Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Cooked Crack]

Thread on some documents released yesterday. The video of the girlfriend and daughter in the back of the cop car is sad and aggravating

[mcsluggo]

these threads are absolute discussion stranglers.    

[Llevron]

12 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Thread on some documents released yesterday. The video of the girlfriend and daughter in the back of the cop car is sad and aggravating

 

Some of the information in this thread of tweets is down right amazing. What was the reasoning for going though the woman's text, voicemail's, and social media to find evidence of a crime? She didn't even do anything but watch her boyfriend die. 

[Gamebreaker]

41 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Some of the information in this thread of tweets is down right amazing. What was the reasoning for going though the woman's text, voicemail's, and social media to find evidence of a crime? She didn't even do anything but watch her boyfriend die. 

 

To discredit her in the eyes of the public and potentially poison the jury pool. It worked. 

[NoCalMike]

If you want to see how easy it is for everything to get clouded, just go on social media and look at the comments from any posts on this story.  The things they believe happened when nothing in the video or news articles support it.  So many people are saying as a  "fact" that he was reaching for his gun when even every bit of testimony and police reporting doesn't even back up that claim.   I also find it odd that considering how pro-pot this country has become as a whole, there is no shortage of people to turn suddenly hypocritical on it when it involves an African american. 

 

Also, I am glad the cop in the previously posted article explain that the police officer's actions did not seem consistent with how you'd treat a situation where you are pulling over an armed robbery suspect.  I felt this entire time that it seemed strange that if he legitimately though this guy was an armed robbery suspect, it would be weird to pull him over and approach the vehicle like nothing.  You'd think there would have been more fear and question in his mind leading up to that.

Edited June 21, 2017 by NoCalMike

[Mr. Sinister]

3 hours ago, Llevron said:

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.  

 

And therefore apparently not guilty of manslaughter

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

Quote

Body-camera video from another officer -- played for the jury last week -- showed that Heaggan-Brown shot a second bullet into Smith's chest after the suspect hurled his weapon over a fence and had his hands near his head. Smith was on the ground when he received the fatal shot.

The jury heard closing arguments and deliberated about five hours Tuesday.

"Mr. Heaggan-Brown knew at the time he fired that second shot that Sylville Smith had already disarmed himself," Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm told the jury, CNN affiliate WISN-TV reported.

"He knew that Sylville Smith was attempting to surrender."

But defense attorney Jonathan Smith argued his client followed training and fired the second, fatal shot because he believed his life was in danger.

"The state admits that the first shot was a justified shot," the lawyer told the jury, according to the station.

 

Ugh.

[Cooked Crack]

Totally missed that one. Heaggan-Brown is a real piece of work. Police seem to only protect their own when the crime is committed on duty.

[codeorama]

I watched the dashboard cam footage yesterday and I personally don't understand how the video proved anything conclusive either way. I can't see what's happening in the car. I can't call the cop a "murderer" without knowing what was happening inside the car. 

 

Point of interest. When I took my conceal carry permit class, we were taught that when pulled over to keep our hands out of the window of the car and visible so there was no chance of any misunderstanding. 

[Chew]

47 minutes ago, codeorama said:

Point of interest. When I took my conceal carry permit class, we were taught that when pulled over to keep our hands out of the window of the car and visible so there was no chance of any misunderstanding. 

 

I've never heard that before (not saying you didn't).  Last thing I want some jumpy cop to see is me trying to reach out the window.  

 

Here in Colorado, we do not have to notify the cop that we are armed (CCW).  To avoid being shot and killed by police, I prefer to not tell them I have a gun at all.  Don't want to add any stress to the situation, so I'd rather not say "I have a gun," even if it is my legal right.  And in order to avoid any confusion, I no longer keep my gun on my waist when driving.  I just shove it under the seat (in holster) until I get to where I'm going.  I also keep my wallet in plain sight on the dash so it's one less thing I have to reach for that's out of sight.  

 

And totally random, and wouldn't be worth mentioning anywhere else...but since I'm annoyed with police I'll talk about it.   got pulled over about a month ago in my wife's car (a new luxury SUV.)  The first thing the cop said to me when he walked up to my window was "is this your car?"  Now, I'm hoping that I haven't been completely brainwashed into hating police and over-analyzing everything they say and do, but was that not kinda ****ed up?  A black dude in a nice car, so when you approach the vehicle, the first thing out of your mouth was "is this your car?"  Not "license and registration" or "do you know why I pulled you over."  Am I reaching here or was that kinda ****ed up?   

 

I didn't get a ticket, btw.  Turns out the reason he pulled me over was "because I appeared distracted."  He said that I appeared to be texting while driving.  I was at a red light, stopped, when he hit the lights behind me.  The funny thing is, I was at a red light waiting to turn left onto the highway.  So I simply turned the blutooth button on for my phone so that, in case anybody called, I could answer the phone "hands free" and not be distracted while on the highway, trying to fiddle with my phone.  

[Gamebreaker]

I guess Diamond Reynolds words are ****. She says he wasn't reaching for his gun. But apparently that testimony means nothing. It's interesting when people choose to find eyewitness testimony reliable. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Gamebreaker

[Spearfeather]

2 hours ago, codeorama said:

I watched the dashboard cam footage yesterday and I personally don't understand how the video proved anything conclusive either way. I can't see what's happening in the car. I can't call the cop a "murderer" without knowing what was happening inside the car. 

 

 

After watching the video a couple of times, that was my biggest question too. What is it that Castille keeps reaching for ?

[grego]

still trying to make sense if this (it may not be possible, but, trying) but i still havent seen much info from the jurys perspective.

 

 where was castiles gun? if he actually grabbed the gun, would that make the officers actions more understandable?

[TradeTheBeal!]

The Summer of Love continues...

 

http://abc7.com/news/suspect-killed-in-deputy-involved-shooting-in-palmdale-authorities-say/2131277/

[grego]

8 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

I guess Diamond Reynolds words are ****. She says he wasn't reaching for his gun. But apparently that testimony means nothing. It's interesting when people choose to find eyewitness testimony reliable. 

 

 I was reading about the defenses cross examination of her. I'd like to hear from the jurors (which may be difficult) but i think what probably made her testimony less believable is that she admitted that she exaggerated her treatment by police after the shooting, she admitted that Castilo didn't have his hands up when she had said he did. She said they smoked weed almost daily and had smoked weed before being pulled over. 

 

She also said that he had the gun in his holster, but it was either on his lap (if you believe that was it in the video) or hanging out of his pocket or deep in his pocket depending on whose testimony you believe.

 

Still digging for answers but this is what I got so far. 

 

I would like to hear from the jurors though. 

[Mr. Sinister]

 I think we know how this will end

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mr. Sinister

[StillUnknown]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Cops too scared it seems. Can't even be out of uniform if you're a black cop. First 2 cops acted appropriately only to have cop #3 pull up and shoot first and ask questions later.

[Gamebreaker]

5 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Cops too scared it seems. Can't even be out of uniform if you're a black cop. First 2 cops acted appropriately only to have cop #3 pull up and shoot first and ask questions later.

 

That tends to happen occasionally. Last year an off-duty black officer in MD was shot and killed during a shoot-out that happened at a police department. It seems like for some officers, the only way they can identify a threat is the color of skin and lack of a uniform. 

[DogofWar1]

4 hours ago, StillUnknown said:

 

Jeebus cheetos.

 

Are you ****ing kidding me?  Jumpy bunch of wankers!

[LD0506]

One of my biggest issues with these things is that no matter what happens the immediate response is to lie. Offering up some ludicrous explanation that is later shown to be total bull**** ought to be a problem for the police departments, but it never seems to be.

[tshile]

On 6/21/2017 at 3:35 PM, NoCalMike said:

 I felt this entire time that it seemed strange that if he legitimately though this guy was an armed robbery suspect, it would be weird to pull him over and approach the vehicle like nothing.  You'd think there would have been more fear and question in his mind leading up to that.

There is a set of procedures for traffic stops based on what sort of stop it is.

 

Quote

A "felony" or "high-risk" traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle which they have strong reason to believe contains a driver or passenger suspected of having committed a serious crime, especially of a nature that would lead the police to believe the suspects may be armed (such as an armed robbery, assault with a weapon, or an outstanding felony warrant for the registered owner). In a high risk stop, officers attempt to provide their own safety by issuing instructions to maintain absolute control over every step of the proceedings.

 

 

It varies state to state based on training but my understanding is Felony stops usually involve the police officer not leaving their own car (door open, behind door), with gun drawn, issuing instructions over the PA system. It involves forcing the suspect to walk backwards while police change positions, certain protocols for backup, etc etc.

 

It's not weird, he's either incompetent or lying.

[tshile]

43 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

One of my biggest issues with these things is that no matter what happens the immediate response is to lie. Offering up some ludicrous explanation that is later shown to be total bull**** ought to be a problem for the police departments, but it never seems to be.

That's what always gets me...

 

like the tamir rice situation... i wasn't all in on they were murders, but we have video that shows their initial report of things is not true. that, in and of itself, needs to be punished and done so with the fact that a boy was killed as part of consideration.

 

i don't know enough details about these things but i can't help but wonder what the difference would be if the police were gone after for not following their training, or lying, in a situation where someone died; as opposed to being murderous cops looking for black people to kill.

 

in the traffic stop case... at a minimum, you should be able to say the officer did not follow procedure for a high risk traffic stop (because according to him he was going after an armed robbery suspect...) and that resulted in the death of someone.