Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Llevron]

The other cop said he didn't even see a gun and was surprised when he started shooting. He was literally on the other side of the car

1 minute ago, visionary said:

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.  

 

I 100% want them to make an example of this dude. But I know it would never go down like that. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, visionary said:

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

Sorry.  Poor choice of words.  Calling for him to be convicted of a crime that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the way........etc.  But I bet you knew what I meant.  

 

I doubt he will be hired anywhere else.  But it is still a legit concern.  But it doesn't justify saying he should have been convicted.

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

The other cop said he didn't even see a gun and was surprised when he started shooting. He was literally on the other side of the car

 

I 100% want them to make an example of this dude. But I know it would never go down like that. 

The other cop also wasn't looking.  He was talking into his radio and didn't appear to be paying attention to the driver.  Notice he didn't say the driver definitely wasn't going for his gun.

 

Do you want this guy made an example of even if that facts don't justify it?  Why do you think 12 citizens didn't convict?

 

[visionary]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Sorry.  Poor choice of words.  Calling for him to be convicted of a crime that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the way........etc.  But I bet you knew what I meant.  

 

I doubt he will be hired anywhere else.  But it is still a legit concern.  But it doesn't justify saying he should have been convicted.

Hmmm.  Would it make sense for there to be some sort of gun restriction maybe for a time for cops involved in something like this, if shown that they exercised bad judgement or handled things wrong?  Just wondering, so feel free to knock the idea down, if you think it's crazy.  

[Gamebreaker]

The difference between us is you wish he'd put his hands on the steering wheel, and I wish the cop wasn't a flaming ****. We can't keep coming up with every little thing the black male needs to do to not get shot to death, and not put the onus on these officers who are unfit for the job and consistently make mistake after mistake. 

 

At a traffic stop, I shouldn't have to do EVERYTHING right in order to make it home alive. That should be HIS responsibility. And so far, there is no accountability being held for them. Like in Cincinnati, where the cop shot a black man in the head and then lied about it. People were still trying to find fault in the dead black man for trying to get away from the crazied white cop who just pulled a gun for no reason. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gamebreaker

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

Hmmm.  Would it make sense for there to be some sort of gun restriction maybe for a time for cops involved in something like this, if shown that they exercised bad judgement or handled things wrong?  Just wondering, so feel free to knock the idea down, if you think it's crazy.  

Well as you may know I am pretty pro-gun.  But I could support a 3 year ban on guns excluding hunting weapons (like maybe he can have a muzzleloader).  I would prefer some kind of note in his "record" that notifies all police groups of his history.  Then if he is hired again and does something bad, it greatly increases the liability on the department.  Essentially freeze him out from any law enforcement job with technically doing so.

1 minute ago, Gamebreaker said:

The difference between us is you wish he's out his hands on the steering wheel, and I wish the cop wasn't a flaming ****. We can't keep coming up with every little thing the black male needs to do to not get shot to death, and not out the onus on these officers who are unfit for the job and consistently make mistake after mistake. 

 

At a traffic stop, I shouldn't have to do EVERYTHING right in order to make it home alive. That should be HIS responsibility. And so far, there is no accountability being held for them. Like in Cincinnati, where the cop shot a black man in the head and then lied about it. People were still trying to find fault in the dead black man for trying to get away from the crazied white cop who just pulled a gun for no reason. 

Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm a straight, white, wealthy male AND I'd didn't think it was right that I do that but also accept it's a good way to not die.

 

Now if you want to argue the department should have to pay a wrongful death settlement, I would probably be on your side.  But I don't see anything that PROVES  the cop is legally guilty.  And I still haven't heard anything to prove that.  Again, why do you think 12 citizens think he wasn't guilty?

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Do you want this guy made an example of even if that facts don't justify it?  Why do you think 12 citizens didn't convict?

 

 

I'm not saying your wrong or that I'm right. I'm saying that he should be made an example of. This kind of stuff shouldn't happen. It does. People get away with it. We explain why. It happens again. 

 

That is the cycle and explaining it away is a vicious part of it. 

 

I'm fully aware what I'm saying isn't the way the world works though so whatever. I ain't mad at you for thinking the way you do. It's not your problem really. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

I'm not saying your wrong or that I'm right. I'm saying that he should be made an example of. This kind of stuff shouldn't happen. It does. People get away with it. We explain why. It happens again. 

 

That is the cycle and explaining it away is a vicious part of it. 

 

I'm fully aware what I'm saying isn't the way the world works though so whatever. I ain't mad at you for thinking the way you do. It's not your problem really. 

I agree it shouldn't happen.  But I also think making an example is wrong.  

 

And your last sentence is 100% wrong.  It's everyone's problem.  

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I agree it shouldn't happen.  But I also think making an example is wrong.  

 

And your last sentence is 100% wrong.  It's everyone's problem.  

 

You say that but I bet we can both name people whose problem it isn't, can't we?

 

Edit. That's really not my point here though. My point is this killing was wrong. And again a cop got away with it. And AGAIN we blame the victim. And again we will do nothing but explain it away. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Llevron

[Gamebreaker]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well as you may know I am pretty pro-gun.  But I could support a 3 year ban on guns excluding hunting weapons (like maybe he can have a muzzleloader).  I would prefer some kind of note in his "record" that notifies all police groups of his history.  Then if he is hired again and does something bad, it greatly increases the liability on the department.  Essentially freeze him out from any law enforcement job with technically doing so.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm a straight, white, wealthy male AND I'd didn't think it was right that I do that but also accept it's a good way to not die.

 

Now if you want to argue the department should have to pay a wrongful death settlement, I would probably be on your side.  But I don't see anything that PROVES  the cop is legally guilty.  And I still haven't heard anything to prove that.  Again, why do you think 12 citizens think he wasn't guilty?

 

If you don't think this is manslaughter, you will never see a case that you find a cop guilty of manslaughter. Honestly, you can find reasonable doubt in every case where someone is killed unless the defendant is caught admitting guilt or confessing. Throw his ass in gen pop and let him show them what dat mouf do. There are dudes in there doing that right now on a non-violent crime conviction. He'd get no sympathy from me. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

You say that but I bet we can both name people whose problem it isn't, can't we?

No.  We can only both name people who are too ignorant to realize it is their problem.

1 minute ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

If you don't think this is manslaughter, you will never see a case that you find a cop guilty of manslaughter. Honestly, you can find reasonable doubt in every case where someone is killed unless the defendant is caught admitting guilt or confessing. Throw his ass in gen pop and let him show them what dat mouf do. There are dudes in there doing that right now on a non-violent crime conviction. He'd get no sympathy from me. 

I remember a case a while back where a guy turned around and ran from a cop.  The cop shot him.  Based on that video, I'd say guilty of murder in a heartbeat.  Now I'm not sure what "dat mouf do" means but jailhouse justice is not American.  The fact that it is happening should make you want to fix it, not subject others to it.

 

 

I've got to get to bed but I'll answer anything else later.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No.  We can only both name people who are too ignorant to realize it is their problem.

 

Eventually you are going to have to admit to yourself that this doesn't effect everyone the same way. I'm not going to sit here and argue it with you. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[grego]

7 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

 

 

Edit. That's really not my point here though. My point is this killing was wrong. And again a cop got away with it. And AGAIN we blame the victim. And again we will do nothing but explain it away. 

 

this is partly why i brought up the articles about the police unions. i think yanez got off because of the low bar for use of deadly force, which i'm guessing the police union wants and will defend. 

 

i think this is speaks to perception- you said a cop got away with it 'again'- i think we will always have cops (and regular defendants) getting away with crimes because the justice system is and will always be imperfect, and cops and people are imperfect. but i think your perception is that there are more unjustified shootings than some others may think. i dont want to rehash the mike brown shooting- i know about the settlement that was announced and i see peoples reaction to it and i think its become a sort of litmus test as to what people think are unjustified shootings. if one thinks that was unjustified, then its very likely there are probably very few shootings that you would accept as justified. 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Eventually you are going to have to admit to yourself that this doesn't effect everyone the same way. I'm not going to sit here and argue it with you. 

I never said it affects everyone the same.  I said it was everyones problem.  Not sure what you disagree with.

[justice98]

8 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

The difference between us is you wish he'd put his hands on the steering wheel, and I wish the cop wasn't a flaming ****. We can't keep coming up with every little thing the black male needs to do to not get shot to death, and not put the onus on these officers who are unfit for the job and consistently make mistake after mistake. 

 

At a traffic stop, I shouldn't have to do EVERYTHING right in order to make it home alive. That should be HIS responsibility. And so far, there is no accountability being held for them. Like in Cincinnati, where the cop shot a black man in the head and then lied about it. People were still trying to find fault in the dead black man for trying to get away from the crazied white cop who just pulled a gun for no reason. 

 

Real talk right here.

[justice98]

12 hours ago, Llevron said:

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. 

 

Actually trying to do the responsible thing and inform the officer of his gun sent that cop into hysteria.  Don't say anything, get shot.  Do say something, still get shot.  

 

Can you imagine if those 7 shots he put into that car had hit the child?

[Gamebreaker]

33 minutes ago, grego said:

 

this is partly why i brought up the articles about the police unions. i think yanez got off because of the low bar for use of deadly force, which i'm guessing the police union wants and will defend. 

 

i think this is speaks to perception- you said a cop got away with it 'again'- i think we will always have cops (and regular defendants) getting away with crimes because the justice system is and will always be imperfect, and cops and people are imperfect. but i think your perception is that there are more unjustified shootings than some others may think. i dont want to rehash the mike brown shooting- i know about the settlement that was announced and i see peoples reaction to it and i think its become a sort of litmus test as to what people think are unjustified shootings. if one thinks that was unjustified, then its very likely there are probably very few shootings that you would accept as justified. 

 

 

 

That is your litmus test? When Darren Wilson has said plenty of racist comments since that shooting? Please. 

 

Black men are unjustifiably targeted by police and when there are unjust shootings, the vast majority are black men. This is not a ****ing debate. I'm not even going to bother debating it. It's not a media created perception. It's the truth backed up a million times by facts. Backed up by actual former, threatened and blacklisted police officers. Mike Brown is not the litmus test. 

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I never said it affects everyone the same.  I said it was everyones problem.  Not sure what you disagree with.

 

I was never even really trying to talk to you about this, real live. So im not sure why you continue to try to get me to see things from your point of view. I dont. I disagree with your general indifference toward the struggle here. I dont even want to see things from your perspective (How did you say it? - White straight male?). So now what? 

 

1 hour ago, grego said:

i think this is speaks to perception- you said a cop got away with it 'again'- i think we will always have cops (and regular defendants) getting away with crimes because the justice system is and will always be imperfect, and cops and people are imperfect. but i think your perception is that there are more unjustified shootings than some others may think. i dont want to rehash the mike brown shooting- i know about the settlement that was announced and i see peoples reaction to it and i think its become a sort of litmus test as to what people think are unjustified shootings. if one thinks that was unjustified, then its very likely there are probably very few shootings that you would accept as justified. 

 

Perception is reality. Thats what they tell me. And thats what my man died for. So sure. Perception. First of all, lets not attempt to define my perception, please. You know exactly jack about me other than what I post on here.  

 

Im very aware there will always be imperfect moments with imperfect people running the show. The systems imperfect people put together are....surprise....imperfect. I get it. I understand mistakes. What I dont understand is people who claim to share the same problem I do justifying this mans death when it could be them next time. But then, I remember who I am talking to and understand that perception is reality and they are not perceived the same way I am. 

 

What does Micheal Brown have to do with this other than he was a large black male and shot by the police? 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

All that said - I think we have come to an understanding here. --You @TheGreatBuzz .....self proclaimed (and pls, correct me if im wrong) Straight White and Male. You @grego .....Immigrant sooo happy to be here and super "independent".  And me....LARGE, threatening, Black and male. Neither of you share my point of view. Neither of you seem capable of even attempting to do so. And the same for me. Unable and unwilling to accept the world im looking at and you are defending. -- We have nothing left to talk about. I think we can all agree to that. 

 

 

EDIT: No hard feelings though. I dont dislike you -- despite what the above sounds like. I just have nothing more to discuss with you. Two fingas

Edited June 21, 2017 by Llevron

[TradeTheBeal!]

"I don't wanna rehash Michael Brown"

 

Totally rehashes Michael Brown for the hundredth time....

[grego]

i dont know why my post generated the response it did, or why its so difficult to have a conversation. what part of my post makes you believe i am against justice? why do you think i'm against you? why do you think i'm not interested in your thoughts?

 

yanez panicked and shot castile unjustifiably.

 

michael slager should be in jail for shooting walter scott.

 

the cop who shot tamir rice should be in jail.

 

george zimmerman should be in jail.

 

any cops who are racists should not be cops.

 

where do we disagree again?

Edited June 21, 2017 by grego

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I was never even really trying to talk to you about this, real live. So im not sure why you continue to try to get me to see things from your point of view. I dont. I disagree with your general indifference toward the struggle here. I dont even want to see things from your perspective (How did you say it? - White straight male?). So now what? 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

All that said - I think we have come to an understanding here. --You @TheGreatBuzz .....self proclaimed (and pls, correct me if im wrong) Straight White and Male. You @grego .....Immigrant sooo happy to be here and super "independent".  And me....LARGE, threatening, Black and male. Neither of you share my point of view. Neither of you seem capable of even attempting to do so. And the same for me. Unable and unwilling to accept the world im looking at and you are defending. -- We have nothing left to talk about. I think we can all agree to that. 

 

 

EDIT: No hard feelings though. I dont dislike you -- despite what the above sounds like. I just have nothing more to discuss with you. Two fingas

Maybe that is the difference. I came in and asked a question in an attempt to see another perspective.  And I am open to a different point of view.  I'm not trying to defend the world you are looking at, I'm saying we have a different idea of what is wrong, especially regarding this case.

 

I look at this case and see reasonable doubt.  I also agree that there are many (probably mostly black) people in prison who shouldn't be because there was reasonable doubt there also.  I'd rather address the latter.  I also agree that there seems to be an issue of black men being assumed to be more dangerous by an officer upon meeting.  I think that needs to be addressed.  But locking up this cop when I'm not SURE the guy wasn't reaching for his gun isn't the way to fix it.  I said I agree with finding a way to make sure he doesn't become a cop somewhere else and not let him have a modern firearm.

 

Either way, if you don't want to discuss it anymore, that's fine. 

[justice98]

I think these kinda verdicts should remind us how important being selected for jury duty is.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

I would really like to hear from the jurors why they found him not guilty.  Have any of them been interviewed?

[justice98]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would really like to hear from the jurors why they found him not guilty.  Have any of them been interviewed?

 

I was wondering that too.  I hadn't heard anything.

[Llevron]

I cant tell you what the jury was thinking. But I can give you this link. Its an "expert" report from a ex police officer. The Ramsey County Attorney in Minnesota asked asked him to put it together. Take it for what its worth. The guy gives his creds. on the subject in the first few paragraphs. Sounds legit to me but....well y'all know how I feel by now. This was provided to the jury as well. Which makes it even more upsetting for me personally 

 

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/County Attorney/Noble Use of Force Final Report.pdf

 

Here are a few TL;DR; bits:

 

1. No reasonable police officer would have believed that Mr. Castile matched the description of an armed robbery suspect
2. If a police officer believed that Mr. Castile was a suspect in an armed robbery a reasonable officer would have conducted a high-risk car stop
3. The totality of the facts and circumstances indicate that Officer Yanez's use of deadly force was unnecessary, objectively unreasonable, and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices.
4.  

9.) Officer Yanez said, "I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me'

 

10.) Officer Yanez said he does not recall Mr. Castile saying anything, or seeing anything in his hands, after the shooting.

 

c. Indeed, the only possible means of identification that Officer Yanez could have relied upon was that: 1.) Mr. Castile was black. 2.) Mr. Castile was a male. 3.) Mr. Castile was driving near the Super USA convenience store [which was robbed four days prior]. 4.) Mr. Castile was observed four days after the robbery. (The fact that the time frame of the robbery was stale, weighs against a reasonable belief that Mr. Castile was involved in the robbery). 5.) Mr. Castile "had a wide set nose." (A descriptive factor that was never mentioned in any of the reports and lacks uniqueness in making an identification.)

 

d. The belief that Mr. Castile matched the description of an armed robbery suspect, from a crime that occurred four days prior, under these circumstances is unreasonable and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices. The reality is that Mr. Castile unfortunately happened to be driving by the Super USA convenience store four days after a robbery, where the only factors that could have reasonably been used to identify Mr. Castile was that he was a black male and any belief that he may somehow be related to the robbery is nothing more than an unreasonable guess.

 

2.) A simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern. There are always generalized risks in policing/ but police officers are taught they must have specific articulable facts rather than to focus on worst-case might haves/' There must be some evidence or facts that would lead an objectively reasonable officer to believe the fear claimed by the officer and that fear is combined with an immediate threat. Of course, many things may be "possible/" but in this case a reasonable officer would only conclude that there may be marijuana inside the vehicle not that Mr. Castile was a drug dealer who was protecting themselves with a firearm from being robbed.

 

1. In this case, the totality of the circumstances reveal the following:
2.  
   1. a. Mr. Castile did not match the description of either of the armed robbery suspects;
   2. b. Officer Yanez did not act consistently with a belief that Mr. Castile had been involved in an armed robbery by failing to notify the dispatcher and failing to conduct a high-risk car stop;
   3. c. The odor of burnt marijuana would be cause to investigate, but a reasonable police officer would not have believed that Mr. Castile was a drug dealer or that he was armed to protect his illicit activity;
   4. d. The odor of burnt marijuana in a car would not lead a reasonable police officer to believe they were at some heightened level of risk because a child was endangered due to second hand smoke;
   5. e. The only crimes being investigated were faulty brake lights and the possible possession of marijuana;
   6. f. People in the state of Minnesota are entitled to carry a concealed firearm if they are licensed and Mr. Castile was licensed;
   7. g. Mr. Castile had been cooperative/ he stopped immediately when signaled/ did not resist Officer Yanez in any way, and did not try to flee;
   8. h. Mr. Castile volunteered information in a calm manner that he possessed a firearm;
   9. i. Officer Yanez said he had difficulty seeing into the vehicle due to the darkness/ yet he did not use his flashlight at any point;
   10. J. Officer Yanez said he could not see Mr. Castile's right hand because Mr. Castile canted his body, but told investigators that he saw Mr. Castile grab an object in a "C" shape that was "almost" like grabbing a gun;
   11. k. Officer Yanez said it "seemed" like Mr. Castile was pulling out a gun;
   12. l. Officer Yanez did not provide clear unambiguous direction to Mr. Castile and said "Don't reach for it/' and "Don't pull it out/' instead of directing Mr. Castile to raise his hands or place his hands on the steering wheel;
   13. m. Officer Yanez to!d Officer Sunde he did not know where the gun was;
   14. n. Officer Yanez had just asked Mr. Castile to produce his driver's license;
   15. o. Officer Yanez never alerted Officer Kauser of the presence of a gun;
   16. p. Officer Yanez knew Mr. Castile was seat-belted making his movements more difficult and if Officer Yanez believed Mr. Castile was a threat with a firearm he did not retreat to the "B" pillar of the vehicle to create time;
   17. q. Officer Kauser did not behave in a manner in his approach and positioning at the passenger side of the vehicle that would be consistent with a belief that he was contacting a possibly armed subject and Officer Yanez did not correct Officer Kauser in anyway;
   18. r. Officer Kauser said the shots surprised him and that he did not see Mr. Castile make a sudden movement;
   19. s. After Officer Yanez said "Don't pul! it out/' Mr. Castile replied, "I'm not pulling it out" and Ms. Reynolds said, "He's not pulling it out"
   20. t After he had been shot Mr. Castile said he did not reach for the gun;
   21. u. Ms. Reynolds said Mr. Castile was trying to take out his identification;
   22. v, Ms. Reynolds said the officer could not have seen a gun because it was never visible.
   23.  
3. The totality of the facts and circumstances indicate that Officer Yanez s use of deadly force was not necessary, objectively unreasonable, and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices

 

1.