|
|
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." |
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.