Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[TheGreatBuzz]

44 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

The department acknowledged that the officers had less lethal means available to them and chose not to deploy them. I'm interested to know why that was. 

Out of curiosity what would be the effect to a fetus if you tasered the mother?

[Dan T.]

56 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

The department acknowledged that the officers had less lethal means available to them and chose not to deploy them. I'm interested to know why that was. 

 

Generally speaking, officers are trained not to use less-lethal alternatives when faced with a lethal threat. Here's a pretty good explanation:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/09/16/why-dont-police-use-non-lethal-tech-to-neutralize-suspects-instead-of-firearms/#273c308a7389

[ClaytoAli]

3 hours ago, grego said:

the race scale- how do you think race affected this shooting?

 Let's ignore the preconceived notions about race and culture for a second. 

 

Look at the differences: her skin is darker than theirs, she's a female, her living condition and habitat, she's pregnant and has children, and she has a mental condition. Those are differences compared to the two police officers that entered into her home and the differences are visual. 

 

Familiarity breeds comfort. 

 

If if the cops aren't some what routinely exposed to those differences as they would someone in their environment, then unfamiliarity causes lack of comfort. 

 

So if she were white or male or a family man or living in a modest environment or remotely sane.... she would still be alive.

 

The racism is in the treatment based on skin color...a difference again.

[Gamebreaker]

Still waiting on the NRA to comment on the Philandro Castile case. And they say it's not about race....

[Chew]

8 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Still waiting on the NRA to comment on the Philandro Castile case. And they say it's not about race....

 

Thank you.

 

Where is the outrage?!  An innocent man exercising his 2nd amendment rights (even had a carry conceal permit) was shot and killed by police.  Where is the support from the right?!  Where is the outcry?!

 

But if some asshole in rural America that walks around McDonalds with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder was gunned down by police, the response from the NRA, "conservative patriots," and gun-loving America would be unprecedented.  

[grego]

57 minutes ago, ClaytoAli said:

 Let's ignore the preconceived notions about race and culture for a second. 

 

Look at the differences: her skin is darker than theirs, she's a female, her living condition and habitat, she's pregnant and has children, and she has a mental condition. Those are differences compared to the two police officers that entered into her home and the differences are visual. 

 

Familiarity breeds comfort. 

 

If if the cops aren't some what routinely exposed to those differences as they would someone in their environment, then unfamiliarity causes lack of comfort. 

 

So if she were white or male or a family man or living in a modest environment or remotely sane.... she would still be alive.

 

The racism is in the treatment based on skin color...a difference again.

 

Is this your thinking, or do you have research on this? Because there have been studies about police shootings and whether race plays a role. 

 

I think the conclusion that she would still be alive is something that we ultimately can't know, but I would still lean towards her being dead, just based on the fact that she apparently charged the cops with the knife (two knives, as the information is becoming more available). I would expect any police officer to shoot a suspect no matter the race in that situation. 

 

Where I think race could possibly play a role is in the Castile case. I think that was a panic situation, whereas in this incident, there appears to be an actual immediate threat on the lives of the officers. 

 

(I know we're doing a lot of guessing, since we don't know all of the information yet and we can't read the police officers minds or know their life experiences, but it's interesting, nonetheless) 

[Llevron]

They had the sense of mind to tell her to stop and put the weapon down. After that i can go either way. Warning was issued and she didn't comply (with a weapon). 

 

I wouldn't do it myself. And I think its a **** excuse to say you were scared for your life. AND i have issues with her being pregnant and there being children there. But if she charged she charged and they told her to chill the hell out. She didn't. I dunno. Like I said I can go either way on this one. But i also havent read past she was prego and had a knife. And I dont want to cause its gonna make me mad and at my job I cant afford to have the attitude I get when reading **** like this....if you are feeling my meaning here.   

 

All that said I do think race was a factor but not in the traditional sense. Thats a topic for another day though, for real. 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[Gamebreaker]

Are you serious? THAT was his justification and that **** worked??? 

 

You're so concerned about the little girl's safety because her parents were smoking in her presence that you gunned down her father in front of her. You're welcome, young lady. Exactly how is smoking weed, if that was what he was actually doing, equal I'm going to start a gunfight with a cop with my daughter present....I'm also going to inform him I have the gun too, because I'm that much of a boss. 

 

Why bother even making up these bull**** excuses? 

[visionary]

 

[Llevron]

They always settle 

[NoCalMike]

The dash cam footage is up.   The officer asks for license and registration. Less than :30 Philando Castile was dead.

Edited June 20, 2017 by NoCalMike

[Mooka]

Wow.... did that cop peddle out a giant pile of bull**** in that interview. 

 

Watch the dashcam and compare to the cop's statement: http://www.startribune.com/case-file-in-philando-castile-shooting-to-be-made-public-today/429659263/

 

 

I don't even know where to start....pushing that weed angle so hard. Apparently weed is some hardcore **** in Minnesota. Drug dealers just blasting you left and right trying to "rip" your stuff. 

[Llevron]

It's rediculious that a jury could look at that and say the cop did nothing wrong. I mean, dude literally was as calm as possible and the cop feared for his life? And that accepted they bull****???

 

"Well yea, black guys are scary" 

 

I guess I just have to accept the fact I'm going to be murdered by the police at some point. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Llevron

[DCranon21]

And this cop walked...I guess just being black and complying with the law is harmful to our health now. Unbelievable at that dash cam footage and his statement. 

[Chew]

[Mr. Sinister]

Just disgusting. Shouldn't have even told the dude he had a gun. Once he did that the pos freaked out. "Don't reach for it then"

 

If he's reaching for his ****ing wallet/license how in the in the blue hell will you know the difference 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mr. Sinister

[TheGreatBuzz]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Just disgusting. Shouldn't have even told the dude he had a gun. Once he did that the pos freaked out. "Don't reach for it then"

 

If he's reaching for his ****ing wallet/license how in the in the blue hell will you know the difference 

So I didn't really remember or know anything about this case until it popped up again.  After seeing the video it makes me think about "reasonable doubt".  From what I see the cop said something to the effect of "don't reach for it" 3 times.  With the absence of a body cam (which I think all cops should have) how would the prosecution PROVE he wasn't reaching for his gun?  Now my gut tells me he wasn't but my gut isn't admissible.  So what is the case that makes everyone 100% positive that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  I'd say I'm about 90% sure he is guilty but my understanding is that means I should be voting not guilty.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

*I'm not some absolute cop defender.  I've done about 10 minutes of research on this and am honestly asking.  And please argue facts, not your prejudices.  

[NoCalMike]

I don't know what proper procedure is, but for what it's worth if I was the cop, as soon as the guy says he has a weapon and license for said weapon I am likely going to say, "Ok sir I understand, for both our safety please put your hands on the steering wheel and wait for further instruction"  instead the audio seems to suggest the cop after getting some paper work (perhaps insurance?) says "Ok how about some license and registration" which prompts the guy to reach to get his license, which is most likely where everyone puts it....their wallet.  

 

Also after the fact the cop admits he never saw the gun in the guy's hand.

Edited June 21, 2017 by NoCalMike

[Mooka]

Just noticed there's actually a physical struggle before officer Yanez starts shooting. His left arm is inside the car grabbing Castile. That could be favorable to the cop's testimony, IMO, if he was actually reaching for Castile's gun. Problem, is that bull**** interview he gave with BCA up there that no-where near says anything about reaching into Castile's car and grabbing him before opening fire. Particularly the section where the interviewer clarifies for Yanez, that he thought he had a gun in his hand.

 

Maybe what really happened was Castile reacted badly to the cop grabbing him and at that point the cop already had a gun in his other hand. 
 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So what is the case that makes everyone 100% positive that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  I'd say I'm about 90% sure he is guilty but my understanding is that means I should be voting not guilty.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

He's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if he had a body cam on you'd have to be able to see Castile's right hand. I don't think most are blaming the jury or shouldn't anyway. 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mooka

[Gamebreaker]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So I didn't really remember or know anything about this case until it popped up again.  After seeing the video it makes me think about "reasonable doubt".  From what I see the cop said something to the effect of "don't reach for it" 3 times.  With the absence of a body cam (which I think all cops should have) how would the prosecution PROVE he wasn't reaching for his gun?  Now my gut tells me he wasn't but my gut isn't admissible.  So what is the case that makes everyone 100% positive that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  I'd say I'm about 90% sure he is guilty but my understanding is that means I should be voting not guilty.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

*I'm not some absolute cop defender.  I've done about 10 minutes of research on this and am honestly asking.  And please argue facts, not your prejudices.  

 

This ex-cop should've had the instincts to understand that someone trying to harm you 1) isn't going to tell you they have a gun 2) not going to put himself in harms way with his daughter in the backseat, and 3) wouldn't be calm while you are freaking the **** out. He should've never been allowed to be an officer. Which is something I keep finding myself saying more and more. 

 

No, we can't see from the dash cam footage into the car, but plenty of innocent people have been convicted on zero evidence(Adnan Syed). So why when it's a police officer, people always side on needing 100% certainty in order to convict. Yes, that is how it's supposed to be. Beyond a reasonable doubt. But in reality, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what gets people convicted in this justice system. 

 

A good question is where exactly in the car was the gun. Maybe that could lend some help to the skittish officer, but not much IMO. He didn't wait long enough to find out. 

 

@youngchew I pray to God I'm not killed in that manner. I don't want my kids growing up and their friends as well as themselves being able to google my death. I know it would kill my mother too. Castile deserved better. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gamebreaker

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

This ex-cop should've had the instincts to understand that someone trying to harm you 1) isn't going to tell you they have a gun 2) not going to put himself in harms way with his daughter in the backseat, and 3) wouldn't be calm while you are freaking the **** out. He should've never been allowed to be an officer. Which is something I keep finding myself saying more and more. 

 

No, we can't see from the dash cam footage into the car, but plenty of innocent people have been convicted on zero evidence(Adnan Syed). So why when it's a police officer, people always side on needing 100% certainty in order to convict. Yes, that is how it's supposed to be. Beyond a reasonable doubt. But in reality, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what gets people convicted in this justice system. 

 

A good question is where exactly in the car was the gun. Maybe that could lend some help to the skittish officer, but not much IMO. He didn't wait long enough to find out. 

 

@youngchew I pray to God I'm not killed in that manner. I don't want my kids growing up and their friends as well as themselves being able to google my death. I know it would kill my mother too. Castile deserved better. 

I don't mean this to sound snarky but I'm pretty sure it's going to sound that way.  Please forgive me in advance.

 

So you would like this cop convicted to offset all the other bad convictions?  I get the system is ****ed up.  In some thread a little while back where I spoke about how I was arrested and had to spend thousands because I asked for a lawyer (really).  You don't need to tell me about a ****ed up system.

 

I think this cop had bad instincts and probably shouldn't be a cop.  But I see nothing that would make me find him guilty of manslaughter.  I'm just wondering what exactly would make people find him guilty.  

[Gamebreaker]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don't mean this to sound snarky but I'm pretty sure it's going to sound that way.  Please forgive me in advance.

 

So you would like this cop convicted to offset all the other bad convictions?  I get the system is ****ed up.  In some thread a little while back where I spoke about how I was arrested and had to spend thousands because I asked for a lawyer (really).  You don't need to tell me about a ****ed up system.

 

I think this cop had bad instincts and probably shouldn't be a cop.  But I see nothing that would make me find him guilty of manslaughter.  I'm just wondering what exactly would make people find him guilty.  

 

I just rewatched the dashcam video. He's guilty of manslaughter because he was reckless, not in control of himself, and killed a man who wasn't a threat. Literally, the only person freaking out in this situation is the officer in question. The only person who showed any aggression.  I even rewatched since Mooka said maybe he was grabbing at Castile's arm. it looks like he tried to stop Castile from moving at all, then just as quickly gave up and started firing. 

 

He didnt even give him enough time to say he had a concealed carry permit. He says,"well don't pull it out then." Then almost instantly starts screaming that same sentence then firing a second later. 

 

My question to you is what do you consider manslaughter, because I think this is the very definition of it. It is why the police department fired him. He was reckless, and recklessness is a part of involuntary manslaughter. 

 

You admit he has bad instincts and say he probably shouldn't have been a cop. How is that Castile's fault? Who is going to take responsibility for this? Someone has to. It's not like a sinkhole opened up under him and he died by a natural disaster. He was killed by another man. And when an actual threat is being made to an officer, they have the right to defend themselves. Being black and having a gun isn't a threat in itself. And although our society won't admit it, "threat" is exactly what has been engrained in their minds as soon as you put those two things together. As sad as that is, that doesn't mean he should evade responsibility. 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gamebreaker

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

I just rewatched the dashcam video. He's guilty of manslaughter because he was reckless, not in control of himself, and killed a man who wasn't a threat. Literally, the only person freaking out in this situation is the officer in question. The only person who showed any aggression.  I even rewatched since Mooka said maybe he was grabbing at Castile's arm. it looks like he tried to stop Castile from moving at all, then just as quickly gave up and started firing. 

 

He didnt even give him enough time to say he had a concealed carry permit. He says,"well don't pull it out then." Then almost instantly starts screaming that same sentence then firing a second later. 

 

My question to you is what do you consider manslaughter, because I think this is the very definition of it. It is why the police department fired him. He was reckless, and recklessness is a part of involuntary manslaughter. 

 

 

I watched it several times earlier.  Like I said, I'm about 90% sure he is guilty.  But 90% isn't supposed to be enough in our system.  

 

Now to your first bolded part, how can you PROVE he wasn't a threat?  The cop says "he was going for his gun" and you can't prove that wrong.  And that would have made him a threat.  This is why I would like more body cams.  Maybe we could see exactly what he was reaching for.  But from the dash cam, you can't be sure.

 

The next bolded part, I disagree with your description of the timing.  Now I was sitting calmly on my couch eating dinner but I felt like there was enough time from when he said "don't reach" to him shooting for the guy to realize he should freeze.  Again, my adrenaline wasn't pumping sitting on my couch though.

 

For the last bolded part, I think this was manslaughter.  But I'm not SURE.  And that is the bar we should have.  I get it doesn't apply to everyone and that is wrong.  But frying this guy isn't the way to make it right either.  Now yes recklessness is a part of involuntary manslaughter but it isn't the only part.  To me the real hangup is was he reaching for his gun?  I haven't seen anything to prove he wasn't.

 

I've been taught that when I'm pulled over and carrying a gun, to put my hands on the wheel and not reach anywhere until the cop tells me to reach and I've told him exactly where my gun is located.  Is it right I have to do that?  No.  But I don't want to be shot either.  I wish the guy would have done this instead.

 

And for the record, I'm a straight, white, wealthy male.

[visionary]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 But frying this guy isn't the way to make it right either.  

Are people calling for this?  I think the main worry people have is he will be back making bad decisions and possibly putting other lives in danger before long.  

Edited June 21, 2017 by visionary