Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Token on June 17, 2017, 06:32:08 PM
-
Yet another police officer acquitted of charges stemming from a shooting death. Are juries really that against convicting a police officer or is this yet another case of the media distorting the actual facts of the case?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html
-
Based on what I have seen and read, this was definitely a wrongful death. I don't know what the question was in this case. Did the officer murder him? Like the article points out, Crucial actions of the "reaching" would need to be addressed and aren't in the video. It looks like involuntary at a minimum to me, so far.
Probably boils down to prejudice and good lawyering.
Unfortunately, the right is likely to be blamed and this turned into a political fight rather than one for justice.
Sad incident for sure.
-
St. Paul up in flames in 3....2.....1
-
This never got discussed, but anyone see this video?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/?utm_term=.0db44af1cd8f
I would like to pick Token's brain on it.
From where I'm sitting? 99% of these cases are nuanced, but in the end I settle on the officer being justifiably innocent of charges levied against them due to the nature of the job they're being asked to do. This one? I don't see it, man. What could Castile have done differently? He immediately told the officer he had a firearm that he was licensed to carry, and the officer asked for his ID, which he was providing as he repeatedly explained that this was what he was doing, and the dude unloads 20 shots into him with his baby girl in the backseat and girlfriend or whatever in the passenger seat.
It is fucking tough to watch. I can't understand how he got off without even so much as a manslaughter charge. Like I said, I can sympathize with the officers most of the time, but I don't want to live in a country where police have the latitude to do this to citizens with zero repercussions.
-
This never got discussed, but anyone see this video?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/?utm_term=.0db44af1cd8f
I would like to pick Token's brain on it.
From where I'm sitting? 99% of these cases are nuanced, but in the end I settle on the officer being justifiably innocent of charges levied against them due to the nature of the job they're being asked to do. This one? I don't see it, man. What could Castile have done differently? He immediately told the officer he had a firearm that he was licensed to carry, and the officer asked for his ID, which he was providing as he repeatedly explained that this was what he was doing, and the dude unloads 20 shots into him with his baby girl in the backseat and girlfriend or whatever in the passenger seat.
It is fucking tough to watch. I can't understand how he got off without even so much as a manslaughter charge. Like I said, I can sympathize with the officers most of the time, but I don't want to live in a country where police have the latitude to do this to citizens with zero repercussions.
It's hard for me to make assumptions based off video because I've seen numerous body/dash camera videos that didn't show everything and sometimes looked completely different than what actually happened.
But, If I'm on that jury and ONLY have video and audio to look at I convict him of manslaughter. There is a possibility that maybe his actions and his words didn't coincide. Maybe he was pulling the gun in an aggressive manner. I think the most telling part of that video though is the officer assisting. He's standing next to the passenger and never becomes alarmed by what he is doing. So yeah, looks guilty. But hard to say without all of the evidence.
With that said, I think the not guilty verdict is more of a statement by the jury against the BLM than it was about the actual case in front of them. We've allowed politics to bleed over into our judicial system and this is the blowback.
-
This never got discussed, but anyone see this video?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/?utm_term=.0db44af1cd8f
I would like to pick Token's brain on it.
From where I'm sitting? 99% of these cases are nuanced, but in the end I settle on the officer being justifiably innocent of charges levied against them due to the nature of the job they're being asked to do. This one? I don't see it, man. What could Castile have done differently? He immediately told the officer he had a firearm that he was licensed to carry, and the officer asked for his ID, which he was providing as he repeatedly explained that this was what he was doing, and the dude unloads 20 shots into him with his baby girl in the backseat and girlfriend or whatever in the passenger seat.
It is fucking tough to watch. I can't understand how he got off without even so much as a manslaughter charge. Like I said, I can sympathize with the officers most of the time, but I don't want to live in a country where police have the latitude to do this to citizens with zero repercussions.
:haha:
Washington Post!
(sorry)
-
That shit was wrong. Officer should have been convicted. I have no clue what the jury was looking at. However, let me say something about trials/juries. It only takes one to F it all up. One person who looks at it differently....is prejudiced...has some bias etc. When I saw that video, I just said DAAAAAAMMMNNN!!!!
That was wrong!
-
:haha:
Washington Post!
(sorry)
Dude...You don't even have to read it. I was posting the video. Don't believe your lyin' eyes, I guess since WaPo hosts the video...
:facepalm:
-
Just think how bad the rioting would be if the officer was white.
As we cannot see into the car, and as we have seen many times in the past, the passengers/friends always tells the truth(hands up. Don't shoot), I'm not sure what happened.
I just know that when I am pulled over, my gun is nowhere near me!
-
Just think how bad the rioting would be if the officer was white.
As we cannot see into the car, and as we have seen many times in the past, the passengers/friends always tells the truth(hands up. Don't shoot), I'm not sure what happened.
I just know that when I am pulled over, my gun is nowhere near me!
The cop's own testimony was that he shot him for reaching into his breast pocket "in a C shape" after he told him to show him his license. He thought the "C shape" indicated he was reaching for a gun. Of course, that also is exactly how you would reach for you wallet, and given the fact that he specifically asked him to show his license, it is far more reasonable to assume he was pulling out his wallet from a breast pocket than a gun that he also respectfully declared that he had in the car.
If the officer was testifying that he was actually reaching for a gun, or anything counter whatsoever to what was tracked in the audio, the visual might make some sort of difference.
As it stands, it does not.
-
After reading a lot of the testimony in the trial I have no fucking clue how he was found not guilty. But I agree with Snaggle. You can't ever predict or trust what a jury will do.
That is manslaughter all day long.
-
From where I sit the only way you can simultaneously hold the beliefs that the officer was justified and support a citizen's 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms is to be flagrantly racist. I see no other explanation in this case.
-
Dude...You don't even have to read it. I was posting the video. Don't believe your lyin' eyes, I guess since WaPo hosts the video...
:facepalm:
Joke. Cannot take one.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
-
This never got discussed, but anyone see this video?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/?utm_term=.0db44af1cd8f
I would like to pick Token's brain on it.
From where I'm sitting? 99% of these cases are nuanced, but in the end I settle on the officer being justifiably innocent of charges levied against them due to the nature of the job they're being asked to do. This one? I don't see it, man. What could Castile have done differently? He immediately told the officer he had a firearm that he was licensed to carry, and the officer asked for his ID, which he was providing as he repeatedly explained that this was what he was doing, and the dude unloads 20 shots into him with his baby girl in the backseat and girlfriend or whatever in the passenger seat.
It is fucking tough to watch. I can't understand how he got off without even so much as a manslaughter charge. Like I said, I can sympathize with the officers most of the time, but I don't want to live in a country where police have the latitude to do this to citizens with zero repercussions.
Only addressing one part of what you brought up but ...
One of the first things we were taught in concealed carry class. If an officer asks for your id, and you are carrying let him get the id. Keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. Tell the officer where the gun is and inform I'm that you will not be reaching for your id that he needs to get it.
IMO I don't care if he gives you a direct command to get your ID I'm not going for it. Let him get it.
I'm not really arguing specifics of this particular incident, but you have got to be smart when you are carrying a weapon. Especially if you declare to the officer that you have one. (which by the way you do not have to do.)
-
Only addressing one part of what you brought up but ...
One of the first things we were taught in concealed carry class. If an officer asks for your id, and you are carrying let him get the id. Keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. Tell the officer where the gun is and inform I'm that you will not be reaching for your id that he needs to get it.
IMO I don't care if he gives you a direct command to get your ID I'm not going for it. Let him get it.
I'm not really arguing specifics of this particular incident, but you have got to be smart when you are carrying a weapon. Especially if you declare to the officer that you have one. (which by the way you do not have to do.)
I don't disagree with any of this as best practices, and given the benefit of hindsight (or with specific training in this area), it's easy to say you should disobey what the officer is directly ordering you to do.
It does not fall into negligence on Castile's part to try to obey every one of the officer's commands while he's being pulled over, certainly not to the point that he should just expect to be killed for it.
What you're saying is a great survival guide to try to remember if you're in that situation like punch a shark in the nose, or play dead to a grizzly bear, but in those cases and this one, it's counterintuitive and not a natural instinct. And police should be held to higher standards than predatory wild animals.
-
Also...
Tell the officer where the gun is and inform I'm that you will not be reaching for your id that he needs to get it.
If he didn't believe him when he said he had a gun in the car but he was reaching for his wallet, it does not stand to reason he would be more apt to believe him if he was more specific about the location of the gun.
Especially if you declare to the officer that you have one. (which by the way you do not have to do.)
He declared he had it in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Clearly that didn't work. If the officer found the gun on his own without Castile being upfront about it, likely would not have ended any better. Or at least, one would not think so. Clearly he didn't think so.
-
Only addressing one part of what you brought up but ...
One of the first things we were taught in concealed carry class. If an officer asks for your id, and you are carrying let him get the id. Keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. Tell the officer where the gun is and inform I'm that you will not be reaching for your id that he needs to get it.
IMO I don't care if he gives you a direct command to get your ID I'm not going for it. Let him get it.
I'm not really arguing specifics of this particular incident, but you have got to be smart when you are carrying a weapon. Especially if you declare to the officer that you have one. (which by the way you do not have to do.)
Unless the officer is racist!
-
I touched on this in another thread and I maintain that LEO jobs aren't for everyone. The law we are sworn to uphold is black and white but 90% of the job is in a gray area. The best people suited for law enforcement are people who want nothing to do with it. The worst possible people for law enforcement you probably see every day when they are off duty. Thin blue line bracelets, thin blue line punisher skull and wearing police shit every day of their life. Something is wrong with those people.
I could write a thesis on this thread spelling out for yall all the problems in law enforcement personnel right now but I'll spare you the read. End of the day, that officer was terrified. Scared for his life even before he made that traffic stop. He wasn't prepared to deal with what he perceived to be a threat. He wasn't prepared to shoot someone he believed was about to kill him and he wasn't prepared for the results of firing his weapon multiple times into the chest of another person. You could see it in his reasoning, you could see it in his actions and you could hear it in his voice afterward. That guy had no business in the LE field and unfortunately someone who shouldn't have been shot is now dead.
-
From where I sit the only way you can simultaneously hold the beliefs that the officer was justified and support a citizen's 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms is to be flagrantly racist. I see no other explanation in this case.
You are what's wrong with society today. You have bought into the lie that as long as the victim is black, ITS RACISM!
Did you see the NON-WHITE officer? SO now EVERYBODY hates the po ole black mans?
We have no idea what truly happened. This officer may well be an idiot and pulled the trigger too quick.
But like I said, when I get pulled over, my gun is not seen and my wallet is already out. Both sides have a responsibility to make the other side feel no threat.
I have been pulled over many times with a gun in the car. The officer never knew and I never acted aggressive. We both moved right along without incident. And OMG, I have been pulled over by black cops too.
Stop perpetrating the lie that it is always the poor black victims. These things happen to other races also. You just do not hear about it.
-
I touched on this in another thread and I maintain that LEO jobs aren't for everyone. The law we are sworn to uphold is black and white but 90% of the job is in a gray area. The best people suited for law enforcement are people who want nothing to do with it. The worst possible people for law enforcement you probably see every day when they are off duty. Thin blue line bracelets, thin blue line punisher skull and wearing police shit every day of their life. Something is wrong with those people.
I could write a thesis on this thread spelling out for yall all the problems in law enforcement personnel right now but I'll spare you the read. End of the day, that officer was terrified. Scared for his life even before he made that traffic stop. He wasn't prepared to deal with what he perceived to be a threat. He wasn't prepared to shoot someone he believed was about to kill him and he wasn't prepared for the results of firing his weapon multiple times into the chest of another person. You could see it in his reasoning, you could see it in his actions and you could hear it in his voice afterward. That guy had no business in the LE field and unfortunately someone who shouldn't have been shot is now dead.
But does that make these people racist? Or just unfit for the job?
Because we cannot even discuss this issue due to all of the racism talk that smothers the conversation.
-
But does that make these people racist? Or just unfit for the job?
Because we cannot even discuss this issue due to all of the racism talk that smothers the conversation.
He didn't shoot him because he was black. He shot him because he was scared that he was going for his weapon.
-
He didn't shoot him because he was black. He shot him because he was scared that he was going for his weapon.
Are you sure?
This is the society you are dealing with today.
From where I sit the only way you can simultaneously hold the beliefs that the officer was justified and support a citizen's 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms is to be flagrantly racist. I see no other explanation in this case.
-
Are you sure?
This is the society you are dealing with today.
That's not what I said.
I never ever ever said the officer was racist for fearing for his life in that situation, although we could go down the rabbit hole of WHY was he fearful of his life when the guy was calmly complying with his every order. But I didn't.
I'm saying if you support a person's 2nd Amendment right to carry AND you think it's ok for an officer to fire 20 shots into a guy's chest with his daughter in the back seat after telling him calmly and respectfully that you had a gun in the car but you were NOT reaching for it, you were reaching for your wallet like he asked...frankly, I don't believe you when you say you would feel the same if it were Cliven Bundy getting his chest blown out in that situation.
-
Are you sure?
This is the society you are dealing with today.
But that's not what Chad said. Chad doesn't believe the officer was justified.
-
That's not what I said.
I never ever ever said the officer was racist for fearing for his life in that situation, although we could go down the rabbit hold of WHY was he fearful of his life when the guy was calmly complying with his every order. But I didn't.
I'm saying if you support a person's 2nd Amendment right to carry AND you think it's ok for an officer to fire 20 shots into a guy's chest with his daughter in the back seat after telling him calmly and respectfully that you had a gun in the car but you were NOT reaching for it, you were reaching for your wallet like he asked...frankly, I don't believe you when you say you would feel the same if it were Cliven Bundy getting his chest blown out in that situation.
All this might hold water IF, IF, IF, you knew exactly what happened in that car.
It may be that it happened just as we THINK and the officer should be found guilty. But thank God we cannot convict on what we think or feel.
So for you to bring up racism is very indicative of how you have been conditioned to think any time a black man is involved in an incident with police. Sadly, you are not alone.
-
But that's not what Chad said. Chad doesn't believe the officer was justified.
But he claimed anyone who does think he was justified, is racist. So I guess the jury is racist?
It was a comment that really did not apply and was made in order to bring racism into the conversation...AGAIN!
-
So for you to bring up racism is very indicative of how you have been conditioned to think any time a black man is involved in an incident with police. Sadly, you are not alone.
You put in extra effort to willfully ignore things I actually say to twist into your contorted straw man version of them.
Can you read this this time or is your monitor broken?
99% of these cases are nuanced, but in the end I settle on the officer being justifiably innocent of charges levied against them due to the nature of the job they're being asked to do.
Yes, explicitly stating this is the 1% of the time where I think it is unjustified is definitely "any time a black man is involved", and not commenting whatsoever on the motivations of the officer himself and speaking ENTIRELY of the people DEFENDING his actions (yes, with you in mind) is definitely saying I think all police are racist.
:facepalm:
-
This all actually comes down to profiling.
If you choose to look a certain way it's entirely unreasonable for you to expect NOT to be pre-judged based on those choices.
And because you're pre-judged, it's also entirely unreasonable for you to expect that you won't held to a different standard of behavior based on that judgment.
The officer had an expectation of behavior based on appearance and the strong odor of marijuana. Would he have reacted to Chizad in the same way? Probably. Would he have done the same to me? I don't think so.
That doesn't make him racist. It makes him human.
Did he overreact? Yep. "Twenty shots" No.
-
Can you read this this time or is your monitor broken?
And here is where it goes off the rails.
Just saving us all some time before somebody gets on a high horse and claims they are being unfairly attacked.
It started right here. It can stop here if somebody recognizes the problem and steps back.
-
And here is where it goes off the rails.
Just saving us all some time before somebody gets on a high horse and claims they are being unfairly attacked.
It started right here. It can stop here if somebody recognizes the problem and steps back.
Bullshit.
He is intentionally misrepresenting my words, pretending I didn't say things I explicitly said to twist the argument.
And how is having a broken monitor insulting, exactly, snowflake?
-
For the record I think most of you would make good law enforcement officers. So quit being pussies and make it happen.
-
Also, you may want to check your flux capacitor, because my "broken monitor" comment (gasp), was after this.
You are what's wrong with society today. You have bought into the lie that as long as the victim is black, ITS RACISM!
-
For the record I think most of you would make good law enforcement officers. So quit being pussies and make it happen.
Can't afford to. You guys put up with way too much crap for the amount of money they pay you.
-
For the record I think most of you would make good law enforcement officers. So quit being pussies and make it happen.
And just what makes you think that any of us would want to be able to shoot black people and not worry about the consequences?
-
Bullshit.
He is intentionally misrepresenting my words, pretending I didn't say things I explicitly said to twist the argument.
And how is having a broken monitor insulting, exactly, snowflake?
Not bullshit, Chizad.
He responded with what he understood as your position. You responded by being an ass and making smart ass comments about him being unable to read what you had written. 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'm trying to be the shepherd, Ringo. Your trigger is hairy, though.
I made a joke -- a joke, son, get it? -- in one thread because you used the Washington Post. You were so ready to suffuse yourself with indignant rage it flew right over your head.
I'm saying dial it back. 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.
If we're truly trying to clean up the bombast in this part of the forum, you can't take your snarky little shots at people and then claim to have no blood on your hands when the discourse goes awry.
-
Can't afford to. You guys put up with way too much crap for the amount of money they pay you.
Says every single person who would actually be good at enforcing law.
-
Says every single person who would actually be good at enforcing law.
I say that, and I'd be shitty at it. I don't have the temper for dealing with stupid people. You put a badge on me, and I'll be in front of a jury inside 12 months.
-
Also, you may want to check your flux capacitor, because my "broken monitor" comment (gasp), was after this.
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.
-
I say that, and I'd be shitty at it. I don't have the temper for dealing with stupid people. You put a badge on me, and I'll be in front of a jury inside 12 months.
I don't think it would take me that long. Twelve hours maybe.
-
I say that, and I'd be shitty at it. I don't have the temper for dealing with stupid people. You put a badge on me, and I'll be in front of a jury inside 12 months.
Don't beat yourself up too much J, Buzz deserved it.
-
Is a cop allowed to cut a bitch?
-
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?
(https://static.superdeluxe.com/dankland/generators/when-your-mom-says-yaass--full.jpg)
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.
:taunt:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:vn:
-
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.
-
So that's four people who "interpreted" my posts without reading them.
:vn:
No, I read it, I just chose to ignore the stupid racism claim you made.
I do interpret you as a liberal bitch though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-thought-philando-castile-was-robbery-suspect-tapes-show-n607856). 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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-thought-philando-castile-was-robbery-suspect-tapes-show-n607856). 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.
-
I'd like to know more about him fitting the description of a robbery suspect. I would hope that the actual description given to this and other Officers was presented in court so that it could be presumed by the jury that other Officers would have thought the same thing when they pulled Castile over.
Having said that, I just watched the video again and it appears the Officer just snapped. He walked up calmly and was also talking in a calm, professional manner and then boom! Question for Token. If you approach a vehicle and notice that the driver fits the description of a robbery suspect or some other crime, do you talk to him at the window like this Officer did or would you immediately have him get out of the car? Not saying either is right or wrong, just wondering procedurally, what's the proper call?
-
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.
I must argue that this video is completely irrelevant and prejudicial.
It offers no insight into the events that led up to the shooting. It has no bearing on the case.
I guarantee you that if you had a video of Eva Braun after she watched Hitler commit suicide it would be pretty sad, too.
This is a clear example allowing your judgments to be colored by feeling rather than being based on fact.
-
This is a clear example allowing your judgments to be colored by feeling rather than being based on fact.
Why they gotta be colored? Racist.
-
Question for Token. If you approach a vehicle and notice that the driver fits the description of a robbery suspect or some other crime, do you talk to him at the window like this Officer did or would you immediately have him get out of the car? Not saying either is right or wrong, just wondering procedurally, what's the proper call?
This is the gray area I was talking about.
Depends on the context. Robbery that just happened? If I feel that strongly that I'm about to stop a robbery suspect then I'm conducting felony take down. Very good chance nobody involved in this traffic stop gets shot in a felony take down.
Robbery suspect from a previous day BOLO? Traffic stop and investigate. Passenger side approach, get a feel for what's going on and go from there. Something I do different than a lot of people....I don't act like a robot. I don't have a trained speech that I give from the start of the encounter. Each encounter is laid back like we are standing in line at the grocery store instead of on a traffic stop. Innocent people immediately relax in that situation. Guilty people try to relax but instead shake or immediately light up a cigarette. If a man openly admits he has a firearm on him, 9 times out of 10 I congratulate him for being a gun owner and go from there. If I don't feel safe I ask if I can get the gun and make it safe for the traffic stop.
Treating human beings like human beings goes a long way in life. Criminal or not. Traffic stop or not.
-
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'm "profiling" CCTAU's positions because he completely mischaracterized mine? As evidenced by me stating it again, highlighting specific sentences he willfully ignored?
(https://static.superdeluxe.com/dankland/generators/when-your-mom-says-yaass--full.jpg)
Silly me for taking: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.
:taunt:
I rarely read your stuff. But you best quit typing my name but if you insist on addressing me, make it Mr. WT.
-
This is one of those times that the police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, should've been nailed with manslaughter, dangerous discharge of a firearm, and be behind bars for the rest of his life.
-
Reply #11 of this thread took it down the racism road. It didn't need to go there, but for some people, it can't be helped!
-
This is one of those times that the police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, should've been nailed with manslaughter, dangerous discharge of a firearm, and be behind bars for the rest of his life.
Neither you nor Chizad were there when it happened. You weren't there for the trial.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7469601972f65e2b2adb5f8aa5e846a5/tumblr_n5xuyc8ZhL1sndbsno1_500.gif)
-
Neither you nor Chizad were there when it happened. You weren't there for the trial.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7469601972f65e2b2adb5f8aa5e846a5/tumblr_n5xuyc8ZhL1sndbsno1_500.gif)
No one said they were there when it happened or there for the trial, but going by the testimony, hearing the audio, and watching the videos, it's pretty clear that the officer should be held accountable.
Maybe you should listen to the testimony.
-
. I don't have a trained speech that I give from the start of the encounter. Each encounter is laid back like we are standing in line at the grocery store
Translation:
"Hey Nagger, look me in the eye when I talk, boy. The sign says 10 items or less."
-
Not bullshit, Chizad.
He responded with what he understood as your position. You responded by being an ass and making smart ass comments about him being unable to read what you had written. 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'm trying to be the shepherd, Ringo. Your trigger is hairy, though.
I made a joke -- a joke, son, get it? -- in one thread because you used the Washington Post. You were so ready to suffuse yourself with indignant rage it flew right over your head.
I'm saying dial it back. 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.
If we're truly trying to clean up the bombast in this part of the forum, you can't take your snarky little shots at people and then claim to have no blood on your hands when the discourse goes awry.
I don't want to get into the shit throwing, but it is not hard to "assume" what yours and CCTAU's position will be (along with many others on here), and it has nothing to do with "profiling"...
-
I don't want to get into the shit throwing, but it is not hard to "assume" what yours and CCTAU's position will be (along with many others on here), and it has nothing to do with "profiling"...
That's racist.