NFT: Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Found Not Guilty

In comment 13505355 T-Bone said:

Quote:

In comment 13505351 madgiantscow009 said: 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.

out of the car moments after the shots.

Forgetting the manslaughter charge for a moment, in what world did that officer not endanger the lives of everyone else in that car?

In comment 13505353 T-Bone said:

Quote:

I'm sorry... but I just don't feel like talking about this anymore. After watching that video I'm a little too upset. I literally have tears in my eyes right now. Hope you understand. Maybe tomorrow.

No problem, I'm just typing on a message board and am not watching the video. Very different perspective.

and not just bosses.

method of death doesn't matter? - there's no difference between a guy having a heart attack struggling versus cops as opposed to cop firing a gun at someone knowing that death is very likely. that logic is clearly faulty

What is also missed in all of this discussion over the trial and shooting is that this police officer and his partner let the victim bleed to death as the shooting officer immediately panicked and had to be calmed down over his mistake. Having seen the video from the girlfriend and the dash cam, this officer or his partner rendered no life saving aid immediately following the shooting. Who knows if the victim would have survived even with first aid, but these two officers were more concerned about their own emotions and safety than the life of the victim or the safety of the passengers.

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.

In comment 13505740 RC02XX said:

Quote:

What is also missed in all of this discussion over the trial and shooting is that this police officer and his partner let the victim bleed to death as the shooting officer immediately panicked and had to be calmed down over his mistake. Having seen the video from the girlfriend and the dash cam, this officer or his partner rendered no life saving aid immediately following the shooting. Who knows if the victim would have survived even with first aid, but these two officers were more concerned about their own emotions and safety than the life of the victim or the safety of the passengers. 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.

the officer said don't reach, while pulling out his weapon. Castile, with a gun in his face, still reached. people want to make a thing out of him being asked for ID, but it still remains that Castile told the officer he had a gun, and then reached for something, while the officer is repeatedly telling him not to reach. How difficult is it to comprehend that when an officer tells you not reach, you don't reach. It doesn't matter what he was reaching for, the officer has to assume the worst, lest he become another hero killed in the line of duty. we tend to worship LE who haven't played it cautious enough, or at least we give lip service to that worship as the coffin is being lowered into the ground.

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.

In comment 13505773 fkap said:

Quote:

the officer said don't reach, while pulling out his weapon. Castile, with a gun in his face, still reached. people want to make a thing out of him being asked for ID, but it still remains that Castile told the officer he had a gun, and then reached for something, while the officer is repeatedly telling him not to reach. How difficult is it to comprehend that when an officer tells you not reach, you don't reach. It doesn't matter what he was reaching for, the officer has to assume the worst, lest he become another hero killed in the line of duty. we tend to worship LE who haven't played it cautious enough, or at least we give lip service to that worship as the coffin is being lowered into the ground. 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.

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.

doubt when it comes to the consequences, that'll surely deter this from happening again...

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.

In comment 13505773 fkap said:

Quote:

the officer said don't reach, while pulling out his weapon. Castile, with a gun in his face, still reached. people want to make a thing out of him being asked for ID, but it still remains that Castile told the officer he had a gun, and then reached for something, while the officer is repeatedly telling him not to reach. How difficult is it to comprehend that when an officer tells you not reach, you don't reach. It doesn't matter what he was reaching for, the officer has to assume the worst, lest he become another hero killed in the line of duty. we tend to worship LE who haven't played it cautious enough, or at least we give lip service to that worship as the coffin is being lowered into the ground. 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.

Since a traffic stop is a perfunctory procedure that doesn't require any intellect, there is no point in having a human perform the role, as he or she needs to protect their life if they sense danger. Not so with a cyborg.

In comment 13505816 Ash_3 said:

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?

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.

In comment 13505827 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

In comment 13505816 Ash_3 said: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

You get multiple emails a day on carrying weapons?

In comment 13505856 ctc in ftmyers said:

Quote:

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?

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.

In comment 13505837 fkap said:

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.

Cops are like walking demigods. We live and die by their discretion.

In comment 13505837 fkap said:

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?

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?

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.

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.

In comment 13505971 madgiantscow009 said:

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.

In comment 13505980 T-Bone said:

Quote:

In comment 13505971 madgiantscow009 said: 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?

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.

the conditions were not meant for:

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...

.

****I don't see how people can disagree with the conditions being met beyond a reasonable doubt.

In comment 13506004 T-Bone said:

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.

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.

In comment 13506073 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

In comment 13506004 T-Bone said: 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....

In comment 13506076 RC02XX said:

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Just know while it seems like your words can't get past a certain group, they are important. And I believe helping to change minds even if they don't post to show it. You should be proud of yourself, hold your head up high.

In comment 13506113 T-Bone said:

Quote:

In comment 13506076 RC02XX said: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

In comment 13506133 BigBlue in Keys said:

Quote:

Just know while it seems like your words can't get past a certain group, they are important. And I believe helping to change minds even if they don't post to show it. You should be proud of yourself, hold your head up high.

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?

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.

In comment 13506162 fkap said:

Quote:

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.

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.

saying I have a gun, I'm not reaching for it, doesn't eliminate the danger. It only heightens the awareness of the danger. a guy who might shoot me might also lie about his intentions to shoot me, and saying I'm not reaching for it might just be cover.

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.