Philando Castile

[Snaggletiger]

Is a cop allowed to cut a bitch?

[AUChizad]

Have you ever considered the fact that what you actually intend may not be nearly as clear in writing as it is when you thought it in your head?

I'd like to see a poll result here. Did anyone but CCTAU, Kaos, and WiregrassTiger, who reflexively put themselves on the opposite end of literally anything I say, have any problems interpreting my position? Did anyone besides those three see any indication whatsoever that I was saying every single police shooting involving a black person is inherently and directly the result of racism? Anyone?

You refuse to accept the idea of profiling even as it pertains to this shooting incident.  Yet you profile CCT.  You profile moi.  You assume our what positions will be and respond based on that profiled assumption regardless of what the actual response may be.

I'm "profiling" CCTAU's positions because he completely mischaracterized mine? As evidenced by me stating it again, highlighting specific sentences he willfully ignored?

That was not a snarky insult directed at you.

At least have the decency to admit that you are part of the problem. You took that as a condemnation of you and everything you stand for.  All the guy said was that if you found racism at every turn you were buying into the lie.   No basis for indignation there. 

Silly me for taking:

You are what's wrong with society today.

as a condemnation of me and everything I stand for. I should strive to be as clear as CCTAU in my posts, clearly. No where near the level of viciousness associated with suggesting his monitor may not be functioning properly since he missed my repeated statements completely counter to the box he was trying to put me in.

Clearly, I'm the bad guy here.

 

[Kaos]

Clearly, I'm the bad guy here.

C'mon, dude.  Do you seriously need another poll to validate you?  The last one turned out so well.  Is it that important? 

Who "misinterpreted" your positions?  I never even really addressed them, Chiz. I added my own perspective on the incident but don't remember addressing yours or anyone else's.  Neither did Wiregrass. He just made jokes that you seemingly took as something else.

Out of respect for the others here, I'm not going to continue to beat this tin drum. 

All I'm going to say is that if you have to continually ask this question or make this statement?  There's your answer.

[AUChizad]

Out of respect for the others here, I'm not going to continue to beat this tin drum. 

All I'm going to say is that if you have to continually ask this question or make this statement?  There's your answer.

Because you continually make the false accusation that everyone but your two sycophants see right through.

[ssgaufan]

I'd like to see a poll result here. Did anyone but CCTAU, Kaos, and WiregrassTiger, who reflexively put themselves on the opposite end of literally anything I say, have any problems interpreting my position? Did anyone besides those three see any indication whatsoever that I was saying every single police shooting involving a black person is inherently and directly the result of racism? Anyone?
 

I did, but I'm so tired of seeing racism blamed as the cause of all evil, I chose to ignore it.  In fact, anytime I hear somebody claim racism now days I just ignore it/them.

We have way too many pansy ass so called men in this country, that tuck their balls anytime they get confronted.

[AUChizad]

I did, but I'm so tired of seeing racism blamed as the cause of all evil, I chose to ignore it.  In fact, anytime I hear somebody claim racism now days I just ignore it/them.

We have way too many pansy ass so called men in this country, that tuck their balls anytime they get confronted.

So that's four people who "interpreted" my posts without reading them.

 

[Kaos]

Because you continually make the false accusation that everyone but your two sycophants see right through.

And there you go again. 

There was no accusation whatsoever. I never addressed your inherent racism or lack thereof.  I tried to have a rational conversation, point out that your reaction could possibly take us down a road nobody really wants to travel -- not even me -- and you just can't help yourself. 

People can disagree.  People have the right to think your position is stupid or asinine or based in faulty logic.  You're not always (ever) going to be able to persuade them that you're right.  Can't you just leave that alone?

We've thrown enough monkey poop. 

[ssgaufan]

So that's four people who "interpreted" my posts without reading them.

 

No, I read it, I just chose to ignore the stupid racism claim you made.

I do interpret you as a liberal bitch though.

[AUChizad]

No, I read it, I just chose to ignore the stupid racism claim you made.

I do interpret you as a liberal bitch though.

Maybe your monitor is broken as well then.

Sorry in advance to Kaos for replying to his kind words with such a brutal insult.

[Token]

I did, but I'm so tired of seeing racism blamed as the cause of all evil, I chose to ignore it.  In fact, anytime I hear somebody claim racism now days I just ignore it/them.

We have way too many pansy ass so called men in this country, that tuck their balls anytime they get confronted.

THIS is why I think the jury came back with not guilty verdict.  Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am.  There was a lot of bullshit that went on with the BLM movement up there, over this specific incident. 

[Kaos]

THIS is why I think the jury came back with not guilty verdict.  Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am.  There was a lot of bullshit that went on with the BLM movement up there, over this specific incident.

I honestly think it was simpler than that. 

The jury couldn't see Castile's hands.  Anything beyond that?  Speculation. 

Not racism, not bias, not a social statement. 

I didn't hear any of the testimony, obviously.  But if I see that video and I'm on the jury I'm going to ask the rest of the jurors "can we say for 100% certain that we know where Castille's hands actually were?" 

If the answer is no?  I can't convict the guy of anything. 

[Token]

Also, administrators in law enforcement make a decent wage.  With all of the dumbass kids we are forced to hire it doesn't take long to move up.  I still urge you people to give it a shot.

[Token]

I honestly think it was simpler than that. 

The jury couldn't see Castile's hands.  Anything beyond that?  Speculation. 

Not racism, not bias, not a social statement. 

I didn't hear any of the testimony, obviously.  But if I see that video and I'm on the jury I'm going to ask the rest of the jurors "can we say for 100% certain that we know where Castille's hands actually were?" 

If the answer is no?  I can't convict the guy of anything.

The officer testified that he never seen a gun.  He was scared.  He had no business being in that situation. 

[AUChizad]

I didn't hear any of the testimony, obviously.  But if I see that video and I'm on the jury I'm going to ask the rest of the jurors "can we say for 100% certain that we know where Castille's hands actually were?" 

You mean refute where the officer himself testified that they were? Bold strategy, counselor.

[Snaggletiger]

The officer testified that he never seen a gun.  He was scared.  He had no business being in that situation.

Did I remember right that he shot 7 times? If that's the case, that's even more of an indication that this Officer was not prepared to handle the situation and pretty much just lost his shit.  Do you really need to shoot someone 7 times at point blank range, especially when you haven't seen a gun?

[AUChizad]

Did I remember right that he shot 7 times? If that's the case, that's even more of an indication that this Officer was not prepared to handle the situation and pretty much just lost his shit.  Do you really need to shoot someone 7 times at point blank range, especially when you haven't seen a gun?

Yes. I meant to clarify that since Kaos took my "20 shots" hyperbole literally.

It was extremely excessive.

[Kaos]

You mean refute where the officer himself testified that they were? Bold strategy, counselor.

I said quite plainly I didn't hear the testimony but that based only on the video, I wouldn't convict.  It's my personal opinion that the video carried more weight with the jury than anything that was said or remembered.  Not a difficult concept.

Have you ever seen a "jury of your peers?"   The video may well have been enough.   No refutation intended or necessary. Not arguing the case.  Merely making an observation.

Yeah, the officer said he knew where the hands were, but wasn't sure what Castille was reaching for.  I believe he said that too. How do you process that fact?  Please.  Tell me how you know.  Were you there?  Could you see his hands?  Did he keep reaching for something after you told him not to?  Did Cam get paid? 

This is where I can see what others are saying.  You're so invested in proving that you're not a racist that you actually end up being one.  In reverse.  You assumed the officer shot the guy because he fit a profile.  Maybe he did.  But to put yourself in the jury, hearing only what the media reported and seeing only the video and declaring with absolute certainty that there was some racial intent or whatever?  Bollocks. 

I personally think the cop was out of line based on what the media's told me.  I think he got spooked and freaked completely out.  He didn't need to half empty the clip for sure.  I don't think you can underestimate context however.  This happened in the middle of a very tense period, one exacerbated by our so-called president essentially declaring open season on police officers.  There had been a recent rash of officers gunned down while performing routine tasks.  I don't think there's any question the kid (and he was just a kid) was at a heightened sense of alarm and awareness. Nobody wants to die on the street because they were too nice or too lenient to somebody with bad intentions and that's where we were at that time.  Police officers were dying.

I didn't see everything the jury saw.  I didn't hear everything the jury heard. I didn't hear the opening statements, all the witnesses nor the closing arguments.  I didn't have a chance to look at the officer as he testified and judge him as a man and an officer of the law.  Neither did you.  Therefore...

Carry on. 

[AUChizad]

I said quite plainly I didn't hear the testimony

It was mentioned several times in this thread that he testified that he never saw a gun and that he was reaching into his pocket with his hands in a "C shape".

Maybe something's wrong with your monitor as well. Maybe it's an html problem at this point. Godfather, can you look into this?

Yeah, the officer said he knew where the hands were, but wasn't sure what Castille was reaching for.  I believe he said that too. How do you process that fact?  Please.  Tell me how you know.  Were you there?  Could you see his hands?  Did he keep reaching for something after you told him not to?  Did Cam get paid? 

I'm not making any assumption that counters anything the officer said. I heard the audio, saw the video, and am taking his testimony on what transpired in the car at his word. I could hear in the video that he asked him to provide ID. I could hear in the video that he said he was reaching for it. I could hear in the video that he also calmly informed the officer that he had a licensed firearm in the car. I could hear in the video that when the officer said "Don't reach for it", he said "I'm not reaching for it..." and then BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

What is inaccurate or conjecture in that?

Again, I'm taking the officer's word that he was probably reaching into his breast pocket, where his ID was, which he was just asked to present.

This is where I can see what others are saying.  You're so invested in proving that you're not a racist that you actually end up being one.  In reverse.  You assumed the officer shot the guy because he fit a profile.  Maybe he did.  But to put yourself in the jury, hearing only what the media reported and seeing only the video and declaring with absolute certainty that there was some racial intent or whatever?  Bollocks. 

How many hundred or so times do I have to explicitly say that anywhere you thought you saw that I "assumed the officer shot the guy because he fit a profile" or claimed "there was some racial intent or whatever", was in your fever dream, not in reality. I not only never said it, which would be enough for your repeated insistance that I did be asinine. But I have repeatedly clarified that that was never my position. Fuck's sake...

That being said, the officer ALSO testified that he did this because he "fit a profile" of a robbery suspect. So while you insist that I'm projecting this on him, A) I never said it, and B) HE actually did say it.

I personally think the cop was out of line based on what the media's told me.  I think he got spooked and freaked completely out.  He didn't need to half empty the clip for sure.

This is exactly what I said before you and CCTAU ran it through your imaginary straw man filter.

I don't think you can underestimate context however.  This happened in the middle of a very tense period, one exacerbated by our so-called president essentially declaring open season on police officers.  There had been a recent rash of officers gunned down while performing routine tasks.  I don't think there's any question the kid (and he was just a kid) was at a heightened sense of alarm and awareness. Nobody wants to die on the street because they were too nice or too lenient to somebody with bad intentions and that's where we were at that time.  Police officers were dying.

So this excuses it? I doubt you'd chalk this specific incident up to clerical error if that were a family member in that car.

[AUChizad]

Another VIDEO. Feel free to ignore the #FakeNews surrounding it.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-video-diamond-reynolds-daughter-20170622-story.html

Fucking gut-wrenching.

[Kaos]

It was mentioned several times in this thread that he testified that he never saw a gun and that he was reaching into his pocket with his hands in a "C shape".

Maybe something's wrong with your monitor as well. Maybe it's an html problem at this point. Godfather, can you look into this?
I'm not making any assumption that counters anything the officer said. I heard the audio, saw the video, and am taking his testimony on what transpired in the car at his word. I could hear in the video that he asked him to provide ID. I could hear in the video that he said he was reaching for it. I could hear in the video that he also calmly informed the officer that he had a licensed firearm in the car. I could hear in the video that when the officer said "Don't reach for it", he said "I'm not reaching for it..." and then BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

What is inaccurate or conjecture in that?

Again, I'm taking the officer's word that he was probably reaching into his breast pocket, where his ID was, which he was just asked to present.
How many hundred or so times do I have to explicitly say that anywhere you thought you saw that I "assumed the officer shot the guy because he fit a profile" or claimed "there was some racial intent or whatever", was in your fever dream, not in reality. I not only never said it, which would be enough for your repeated insistance that I did be asinine. But I have repeatedly clarified that that was never my position. Fuck's sake...

That being said, the officer ALSO testified that he did this because he "fit a profile" of a robbery suspect. So while you insist that I'm projecting this on him, A) I never said it, and B) HE actually did say it.
This is exactly what I said before you and CCTAU ran it through your imaginary straw man filter.
So this excuses it? I doubt you'd chalk this specific incident up to clerical error if that were a family member in that car.

I'm not reading all that.  Nobody is. 

I wish you'd quit.  In fact, I'd like to see a poll on how many people want to endure more multi-quoted responses.

But...
I never before this post said anything about racial intent.  Yours or anybody else's.  There was no repeated anything. What I was trying to convey, albeit clumsily perhaps, is that your position could be construed that way -- and apparently was.  Not by me, but by others.  That much is in evidence and not in question.

I will say again that you are drawing conclusions on partial evidence. You know what the media reported. You know what you saw on the video.  You were not in the courtroom. You didn't see the officer's face.  You didn't hear all the witnesses or any of the arguments by either attorney.  You weren't privy to the judge's instructions.  Therefore any absolute judgment you render is inherently flawed and incomplete. 

I can see how the jury could have agreed with you.  I can see how they might have arrived at the conclusion they did -- for the reasons I listed.  Disagreeing with your position is not a referendum on your intelligence or judgment.  I only attempted to offer a different point of view.   You don't care to entertain it.  Your choice.

I also never said the climate excused the action only that it may have played a role.  Not knowing the makeup of the jury, I can't say for certain that none of them had a relative or friend who was a police officer and that this may have played a role in their decision.