|
|
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." |
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.