is bad... but firing 7 rounds into a car a child is in is ok? That's the message we're trying to send here?
As has been said many times already, when you take the oath to be a cop, you take that oath knowing that there are certain risks you have to take because you are now licensed to take a life and evidently not face any consequences of taking that life if it turns out you were wrong to do so. That's a HUGE responsibility and it's becoming all too easy for 'He/she panicked' to be a valid excuse for why a life was taken. I wonder that had that been one of your family members in that car and the same thing happened, if you'd be so open-minded to try to find excuse after excuse as to why it's ok your father, brother, uncle, whatever was killed that day?
Agreed T-Bone, fairly insane set of circumstances to be aquitted of.
That's not 100% serious, but actually I think the situation is worse. I'd bet pretty hard that there is a material segment of the population that simply doesnt believe cops should be held criminally responsible for shootings. Period, full stop. I've seen it in other contexts -- you have a lot of people at civil jury duty who either dont think people should sue other people, or dont believe in awarding damages. I'd done jury prep where in an semi-urban Southern county where 40+% of respondents said that corporations should not earn profits. Juries are made of people. I dont want to say most people are mouth breathing idiots, but certainly 1 of every 12 people are.
I can't... actually don't want to... imagine how'd I'd try to comfort my child after that.
"I wish this town was safer. I don’t want it to be like this any more" - Four-year-old Dae’Anne - ( New Window )
Quote:
As more people carry this will be more common. It's mind boggling when you think about it. The odds of accidental death are much greater than using a gun to save your life.
If you are a strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, and not a hypocrite, then this case should absolutely outrage you.
Castile had a conceal permit and legal ownership of his gun. As the video illustrated, he demonstrated compliance during the traffic stop by providing his insurance card. He calmly disclosed to the police officer that he had his firearm on him. Compounded with the presence of a young child in the car it was not reasonable for the officer to perceive a threat.
I'm not sure why anyone would be comfortable with the precedent that has been set here that involves excusing a person of authority from killing someone just because the mere presence of a man's (legally owned) firearm.
ctc in ftmyers : 9:07 am : link : reply
In comment 13505829 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
As more people carry this will be more common. It's mind boggling when you think about it. The odds of accidental death are much greater than using a gun to save your life.
Actually the NRA and multiple concealed carry organizations have reacted. Just something the media doesn't report on. I get multiple emails daily from various concealed weapons organizations on a number of topics that would be of concern. Interaction with LE is and has been a common topic.
These organizations support police and the 2nd amendment. Except for using this as a teachable incident for both, which is happening, what kind of reaction were you expecting?
I stand by my statement. I have no idea what happened in tragic situation. All I can opine is if either party acted with a sliver of common sense, we wouldn't be talking about it now. I will not take a side except to opine that there needs to be more training on both sides.
Others think "I'm worried I might be shot or be a victim of police brutality".
When a large group of people feel the second way we have a problem. When that same large group immediately identifies the cause by thinking... "because I'm black", then we have an even bigger problem.
We need to help stop these thought processes. We don't need anyone to experience fear because they are being pulled over, even if they are somehow breaking a law.
My only concern about #blacklivesmatter is that I worry it promotes more of the second type of thinking, which doesn't help the situation.
Clearly we have some systems in place to handle bad cops. But it's also pretty clear that these systems need to be reviewed and improved. It's not enough to simply take a counter position - #bluelivesmatter - which doesn't help or even demonstrate any resolve to fix the overall problem. We need to determine what can be done to better address the problem of our fellow citizens living in fear of LEO. They're here to "protect & serve". How can we build a climate where all people feel they can trust that this is actually happening - freeing up our LEO to go about helping create a society of law & order?
It seems that better training and police/community involvement should be part of the solution and we ought to focusing on iterating best practices across the country. There are people who are in denial about this issue and opposed to these types of efforts. I don't understand that mentality.
Others think "I'm worried I might be shot or be a victim of police brutality".
When a large group of people feel the second way we have a problem. When that same large group immediately identifies the cause by thinking... "because I'm black", then we have an even bigger problem.
We need to help stop these thought processes. We don't need anyone to experience fear because they are being pulled over, even if they are somehow breaking a law.
My only concern about #blacklivesmatter is that I worry it promotes more of the second type of thinking, which doesn't help the situation.
Clearly we have some systems in place to handle bad cops. But it's also pretty clear that these systems need to be reviewed and improved. It's not enough to simply take a counter position - #bluelivesmatter - which doesn't help or even demonstrate any resolve to fix the overall problem. We need to determine what can be done to better address the problem of our fellow citizens living in fear of LEO. They're here to "protect & serve". How can we build a climate where all people feel they can trust that this is actually happening - freeing up our LEO to go about helping create a society of law & order?
It seems that better training and police/community involvement should be part of the solution and we ought to focusing on iterating best practices across the country. There are people who are in denial about this issue and opposed to these types of efforts. I don't understand that mentality.
Nice post Dan!
Nice post Dan!
Thanks T-Bone - you're a poster I respect very much so your agreement means a lot to me.
I'd love to see some leadership that really gets this issue and works to bring the nation together over this concern, instead of grandstanding.
I know I said that #blacklivesmatter is concerning because it might be exacerbating the problem, but I must credit it as a movement for bringing this to attention nationally.
Steve, the problem is there is not a one size fits all solution.
If you talk to law enforcement, you or a family member are dead. It's just that simple.
Please explain this to the community when kids are graduating that can't read or write under our educational system. What are they going to or are you expecting them to do?
I ask you this because you are an educator.
Steve, the problem is there is not a one size fits all solution.
If you talk to law enforcement, you or a family member are dead. It's just that simple.
Please explain this to the community when kids are graduating that can't read or write under our educational system. What are they going to or are you expecting them to do?
I ask you this because you are an educator.
See, now this is a post that's getting to the heart of the matter.
Pair this with this post this morning:
This is the heart of the problem, in my opinion. It's not a black and white issue, it's a generational poverty issue. I say that as somebody that works in a high poverty, high crime area on a daily basis.
The cycle of violence and the cycle of poverty go hand in hand, and of course the police are going to treat those instances differently, likely more on edge. That's why it's so complicated.
The way I look at the problem is that we need two things; a better set of consequences that are much easier to enforce for officers who use lethal/excessive force in carrying out their duties, and better communication between law-abiding citizens and those LEO's to allay concerns fears in the millions of otherwise safe encounters.
The leaders in the black community need to participate in designing these solutions and in communicating their support. When I say participate, I really mean they should be at the forefront. I look to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to take the lead - designing the system and then bringing local community leaders on board in implementation. Changing people's attitudes/perceptions/fears takes time, so we will have to be patient until then.
What's really working against us right now is the system we have in place for dealing with bad outcomes. Simply put, as much as we try to help people feel better about cops, having acquittals in cases like the Philando Castile makes things difficult. Where is the sense of justice?
FWIW, my son is a cop, so I'm definitely a supporter of police. We have a systemic issue that needs to be fixed and I don't know the solutions, but I imagine that there must be a clear set of consequences (yet undefined) for police negligence that result in accidental death or excessive use of force. Should it be a manslaughter charge? Not sure I agree with that in all cases. But it needs to be something better/different than what we have. LEO's need to be educated and aware of those consequences, and we will have them become much more judicious in the use of lethal weapons and any kind of excessive use of force.
Those LEO's who are too concerned for their own safety will need to look elsewhere for employment. The job requires courage, including a willingness to put their lives at risk and/or face consequences of bad choices.
To me, it's the same with police. You expect them to approach a car in an area where people are getting shot left and right on a daily basis, where they are getting dirty looks and feeling uneasy at all times rolling through these communities where they are unwelcome, where the community refuses to give them any information to help them solve any crimes, where they are treated as a constant enemy, where children are raised to distrust them... the same as in a community where they are welcomed into the schools, at community gatherings, in local businesses and neighborhoods where the biggest thing that happens is somebody commits some sort of white collar crime? It's unreasonable and unrealistic, because the threat of death and other bad shit going down is much higher. You can't fight human emotion. If you feel in danger, no amount of training can suppress that instinct.
Again, was the officer that shot this guy wrong? Yes, I believe so.
But what's the solution? A REAL solution, based in reality that is, that protects both parties. Not a fantasyland solution like the police leaders and community leaders need to come together and poo poo all this behavior... Because it's going to take decades to undo all this shit. It's deeply ingrained in both parties.
We're all viewing this from an ivory tower, here.
Agreed.
Dan in the Springs : 7:52 pm : link : reply
huh? Don't understand this quote:
Quote:
If you talk to law enforcement, you or a family member are dead. It's just that simple.
Right after the Orlando shooting we had the Club Blu shooting here.
You don't think anyone knows anything? I won't say anything more. You think the Mafia had control? Work in these communities. Stories on this locally as late as yesterday. this is 5 months ago. Google club blu. Also google clear lake loop in Fort Myers where a gunman hid under the stairs and shot 2 people at 10:30 on last saturday morning.
Link - ( New Window )
This is fucking bullshit.
Watching the dashcam footage again has infuriated me. The degree some of you people will go to justify this is fucking shameful.
I'm not sure whether you meant the issue is not black and white in the sense of race or complexity, but you seem to give every other reason outside of race for why these incidents keep reoccurring. Until people such as yourself aren't so sensitive (and you are one of the most sensitive posters on this board) to the point that you will absolutely not acknowledge that bias (and we are all biased at least on a subconscious level) has any part to do with our current state, then we are going to hit a further divide than ever before. Poverty goes hand in hand with crime, I won't argue that, but there's also a reason why those neighborhoods are the way they are.
Quote:
in hindsight, Castile was not going for his gun. in real time how was the cop to know that? It's established that C was reaching for something, right after saying he had a gun. the assumption on the part of the cop should first and foremost be that there may be a dangerous situation. a guy saying "I'm not reaching" in no way, shape, or form, eliminates that assumption. Having a wife, or child, in the car in no way eliminates that assumption. So when C continues to reach, in spite being told not to, the officer should hold on to the assumption that danger is present.
Disgustingly apologist.
This is fucking bullshit.
Watching the dashcam footage again has infuriated me. The degree some of you people will go to justify this is fucking shameful.
I won't defend the cop and I have no idea the moves Castile was making to incite getting shot that many times.
The main thing that bothers me is that these cops arent trained to shoot to WOUND. Yes, when gunshots are being fired at you you shoot to kill. But that close? Press the gun to his shoulder and shoot. You probably shatter his shoulder at worst, flesh wound that does not allow him to wield a gun effectively at best. But 5/6 shots 2 feet away center mass? Even if he panicked that os poorly trained officer.
I'm not sure whether you meant the issue is not black and white in the sense of race or complexity, but you seem to give every other reason outside of race for why these incidents keep reoccurring. Until people such as yourself aren't so sensitive (and you are one of the most sensitive posters on this board) to the point that you will absolutely not acknowledge that bias (and we are all biased at least on a subconscious level) has any part to do with our current state, then we are going to hit a further divide than ever before. Poverty goes hand in hand with crime, I won't argue that, but there's also a reason why those neighborhoods are the way they are.
David, you and I have had problems nefore and gotten over them recently. But you calling Britt's post a rant or nonsensical is just provocative and illinformed as he has a much better perspective of how kids become adult criminals.
The long winded story about having to be pressured to get kids from broken homes and impoverished parts to keep up with the students in the police embracing white neighborhoods has nothing to do with Philando Castile's death. For this particular case, it's wasted keystrokes. Let's just call it what it is. Someone that shouldn't have been a cop saw a black guy in a white neighborhood, and then panicked when he saw the gun. I'm not going to call him a racist, or even a bad person. He just wasn't fit for the job. He wasn't in a position where he had to be on alert coming into the situation. It is a city with literally a tick over 8,000 people, not some place where he has to keep his head on a swivel.
And how did the cop know the victim had smoked marijuana? It's ridiculous to think that could have entered the cop's thought process.
that's what he said, so I don't think belief matters.
That is what he said, but it apparently has no relation to what Castille was actually doing. You don't see that as relevant?
How exactly do we know that the guy was still reaching? Odds are just as good that the cop is a fucking moron, and there's nothing the victim could have done with his arms that the cop wouldn't have registered as a "reach" for something.
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
On the one hand, you're holding the victim responsible for not figuring out the safest thing to do with his hands in the four seconds the cop escalates from "Don't reach for it" to BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Then on the other, you think it's unreasonable to expect the cop to recover from his own confusion and shock within 4 minutes?
it's obvious mistakes were made all around. I don't think it amounted to criminal behavior. the jury, which heard all the evidence, didn't think it amounted to criminal behavior.
It may sound like I'm blaming the victim. To a certain extent I am. a person who possesses a firearm, is licensed to carry it, who has presence of mind to know that he should make the officer aware of it, who (according to many) is in daily fear for his life from the police simply because he's black, should also have the presence of mind to keep his hands where the officer can see them. I also blame the officer who came to a decision much too fast. But I don't find it to be criminal behavior.
Quote:
In comment 13506127 fkap said:
Quote:
in hindsight, Castile was not going for his gun. in real time how was the cop to know that? It's established that C was reaching for something, right after saying he had a gun. the assumption on the part of the cop should first and foremost be that there may be a dangerous situation. a guy saying "I'm not reaching" in no way, shape, or form, eliminates that assumption. Having a wife, or child, in the car in no way eliminates that assumption. So when C continues to reach, in spite being told not to, the officer should hold on to the assumption that danger is present.
Disgustingly apologist.
This is fucking bullshit.
Watching the dashcam footage again has infuriated me. The degree some of you people will go to justify this is fucking shameful.
I won't defend the cop and I have no idea the moves Castile was making to incite getting shot that many times.
The main thing that bothers me is that these cops arent trained to shoot to WOUND. Yes, when gunshots are being fired at you you shoot to kill. But that close? Press the gun to his shoulder and shoot. You probably shatter his shoulder at worst, flesh wound that does not allow him to wield a gun effectively at best. But 5/6 shots 2 feet away center mass? Even if he panicked that os poorly trained officer.
it's obvious mistakes were made all around. I don't think it amounted to criminal behavior. the jury, which heard all the evidence, didn't think it amounted to criminal behavior.
It may sound like I'm blaming the victim. To a certain extent I am. a person who possesses a firearm, is licensed to carry it, who has presence of mind to know that he should make the officer aware of it, who (according to many) is in daily fear for his life from the police simply because he's black, should also have the presence of mind to keep his hands where the officer can see them. I also blame the officer who came to a decision much too fast. But I don't find it to be criminal behavior.
At least you admit you're blaming the innocent man shot to death.
Too bad it's not his fault, and this just shows your bias.
There is so much wrong with this post. Your hyperbole of "daily fear because he is black" is absurd and such a transparent way to try and paint those discussing this with you as unreasonable.
The argument about "presence of mind" is so laughable when you sit there and make excuses for a cop who had the "presence of mind" to stick his hand through a window and murder a man in front of his girlfriend and daughter.
This is inexcusable and it boggles my mind that someone can look at this and think this is the victim's fault.
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I have and I have been in my share of firefights as well and know how difficult those situations are. However, as a law abiding and tax paying citizen, I feel that it is our place to criticize when we believe that there is injustice. This police officer may be a great guy or not, and it doesn't matter. All that matter is that his actions led to another man's death needlessly. And because he's an officer of the law, he is given a pass. There is something so wrong with that.
Excellent post
As you said, there are some schools where teaching is much more challenging than others. In those schools those teachers are VERY prone to thinking about how challenging that environment is. They can easily find blame for student ineptitude everywhere but there own classroom.
But here's the thing. What is their duty? Their duty is to be an example every single day to the kids. Their duty is to believe in their students and inspire them, in spite of their circumstances. Their duty is to challenge those students to rise up.
Does every teacher every day rise to this challenge? Are there not moments of weakness when the teacher doesn't do right by the student? Perhaps. But if those moments persist then the teacher needs to get out. Perhaps out of that school to a different school, or perhaps out of teaching.
A cop's duty is to be brave, to enter into scary, dangerous situations, and still be prepared to act to defend innocent lives. Just as the teacher in a challenging school should not succumb to their doubts about a child's ability, neither should the officer allow their fear to drive them to behaviors that endanger innocent lives. If the officer finds himself afraid because he is called to stop a vehicle that *might* have someone dangerous inside, or because the owner announces they have a gun, they should get out of that field immediately, because they are only creating a more dangerous situation.
Basically we have a case where a black guy is pulled over, and the officer was so keyed up and fearful that he shot him. The system we have in place simply says - "Bummer. It's how it goes for black folk. Cops could get shot by one, ya know, so they have to be prepared when they pull one over."
Obviously I'm using this rhetoric to make a point. The officer who is in control of their fear is in control of their behavior, and in control of the situation. It's their duty to conquer their fears and act accordingly.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
Anyway, I want to make something clear. As I said, my son is a law enforcement officer. All of his friends are cops.
One of my best friends in high school is a cop. I am pro-cop 100%. I honor him and all officers for their willingness to do a job bravely. We need to do more to show appreciation and respect for officers.
But our system of justice is broken if there are virtually no consequences following a situation like this. Why? These kinds of situations only reinforce a notion in many, many people that they are unsafe around cops. That cops can't be trusted. That cops protect their own and that cops don't care about people of color. This notion increases the danger for many, many more cops. If you love cops, you want to stop that. You want to find a way to increase the level of support in ALL communities for law enforcement. This will help prevent situations like the ones you describe in Club Blu, where entire communities are unwilling to talk to the police, where police have become the enemy, the guy in the black hat, the one you root against.
It's a problem and it needs a resolution.
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
Great point
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
To me, it's the same with police. You expect them to approach a car in an area where people are getting shot left and right on a daily basis, where they are getting dirty looks and feeling uneasy at all times rolling through these communities where they are unwelcome, where the community refuses to give them any information to help them solve any crimes, where they are treated as a constant enemy, where children are raised to distrust them... the same as in a community where they are welcomed into the schools, at community gatherings, in local businesses and neighborhoods where the biggest thing that happens is somebody commits some sort of white collar crime? It's unreasonable and unrealistic, because the threat of death and other bad shit going down is much higher. You can't fight human emotion. If you feel in danger, no amount of training can suppress that instinct.
If this cop had followed procedure and treated this traffic stop like a high risk stop then PC would never have been shot. The casual manner in which he approached a car that he believed might have a robbery suspect is what led to all this.
The killing of Castile was a tragedy and the cop in question was absolutely guilty of a crime. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as meaning anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that as a practical matter, if you carry, you have to go above, beyond, and then maybe a few miles further towards not getting shot by one of these jumpy assholes.
I understand the problems that come from criticizing LEO after the fact. I worry about it all the time. But we have to do a better job of holding LEO accountable when these things happen or we only widen the gap between them and the communities they serve.
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
This
Not only that though...the fact that there were two other occupants in the car makes his reaction that much more infuriating (if that's even possible at this point). To shoot that many rounds in point blank range into a small confined space seems an overkill, and based on the dash cam video, he definitely panicked the way he seemed to wildly shoot into the car at an awkward angle.
He freaked out and panicked by mere gesturing of the victim even after the victim informed him that he was carrying legally. The victim never even actually pull his firearm out! The officer specified that he was in fear for his life, and if you're going to fear for your life at mere gesturing of a man, who is legally carrying a firearm, you have escalated the situation from 0 to 60 without any intermediate steps. That's not a man, who should have ever been allowed to be a cop. And while I don't believe that the officer was a racist, you also can't deny that the victims race didn't somehow play a subconscious role in such a panicked reaction by this poorly selected officer.
Ask yourself, if you think that the officer would have had the same panicked reaction if an older white woman would have acted in the exact manner as the victim (informing the officer of her firearm and trying to pull out her wallet to show the officer her conceal carry license). If your answer is yes, then it's another proof that the officer should never have been given a badge and gun. If your answer is no, then the victim's race definitely played a role in the officer's panicked reaction. Either way, the officer is at fault in this tragic incident.
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
++1000000
That's the thing that gets me as well. The officer walks up like he has no care in the world for what he says is a potential robbery suspect. The interaction seems pretty calm for what can be a potentially dangerous situation. Then almost immediately after the victim tells the officer that he has a firearm that he can legally carry, the situation goes to "I was fearing for my life" by this officer. Seriously, I am so dumbfounded by the whole situation and the verdict and people saying how the officer is not at fault for the man's death.
The officer created the situation and then ended it in the most awful and wrong manner that a situation like this could have ended. I'm surprised that the girlfriend and the child were not also shot accidentally in the officer's panicked reaction.
And then the panicked officer was so in "shock" that he waited four full minutes before helping his fellow officer render first aid to the victim. Once again, here is a man, who had ABSOLUTELY no business being a police officer.
The killing of Castile was a tragedy and the cop in question was absolutely guilty of a crime. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as meaning anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that as a practical matter, if you carry, you have to go above, beyond, and then maybe a few miles further towards not getting shot by one of these jumpy assholes.
In many ways I agree with this, especially if you're a person of color. And we know that the victim has been pulled over more than 40 times. He may have dealt with other officers, who weren't nearly as panicky when he informed them of his firearm...who knows.
Unfortunately and fortunately (I guess), my NC conceal carry license was not valid in MD, so I never carried my handgun on me (not even to the range as I locked it up in the trunk) and thus never had to deal with situation like what you're talking about.
What's the thought process there?
What's the thought process there?
Listening to the little girl's comments is so heartbreaking and maddening. Ugh.
David in LA - All due respect to Britt (who I've always been cool with) but I agree 100% with your 12:35 am post and was going to say the same thing when I got back to my laptop this morning (I didn't feel like typing a response on my phone). You're introducing something into this conversation, Britt, that really doesn't apply... and to be honest, is not completely true in my opinion. Like David said, this incident happened in a well to do area and if the officer was THAT concerned about his safety he should've handled the situation the way he was supposedly trained to do. This kind of stuff doesn't only happen in rough neighborhoods though. There was a story just a few months ago of a guy who has been working on his luxury car (I think it was a Lexus) and a woman who happened to be passing by thought he was stealing the car and the police stopped him... told him to get out of the car with his hands up (which is what he did) and they immediately tackled him like he was trying to run from them. After they found out what was really going on, all he got as a 'my bad'. There's that 'inconvenience' I was talking about earlier in this thread.
Also, this is also happening to other black men who happened to be retired officers. You're seeing stories come out now where a black man who used to be an officer (retired) was brutalized by his own and they experienced first hand what we civilians go through every day. So it's not just thugs out on the street who are going through this but well-off men as well. Remember that scene in the movie 'Crash' where Terrance Howard, who was playing a movie producer of some kind, was pulled over and his wife harassed by a police officer (who was having a bad day dealing with his father's medial issues... played by Matt Dillon) and felt all over by the cop? That really happens. That's real life. Racism and police brutality can, has and will impact any man or woman regardless of race, financial status or celebrity.
You just seem intent of placing full blame on the victims of this and not believing that sometimes... it's not the victims fault.
I just want to state for the record, I wouldn't consider myself 'anti-cop'. I respect them and the job they have to do. I don't see one and automatically assume that given the chance they'd want to do me harm just because of who I am and who they are. That said, I've had my own bad experiences with some of them... so I know what it feels like. I've experienced the fear of seeing them approach my car with their hand already on their holster and not knowing what's going to happen next. It's a feeling of powerlessness that is pretty scary to experience... particularly when you know that you can try to do EVERYTHING correct... and still get shot for it... and even worse, the shooter won't receive any punishment for it... and these are guys who are supposed to PROTECT you. You can try to imagine what that feels like, but unless/until you actually go through it... you can't understand how frustrating that can be. It's almost like having a 'master' over you where if that officer tells you to get out and bark like a dog... if you want to live, you best get out and get to barking... whether you did anything illegal or not doesn't matter.
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
Last week, I saw someone post this picture on Facebook that echoes the same sentiment
Quote:
Is that people give the police, who are supposed to be trained professionals, a very wide latitude to screw up, make mistakes, act out of panic or fear, etc.
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
Last week, I saw someone post this picture on Facebook that echoes the same sentiment
I posted that very picture in the latest Kaepernick thread just last week.
As you said, there are some schools where teaching is much more challenging than others. In those schools those teachers are VERY prone to thinking about how challenging that environment is. They can easily find blame for student ineptitude everywhere but there own classroom.
But here's the thing. What is their duty? Their duty is to be an example every single day to the kids. Their duty is to believe in their students and inspire them, in spite of their circumstances. Their duty is to challenge those students to rise up.
Does every teacher every day rise to this challenge? Are there not moments of weakness when the teacher doesn't do right by the student? Perhaps. But if those moments persist then the teacher needs to get out. Perhaps out of that school to a different school, or perhaps out of teaching.
A cop's duty is to be brave, to enter into scary, dangerous situations, and still be prepared to act to defend innocent lives. Just as the teacher in a challenging school should not succumb to their doubts about a child's ability, neither should the officer allow their fear to drive them to behaviors that endanger innocent lives. If the officer finds himself afraid because he is called to stop a vehicle that *might* have someone dangerous inside, or because the owner announces they have a gun, they should get out of that field immediately, because they are only creating a more dangerous situation.
Basically we have a case where a black guy is pulled over, and the officer was so keyed up and fearful that he shot him. The system we have in place simply says - "Bummer. It's how it goes for black folk. Cops could get shot by one, ya know, so they have to be prepared when they pull one over."
Obviously I'm using this rhetoric to make a point. The officer who is in control of their fear is in control of their behavior, and in control of the situation. It's their duty to conquer their fears and act accordingly.
Dan, that is a reasonable post so I would be happy to respond....
They ARE leaving. In record droves. We're at 36 and counting in my school alone this year, of a 100 teacher staff.
Same thing is happening in law enforcement. And ironically, the teachers and police officers aren't leaving because of the people they teach/protect, but rather because of political and public pressure. Here's what's happening in Virginia right now, and nationwide (in education as well. Record numbers).
And the problem is, nobody wants to replace them. We are about to face a crisis in both situations.
“These are detectives, they’re officers that have been with the department anywhere from five to 10 years,” explained Detective Brad Nixon, who is Vice President of the Richmond Coalition of Police.
Even more concerning, Nixon reveals to 8News that the cops who are calling it quits are veterans in the prime of their career.
“They have the college degree, they have the experience,” says Nixon.
cop3The national scrutiny surrounding policing combined with low morale, low pay and officers under attack has many cops.
“The law enforcement profession may not be respected by the general public they way it used to be,” says Schrad. “When you lose that, it is very hard to remain motivated.”
Now a lot of people here will say "good riddance". I say "now what?"
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
Probably, but in picking sides it probably helps that the other side of this was not a guy who looks like the typical NRA member/vocal supporter.
Quote:
In comment 13507288 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
Probably, but in picking sides it probably helps that the other side of this was not a guy who looks like the typical NRA member/vocal supporter.
Also, lets not pretend that race and the "culture of cop worship..." you describe are some how completely unrelated.
Quote:
all the respect in the world to you. I know you work hard and are committed to your profession. I say that because I'm going to use your teaching analogy to make a point and I don't want you taking it personal - I'm not attacking you.
As you said, there are some schools where teaching is much more challenging than others. In those schools those teachers are VERY prone to thinking about how challenging that environment is. They can easily find blame for student ineptitude everywhere but there own classroom.
But here's the thing. What is their duty? Their duty is to be an example every single day to the kids. Their duty is to believe in their students and inspire them, in spite of their circumstances. Their duty is to challenge those students to rise up.
Does every teacher every day rise to this challenge? Are there not moments of weakness when the teacher doesn't do right by the student? Perhaps. But if those moments persist then the teacher needs to get out. Perhaps out of that school to a different school, or perhaps out of teaching.
A cop's duty is to be brave, to enter into scary, dangerous situations, and still be prepared to act to defend innocent lives. Just as the teacher in a challenging school should not succumb to their doubts about a child's ability, neither should the officer allow their fear to drive them to behaviors that endanger innocent lives. If the officer finds himself afraid because he is called to stop a vehicle that *might* have someone dangerous inside, or because the owner announces they have a gun, they should get out of that field immediately, because they are only creating a more dangerous situation.
Basically we have a case where a black guy is pulled over, and the officer was so keyed up and fearful that he shot him. The system we have in place simply says - "Bummer. It's how it goes for black folk. Cops could get shot by one, ya know, so they have to be prepared when they pull one over."
Obviously I'm using this rhetoric to make a point. The officer who is in control of their fear is in control of their behavior, and in control of the situation. It's their duty to conquer their fears and act accordingly.
Dan, that is a reasonable post so I would be happy to respond....
They ARE leaving. In record droves. We're at 36 and counting in my school alone this year, of a 100 teacher staff.
Same thing is happening in law enforcement. And ironically, the teachers and police officers aren't leaving because of the people they teach/protect, but rather because of political and public pressure. Here's what's happening in Virginia right now, and nationwide (in education as well. Record numbers).
And the problem is, nobody wants to replace them. We are about to face a crisis in both situations.
Quote:
In the first nine months of this year, 103 Virginia State Troopers left the force. Over the past four years, the Richmond Police Department has lost nearly 100 officers. Last year alone, 30 resigned.
“These are detectives, they’re officers that have been with the department anywhere from five to 10 years,” explained Detective Brad Nixon, who is Vice President of the Richmond Coalition of Police.
Even more concerning, Nixon reveals to 8News that the cops who are calling it quits are veterans in the prime of their career.
“They have the college degree, they have the experience,” says Nixon.
Quote:
“We are seeing it across the country,” says Dana Schrad at the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. She added that many of these officers resigning are leaving policing period.
cop3The national scrutiny surrounding policing combined with low morale, low pay and officers under attack has many cops.
“The law enforcement profession may not be respected by the general public they way it used to be,” says Schrad. “When you lose that, it is very hard to remain motivated.”
Now a lot of people here will say "good riddance". I say "now what?" Link - ( New Window )
What makes you think a lot of people HERE would say 'good riddance'?
Speaking for myself, I know I'm not. That's alarming. But unfortunately, some of that is because of their own actions (not all of it, but some of it) in the past. As I've said, I think most people (except for the truly criminal among us) have no problem with good police officers... but one bad apple can ruin the whole cart.
Completely? Maybe not, but I can assure you that most NRA types excuse police shootings of any variety. I can't tell you how many fruitless arguments I've had over the shootings of Deven Guilford and Daniel Shaver, for example.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
Untrained private citizens, on the other hand, are expected to act an a calm, rational and composed manner, to follow all the instructions to the letter and to do the exact right thing in any encounter with law enforcement, or anything that happens is their fault and the police are blameless.
Someone pulls a gun on on you, points it at your face and starts screaming at you from a couple feet away. What would you do? In those few seconds before they're going to pull the trigger, would you be calm and collected enough to process what's going on, rationally assess the situation and take the correct action? In this situation, what would that action be? Freeze? Put your hands on the steering wheel? Ask for further instructions?
Great Post ... I was thinking the same thing.
Also T-Bone you make a lot of excellent points on this thread, I feel the same way you do on most things. I just didn't have the patience to post about it after watching that video, it bothered me way too much.
Quote:
Also, lets not pretend that race and the "culture of cop worship..." you describe are some how completely unrelated.
Completely? Maybe not, but I can assure you that most NRA types excuse police shootings of any variety. I can't tell you how many fruitless arguments I've had over the shootings of Deven Guilford and Daniel Shaver, for example.
It would be too much of a tangent for this thread to fully explore. I think the police are worshiped by some because they're viewed as standing up for the good America of lore against the inner city throngs and immigrants who would over run and undo this great country.
Quote:
In comment 13507277 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
all the respect in the world to you. I know you work hard and are committed to your profession. I say that because I'm going to use your teaching analogy to make a point and I don't want you taking it personal - I'm not attacking you.
As you said, there are some schools where teaching is much more challenging than others. In those schools those teachers are VERY prone to thinking about how challenging that environment is. They can easily find blame for student ineptitude everywhere but there own classroom.
But here's the thing. What is their duty? Their duty is to be an example every single day to the kids. Their duty is to believe in their students and inspire them, in spite of their circumstances. Their duty is to challenge those students to rise up.
Does every teacher every day rise to this challenge? Are there not moments of weakness when the teacher doesn't do right by the student? Perhaps. But if those moments persist then the teacher needs to get out. Perhaps out of that school to a different school, or perhaps out of teaching.
A cop's duty is to be brave, to enter into scary, dangerous situations, and still be prepared to act to defend innocent lives. Just as the teacher in a challenging school should not succumb to their doubts about a child's ability, neither should the officer allow their fear to drive them to behaviors that endanger innocent lives. If the officer finds himself afraid because he is called to stop a vehicle that *might* have someone dangerous inside, or because the owner announces they have a gun, they should get out of that field immediately, because they are only creating a more dangerous situation.
Basically we have a case where a black guy is pulled over, and the officer was so keyed up and fearful that he shot him. The system we have in place simply says - "Bummer. It's how it goes for black folk. Cops could get shot by one, ya know, so they have to be prepared when they pull one over."
Obviously I'm using this rhetoric to make a point. The officer who is in control of their fear is in control of their behavior, and in control of the situation. It's their duty to conquer their fears and act accordingly.
Dan, that is a reasonable post so I would be happy to respond....
They ARE leaving. In record droves. We're at 36 and counting in my school alone this year, of a 100 teacher staff.
Same thing is happening in law enforcement. And ironically, the teachers and police officers aren't leaving because of the people they teach/protect, but rather because of political and public pressure. Here's what's happening in Virginia right now, and nationwide (in education as well. Record numbers).
And the problem is, nobody wants to replace them. We are about to face a crisis in both situations.
Quote:
In the first nine months of this year, 103 Virginia State Troopers left the force. Over the past four years, the Richmond Police Department has lost nearly 100 officers. Last year alone, 30 resigned.
“These are detectives, they’re officers that have been with the department anywhere from five to 10 years,” explained Detective Brad Nixon, who is Vice President of the Richmond Coalition of Police.
Even more concerning, Nixon reveals to 8News that the cops who are calling it quits are veterans in the prime of their career.
“They have the college degree, they have the experience,” says Nixon.
Quote:
“We are seeing it across the country,” says Dana Schrad at the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. She added that many of these officers resigning are leaving policing period.
cop3The national scrutiny surrounding policing combined with low morale, low pay and officers under attack has many cops.
“The law enforcement profession may not be respected by the general public they way it used to be,” says Schrad. “When you lose that, it is very hard to remain motivated.”
Now a lot of people here will say "good riddance". I say "now what?" Link - ( New Window )
What makes you think a lot of people HERE would say 'good riddance'?
Speaking for myself, I know I'm not. That's alarming. But unfortunately, some of that is because of their own actions (not all of it, but some of it) in the past. As I've said, I think most people (except for the truly criminal among us) have no problem with good police officers... but one bad apple can ruin the whole cart.
T-bone, I do not lump you in that category by any means. In fact, I really reflect on what you say, have said, on this thread (and others) over all other posts. Frankly, because I have no idea what it's like to be a police officer, but more importantly because I do not know what it's like to be a person of color in that situation, nor do I pretend to. I can only try to empathize with both sides.
My statement was more directed at the general public, which I also believe we have a small but vocal contingent of here, in regards to being very critical of authority in general.
All of my posts on this thread, and this subject, have been bigger picture rather than any single instance/circumstance. I know what the problem is, but I'm more interested in the solution. And frankly, here, there, or everywhere, I haven't really heard a realistic one yet. But I'm all ears.
It's going to take some difficult, hard conversations on ALL sides of this argument. Frankly, I agree with the very small post lost earlier in this thread. We need leaders in this country. Not bosses, but leaders.
I'm not anti gun ownership, but I personally don't like them. So my opinions are not formed based on the 2nd amendment. I feel like that's relevant to say.
But that is a topic for another thread. This is about the challenge of finding justice for victims of police violence/abuse of power. Can we find solutions? I believe we can, but it will require great leadership, overcoming our divides (political, racial, etc.) and focusing on real solutions.
Right now some seem be claiming that there is no real problem here.
Exactly. Posters who point out ad nauseum that Castille was told not to reach for the weapon 3 times act as though those orders were spoken over a 30 second time period. He went from the first "Don't reach for it" to emptying his clip into another human being in 4 fuckin seconds. During those 4 seconds, I can easily imagine Castille trying to process the best way to proceed and not even suspecting he'd be killed before an average person can tie a shoe.
I know these posters are capable of imagining how such a stressful situation can compromise one's faculties -- they make that very allowance to excuse the cop not performing any sort of medical act for four minutes.
Agreed.
The problem I have with T's poster about expecting civilians to act calm, even though police don't have to, is that Castile WAS calm, and acted in a manner the officer found threatening. Criminy, hands in the air, keep your hands where I can see them, etc is pull over 101. Castile didn't panic. he did something stupid. The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted. Was he too quick on the trigger? probably. Was it criminal negligence? myself and the jury think not. This isn't apologizing for any cop. they can be assholes.
The problem I have with T's poster about expecting civilians to act calm, even though police don't have to, is that Castile WAS calm, and acted in a manner the officer found threatening. Criminy, hands in the air, keep your hands where I can see them, etc is pull over 101. Castile didn't panic. he did something stupid. The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted. Was he too quick on the trigger? probably. Was it criminal negligence? myself and the jury think not. This isn't apologizing for any cop. they can be assholes.
This is a Bullshit excuse and if you don't see a panicked cop in that video I don't know what the hell you were watching. Castile probably thought that he would calmly tell the cop he had a gun, show his ID and everything would be fine. All of that changes when a panicked person sticks a pistol in your face and starts screaming orders. He now has a few seconds to react just like the cop did.
In your eyes, it's okay for the cop to clearly do something he was not supposed to do (put his hand in a window at a traffic stop when he thinks he's in danger with his gun, shoot someone to death) -- but at the same time, the victim's fault.
There's no rationale response to that other than pointing out your irrationality, and underscoring your hyperbolic comment about black people "living in daily fear of getting shot by the police" as a supporting argument regarding your irrationality.
At this point, it's almost pointless to convince you. You won't ever believe anything other than what you want to fit your narrative. But maybe pointing out the absurdities of your argument can sway others.
The problem I have with T's poster about expecting civilians to act calm, even though police don't have to, is that Castile WAS calm, and acted in a manner the officer found threatening. Criminy, hands in the air, keep your hands where I can see them, etc is pull over 101. Castile didn't panic. he did something stupid. The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted. Was he too quick on the trigger? probably. Was it criminal negligence? myself and the jury think not. This isn't apologizing for any cop. they can be assholes.
fkap - as BigBlueDawg said, if you don't see a panicked cop in that video, there's really nothing else for us to discuss.
That said, your post above is EXACTLY why that poster is so true. You've placed every emphasis on the untrained civilian to do EVERYTHING right in a high pressure situation (getting pulled over by a cop... for a black man (especially in these times, it doesn't get much more high pressured than that) and have placed NOTHING on the trained individual to do ANYTHING right.
All Castile knew was that he was being pulled over for a busted taillight. He didn't know the cop was REALLY pulling him over because he matched the description of a robbery suspect from a few days ago. Had the officer either acted the way he should've acted when trying to arrest a suspected bank robber (make the individual get out of the car with his hands up) OR had he been honest with Castile in the first place as to why he was pulled over (matching the description of a bank robber, perhaps Castile would've been more careful in reaching for anything. As far as Castile knew, he was just pulled over for a stupid broken taillight and there was no reason for the officer to be alarmed or perceive him as any kind of threat.
Which is what he did and was supposed to do. Now why, upon hearing this, if the officer was suddenly that concerned about being ambushed and shot by the person who just told him he had the gun, didn't he position himself in a way that HAD Castile gone full on stupid and tried to shoot him with that gun he'd be in a better position to be missed by the shots? Again, remember, the cop saw Castile as a threat, Castile had no reason to think he was being threatening to a cop who pulled him over just for a broken taillight.
Again, maybe because Castile didn't know the real reason why he was being pulled over in the first place?
Of course he was calm... he had no reason not to be (as far as HE (Castile) knew). As far as he knew, at worst he was about to get a ticket for a broken taillight. Not be arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank a few days ago.
The only 'stupid' thing he did was apparently reach for his wallet when told to get his ID by the officer. Then again... he was just following the officer's orders so I don't know how 'stupid' that could be.
Again, if you don't see a panicked cop in that video then there's really nothing else to say.
This line is the one that REALLY bothers me. 'Probably'? After knowing EVERYTHING that's gone down after he was killed... you REALLY think that the cop WASN'T too quick on the trigger? That thinking right there is why I get very nervous when I get pulled over. Because there are people out there... that after seeing what's happened and learning about everything since the shooting... still don't think the officer did anything wrong. That's scary.
Quote:
because other officers are routinely acquitted on bad shoots probably shouldnt be cops.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
I don't get why police don't want people who do things like what this cop did to Castille to be prosecuted.
The problem I have with T's poster about expecting civilians to act calm, even though police don't have to, is that Castile WAS calm, and acted in a manner the officer found threatening. Criminy, hands in the air, keep your hands where I can see them, etc is pull over 101. Castile didn't panic. he did something stupid. The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted. Was he too quick on the trigger? probably. Was it criminal negligence? myself and the jury think not. This isn't apologizing for any cop. they can be assholes.
You say Castille did something stupid... but keep making excuses for the man who murdered a calm person in front of his family.
On another note, I also want to know why the hell they handcuffed Reynolds. It's a quick detail to gloss over, but goes a long way towards the mindset of some who have authority over others.
Quote:
Is that people give the police, who are supposed to be trained professionals, a very wide latitude to screw up, make mistakes, act out of panic or fear, etc.
Exactly. Posters who point out ad nauseum that Castille was told not to reach for the weapon 3 times act as though those orders were spoken over a 30 second time period. He went from the first "Don't reach for it" to emptying his clip into another human being in 4 fuckin seconds. During those 4 seconds, I can easily imagine Castille trying to process the best way to proceed and not even suspecting he'd be killed before an average person can tie a shoe.
I know these posters are capable of imagining how such a stressful situation can compromise one's faculties -- they make that very allowance to excuse the cop not performing any sort of medical act for four minutes.
Nicely stated.
Quote:
In comment 13507482 Deej said:
Quote:
because other officers are routinely acquitted on bad shoots probably shouldnt be cops.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
Which can be avoided by addressing the problem and instilling accountability instead of what occurs today.
I don't get why police don't want people who do things like what this cop did to Castille to be prosecuted.
"Police". You think it's the majority of police or a very small percentage that feel this way?
You think police officers like Dan's son are part of some sinister plot to kill innocent civilians and get away with it, laughing all the way to the armory?
We need to stop demonizing entire professions for a very small contingent of that profession doing this.
Because of all the silliness that happened before this, we haven't even really gotten to this part yet! They have her handcuffed in the back of the squad car like THEY did something wrong. What exactly were they being arrested/detained for? Live streaming the cop killing her boyfriend?
Quote:
In comment 13507509 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13507482 Deej said:
Quote:
because other officers are routinely acquitted on bad shoots probably shouldnt be cops.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
Which can be avoided by addressing the problem and instilling accountability instead of what occurs today.
I don't get why police don't want people who do things like what this cop did to Castille to be prosecuted.
"Police". You think it's the majority of police or a very small percentage that feel this way?
You think police officers like Dan's son are part of some sinister plot to kill innocent civilians and get away with it, laughing all the way to the armory?
We need to stop demonizing entire professions for a very small contingent of that profession doing this.
Not 100% sure but I think Sonic had a bit of dyslexia there and meant to say...
Quote:
the problem I have with your stance, and many others here, is that Castile had extended time to assess his situation. He knew he had a gun, and that could present a problem. He knew he should notify the officer that he had a gun. He knew this when pulled over. he had a lot of time to process the situation. How is it not reasonable to expect him to also know that, having recognized that having a gun would create a situation, and having the presence of mind to inform the officer, should also recognize the necessity to not give the officer cause for alarm (such as reaching for something)? Castile had plenty of time to assess the situation. The officer had mere seconds.
The problem I have with T's poster about expecting civilians to act calm, even though police don't have to, is that Castile WAS calm, and acted in a manner the officer found threatening. Criminy, hands in the air, keep your hands where I can see them, etc is pull over 101. Castile didn't panic. he did something stupid. The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted. Was he too quick on the trigger? probably. Was it criminal negligence? myself and the jury think not. This isn't apologizing for any cop. they can be assholes.
This is a Bullshit excuse and if you don't see a panicked cop in that video I don't know what the hell you were watching. Castile probably thought that he would calmly tell the cop he had a gun, show his ID and everything would be fine. All of that changes when a panicked person sticks a pistol in your face and starts screaming orders. He now has a few seconds to react just like the cop did.
Also missing in this is that the victim had been pulled over more than 40 times previously, yet he survived each one of them. And I am going to assume that at least a handful of time he informed the officers that he had a concealed weapon. So what was different in this case? The guy, who most likely went through this kind of stop and conversation about his legal firearm? Or the cop, who went from 0-60 in four seconds flat? Hmmm?
The cop saw it as a threat, and reacted. The cop didn't panic. he saw a threat and reacted.
Again, if you don't see a panicked cop in that video then there's really nothing else to say.
Quote:
Was he too quick on the trigger? probably.
This line is the one that REALLY bothers me. 'Probably'? After knowing EVERYTHING that's gone down after he was killed... you REALLY think that the cop WASN'T too quick on the trigger? That thinking right there is why I get very nervous when I get pulled over. Because there are people out there... that after seeing what's happened and learning about everything since the shooting... still don't think the officer did anything wrong. That's scary.
The officer absolutely panicked. I've seen people panic in life and death situations, and I've seen people panic in non-life and death situations during training. Everything about the officer's actions and body language as well as his voice inflection indicates a sense of panic. Then to top it off, he goes int shock for four minutes leading to the disregarding of providing first aid to a dying man. If that isn't indication of someone, who has hit his limits with regards to emotionally being able to respond to a situation, I don't know what is.
Once again, you can't have someone who is able to assess a situation as being threatening and react in a deliberate manner then all of a sudden go into shock after his own action. That's not how it works, fkap. That's not how it fucking works. You can't have your cake and eat it to in your quest for rationalizing this situation.
Seriously... I get a little nervous when I'm pulling up to my job and see a cop car sitting outside of the building. Why? Because I've had a couple of cops come to my job (this was about 15 years ago) and harass me as a favor to a friend of one of theirs because I wouldn't agree to pay for a dent on his car that I know I didn't cause. The story goes...
I was going through Old Town - Alexandria one day and I came up to a light and by the time I'd stopped I was in the crosswalk. I'd usually just stay there but I looked to my right and noticed a guy in a wheelchair and so decided to back my car up to get out of his way (trying to be a nice guy and do the right thing). Before backing up and looked in my rear view mirror and saw noone behind me so I started easing back... when all of a sudden I hear a horn behind me. I look and there's a guy in his car looking at me as if I'd hit him. I honestly don't know if I hit him or not as I was going back so slowly that when he blew his horn I immediately stopped and didn't feel anything as if I'd hit him. So I continued on through the light but I noticed the guy never moved so I thought to myself 'Shit, I didn't hit that guy did I?'. So I immediately pulled over and he caught up to me and pulled over. The first thing out of his mouth was 'I hope you have insurance.'. I told him at the time I didn't because I'd JUST cancelled mine a few days before because I was about to move in with my girlfriend (now wife of 13 years) and was moving from MD to VA. I looked at his fender and I saw a scratch about the size of a quarter on his fender. Even though I couldn't confirm or deny whether I'd hit him or not, I told him that I'd gladly pay for damage that small and we exchanged numbers and I told him to meet me at a dealership where a buddy of mind could easily fix that little scratch.
Fast forward about a week. We meet at the dealership and when me and my buddy (I'd already explained to him what happened) go out to take a look at the car... the guy doesn't show the both of us the scratch... but instead shows us a dent the size of a softball on the TOP of his hood ALL THE WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOOD FROM THE SCRATCH! I'm like 'Ok... I remember that (and point to the scratch)... but what is this (pointing to the dent)?'. All the guy started saying over and over again is "All I know is I was only in one accident.". My friend pulls me to the side and says 'Hey man, I know there's no way in hell you did that dent... but to save you the trouble I'll take care of the dent, but not the scratch.'. We both went to tell the guy what the deal was and he said he wanted me to pay to get both the dent AND the scratch done. I was like 'Hell no' and I told him I'd pay for the dent but not the scratch. He says 'ok' and we both leave and he was supposed to come back at another time to get the dent fixed.
Fast forward a few days. I come into work and I get a call that there are some police officers downstairs who need to talk to me. As far as I knew I didn't do anything I should've been in trouble for so I gladly go down to the front desk and meet them in one of our conference rooms. It's there that they begin to tell me about an accident they'd received a call about and how I wasn't willing to pay for the damages. They then told me that I can agree to pay for ALL of the damages now, or I can go to jail. Well... what was I going to do at that point? So I wound up having to pay for something I didn't do. I saw the two officers laughing and poking each other as they walked out the building. I never felt so angry... and hopeless... at the same time in my whole life.
So yeah... I've been in a few instances of my own where I wasn't treated fairly.
Quote:
In comment 13507509 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13507482 Deej said:
Quote:
because other officers are routinely acquitted on bad shoots probably shouldnt be cops.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
Which can be avoided by addressing the problem and instilling accountability instead of what occurs today.
I don't get why police don't want people who do things like what this cop did to Castille to be prosecuted.
"Police". You think it's the majority of police or a very small percentage that feel this way?
You think police officers like Dan's son are part of some sinister plot to kill innocent civilians and get away with it, laughing all the way to the armory?
We need to stop demonizing entire professions for a very small contingent of that profession doing this.
I have 2 friends who are cops and I've lost touch with them over the years. We've spoken on facebook a couple times after cop shootings, but I'm not going to claim to know as many police as many on this board.
But I would also think that many police would want to back prosecution of someone like the cop in this Castille case, Walter Scott murder, etc...
Why protect these guys who create problems for your profession when you're just out there doing your job, and don't do shit like that?
So, while I meant people, it kind of goes both ways. I get the fraternal brotherhood aspect of it, but you'd think the "good apples" would want the "bad apples" to pay for all the problems they have created.
That's definitely more productive than the victim blaming narrative of saying Castille, a civilian, had a part in his murder because he didn't think clearly enough with a gun pointed at his family at a traffic stop...
Quote:
In comment 13507509 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13507482 Deej said:
Quote:
because other officers are routinely acquitted on bad shoots probably shouldnt be cops.
I think it might be the reaction they feel when they are doing THEIR job (and not shooting innocents) rather than the acquittals (which may not happen within 500 miles of where they work with people they only know from the newspapers).
Which can be avoided by addressing the problem and instilling accountability instead of what occurs today.
I don't get why police don't want people who do things like what this cop did to Castille to be prosecuted.
"Police". You think it's the majority of police or a very small percentage that feel this way?
You think police officers like Dan's son are part of some sinister plot to kill innocent civilians and get away with it, laughing all the way to the armory?
We need to stop demonizing entire professions for a very small contingent of that profession doing this.
This goes back 100% to what I said about the bullshit hyperboles that you put in other peoples mouths to try and bolster your own argument. It's a great example of it.
What the hell are you even talking about with regards to a "sinister plot to kill innocent civilians"? Where did that even come from? And it was a nice touch to use another poster's kid to try and personalize it.
No, actually, I didn't say anything remotely close to that. It's gross hyperbole, if you can even call it that - you missed the mark so badly it's more just something you completely misinterpreted.
T-Bone, sorry to hear that story man, but I can't say I'm surprised. I'm not black but I'm a minority, and I know the feeling...
If I get pulled over with or without my kids/wife in the car, I might be a little nervous, but just because i don't want a ticket, NOT because I'd fear for my life if this cop panics after he smells weed.
Getting shot wouldn't even enter my thoughts.
That is white privilege and it's fuckin sad.
So, while I meant people, it kind of goes both ways. I get the fraternal brotherhood aspect of it, but you'd think the "good apples" would want the "bad apples" to pay for all the problems they have created.
So while you say it isn't all cops you then go on to say it really IS all cops. So is this a little window dressing or what? And what are the "good apples" in Seattle, San Diego, Battle Creek, Michigan and Montpelier Vermont supposed to do about the "bad apples" in Florida or Minneapolis? They certainly get the blowback. And in what other profession is such all encompassing self policing (pun intended) expected?
The other officer in the video was a PROSECUTION witness and among the things he said was he didn't see any smoke or smell weed. We can't "assume" that what the officer who shot Castile said is true, especially since other statements he made were also disputed by his supervisor, for example.
Quote:
So, while I meant people, it kind of goes both ways. I get the fraternal brotherhood aspect of it, but you'd think the "good apples" would want the "bad apples" to pay for all the problems they have created.
So while you say it isn't all cops you then go on to say it really IS all cops. So is this a little window dressing or what? And what are the "good apples" in Seattle, San Diego, Battle Creek, Michigan and Montpelier Vermont supposed to do about the "bad apples" in Florida or Minneapolis? They certainly get the blowback. And in what other profession is such all encompassing self policing (pun intended) expected?
You're a stockbroker. There's a subsection of stockbrokers going out there and swindling people out of their money under dubious circumstances. You for them, or do you want them to be held accountable?
And yeah, stop seeing what you want to say, get the fuck off my back. At no point did I say it was "all cops". You need me to tag everything with a superlative warning?
Let me break it down for you: You'd think people in a certain profession, if they were so disturbed by how some others perceived their profession, what want those whose misconduct perpetuates these misconceptions to be held accountable.
There's no "ALL", literally ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I've posted. But, njm, while you aren't madcow, you're in the same vein -- never nuance, and we all know where you have stood on this for multiple years now at this point.
And just to reiterate, once again: Nothing in my post said "all cops". Must be the same mental gymnastics you use to reflexively vindicate police of wrongdoing in every questionable situation.
...but not only can cops shoot with impunity because they are "scared", but the mere suggestion that most cops should support the accountability of those who make lethal mistakes or abuse power means you hate "all cops"...
...the second statement which is often made by the same guys who say "Muslim communities need to speak out against terror!"
Give me a break.
As for hyperbole, well...
As for hyperbole, well...
A lot of things went on in the aftermath of this video.
Without saying anything myself, I'm extremely curious as to thoughts of some members of BBI pertaining to this.
Link - ( New Window )
A lot of things went on in the aftermath of this video.
Without saying anything myself, I'm extremely curious as to thoughts of some members of BBI pertaining to this. Link - ( New Window )
Okay - my thoughts. Just having watched the video and read the article, I know nothing else about the incident. I have a few thoughts about what I just saw.
The officer's behavior was terrible. The response was very, very poorly handled. Absolutely no reason this escalated except for his poor behavior. He clearly was abusing authority. Also - his use of pain to try to coerce a response from the teenager was uncalled for and wrong. The second teenager being arrested when she was standing nearby recording on her phone was a travesty and abuse of power.
To read that the command center was withholding information related to the case is an indictment to me of the sort of systemic problems we have. People don't trust the police, as noted by the teenager saying that police cameras aren't real. These attitudes are strengthened by the actions of the command center.
I think if anyone in my family had been involved we would have been much more compliant with the officer. I believe that would have helped the situation. I can understand if some want to find fault with the behavior of the arrested. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that this officer is abusing his authority in the neighborhood, and the much, much greater crime in this case is the officer's abuse of authority, not the resistance to the officer or the reaction to the incident.
I think the disciplinary action (10 days suspension) was definitely not enough to ensure these people get the services our tax dollars demand. I would be looking at a minimum 6 months suspension without pay, revocation of his license, and a requirement that he complete a certain amount of training and counseling before he is ever allowed to carry a badge again. I'm understanding that everyone has a bad day, and perhaps this officer just had the worst day of his life. For this reason I don't think that a lifetime ban from law enforcement is necessary, but they should not be back on the force until everything is done to make sure he never abuses his authority again.
That's my take.
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
It's also the fact that Castile does not remotely fit their membership demographic.
Quote:
As more people carry this will be more common. It's mind boggling when you think about it. The odds of accidental death are much greater than using a gun to save your life."
Actually heard a statistic today that law enforcement personnel have a higher rate of accidental shootings than CC civilians. Reason being is that LE interact with their weapons on a more frequent basis. Makes sense.
Quote:
In comment 13507288 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
It's also the fact that Castile does not remotely fit their membership demographic.
Actually he does. The NRA supports the second amendment for everyone regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. Actually minorities are active in the NRA. Did you know that 75% of stand your ground cases in Florida involved and clear minorities? And no, stand your ground was NEVER a part of the Martin case. If the defence tried to use that, he would be in prison today.
the 'panic':
an officer assessed a situation where he thought a gun was being drawn. He pulled his own weapon and defended himself. you cannot tell from that video/audio that the assessment was panic. you hear his voice escalate from calm 'ok, don't reach for it', to mediocre 'don't reach for it', to screaming 'don't reach for it'. All evidence shows Castile continued to reach for something. The officer makes a decision that there is a danger. he believes a weapon is being drawn. He takes action. He immediately asks his partner to remove the child. He immediately radios for a medic. He continues to treat the scene as a hostile environment, which is appropriate because he doesn't know if (still alive) Castile continues to be a threat, or whether the other adult in the car is a threat. Adrenalin is pumping, but he maintains composure, and follows his training. He made a bad decision, but that doesn't constitute panic. he treated Castile, and the other adult, as a threat until proven not to be, which, once the decision is made that there is a threat, is the proper course of action. In the meanwhile, an ambulance arrives, other police officers arrive. there's already another officer on the scene. his blood is whistling in his ears,adrenaline yet you hear him repeat over and over that he told Castile not to reach. He maintained composure and followed his training. I fully understand that his decision making process was hasty. he had a second or two to decide if he was about to die, and came to a decision. that doesn't constitute panic. Panic is Bill Paxton in Aliens.
the 'panic':
an officer assessed a situation where he thought a gun was being drawn. He pulled his own weapon and defended himself. you cannot tell from that video/audio that the assessment was panic. you hear his voice escalate from calm 'ok, don't reach for it', to mediocre 'don't reach for it', to screaming 'don't reach for it'. All evidence shows Castile continued to reach for something. The officer makes a decision that there is a danger. he believes a weapon is being drawn. He takes action. He immediately asks his partner to remove the child. He immediately radios for a medic. He continues to treat the scene as a hostile environment, which is appropriate because he doesn't know if (still alive) Castile continues to be a threat, or whether the other adult in the car is a threat. Adrenalin is pumping, but he maintains composure, and follows his training. He made a bad decision, but that doesn't constitute panic. he treated Castile, and the other adult, as a threat until proven not to be, which, once the decision is made that there is a threat, is the proper course of action. In the meanwhile, an ambulance arrives, other police officers arrive. there's already another officer on the scene. his blood is whistling in his ears,adrenaline yet you hear him repeat over and over that he told Castile not to reach. He maintained composure and followed his training. I fully understand that his decision making process was hasty. he had a second or two to decide if he was about to die, and came to a decision. that doesn't constitute panic. Panic is Bill Paxton in Aliens.
I never said racism played a part in what happened to me. Nor have I said racism always plays a part in police harassment/brutality. My story was strictly a story of a time when I was unnecessarily harassed by police officers. That's all. Sorry if I confused you.
Quote:
In comment 13507316 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 13507288 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
It's also the fact that Castile does not remotely fit their membership demographic.
Actually he does. The NRA supports the second amendment for everyone regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. Actually minorities are active in the NRA. Did you know that 75% of stand your ground cases in Florida involved and clear minorities? And no, stand your ground was NEVER a part of the Martin case. If the defence tried to use that, he would be in prison today.
CTC with all due respect, what does Stand your Ground have to do with the NRA and their demographics?
Anyone can have a mission statement (they are done basically for marketing purposes and if there is one thing it's that the NRA is political lobbying group if anything), but it goes without saying that the vast majority of their demo is 180 degrees from Castile and the silence by them after claiming they would definitely have more to say about this shooting over a year ago is quite telling
Quote:
In comment 13508570 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13507316 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 13507288 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Licensed gun owner who had done everything legal to the point of stating he had a concealed carry permit and a gun, was shot to death and yet the NRA has not said one fucking word since their initial tepid statement the day after the shooting.
Does anyone really wonder why that is?
I don't wonder, I know exactly what it is. It's not the reason you think, though.
It's the culture of cop worship on the right in general and the NRA in particular, where those heroes in blue can never do anything wrong and must be slavishly supported at all times.
It's also the fact that Castile does not remotely fit their membership demographic.
Actually he does. The NRA supports the second amendment for everyone regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. Actually minorities are active in the NRA. Did you know that 75% of stand your ground cases in Florida involved and clear minorities? And no, stand your ground was NEVER a part of the Martin case. If the defence tried to use that, he would be in prison today.
CTC with all due respect, what does Stand your Ground have to do with the NRA and their demographics?
Anyone can have a mission statement (they are done basically for marketing purposes and if there is one thing it's that the NRA is political lobbying group if anything), but it goes without saying that the vast majority of their demo is 180 degrees from Castile and the silence by them after claiming they would definitely have more to say about this shooting over a year ago is quite telling
I don't agree with you which is fine. to each his own. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this incident. It was in response to Ron Johnson 30 who said there would be more accidental shootings with more CC's. that just is't the case.
This was a tragic incident that was going to be decided by the courts and it was.
Why that jury decided how they did? I have no idea. Then again, I didn't sit through the trial nor be in the jury room for deliberations.
As a NRA member I am glad they stayed above the political folly and let it be worked out in the courts.
The generic statement they come out with was perfect. In my opinion.
You want them to condemn LE and the court system in the US.
That ain't happening.
2. The Minneapolis Gay Pride parade organizers have banned police from this year's parade because of the acquittal. The background of this is that the Chief of Police is a lesbian who was the grand marshal of the parade a few years ago. I've linked a editorial from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune criticizing this decision.
Link - ( New Window )
As for the panic. everyone keeps telling me I'm wrong. So maybe I am wrong. but I've elucidated why I don't think there was panic. No one, so far, has pointed out why they think he panicked. just 'you're wrong, he panicked, it's obvious'. He came to a very quick decision. point out where he panicked. anyone. don't just tell me I'm wrong. explain your side of the story. what exactly do you see that makes you believe he panicked? It is obvious from the video, and especially from the audio, that he saw a threat. It's obvious from all the evidence that Castile was reaching for something after just saying he had a gun. there is nothing at all on the video that to me shows panic, just a guy reacting to what he perceived as a threat. the perception is the entire basis of the issue. you cannot see what Castile was doing. you can only hear the officer saying don't reach, don't reach, DON'T REACH. everything other than that is interpretation. the officers actions after the shooting are consistent with a guy with adrenaline pumping, but following protocol. So if you, or anyone, sees panic, treat me like a child and walk me through it step by step.
If that doesn't signal absurd panic, then what the hell is your definition of panicked?
The man was screaming hysterically. I don't see how you're watching the same videos as the rest of us.
Any defense of him following protocol is equally absurd as your claim that he didn't panic.
As for the panic. everyone keeps telling me I'm wrong. So maybe I am wrong. but I've elucidated why I don't think there was panic. No one, so far, has pointed out why they think he panicked. just 'you're wrong, he panicked, it's obvious'. He came to a very quick decision. point out where he panicked. anyone. don't just tell me I'm wrong. explain your side of the story. what exactly do you see that makes you believe he panicked? It is obvious from the video, and especially from the audio, that he saw a threat. It's obvious from all the evidence that Castile was reaching for something after just saying he had a gun. there is nothing at all on the video that to me shows panic, just a guy reacting to what he perceived as a threat. the perception is the entire basis of the issue. you cannot see what Castile was doing. you can only hear the officer saying don't reach, don't reach, DON'T REACH. everything other than that is interpretation. the officers actions after the shooting are consistent with a guy with adrenaline pumping, but following protocol. So if you, or anyone, sees panic, treat me like a child and walk me through it step by step.
All good.
Unfortunately I won't be able to participate much at all today because I'm in another office helping with an office move. When I'm available... and if this thread is still going, I'll respond.
But, if I can give a word of advice: don't depend on the rear view mirror when you back up :)
the 'panic':
an officer assessed a situation where he thought a gun was being drawn. He pulled his own weapon and defended himself. you cannot tell from that video/audio that the assessment was panic. you hear his voice escalate from calm 'ok, don't reach for it', to mediocre 'don't reach for it', to screaming 'don't reach for it'. All evidence shows Castile continued to reach for something. The officer makes a decision that there is a danger. he believes a weapon is being drawn. He takes action. He immediately asks his partner to remove the child. He immediately radios for a medic. He continues to treat the scene as a hostile environment, which is appropriate because he doesn't know if (still alive) Castile continues to be a threat, or whether the other adult in the car is a threat. Adrenalin is pumping, but he maintains composure, and follows his training. He made a bad decision, but that doesn't constitute panic. he treated Castile, and the other adult, as a threat until proven not to be, which, once the decision is made that there is a threat, is the proper course of action. In the meanwhile, an ambulance arrives, other police officers arrive. there's already another officer on the scene. his blood is whistling in his ears,adrenaline yet you hear him repeat over and over that he told Castile not to reach. He maintained composure and followed his training. I fully understand that his decision making process was hasty. he had a second or two to decide if he was about to die, and came to a decision. that doesn't constitute panic. Panic is Bill Paxton in Aliens.
We'll agree to disagree on this one since no matter what I or anyone else states, you've already made up your mind about what this officer's perceived state of mind, which you go into great details for someone, who has never been in a life or death situation. But I guess, you just know this police officer well enough to make your detailed description of what he was going through and his decision making process.
However, I'll tell you that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth with your posts. You've stated on multiple occasions above that the police officer followed through procedure and was in control the entire time, yet you've also stated in multiple posts (below) that he was in shock after the shooting since only those with balls of steel or Clint Eastwood would stay so calm. So which was it? Was he Clint Eastwood or was he in shock?
fkap : 6/21/2017 11:16 am : link : reply
Maybe,just maybe, being the first time killing another human feet away and watching him die could induce a state of shock?
Not everyone is as cool as Clint Eastwood when shooting someone.
fkap : 6/21/2017 11:36 am : link : reply
I've never shot anyone. maybe you have. maybe from close point blank range. If you have, and were able to continue thinking rationally, you have balls made of steel, especially on your first kill. not everyone has balls of steel. Of course, your mission in the military was to kill, so it's a little bit different.
At this point, arguing with you is like arguing with someone, whose sole purpose in being in the discussion is to win the argument instead of actually holding a discussion the way you've flipped flopped.
your response is just of the same old 'you're wrong' with no explanation variety.
I explained ad nauseum why I think he made his decision, why he reacted as he did, why I don't think he panicked. I never said he panicked. You were the one alleging he was acting inappropriately based on the video. He was in an elevated state of shock/adrenaline pumping, and still performed his duties.
I will admit though, when I first wrote those comments, I had only watched the first abbreviated version, showing the first minute of the video. Watching the extended version only reinforces my view.
If you want to explain your side, in a rational fashion, I'm happy to listen. But so far, all I hear is "you're wrong". that is not a discussion. If it is so obvious, point it out to me. Or just huff and say it's no use.
What exactly are you seeing that says anything that this officer was composed?
I'll be blunt and state that you are speaking out of your ass on your ridiculous description of the officer's mental state. Totally out of your ass as you have no damn clue what panic and shock even looks like if you think he was composed. Seriously, no damn clue.
Link - ( New Window )
I NEVER said the officer was calm after the shooting. but he was composed enough to get the child out of the situation. he was composed enough to keep both Castile and another adult (who at the time still potentially posed a threat) under surveilance. He called for medical attention. He kept it together, and then let adrenaline/shock kick in. Good (?) for you if you can shoot a man at close range and then not have chemistry/emotions kick in. But he kept it together until backup arrived, and then naturally reacted. I don't see anything that counters that. I don't see anything that says he broke under duress. The entire thing hinges on him making a decision, which I've already said, is suspect. he made a decision/evaluation that his life was in danger. his decision was wrong, but I can see why it was made - because a guy said I have a gun and then reached for something. that isn't panic. it's making a decision. Nothing in that video shows why it was the wrong decision.
If you just want to say "you're wrong" with no additional commentary, then go for it.
This is the kind of guy who'd be calmly eating a sandwich at a picnic and would suddenly flip the entire table over when he spots a yellow jacket.
But, if I can give a word of advice: don't depend on the rear view mirror when you back up :)
I know and vice versa!
I actually told a cop buddy of mine this story years ago and (after asking me if I knew the cops who harassed me were because he was PISSED and was going to either confront or report them) said that had I stayed put and called the cops the guy would've been in trouble for illegally straddling the lanes. Don't know how true that is... just telling ya what he told me.
And shooting int0 a car like he did with a 4 yr old in the back is anything but following protocal
It absolutely sucks that sometimes cops can be assholes and sometimes you can't do a damn thing about it. been there, done that.
But that doesn't mean they're automatically derelict of duty when something goes wrong.
I've also had some good treatments with cops.
they're humans. can be bad. can be good. can be worn down by the job, or can remember the noble reason they joined. There should be no assumptions, just like any other interaction with humans.
But, I'll try not to comment on the case any more.
(other than whispering, a guy who might be ready to shoot you, might also be willing to use subterfuge to do so) but I didn't say that out loud.
It absolutely sucks that sometimes cops can be assholes and sometimes you can't do a damn thing about it. been there, done that.
But that doesn't mean they're automatically derelict of duty when something goes wrong.
I've also had some good treatments with cops.
they're humans. can be bad. can be good. can be worn down by the job, or can remember the noble reason they joined. There should be no assumptions, just like any other interaction with humans.
I
You see... I disagree with that last line. An interaction with a cop is not like one with any human being nor do I think it should be expected to be. They should always be held to a higher standard. There's a reason why they're allowed to be armed. Because of that reason, although this is said with the understanding that they are human too, they're not allowed to let their 'bad days' be used as an excuse for why they messed up in a particular situation.
Sorry but we'll have to respectfully disagree on that too.
2. The Minneapolis Gay Pride parade organizers have banned police from this year's parade because of the acquittal. The background of this is that the Chief of Police is a lesbian who was the grand marshal of the parade a few years ago. I've linked a editorial from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune criticizing this decision. Link - ( New Window )
I dont understand how organizers of a parade can decide where police go...
But, I'll try not to comment on the case any more.
(other than whispering, a guy who might be ready to shoot you, might also be willing to use subterfuge to do so) but I didn't say that out loud.
With his girl and kid in the car?
At some point common sense has to kick in. If I'm a cop who just pulled someone over... and he admits that he's armed... and has his family in the car with him... the thought 'This guy might kill me.', would've never entered my mind and HAD he shot me he just would've got me because under the circumstances in that video, I have a hard time thinking he would take a shot at me.
It's ok... I'm on lunch.., that's the only reason I'm involved.
Quote:
1. There was a segment on this on PBS's News Hour last night with 2 analysts with somewhat different views. They disagreed on most, but not all things, but the discussion was civil and reasonable. Not sure it's on their website, but it's worthwhile if it's there.
2. The Minneapolis Gay Pride parade organizers have banned police from this year's parade because of the acquittal. The background of this is that the Chief of Police is a lesbian who was the grand marshal of the parade a few years ago. I've linked a editorial from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune criticizing this decision. Link - ( New Window )
I dont understand how organizers of a parade can decide where police go...
Banned from marching. Patrolling up in the air. Read the op ed.
I NEVER said the officer was calm after the shooting. but he was composed enough to get the child out of the situation. he was composed enough to keep both Castile and another adult (who at the time still potentially posed a threat) under surveilance. He called for medical attention. He kept it together, and then let adrenaline/shock kick in. Good (?) for you if you can shoot a man at close range and then not have chemistry/emotions kick in. But he kept it together until backup arrived, and then naturally reacted. I don't see anything that counters that. I don't see anything that says he broke under duress. The entire thing hinges on him making a decision, which I've already said, is suspect. he made a decision/evaluation that his life was in danger. his decision was wrong, but I can see why it was made - because a guy said I have a gun and then reached for something. that isn't panic. it's making a decision. Nothing in that video shows why it was the wrong decision.
If you just want to say "you're wrong" with no additional commentary, then go for it.
Hey, fkap. My apology if I have come off like an asshole in the past few posts to you. We can most definitely disagree on this without snide remarks or anger, so if I showed you either, I apologize.
While not an excuse on my end, this incident really bothers me, as I place extremely high standards on the police (as I also do to the military), and incidents like this burns me to the core for those reasons.
You have a great day.
wife an kid in the car mean almost nothing. you can't assume a guy isn't going to pull a gun because his wife/girlfriend is in the car or that a child is in the car. a guy who is willing to kill a cop isn't going to be stopped by a gal and child being in the car. I get the idea, but it's bad to assume it holds true.
The woman didn't even notice the child was gone for 2 minutes. her first thought was to get this down on video. and then she asked where her kid was. WTF is up with that? how is it not her first thought to protect her baby? So, excuse me if I believe cops should be suspicious no matter what.
I fully recognize I come off a little too strong sometimes.
but there's a keyboard, so I must type!!!!
contentious, I may be, but I don't want to offend.
The officer panicked, killed Castile, and then freaked out after the fact.
contentious, I may be, but I don't want to offend.
Sir, we are good. We're both mature and strong willed individuals...:) And thank you for your kind words.
Have a great weekend!
I'm no cop, but I am certain that shoving your weapon into the open window of a vehicle and firing wildly is not how he was trained.