Compel wrote:
This may be an argument for argument's sake and I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this but...

Why shouldn't it be "OK" to be rude to a cop?

Inspired far as it's "okay" to be rude to a subway attendant, a taxi driver, a store clerk, a traffic warden.

By which I mean, of course it's not "OK" to be rude to them but... Well. I might be talking gibberish here.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As far as I can tell from my research...there is no proof of a CCP. There is also no proff that the car was stopped for an out tail light. Ive heard police audio prior to the event and the police did not specify a reason for the stop.

Here's some facts about the case that liberal media does not tell you because it detracts from their agenda.

The cop shooter is Latino - as in he is also a minority.- Not relevant in a discussion of Police vs. Public
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. Relevance? It has been reported, but no one has confirmed or denied the veracity of the radio audio that I am aware of. I would love a link to a local new source if you have it.
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun. There is also video of the police trying to resuscitate the victim as well. Reported on in this very thread. He received 1 warning, and was immediately shot 4 or 5 times.

In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. This is the heart of the problem. Our training and police culture in about escalating and maintaining control not de-escalation

Lesson to the wise. Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop. Be polite - comply with all legal requests - and don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you. That is a terrible lesson and is Authoritarianism at is worst

My comments in Orange above.

The Latino comment is solely to rule out racial motivations. At least the white vs black rubbish that Obama is trying to sell the people right now.

Cops are authority figures - it is in your best interests to do what they say. Do you dispute this? That is the only meaning of my statement.

I don't disagree with you on the training. The way we train officers to "eliminate the threat" rather than do their best to preserve lives during rough situations is clearly wrong to me. However, with that being their current training I find it difficult to judge someone who reacts like this when someone is non compliant. I have had a gun in my face before - it is frightening beyond comparison. I don't pretend to imagine that the police are immune to this fear. When your training is to eliminate threats and you see a gun being reached for...what exactly do you expect to happen?

Do you really believe a cop gave a single warning and then shot a man with a kid in the back seat? Really? Do you think he accidentally pulled the trigger? or do you think he just really wanted to shoot somebody? Here is the most likely case - the officer told him in a calm voice not to reach for his wallet and then the last time he yelled it and then shot him. The fact that he shot him 4 times is actually irrelevant. That is what he is trained to do.

Please stay tunned I will attempt to locate the link to the audio.

 Spinner wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun.

I thought the witness account was clarified as "one warning, then multiple shots" instead of "multiple warnings, then one shot"?

Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop.

Or you'll get shot?

Be polite - comply with all legal requests

Or you'll get shot?

Don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you.

Or you'll get shot?

Does none of that seem like a problem to you? I don't want to have to treat the police like a stray dog with a suspicious bit of foam around its mouth. Plus, it sounds like Mr. Casile was, in fact, politely complying with legal requests.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was malice aforethought; everything I've seen points toward someone who was far, far too nervous to safely handle his weapon around members of the public. That doesn't give Mr. Castile back his life.

 agnosto wrote:

Spoiler:

]

SemperMortis wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There are over a million LEOs in the US and we know from officer involved shootings data kept by the DoJ that the large majority of LEOs don't get involved in shootings. Therefore the decisions involved in situations that require officers to fire their weapon are not made on a daily or even common basis for any officers. Very very few officers die in the line of duty because it's not that dangerous of a job.

This particular instance was a traffic stop. Not a response to a crime in progress or the pursuit of a fugitive. A traffic stop, a simple interaction with the public. The public isn't dangerous all of us civilians live, work and interact with the public every day. There is no reason for cops to approach routine interaction with the public like a traffic stop with the fear that the public is an imminent threat. There's no data to support such a combative stance.

Just thought I would point this out. You seem to think that death is the only "danger" a cop faces. Lets not forget the 50,000-60,000 Assaults the police suffer on average every year, or the 15,000-16,000 Assaults that result in injury cops face every year. But hey, that is not a very dangerous job at all.

The US Employs around 800,000 SWORN officials (Police with the power to arrest/detain) according to those numbers you have about a 1/13 to a 1/16 chance to be assaulted in the line of duty and a 1/50 chance to be assaulted and sustain an injury. I would say that is a rather dangerous job.

And only about 1/2 of the military are ever deployed into a warzone so let's just call that a safe job too while we're at it.

From an earlier post in this thread (sorry for quoting myself):

Police made an estimated 11,205,833 arrests during 2014—498,666 for violent crimes, and 1,553,980 for property crimes.

Applying that 2014 number to the 2015 death by police officer number of 990 (I'm too lazy to dig up the 2014 database), there was a .00835% chance per arrest of a police officer killing a suspect. There is no data that encapsulates traffic stops or other interactions but adding these in would make that chance even less likely.

Let's put it another way. In 2014 there were 627,949 law officers in the US. There were 990 deaths caused by those officers which means that .158% of the police officers in the US killed someone.

And, here's a video that provides a bit of perspective (this is one view on the matter and like all data, it can be presented in a way that supports one side of an argument):

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Contrast that to 124 deaths in the line of duty for police, 50 by firearm, which was a large increase from 2013 when 102 officers died, 32 by firearm.

That's a 17.7% increase in the number of police deaths and a 36% increase in the number of those deaths involving a firearm. Statistically, that's alarming and cause for those in the field to be cautious (overly so?)

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
As far as I can tell from my research...there is no proof of a CCP. There is also no proff that the car was stopped for an out tail light. Ive heard police audio prior to the event and the police did not specify a reason for the stop.

Here's some facts about the case that liberal media does not tell you because it detracts from their agenda.

The cop shooter is Latino - as in he is also a minority.- Not relevant in a discussion of Police vs. Public
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. Relevance? It has been reported, but no one has confirmed or denied the veracity of the radio audio that I am aware of. I would love a link to a local new source if you have it.
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun. There is also video of the police trying to resuscitate the victim as well. Reported on in this very thread. He received 1 warning, and was immediately shot 4 or 5 times.

In any case - I think this cop made a mistake and it's unlikely the victim was going to attempt harm on the police. However - it is a judgement call made in milliseconds that police make daily - I will always give an officer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this if a gun is found on the victim. In both these recent cases there was a gun involved - so it's pretty clear where I stand on this. This is the heart of the problem. Our training and police culture in about escalating and maintaining control not de-escalation

Lesson to the wise. Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop. Be polite - comply with all legal requests - and don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you. That is a terrible lesson and is Authoritarianism at is worst

My comments in Orange above.

The Latino comment is solely to rule out racial motivations. At least the white vs black rubbish that Obama is trying to sell the people right now.

Cops are authority figures - it is in your best interests to do what they say. Do you dispute this? That is the only meaning of my statement.

I don't disagree with you on the training. The way we train officers to "eliminate the threat" rather than do their best to preserve lives during rough situations is clearly wrong to me. However, with that being their current training I find it difficult to judge someone who reacts like this when someone is non compliant. I have had a gun in my face before - it is frightening beyond comparison. I don't pretend to imagine that the police are immune to this fear. When your training is to eliminate threats and you see a gun being reached for...what exactly do you expect to happen?

Do you really believe a cop gave a single warning and then shot a man with a kid in the back seat? Really? Do you think he accidentally pulled the trigger? or do you think he just really wanted to shoot somebody? Here is the most likely case - the officer told him in a calm voice not to reach for his wallet and then the last time he yelled it and then shot him. The fact that he shot him 4 times is actually irrelevant. That is what he is trained to do.

Please stay tunned I will attempt to locate the link to the audio.

I don't think anyone wanted to kill anyone in this instance. I think Castile wanted to comply with the officers, he pulled over, turned off the car and wanted to deal with the traffic stop in a reasonable manner. Minnesota has a duty to inform and carry permit holders are required to show police their permit. I think Castile was reaching for his wallet to comply with his duty to inform and that he likely also sensed the tension the police felt and wanted to show his permit to help defuse the situation and show that he wasn' a threat. I think the officer, when he learned that Castile had a carry permit and was armed didn't think carry permit holder = law abiding citizen, unlikely threat, I think the officer thought, ARMED citizen = deadly threat, regardless of whether or not he was lawfullly carrying with a state issued permit. Knowing that Castile was armed made the officer nervous and jumpy and when Castile reached for his wallet the officer told him to stop, Castile, being human, didn't stop instananeously and the officer was jumpy enough that he felt the need to shoot first before a law abiding citizen sitting in a car with his family on a routine traffic stop suddenly drew on him and tried to kill him and his partner, which was a totally unreasonable fear.

As a carry permit holder I know my state law requires that I believe there is a reasonable imminent threat of harm posed to me or someone else before I can lawfully use lethal force. Meeting another carry permit holder on the street and having him reach for something during the course of our conversation with each other doesn't consitute a reasonable threat of imminent harm. If I shot somebody who I knew was an armed carry permit holder just becuase he reached for something I would be charged with murder. I want society to hold our police officers to at least as high of a standard as we hold our armed citizens. That's not unreasonable to me.

 agnosto wrote:
Since you were there and all, can you provide us with evidence of your statement?

I totally agree with this. Shootings that would see most of us sent to prison for the rest of our lives are routinely waived away as "justified" when committed by police, without ever even being brough to a DA, much less an actual Jury.

This is what I have a huge problem with.

 redleger wrote:

Spoiler:

]

 Spinner wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun.

I thought the witness account was clarified as "one warning, then multiple shots" instead of "multiple warnings, then one shot"?

Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop.

Or you'll get shot?

Be polite - comply with all legal requests

Or you'll get shot?

Don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you.

Or you'll get shot?

Does none of that seem like a problem to you? I don't want to have to treat the police like a stray dog with a suspicious bit of foam around its mouth. Plus, it sounds like Mr. Casile was, in fact, politely complying with legal requests.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was malice aforethought; everything I've seen points toward someone who was far, far too nervous to safely handle his weapon around members of the public. That doesn't give Mr. Castile back his life.

Here is the quote I am referring to, and your implication, as I understood your point, is you shouldn't have to comply because they aren't supposed to shoot you anyway. The fact of the matter is, as few people have real perspective in this situation, other than strong opinions, that when you are complying and being polite, you are far less likely to put a police officer on edge. I would say that is a good thing. This is in no way an argument against different police training, I think we can all agree there is an issue there, and I am honestly on the fence, but one thing I know is if that was me doing that in a foreign country, then I would probably be awaiting trial in pre-trial confienent, unless I could prove hostile intent, so the standard should be much higher here in America.

But just because they should't shoot you isn't a reason not to be compliant and polite. Ever been rude to a server, well you probably ate spit. Be rude to a cop, you probably get "tack on charges" neither is right, but maybe you should do some inward fierce moral inventory as to why you think you should be able to treat people that way.

edited for spelling and a horrible keyboard.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Since you were there and all, can you provide us with evidence of your statement?

Is this directed at me? I stated in my post that it was supposition, I prefaced my guess as to what whappened with "I think" multiple times because it's just my opinion based on the informatoin that's been made public. It's a possible narrative that fits the facts that we know, that's it.

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Since you were there and all, can you provide us with evidence of your statement?

Is this directed at me? I stated in my post that it was supposition, I prefaced my guess as to what whappened with "I think" multiple times because it's just my opinion based on the informatoin that's been made public. It's a possible narrative that fits the facts that we know, that's it.

I understand but I think that you are projecting quite a bit in your statement and ignoring other facts that have come to light including the recorded radio traffic between the officer and dispatch.

While I agree that the officer may have reacted/overreacted poorly in the situation, he believed he was pulling over an armed robbery suspect which is quite a bit different from your assertion that he possesses some predisposition against all civilians being armed which is completely unknown at this point.

The officer decided the car looked suspicious. He radioed to a nearby squad that he was going to pull it over and check IDs of the driver and passenger.

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” he said casually, according to police audio obtained by the Star Tribune. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just because of the wide-set nose. I couldn’t get a good look at the passenger.”

t’s unclear which robbery suspects police believed Castile and Reynolds resembled. However, one day earlier, the BCA issued a call for the public’s help in identifying two suspects in a July 2 armed robbery of a nearby Lauderdale convenience store. Both suspects in the July 2 robbery were described as black men with shoulder-length or longer dreadlocks. The descriptions of the suspects included the clothing each suspect wore, but did not include estimated height, weight or ages.

Albert Goins, an attorney who assisted the Castile family in the hours following the shooting, said that if Castile were indeed a robbery suspect, officers would have initiated a felony traffic stop, which “does not usually involve officers walking up to your car and asking you to produce your driver’s license.”

“A felony stop involves bringing the suspect out at gunpoint while officers are in a position of cover and having them lie on the ground until they can identify who that individual is,” he said.

 agnosto wrote:

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop.

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

 redleger wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Witnesses are able to account for several verbal warning not to reach for his gun.

I thought the witness account was clarified as "one warning, then multiple shots" instead of "multiple warnings, then one shot"?

Do everything you can in your power to put a cop at ease during a stop.

Or you'll get shot?

Be polite - comply with all legal requests

Or you'll get shot?

Don't do anything other than look into their face/reach for anything/ or even move - unless they tell you.

Or you'll get shot?

Does none of that seem like a problem to you? I don't want to have to treat the police like a stray dog with a suspicious bit of foam around its mouth. Plus, it sounds like Mr. Casile was, in fact, politely complying with legal requests.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was malice aforethought; everything I've seen points toward someone who was far, far too nervous to safely handle his weapon around members of the public. That doesn't give Mr. Castile back his life.

Here is the quote I am referring to, and your implication, as I understood your point, is you shouldn't have to comply because they aren't supposed to shoot you anyway. The fact of the matter is, as few people have real perspective in this situation, other than strong opinions, that when you are complying and being polite, you are far less likely to put a police officer on edge. I would say that is a good thing. This is in no way an argument against different police training, I think we can all agree there is an issue there, and I am honestly on the fence, but one thing I know is if that was me doing that in a foreign country, then I would probably be awaiting trial in pre-trial confienent, unless I could prove hostile intent, so the standard should be much higher here in America.

But just because they should't shoot you isn't a reason not to be compliant and polite. Ever been rude to a server, well you probably ate spit. Be rude to a cop, you probably get "tack on charges" neither is right, but maybe you should do some inward fierce moral inventory as to why you think you should be able to treat people that way.

edited for spelling and a horrible keyboard.

nkelsch wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop.

Actually, it WOULD still make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop as it isn't illegal for your passenger to make snide comments or not unquestionably licking boot. In your 'another scenario' he is still totally innocent and the cop is still a murderer.

 agnosto wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop.

Actually, it WOULD still make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop as it isn't illegal for your passenger to make snide comments or not unquestionably licking boot. In your 'another scenario' he is still totally innocent and the cop is still a murderer.

So, torches and pitchforks it is then.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

How would they have escalated the situation? We know for a fact he was reaching for his wallet. They could have both been as rude as possible, telling the officer to go feth himself and it would not have been grounds for killing him. It absolutely would make him an innocent victim of a killer cop because he was still innocent. The only thing he could have done in this situation to be shot is pull his weapon on him and we know that did not happen.

You are not guilty of anything for being rude. It is your right to be rude. Not a nice thing to do, but still your right.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop.

Actually, it WOULD still make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop as it isn't illegal for your passenger to make snide comments or not unquestionably licking boot. In your 'another scenario' he is still totally innocent and the cop is still a murderer.

So, torches and pitchforks it is then.

Sure, if you ignore everything we already know. You seem to have your mind made up already.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

I get your whole "the media is biased and lies" spiel going on here, But if you are waiting for a perfect recording of the whole event from all points of view, that is never going to happen. This is a man with no criminal history and absolutely no reason to draw on two LEOs with his family in his car. It makes zero sense to suggest otherwise.

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

He was reaching for his CCP.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

He was reaching for his CCP.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

He was reaching for his CCP.

Dread I mean, what proof was there in regards to that? Who said he was doing that? to my knowledge (limited because I don't usually follow clickbait/race bait) the only proof is his girlfriend saying he was doing that....which again would become his word vs her word.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

He was reaching for his CCP.

Dread I mean, what proof was there in regards to that? Who said he was doing that? to my knowledge (limited because I don't usually follow clickbait/race bait) the only proof is his girlfriend saying he was doing that....which again would become his word vs her word.

The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio. There is the fact that he had absolutely zero reason to pull a weapon on two cops. There is the eyewitness that said he was given a warning then immediately shot.

I mean, there is plenty of evidence to back this up. You will never get video evidence of this, even if there is a dashcam. The dashcam was not in the car right on top of him to video record it. The evidence we have now is probably the best we will get in that regard.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

So wouldn't that same belief also be given to the cop in question? Innocent until proven guilty, and all insubstantial evidence, such as a video of someone tied to the victim saying he didn't do anything wrong not being held as proof positive of guilt?

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

I am trying to figure out how you "escalate the situation" to where what happened is not at least voluntary manslaughter on the part of the police officer.
And this is the problem. Something happens and at worst sometimes the officer is suspended or maybe fired.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Here's what it comes down to - is the cop permitted to use his weapons when he feels threatened while on duty? The answer is yes. Doesn't there need to be a reasonable fear of harm? Saying that you felt threatened doesn't give you carte blanche, you need to justify your feelings. So far all we have is person reaching for something, which after asking them for their wallet is not unreasonable.
Do we have reasonable evidence that the cop did feel threatened? Yes - victim had a gun and matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. Plus multiple witnesses saying he presented a verbal warning. The description of the armed robbery suspect was extremely vague, to the point of applying to a large proportion of the black community. There was no suggestion of physical build, age, height etc. It was just black man with dreads and a wide nose. Also, at least one of those witnesses says that he issued a warning but fired immediately afterwards, without giving any time for Castile to hear, process and acknowledge the warning. Also, he had a license to carry so him having a gun is not grounds to shoot him. If the mere act of having a gun can make a police officer feel threatened and a police officer feeling threatened is justification for shooting, then anybody carrying a gun can legally be shot by the police for reaching for anything which may possibly be near where their gun is holstered.
It's hard for me to see a crime being committed here. You would have to have malice, intent, or negligence to be murder or manslaughter. Malice and intent can be ruled out, negligence would be very hard to prove here without a video record of the event. We need that dashcam.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

I am trying to figure out how you "escalate the situation" to where what happened is not at least voluntary manslaughter on the part of the police officer.
And this is the problem. Something happens and at worst sometimes the officer is suspended or maybe fired.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

<----- Is not defending the cop.


How do we know this fact? Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

Her stating that is what happened does not make if a fact. It makes it testimony. Words have meaning, Deadwinter. Don't use the word "fact" if you don't know what a fact is.

 Frazzled wrote:
I hear you, and thats why I am saying manslaughter. I don't presume the intent for murder. This fits common definitions of manslaughter (voluntary I'd proffer) very well. Absent Castillo actually drawing the pistol, there's no reasonable here. If I see a bunch of bad guys (you know known criminals like murderers, thieves, girl scouts) if one puts their hand in their pocket I can't open up on them with a Ma Deuce.

Thats not how it works, well for everyone besides the police it seems.

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

Prestor Jon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

The driver wasn't the suspect in an armed robbery. The driver had the same hairstyle as a suspect in an armed robbery but he wasn't specifically a suspect for any crime, he just had a passing resemblance to somebody else who was a suspect.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

So wouldn't that same belief also be given to the cop in question? Innocent until proven guilty, and all insubstantial evidence, such as a video of someone tied to the victim saying he didn't do anything wrong not being held as proof positive of guilt?

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

<----- Is not defending the cop.


How do we know this fact? Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

Her stating that is what happened does not make if a fact. It makes it testimony. Words have meaning, Deadwinter. Don't use the word "fact" if you don't know what a fact is.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Because you can look at the situation and understand what has happened.

1. The man had a CCP in his right back pocket, he informed the officer beforehand that he had a CCP, he reached for his right side.

2. There is no situation where it makes any sense to draw on two officers after telling them you are armed.

3. You also have witnesses saying that he was reaching for his wallet, all recorded in the heat of the moment.

4. You also have witnesses saying he was given little to no warning before being shot.

5. That is how you can discern that it is a fact.

6. I also know what a fact is, kind of like I know how to solve problems and come to conclusions based on evidence.

7. Soooo, yeah what else?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

 Frazzled wrote:

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

You're arguing its he state's burden to prove a murder was unjustified correct?

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Because you can look at the situation and understand what has happened.

1. The man had a CCP in his right back pocket, he informed the officer beforehand that he had a CCP, he reached for his right side.

2. There is no situation where it makes any sense to draw on two officers after telling them you are armed.

3. You also have witnesses saying that he was reaching for his wallet, all recorded in the heat of the moment.

4. You also have witnesses saying he was given little to no warning before being shot.

5. That is how you can discern that it is a fact.

6. I also know what a fact is, kind of like I know how to solve problems and come to conclusions based on evidence.

7. Soooo, yeah what else?

1. His CCP was on one side, his gun was on the other. Those are facts/falsehoods that can be proven either way. You can't prove that he reached for the side with the CCP and not the side with the gun. The side he reached for was not recorded, that I've seen so far. You only have testimony.

2. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. That is immaterial. A hypothetically cornered individual can do any dumb thing.

3. No. It was recorded AFTER the event. Not during. After. Also, that is not a fact. That is testimony.

4. More testimony.

5. No, that is how you discern probable guilt.

6. You have shown repeatedly that you don't know what a fact is in this thread. Testimony is a form of evidence and is used in courts of law, arrangements, other legal proceedings, and is further used to determine if charges will be filed. In this case, it is likely and rightfully so.

7. Sooo yeah, you need to learn the difference between facts and testimony. It's really not hard. I believe in you. You can be a winner.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

NO. In arguing self defense-which is what this is-you are admitting to the crime already, saying it was justifiable under the law. At least for non-Police the burden is completely on you.*


*Except for Florida. I think the standard there is whether or not the defendant asked a bystander to "hold his beer and watch this" first.

 djones520 wrote:


A rule about Dakka I long ago took to heart, when Kronk is not posting something absurd, you need to farkin listen.

Prestor Jon wrote:

agnosto, I hear what you're saying and I agree that people should be civil and polite when interacting with the police or anyone else. Being rude/obnoxious is pretty much universally counter productive and typically makes one look petty. Having a nasty disposition never helps a situation. However, it's still never right to respond to verbal barbs/attitude with physical violence.

I put the majority of the responsibility for the incident on the cops because they're the trained professionals who are supposed to assert and maintain control of the situation. It's the cops' job to make sure an obnoxious person doesn't create a scene that leads to unnecessary violence. The cops have the authority and the responsibility, they're in charge so if the situation goes sideways and ends with the cops shooting somebody that didn't need to get shot, it's the cops' fault. The police are the professionals, they have the training, they're supposed to be able to handle high stress situations in a calm manner, control the situation, issue clear commands and give people the opportunity to comply. The civilians aren't in control, don't have any special training and aren't mind readers, they don't know what the police want and expect until the police make it clear with instructions. It's not Castile's, or any other lawfully armed citizen's, responsibility to know that he's one false move away from getting shot as soon as he tells a cop he's legally armed and to know just what constitutes such an action. It's not Castile's job to know exactly how to handle an encounter with police, it's the police's job to control the situation and clearly communicate to Castile what he needs to do and give him a chance to do it.

I don't think the cops involved in this incident are horrible people or that they had any premeditated intent to shoot anybody that day. I think they lost control of a situation that they're supposed to be able to handle and it resulted in somebody losing his life for no justifiable reason. The only thing that should have caused those cops to lose control of that situation would be if Castile just suddenly had the homicidal urge to start a gunfight with the cops. If Castile attacked the cops he's responsible for his actions and for forcing the cops to shoot him. I personally think it's highly unlikely that any party involved suddenly had the desire to start a shootout, I think there was miscommunication and actions/intents were misread and there was overreaction on the part of the cops. It's a terrible tragedy for everybody involved.

I'm a carry permit holder and in my state I have a duty to inform the police that I'm carry anytime I have an encounter with them while armed. I don't want cops to view me as an imminent threat just because I'm lawfully armed. I'm a law abiding citizen with no animosity towards cops, I don't want to find myself in a situation where if a cop misreads a simple move I make that I'll get shot to death. Regardless of any legal consequences for the cops involved in this situation I want this incident to lead to an honest objective examination of how police departments train their officers to deal with lawfully armed citizens.

 agnosto wrote:


Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

agnosto, I hear what you're saying and I agree that people should be civil and polite when interacting with the police or anyone else. Being rude/obnoxious is pretty much universally counter productive and typically makes one look petty. Having a nasty disposition never helps a situation. However, it's still never right to respond to verbal barbs/attitude with physical violence.

I put the majority of the responsibility for the incident on the cops because they're the trained professionals who are supposed to assert and maintain control of the situation. It's the cops' job to make sure an obnoxious person doesn't create a scene that leads to unnecessary violence. The cops have the authority and the responsibility, they're in charge so if the situation goes sideways and ends with the cops shooting somebody that didn't need to get shot, it's the cops' fault. The police are the professionals, they have the training, they're supposed to be able to handle high stress situations in a calm manner, control the situation, issue clear commands and give people the opportunity to comply. The civilians aren't in control, don't have any special training and aren't mind readers, they don't know what the police want and expect until the police make it clear with instructions. It's not Castile's, or any other lawfully armed citizen's, responsibility to know that he's one false move away from getting shot as soon as he tells a cop he's legally armed and to know just what constitutes such an action. It's not Castile's job to know exactly how to handle an encounter with police, it's the police's job to control the situation and clearly communicate to Castile what he needs to do and give him a chance to do it.

I don't think the cops involved in this incident are horrible people or that they had any premeditated intent to shoot anybody that day. I think they lost control of a situation that they're supposed to be able to handle and it resulted in somebody losing his life for no justifiable reason. The only thing that should have caused those cops to lose control of that situation would be if Castile just suddenly had the homicidal urge to start a gunfight with the cops. If Castile attacked the cops he's responsible for his actions and for forcing the cops to shoot him. I personally think it's highly unlikely that any party involved suddenly had the desire to start a shootout, I think there was miscommunication and actions/intents were misread and there was overreaction on the part of the cops. It's a terrible tragedy for everybody involved.

I'm a carry permit holder and in my state I have a duty to inform the police that I'm carry anytime I have an encounter with them while armed. I don't want cops to view me as an imminent threat just because I'm lawfully armed. I'm a law abiding citizen with no animosity towards cops, I don't want to find myself in a situation where if a cop misreads a simple move I make that I'll get shot to death. Regardless of any legal consequences for the cops involved in this situation I want this incident to lead to an honest objective examination of how police departments train their officers to deal with lawfully armed citizens.

All very reasonable and more than likely an accurate assessment; however, that said, it's impossible to tell since we don't know pretty much anything for certain about the event and likely will never know certain things. My main point is in cautioning people from jumping to suppositions when all of the facts are not released and there is only currently one, partial testimony from one point of view.

Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nkelsch has the way of it. No group should police its own.

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

SemperMortis wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

not true at all, but since i don't feel like opening up that can of worms again, i will just point out that you are biased in your viewing of police around the US. and that you are wrong in regards to Ferguson.

nkelsch wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

not true at all, but since i don't feel like opening up that can of worms again, i will just point out that you are biased in your viewing of police around the US. and that you are wrong in regards to Ferguson.

Considering the DOJ reports show the biases of that police department, the malfeasance fo the DA and the falsehoods of manufactured witnesses intentionally designed to skirt justice from a DA... I am perfectly comfortable with believing the DOJs findings of how police operate in the US over what the police say.

Same with the Chicago reports... The problem is once the DOJ comes in and finds out that the police and local authority have destroyed the case, justice can't be had, only 'stop future incidents from happening.'

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Asterios wrote:

and yet not one word about Wilson in that article, so by your statement if a black guy robs people all black guys should be considered crooks? I mean you are lumping all cops in because of a few bad ones.

also love how the article goes on and on how the city is concerned about money and so forth, duh, you need money to make a city work, police, firefighters and all that do not work for free so they cost money.

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and yet not one word about Wilson in that article, so by your statement if a black guy robs people all black guys should be considered crooks? I mean you are lumping all cops in because of a few bad ones.

also love how the article goes on and on how the city is concerned about money and so forth, duh, you need money to make a city work, police, firefighters and all that do not work for free so they cost money.

I am lumping them all in because they have found it really was ALL OF THEM... That is what the reports found. Shows the police violate rights systematically, Lie, abuse minorities and then have the local courts do it too... It wasn't isolated bad apples... they were all doing it, and as a matter of department POLICY. And yet we are supposed to believe those people when they testify and run a corrupt grand jury which was proven to be shown later to have high profile witnesses like witness 40 lying to the grand jury after being coached by local police with no consequences?

So DOJ finds deep, widespread, systematic corruption, violence and rights violation almost exclusively upon racial lines... but yet we trust the police's statements unflinchingly because they are police....

Again... Shooting a black man who might look like a suspect is a good shoot in your alls eyes. Police get every benefit of the doubt but the victim probably was using his child as a human shield in your guys universes.

Asterios wrote:

you mean like the "witness" who reported that Brown was running away and it turns out the witness was not even in the same state? and that the evidence showed that was not the case? so you say it is ok to commit a crime and use your own child as a human shield then? ok I see where you are coming from and welcome to my ignore list.

Asterios wrote:
but we do not know, and for those of you who say nobody would do that with their girlfriend and children in the car obviously do not watch the news I've seen to many times where shooters would hide behind their kids and such while shooting at the police:

nkelsch wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

The problem is when police are involved when it comes to incidents involving police malfeasance , they have a documented history of:
*Planting evidence
*Falsifying evidence
*making false statements
*Refusing to make statements
*instructing other police to make false statements
*Other police voluntarily choosing to purger themselves by making false statements

So it makes it very hard for *ANYONE* to believe any reports that come out of police investigating themselves as when the DOJ investigates they find amazingly high rates of issues with those investigations and there is literally no consequence to those officers.

If we didn't have dirty cops and the blue wall of silence, I would be perfectly happy to let the chips fall where they may, but it has been proven we as a society cannot trust officers to investigate other officers impartially or reliably in almost every cop-involved situation. If it doesn't come from the DOJ report, I will be wearing my 'Skepticals'. Too bad DOj reports come after the police already destroyed the case with false evidence and statements and justice is never going to be done.

nkelsch wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

The problem is when police are involved when it comes to incidents involving police malfeasance , they have a documented history of:
*Planting evidence
*Falsifying evidence
*making false statements
*Refusing to make statements
*instructing other police to make false statements
*Other police voluntarily choosing to purger themselves by making false statements

So it makes it very hard for *ANYONE* to believe any reports that come out of police investigating themselves as when the DOJ investigates they find amazingly high rates of issues with those investigations and there is literally no consequence to those officers.

If we didn't have dirty cops and the blue wall of silence, I would be perfectly happy to let the chips fall where they may, but it has been proven we as a society cannot trust officers to investigate other officers impartially or reliably in almost every cop-involved situation. If it doesn't come from the DOJ report, I will be wearing my 'Skepticals'. Too bad DOj reports come after the police already destroyed the case with false evidence and statements and justice is never going to be done.

Which is why the Governor put a different group in charge of the State investigation, The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (?) and asked for a federal DoJ investigation as well.

Pretty smart move in my opinion.

was stopped by police 46 times and racked up more than $6,000 in fines. Another curious statistic: Of all of the stops, only six of them were things a police officer would notice from outside a car — things like speeding or having a busted muffler.

Philando Castile's driving problems often appeared to be triggered by something small —a problem with his license plate or blocking an intersection. When he couldn't keep up with the fines, his license would get suspended and he'd keep driving.

One six-year period in particular — from 2006 to 2012 — stands out. Castile was stopped 29 times during that period. Sometimes he was fined $270, sometimes $150, but it kept adding up. He soon amassed more than $5,000 in fines.

This week, the St. Anthony Police Department released statistics on their traffic stops. They show that officers issue citations at the same rate as neighboring suburbs but police disproportionately arrest African-Americans.

About 7 percent of the residents in the area patrolled are African-American but this year they make up about 47 percent of arrests. The data show that since 2011, African-Americans have been making up a larger percentage of arrests.

From 2012 to late 2014 — like clockwork — he paid off fine after fine, some of them more than $500 a month.

"He was trying to make it right," said Beverly Castile, Philando's aunt. "And it was right. He paid off all his tickets, got his license back and everything else. It was done right."

 agnosto wrote:
Pretty damning. That article makes it sound like profiling at its worst.

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

 agnosto wrote:
Pretty damning. That article makes it sound like profiling at its worst.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

That is excactly what you should expect from an NPR article.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

Judge, I rest my case about using this data to discredit the victim.

In that NPR article there is also a link to the source materials you can review for yourself free of the NPR filter.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

You find it more believable that he was reaching for a gun because he has a criminal history which involves no violent crimes, not even resisting arrest, whatsoever? I mean, why would he reach for it now, when he was paying off his fines and had his family in the car rather than at any other stop?

SemperMortis wrote:

That is excactly what you should expect from an NPR article.

lmao, I love NPR. They pretend to be neutral and get upset when someone points out that they lean so far left that they can't even see the center anymore

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

Yeah, you're just going to post links to stories about people using children as human shields and speculate that maybe Castile did as well because you know, other people have done that in the past.

It's getting increasingly difficult to post in the OT, considering how you've raised the bar so high.

 Spinner wrote:
Has the cop actually said that he was drawn on?

 curran12 wrote:
And, logically, if he was drawn on, why hasn't he, or the department said so?

Asterios wrote:
no i'm saying it could be possible, just that saying it is not is not reasonable,

but unlike you i'm not ruling anything out till the facts come to light and right now, we only have a he said/she said situation and a serious lack of facts except that the cop shot the driver, we do not know why and under what circumstances.

so good try on your attempt to move the goal posts, but keep chugging away.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no i'm saying it could be possible, just that saying it is not is not reasonable,

Yeah, and a giant meteor could fall from the sky and kill everyone. Or Cthulhu could awaken to wretch himself from the briny depths to signal the coming apocalypse and bring about the end of humanity. See how easy it is to just say a bunch of dumb gak and follow it up with, "I'm just saying it's possible."

but unlike you i'm not ruling anything out till the facts come to light and right now, we only have a he said/she said situation and a serious lack of facts except that the cop shot the driver, we do not know why and under what circumstances.

Please explain to me what exactly I'm "ruling out" other than your nonsense about using his girlfriend's small child as a human shield? I mean, your "logic" (and I use that term very, very loosely) is that since we don't know exactly what happened, therefore anything could have happened, up to and including Castile drawing his legally owned firearm in an attempt to shoot two police officers while using his girlfriend's child as a human shield (and then maybe killing her as well because some "scum" have done it, too).

so good try on your attempt to move the goal posts, but keep chugging away.

Okay, now I know for certain that you have no clue what the phrase "moving goalposts" means. Have you considered Googling it?

Asterios wrote:
Did I say he used his girlfriends child as a shield? show where I said that or prove you are lying.

Asterios wrote:
so yes it is feasible, but is this what happened? we do not know, since we do not know what happened or how it happened. just because someone got on Camera and said that is what happened after the fact does not make it fact, its like the incident that happened in Ferguson, lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah, you're just going to post links to stories about people using children as human shields and speculate that maybe Castile did as well because you know, other people have done that in the past..

Asterios wrote:
no i'm saying it could be possible, just that saying it is not is not reasonable

my point was people kept saying Castile would not pull his gun with children in the car, and I said that is not the case since there is evidence of much worse then that happening,

as to moving goal posts you keep trying to insinuate I said something i didn't, so i'm calling you on it,

you seem to think I said he used his girlfriends child as a shield and i'm saying prove it, or prove you are lying.

 d-usa wrote:
His own damn fault, having a job and whatnot.

 Spinner wrote:
Has the cop actually said that he was drawn on?

In Minnesota, most police agencies don’t collect racial data on traffic stops. The most recent data looking at traffic stops in Minnesota, from 2003, found that blacks were three times more likely to be stopped than whites. St. Anthony was not part of that study.

Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County’s chief public defender, said Castile’s situation of being stopped so often, fined and losing a license is not unusual.

“It’s a black hole of which many of our clients don’t get out of,” she said.

Moriarty said many of her clients, often deep in poverty, can’t afford to pay a ticket. But that can result in a license revocation and steep charge — up to $600 — to get a license back, in addition to the fines and fees of the original ticket. Moriarty said her clients still need to drive to get to work.

According to a 2005 St. Paul police report, officers responded to a report of men loitering. Upon arrival, they immediately recognized Castile getting into his vehicle. They stopped him.

“We have had numerous contacts with him in this car,” the officer wrote. “Normally, Castile is very cooperative and friendly, today he refused to exit the car and had to be ordered out. He finally complied on the 4th or 5th order.”

Through it all, Philando Castile never complained about being profiled, his mother said.

She said her son kept driving, even when his license was revoked, so he could get to work. For 14 years he worked for the St. Paul School District serving lunches and supervising cafeteria workers, a job that paid him $33,317.66 in 2015.

“He’d say, ‘OK, it’s a ticket, I’ll pay it and go to work. I love what I do,’ ” she said.

 skyth wrote:
So repeatedly being pulled over for driving while black makes someone a serial criminal...

Sorry, he was pulled over for no good reason 50 out of 56 times.

If you were pulled over that many times, I'm sure the police can find something you did wrong.

Asterios wrote:
you would be surprised how many times the cops will have a car tagged especially in a small town if they know the driver is without a license and/or insurance, they don't look at it with color in mind, but with a ticket quota in mind or such. seen it happen way too many times to others of all races and colors.

he seminar was called “The Bulletproof Warrior,” and the instructors urged the law enforcement officers in the hotel conference room to make the decision to shoot if they ever feel their lives are threatened.

Videos of bloody shootouts between police and civilians emphasized a key point: Hesitation can kill you.

In the audience at the May 2014 seminar was a young St. Anthony police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, city records show. He’s now known around the world as the officer who killed Philando Castile minutes after making a traffic stop in Falcon Heights last week.

Amid intensifying demands for changes in police training in the wake of the shooting deaths of Castile and others, such “survival” courses for officers are flourishing nationally. But some in law enforcement are distancing themselves from the approach.

The Houston Police Department, for example, won’t pay for its officers to attend the Bulletproof Warrior seminar, which is put on by an Illinois for-profit company called Calibre Press.

And the leader of an international police training association said he thinks some seminars like those offered by Calibre and other firms foster a sense of paranoia among officers.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last week, sparking national outcry.

“Police training became very militaristic and it caused a lot of the problems that are going on in the nation,” said Michael Becar, executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, with offices in Idaho and Washington, D.C.

Calibre recently changed the name of its Bulletproof Warrior course after complaints from police departments about the implication of the word “warrior.”

But owners of the company accuse the media of routinely distorting its message, twisting it to say the company’s programs train officers to kill.

“Our mission is to save everyone’s lives,” said Calibre CEO Lisa Gitchell. “We go to bed every night knowing that we did the right thing. We train officers to treat people with dignity and respect.”

Jim Glennon, a co-owner of Calibre who co-taught the seminar Yanez attended, said it’s wrong to link the course to the officer’s actions last week. “Everybody’s going after this kid,” Glennon said Wednesday. “Nobody should be judging what he did yet without the evidence.”

The Bulletproof Warrior is one of 15 sessions offered by Calibre and its parent company, LifeLine Training. The courses are well-known and popular in law enforcement circles. Facebook photos show conference rooms and auditoriums filled with officers to hear the Bulletproof Warrior message.

Fans say it provides a valuable “wake-up call” in police safety tactics for the street: how to read the body language of someone preparing to attack, for instance. Training professionals note that Calibre was a pioneer decades ago in teaching basic police safety.

Yanez took the 20-hour seminar on May 21-22, 2014, according to a summary of Yanez’s training that the city of St. Anthony provided after a public records request. A year earlier he attended “Street Survival,” another of the company’s seminars, records show.

Yanez also took 20 hours of training in 2012 in “Officer Survival” from a different organization. In May of this year, he took two hours of training titled “de-escalation,” the only instruction in his four years with the department that appears to focus on that approach, the records show.

Yanez’s lawyer, Thomas Kelly, did not respond to messages this week seeking comment. He told the Star Tribune on Sunday that the officer used deadly force because of “the presence of a gun.”

The Bulletproof Warrior was hosted by the St. Paul Police Department, which coordinates a range of training for officers around the state through its Professional Development Institute website.

“We offer an array of courses to officers so that they can continue to develop professionally, learn new skills and view issues from different points of view,” St. Paul police spokesman Steve Linders said.

William Czech was also in the Bulletproof Warrior class in the Ramada in Bloomington those two days in 2014. Czech isn’t a police officer. He’s a 47-year-old electrician from Mendota Heights with a keen interest in police training because of incidents involving a mentally ill family member.

Czech posed as a student to get into the class. He said he was horrified. He said he expected to see a presentation about understanding both how to avoid using deadly force as well as how to realize when it’s unavoidable. Czech said the course consistently emphasized the risk of hesitation.


The seminar was called “The Bulletproof Warrior,” and the instructors urged the law enforcement officers in the hotel conference room to make the decision to shoot if they ever feel their lives are threatened.

Videos of bloody shootouts between police and civilians emphasized a key point: Hesitation can kill you.

In the audience at the May 2014 seminar was a young St. Anthony police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, city records show. He’s now known around the world as the officer who killed Philando Castile minutes after making a traffic stop in Falcon Heights last week.

Amid intensifying demands for changes in police training in the wake of the shooting deaths of Castile and others, such “survival” courses for officers are flourishing nationally. But some in law enforcement are distancing themselves from the approach.

The Houston Police Department, for example, won’t pay for its officers to attend the Bulletproof Warrior seminar, which is put on by an Illinois for-profit company called Calibre Press.


And the leader of an international police training association said he thinks some seminars like those offered by Calibre and other firms foster a sense of paranoia among officers.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last week, sparking national outcry.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last week, sparking national outcry.
“Police training became very militaristic and it caused a lot of the problems that are going on in the nation,” said Michael Becar, executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, with offices in Idaho and Washington, D.C.

Calibre recently changed the name of its Bulletproof Warrior course after complaints from police departments about the implication of the word “warrior.”

But owners of the company accuse the media of routinely distorting its message, twisting it to say the company’s programs train officers to kill.

“Our mission is to save everyone’s lives,” said Calibre CEO Lisa Gitchell. “We go to bed every night knowing that we did the right thing. We train officers to treat people with dignity and respect.”


Jim Glennon, a co-owner of Calibre who co-taught the seminar Yanez attended, said it’s wrong to link the course to the officer’s actions last week. “Everybody’s going after this kid,” Glennon said Wednesday. “Nobody should be judging what he did yet without the evidence.”

The Bulletproof Warrior is one of 15 sessions offered by Calibre and its parent company, LifeLine Training. The courses are well-known and popular in law enforcement circles. Facebook photos show conference rooms and auditoriums filled with officers to hear the Bulletproof Warrior message.

Fans say it provides a valuable “wake-up call” in police safety tactics for the street: how to read the body language of someone preparing to attack, for instance. Training professionals note that Calibre was a pioneer decades ago in teaching basic police safety.

Yanez took the 20-hour seminar on May 21-22, 2014, according to a summary of Yanez’s training that the city of St. Anthony provided after a public records request. A year earlier he attended “Street Survival,” another of the company’s seminars, records show.

Yanez also took 20 hours of training in 2012 in “Officer Survival” from a different organization. In May of this year, he took two hours of training titled “de-escalation,” the only instruction in his four years with the department that appears to focus on that approach, the records show.


Yanez’s lawyer, Thomas Kelly, did not respond to messages this week seeking comment. He told the Star Tribune on Sunday that the officer used deadly force because of “the presence of a gun.”

The Bulletproof Warrior was hosted by the St. Paul Police Department, which coordinates a range of training for officers around the state through its Professional Development Institute website.

“We offer an array of courses to officers so that they can continue to develop professionally, learn new skills and view issues from different points of view,” St. Paul police spokesman Steve Linders said.

William Czech was also in the Bulletproof Warrior class in the Ramada in Bloomington those two days in 2014. Czech isn’t a police officer. He’s a 47-year-old electrician from Mendota Heights with a keen interest in police training because of incidents involving a mentally ill family member.

Czech posed as a student to get into the class. He said he was horrified. He said he expected to see a presentation about understanding both how to avoid using deadly force as well as how to realize when it’s unavoidable. Czech said the course consistently emphasized the risk of hesitation.


A copy of the seminar booklet that he made shows a page titled “Thou Shalt Not Kill?” It cites Bible verses that emphasize prohibitions on murder, not all killing.

On the second day, the group watched the shootout videos. One is the particularly gruesome dashcam video of Andrew Brannan pulling over in his white truck in Georgia in 1998 and then shooting Deputy Kyle Dinkheller to death.

Live: Day of protests in Twin Cities
Czech said Glennon ran that part of the seminar.

“Every time a video came up where the officer hesitated, he would stop and he would say ‘This is a point where there should have been a reaction, he should have engaged,’ ” Czech said.

Glennon, who was in St. Paul Wednesday running a leadership seminar, said in an interview that he is aware that a man in Minnesota posed as a student to get into the seminar. He called Czech’s interpretation of the seminar “totally inaccurate.”

itemprop
ELIZABETH FLORES, STAR TRIBUNE
Jim Glennon taught a course called “Finding the Leader in You” on Wednesday at the University of St. Thomas. Glennon co-taught the training Jeronimo Yanez attended in 2014.
TEXT SIZE
4087
EMAIL
PRINT
MORE
The seminar was called “The Bulletproof Warrior,” and the instructors urged the law enforcement officers in the hotel conference room to make the decision to shoot if they ever feel their lives are threatened.

Videos of bloody shootouts between police and civilians emphasized a key point: Hesitation can kill you.

In the audience at the May 2014 seminar was a young St. Anthony police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, city records show. He’s now known around the world as the officer who killed Philando Castile minutes after making a traffic stop in Falcon Heights last week.

Amid intensifying demands for changes in police training in the wake of the shooting deaths of Castile and others, such “survival” courses for officers are flourishing nationally. But some in law enforcement are distancing themselves from the approach.

The Houston Police Department, for example, won’t pay for its officers to attend the Bulletproof Warrior seminar, which is put on by an Illinois for-profit company called Calibre Press.


And the leader of an international police training association said he thinks some seminars like those offered by Calibre and other firms foster a sense of paranoia among officers.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last week, sparking national outcry.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last week, sparking national outcry.
“Police training became very militaristic and it caused a lot of the problems that are going on in the nation,” said Michael Becar, executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, with offices in Idaho and Washington, D.C.

Calibre recently changed the name of its Bulletproof Warrior course after complaints from police departments about the implication of the word “warrior.”

But owners of the company accuse the media of routinely distorting its message, twisting it to say the company’s programs train officers to kill.

“Our mission is to save everyone’s lives,” said Calibre CEO Lisa Gitchell. “We go to bed every night knowing that we did the right thing. We train officers to treat people with dignity and respect.”


Jim Glennon, a co-owner of Calibre who co-taught the seminar Yanez attended, said it’s wrong to link the course to the officer’s actions last week. “Everybody’s going after this kid,” Glennon said Wednesday. “Nobody should be judging what he did yet without the evidence.”

The Bulletproof Warrior is one of 15 sessions offered by Calibre and its parent company, LifeLine Training. The courses are well-known and popular in law enforcement circles. Facebook photos show conference rooms and auditoriums filled with officers to hear the Bulletproof Warrior message.

Fans say it provides a valuable “wake-up call” in police safety tactics for the street: how to read the body language of someone preparing to attack, for instance. Training professionals note that Calibre was a pioneer decades ago in teaching basic police safety.

Yanez took the 20-hour seminar on May 21-22, 2014, according to a summary of Yanez’s training that the city of St. Anthony provided after a public records request. A year earlier he attended “Street Survival,” another of the company’s seminars, records show.

Yanez also took 20 hours of training in 2012 in “Officer Survival” from a different organization. In May of this year, he took two hours of training titled “de-escalation,” the only instruction in his four years with the department that appears to focus on that approach, the records show.


Yanez’s lawyer, Thomas Kelly, did not respond to messages this week seeking comment. He told the Star Tribune on Sunday that the officer used deadly force because of “the presence of a gun.”

The Bulletproof Warrior was hosted by the St. Paul Police Department, which coordinates a range of training for officers around the state through its Professional Development Institute website.

“We offer an array of courses to officers so that they can continue to develop professionally, learn new skills and view issues from different points of view,” St. Paul police spokesman Steve Linders said.

William Czech was also in the Bulletproof Warrior class in the Ramada in Bloomington those two days in 2014. Czech isn’t a police officer. He’s a 47-year-old electrician from Mendota Heights with a keen interest in police training because of incidents involving a mentally ill family member.

Czech posed as a student to get into the class. He said he was horrified. He said he expected to see a presentation about understanding both how to avoid using deadly force as well as how to realize when it’s unavoidable. Czech said the course consistently emphasized the risk of hesitation.


A copy of the seminar booklet that he made shows a page titled “Thou Shalt Not Kill?” It cites Bible verses that emphasize prohibitions on murder, not all killing.

On the second day, the group watched the shootout videos. One is the particularly gruesome dashcam video of Andrew Brannan pulling over in his white truck in Georgia in 1998 and then shooting Deputy Kyle Dinkheller to death.

Live: Day of protests in Twin Cities
Czech said Glennon ran that part of the seminar.

“Every time a video came up where the officer hesitated, he would stop and he would say ‘This is a point where there should have been a reaction, he should have engaged,’ ” Czech said.

Glennon, who was in St. Paul Wednesday running a leadership seminar, said in an interview that he is aware that a man in Minnesota posed as a student to get into the seminar. He called Czech’s interpretation of the seminar “totally inaccurate.”


“That’s why we don’t let the press in,” Glennon said.

Glennon said they discussed how “hesitation can get you killed.” But the gist of the seminar is about balance and communication, he said, and how officers have to shift rapidly from guardian mode to warrior mode when situations turn violent.

The Bible verses are part of a discussion about officers dealing with guilt following a shooting, he said.

Glennon said the company renamed the course “Interaction and Influence” about three or four months ago. “We had different calls from some agencies literally saying the word ‘warrior’ has such a bad connotation we’re not comfortable sending people there,” he said.

But Glennon called assertions that its seminars promote an overly aggressive mind-set “ludicrous.” If officers trained more with their weapons in stressful scenarios, they would be more confident and less likely to fire, he said.

Still, there are some in law enforcement training who question the courses.

Becar, who leads the international law enforcement training group, said his organization has no position on LifeLine Training and Calibre. But he said he has attended Calibre classes.

“Everything they were doing made the police officers very paranoid,” Becar said. “At some point they wouldn’t even stop a car without three backups.”

The Houston Police Department will not pay for officers to attend the Bulletproof Warrior seminar, said Houston police spokesman Kese Smith. Officers can go on their own time and expense, he said.

Smith said he couldn’t elaborate, saying only that “some of their instruction is not what we instruct.”

Peter Kraska, chairman of the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, called the company’s seminars “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” Kraska’s research focuses on the militarization of U.S. law enforcement, which he traces to the war on drugs.

To Kraska, the training is an unexplored factor in the deadly confrontations taking place across the United States between police and civilians.

“It’s a huge missing explanatory part of what’s going on,” Kraska said.

Asterios wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So repeatedly being pulled over for driving while black makes someone a serial criminal...

Sorry, he was pulled over for no good reason 50 out of 56 times.

If you were pulled over that many times, I'm sure the police can find something you did wrong.

you would be surprised how many times the cops will have a car tagged especially in a small town if they know the driver is without a license and/or insurance, they don't look at it with color in mind, but with a ticket quota in mind or such. seen it happen way too many times to others of all races and colors.

Hundreds of teachers joined community activists in a march and rally Tuesday afternoon in Minneapolis to protest the death of Philando Castile, who was fatally shot July 6 by a St. Anthony police officer during a traffic stop.

Union members from the Minneapolis and St. Paul Federation of Teachers, as well as other union educators from around the country, gathered at the Convention Center in downtown Minneapolis, then marched to U.S. Bank headquarters at 800 Nicollet Mall, where they planted themselves on 8th Street in protest of bank policies they say hurt education and minority Americans.

After police warned demonstrators that they needed to get off the street, most moved to the sidewalk. But a circle that included 21 people remained in place, their arms linked. Police moved in to arrest them about 6:20 p.m., securing them in plastic handcuffs one by one. Those being arrested — including union officers and a clergyman — were cheered by fellow protesters.

Minneapolis police confirmed all 21 arrested received a public nuisance citation, a misdemeanor, and were released.

 Easy E wrote:
Meh, that is about as crazy as we get in Minnesota. Notice, most of the protesters were actually from Chicago.

 Peregrine wrote:
Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”

Fire him, blacklist him from ever working as a police officer again, and charge him with assault with a deadly weapon. This is simply unacceptable.

 Easy E wrote:
Meh, that is about as crazy as we get in Minnesota. Notice, most of the protesters were actually from Chicago.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
and fire his partner for not disarming and arresting him (or shooting him as he was clearly armed and dangerous) in order to protect the public from him

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I hope whoever called in the 911 that he was armed feels like a real piece of gak now. Honestly if they arrive At a situation where the guy is supposed to be armed and suicidal it's going to take a lot for the cops to deescalate the situation. Looks like poor trigger discipline to me. That many nervous guys pointing guns is never a good thing.

nkelsch wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
and fire his partner for not disarming and arresting him (or shooting him as he was clearly armed and dangerous) in order to protect the public from him

And for not even attempting to apply life saving techniques to the wound... Just cuff him and let him lie bleeding in the street like an animal. They could apply pressure or a tourniquet or something to 'help' and show it was unintentional.

 d-usa wrote:
Meanwhile:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article90905442.html

Why did one officer appear to issue so many traffic citations?
“Each of our officers are given the latitude and discretion to provide service in a number of different ways. The specific officer chose to spend his additional time focusing on traffic enforcement to slow traffic in the community in an effort to reduce crashes.”


Why isn’t race documented in traffic stop data?
“For consistency, the city of St. Anthony mandates that race be recorded for all arrests, misdemeanor, felony and traffic, though not for parking tickets or written warnings. This is consistent with court requirements and a typical best practice in Minnesota.”

Why is Larpenteur Avenue so heavily patrolled?
“Two of the main reasons for this heavy patrol are that this stretch of road has a substantial number of accidents, and that area residents often raise concerns related to speeding and traffic issues.”

Newly released data show the two St. Anthony police officers who pulled Castile over last month are not the department’s top traffic enforcers.

The data also don’t suggest that officers Jeronimo Yanez and Joseph Kauser are giving tickets and warnings to black drivers at extremely disproportionate rates, although the lack of race data on a significant proportion of tickets makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions.

(CNN)The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop in July was charged Wednesday with second-degree manslaughter and two felony counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi said.

St. Anthony police Officer Jeronimo Yanez will make a first court appearance Friday, Choi said.

"Based upon our thorough and exhaustive review of the facts of the case it is my conclusion that the use of deadly force ...was not justified," Choi said in announcing the charges.

News of Castile's July 6 death spread like wildfire on social media when his fiancée, Diamond Reynolds, live-streamed the aftermath of the shooting on Facebook Live. Reynolds' 4-year-old daughter was also in the car when the shooting occurred.

The incident, along with the July 5 fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, sparked protests nationwide and renewed the debate over the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Castile, 32, told the officer he was legally carrying a gun and and paramedics found a loaded pistol in his shorts, but "the mere presence of a firearm alone cannot justify use of deadly force," Choi said.

"No reasonable officer knowing, seeing and hearing what Officer Yanez did at the time would have used deadly force under these circumstances," Choi said.
Dashcam video captured conversation

Choi said Yanez told a fellow officer he wanted to pull over Castile's vehicle that night because the occupants looked like suspects in a recent robbery. Castile's vehicle also had a nonworking taillight, Yanez said, according to Choi.

Philando Castile had met the officer who shot him
Squad car video and audio recorded the conversation and showed Castile first handed Yanez his insurance card, according to Choi. When Yanez asked for his driver's license, Castile calmly said that he had a firearm and a permit to carry it, Choi said.

Yanez told him not to reach for the gun and Castile twice said he was not going to do that, Choi said.

"Then Officer Yanez screamed, 'Don't pull it out' and quickly pulled his own gun with his right hand," Choi said. He fired seven rounds "in rapid succession" into the vehicle, Choi said.

Castile's dying words were, "I wasn't reaching for it," Choi said.

Reynolds started live-streaming onto Facebook about 40 seconds after the last shot.

The aftermath of the shooting was streamed onto Facebook

Reynolds' video feed showed Castile slumping in the front seat with blood covering his shirt. Her video also recorded Yanez outside the car saying, "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."

Scott, Castile and the women who filmed their final moments
The other police officer, who was standing on the passenger side of the car, never pulled his weapon, Choi said.

"He [Castile] volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm, beyond what the law requires," Choi said. "He emphatically stated he was not pulling it out. He was restricted by his seat belt. He was accompanied by a woman and a young child."
Emergency medical personnel found a .40-caliber pistol in the right front pocket of Castile's short, Choi said. The gun was loaded but didn't have a round in the chamber, he said. Also found in Castile's clothing was his wallet, which contained his driver's license and a concealed carry permit, Choi said.

"We believe Philando Castile never tried to remove the gun from his right front pocket that was a foot deep," Choi said.
Yanez's attorney could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday, but has told CNN previously that the shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with a gun being present at the scene.

Choi said he did not plan to immediately release the squad car video and audio to the public.

 Desubot wrote:
Good.

"What he said was, ‘I don’t know where the gun was,’ ” Noble said, quoting a conversation between Yanez and his supervisor that night.


“And you interpret that to mean officer Yanez never saw a gun?” Kelly asked.

“Well, yeah,” Noble said emphatically. “If you saw a gun, you’d know where it was.”

The nearly full courtroom burst into laughter, breaking a strict code of courtroom conduct set by Judge William H. Leary III.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

You find it more believable that he was reaching for a gun because he has a criminal history which involves no violent crimes, not even resisting arrest, whatsoever? I mean, why would he reach for it now, when he was paying off his fines and had his family in the car rather than at any other stop?

Hung juries — when jurors fail to reach a unanimous verdict — aren’t uncommon in cases of officer-involved shootings that end up in criminal court, according to Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

With that in mind, Stinson said “the most likely result” in the Yanez trial would be a mistrial.

“The second most likely result would be an acquittal,” he said.

A Minnesota police officer who was charged with manslaughter after he shot a black motorist five times during a traffic stop last year was found not guilty by a jury on Friday, according to multiple reports.

Defense attorneys said Jeronimo Yanez, the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life when he shot Philando Castile, 32, seconds after Castile informed the officer he was armed.

Prosecutors insisted Yanez never saw the gun and had plenty of options other than shooting Castile, who was an elementary school cafeteria worker.

The officer was also acquitted of two counts of discharging a firearm that endangers safety, according to CNN, which reported that several members of Castile's family screamed profanities and cried Friday after the verdicts were announced.

Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer.
Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times.

The video shows Yanez firing into the car but doesn't show any of Castile's actions inside the car. Some of the conversation between Yanez and Castile is unintelligible.

Yanez was charged with endangering the lives of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the car during the shooting, but found not guilty.

In November, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi argued that Yanez's use of force was unwarranted, because Castile never attempted to access his gun.

After the verdict, Castile's mother Valerie was quoted by The New York Times saying, “My son loved this city, and this city killed my son. And a murderer gets away. Are you kidding me right now?”

“The system in this country continues to fail black people and will continue to fail us," she added.

Ten members of the 12-person jury were white, while the remaining two were black. Reynolds says in the video that Castile never reached for his gun, but defense attorneys targeted inconsistencies in her story to cast doubt on her credibility.

 d-usa wrote:
And nobody is shocked.

The city of St. Anthony—for which Yanez worked as an officer—said it would end his employment because “the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” The city promised to offer him “a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career.”

 Easy E wrote:
Wow, they couldn't even get the lesser charges to stick.

All a cop has to do is say they were afraid for their life in order to shoot?

 Desubot wrote:
Why would a non badged person pull over another person and that person inform them that they had a weapon.

seems like a silly what if.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Why would a non badged person pull over another person and that person inform them that they had a weapon.

seems like a silly what if.

maybe they got in a collision and both drivers pulled off to the side? Maybe someone broke down and someone stopped to see whats going on? One can come up with not unrealistic scenarios where the decision comes down to "saw movement, felt threatened, drew weapon and fired".

 Vaktathi wrote:

With predictable results.

And then people wonder why relations with police are bad and why police in other developed nations dont seem to have the same issues.

Again, I wonder what the verdict would have been had the person behind the trigger not had a badge.

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

 Easy E wrote:
Wow, they couldn't even get the lesser charges to stick.

All a cop has to do is say they were afraid for their life in order to shoot? Sounds like a pretty easy bar to jump for defense attorneys going forward. I really hope there was more to the defense than that.

Dashcam was shown for the jury but not released to the public AFAIK.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, at least Yanez won't be a cop in the Twin Cities anymore....

The city of St. Anthony—for which Yanez worked as an officer—said it would end his employment because “the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” The city promised to offer him “a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career.”

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

Spetulhu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

If in the USA, apparently any time a police officer stops you.

But seriously, it's a major problem to work over. Police in many US jurisdictions are taught to consider any action a reason to shoot, and sure, in some cases they are right. But this policy also tells ordinary citizens to fear their police. "To protect and serve", hah.... More like "Threaten and shoot". In a more trigger-happy county you could possibly argue that shooting the officer was self-defence. After all, being pulled over for speeding or hitting a red light shouldn't automatically mean someone points a gun at you. Police have been let at large for too long, having their own standards for what's legal and what's not.

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

And what happens if a person with a gun defends themselves from attack and the attacker happens to be a policeman? That person gets 60 years.

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

 whembly wrote:

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

A policeman shooting an armed black man.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's amazing how you can twist facts to suit your view, Whembly.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

But right now, I don't think we have all of the facts of this case.

As for as I know, none of the court's transcripts were released nor the defense's dash cam videos.

Which, if you ask me, is a startling lack of transparency.

I'm having trouble how those 12 juror's unanimously voted not guilty. With what we know publicly know, at best the officer would be convincted on that endangerment charge and hung juror over the manslaughter. At best.

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's amazing how you can twist facts to suit your view, Whembly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

But right now, I don't think we have all of the facts of this case.

As for as I know, none of the court's transcripts were released nor the defense's dash cam videos.

Which, if you ask me, is a startling lack of transparency.

I'm having trouble how those 12 juror's unanimously voted not guilty. With what we know publicly know, at best the officer would be convincted on that endangerment charge and hung juror over the manslaughter. At best.

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

Trials are typically public. Was this one not public?

9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.”

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

 Frazzled wrote:
"Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him. "

I'd bet good money thats it right there. Now I could see not guilty for different levels of homcide, but the Prosecutor should have included lesser charges like accidental manslaughter etc.

Having said that, the more pragmatic of us may be of the opinion that odds are you get shot by the PoPo and it was a bad bad shoot, that nothing will happen.

jmurph wrote:Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

 Easy E wrote:
The trial info and dashcam should released later this week per an MPR report this morning.

 jmurph wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him. "

I'd bet good money thats it right there. Now I could see not guilty for different levels of homcide, but the Prosecutor should have included lesser charges like accidental manslaughter etc.

Having said that, the more pragmatic of us may be of the opinion that odds are you get shot by the PoPo and it was a bad bad shoot, that nothing will happen.

That's a very good point- the lesser included. I know that it happens that sometimes prosecutors don't want the lesser in the jury instruction and then it backfires when the jury comes back NG (but would have come back guilty on a lesser). So, for example, they may not find "knowing and intentional" but may find "reckless". It's really hard to say without knowing what was going on in the trial.

NRA is always quiet whenever a killing is bad/tragic. Unless it is to claim a gun could have prevented it.

Regardless, the USA is a big country, so just as a gang killing in NY doesn't mean much about the crime in Tampa, you should probably look at your own state/county to see what shape your PD is in. Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The trial info and dashcam should released later this week per an MPR report this morning.

That would be helpful. We should note that the dashcam may be frustratingly inconclusive. That happens too.

EDIT: Thanks Lorek for keeping the nonevent politics out.

And in this case, if Castillo had shot first--he'd still be alive and with his family.

Mario wrote:

jmurph wrote:Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

When you compare police killings in the US with any other developed country then it does sadly look like the police in the US are armed and scared thugs unfit to handle guns. There are just so many reports of the police killing people without reason or with reasons that wouldn't be seen as reasonable here. Those people shouldn't have been allowed to be police officers in the first place if they are so scared of everything.

Then there's the whole thing about people looking for any excuse for the office while also looking for the tiniest of false moves by the victim to feel better/safe about the police ("if I behave correctly surely they won't shoot me"). Literal discussion about how to behave in front of a police officer in the hope that they won't shoot you. People posting their protocol to avoid a bullet with replies saying that too correct or unthreatening behaviour in turn looks suspicious. Apparently you, as a civilian, can't win (and it gets worse if you are not white) and the flimsiest of excuses mean there are often no real or lasting consequences for the police officer. One got literary fired for not killing a man, the incentives are upside down.

That this rate of killings is seen as normal, acceptable, or even unavoidable in the US is really sad (and that's just the gun deaths caused by the police). There is a real need for a honest gun debate in the US and to think about the future of the 2nd amendment (and not just see it as some sort of natural law that always was, is, and will be) if things are to change for the better. Because the police are irrationally afraid of everyone being armed and can use that excuse for shooting anyone. But sadly this tweet is a succinct summary of futility of the gun debate situation in the US: "In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Why not? What were you doing that would justify the cops pointing their guns at you and treating you as an imminent threat they would require lethal force to stop? It doesn't matter what area your in, if all you did was commit a minor moving violation there's no reason for the cops to treat you like that just because the possibility of you actually becoming a threat is greater than zero.

 Frazzled wrote:

And in this case, if Castillo had shot first--he'd still be alive and with his family.

No he would still be dead and his GF would likely also be dead.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And in this case, if Castillo had shot first--he'd still be alive and with his family.

No he would still be dead and his GF would likely also be dead.

"Shot first", as in not declared his intention to get his ID or complying with the jumped up Paul Blart wanna-be.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And in this case, if Castillo had shot first--he'd still be alive and with his family.

No he would still be dead and his GF would likely also be dead.

"Shot first", as in not declared his intention to get his ID or complying with the jumped up Paul Blart wanna-be.

Ok, I am slightly confused with what you are trying to say, so can't comment appropriately.

All indications are that he did everything he was taught to do. My wife was pulled over last week and she did the exact same thing. The difference:

*here, CCer gets shot while fully complying.
*there, CCer gets told "good" that she is armed, and is given a warning ticket.

I think the only difference i would have done in his shoes is get my wallet in my hand as soon as stopped.

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Why not? What were you doing that would justify the cops pointing their guns at you and treating you as an imminent threat they would require lethal force to stop? It doesn't matter what area your in, if all you did was commit a minor moving violation there's no reason for the cops to treat you like that just because the possibility of you actually becoming a threat is greater than zero.

It did matter. I was driving through a very heavy gang area late at night. I was guilty of DWW in an area where you only do that if you are looking for drugs or companionship (or you were very late coming back from university). There's the way things aught to be and the way things are. Given the number of continuous shootings in the area including at PoPo I could understand and they were otherwise always extremely professional-but not to be ed with during the initial stop. Once you were talking to them it was ok.

Now that doesn't actually relate well to this incident, just that some areas are different and you have to take that into account.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

I absolutely would blame them. That's clearly indicative of a dysfunctional relationship with the population and a mindset of fear, combativeness, and a view that the citizen is the enemy, none of which is good from a policing standpoint or a social contract standpoint, and if that area of town is really *that* bad, then there are other issues and they shouldn't be doing random solo stops.

I'm oot and aboot late at night/early morning not uncommonly, both on foot and car. I carry not uncommonly while doing so. I would never draw that weapon without an imminent and immediate physical threat, and such was drilled at every step of my CHL training. I would expect a police officer, as a fellow civilian and citizen beholden to not only uphold the law but be an exemplar of it, to act with no less restraint.

Drawing at a stop just as a matter of course, to me at least, is brandishing, and that's illegal for you and me, and should apply to police officers no less.

The difference is that your wife isn't a black man, Frazzled.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't see how that last paragraph of holier than thou cultural stone throwing made it past the No US Politics ban.

 Ouze wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Yes. I hope this is seen as cultural commentary and not political, because I don't think this is really a party line issue, but: the US ultimately still has an awful lot of racism. Not necessarily the overt kind as much, with burning crosses and public lynchings - but we still have plenty of more subtle racism. To a police officer, a black man is legitimately more scary. They get pulled over more for less adequate reasons, cops are more inclined to shoot, and with less cause. I don't think is a particularly controversial set of facts. When the cops do shoot, they are way, way more unlikely to be charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. That's just how it is in the US.

This is why the NRA has been so silent on this: what you think would a textbook case of what they are most worried about, a overzealous government agent killing a lawful firearm owner who did nothing wrong. Ultimately firearm rights are very strongly a white privilege. You see it time and time again - a black man buying a toy rifle in Walmart shot and killed, in an open carry state. A 14 year old boy shot and killed by a cop within 2 seconds of jumping out of the car while he had a BB gun in his waistband, again in an open carry state. The Black Panthers march with firearms, and Ronald Reagan gets onboard with gun control. Again, this isn't a political issue - it's a cultural one. This is just how it is in the US.

I think the only thing that can fix it is the passage of time, maybe a few decades.

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Yes. I hope this is seen as cultural commentary and not political, because I don't think this is really a party line issue, but: the US ultimately still has an awful lot of racism. Not necessarily the overt kind as much, with burning crosses and public lynchings - but we still have plenty of more subtle racism. To a police officer, a black man is legitimately more scary. They get pulled over more for less adequate reasons, cops are more inclined to shoot, and with less cause. I don't think is a particularly controversial set of facts. When the cops do shoot, they are way, way more unlikely to be charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. That's just how it is in the US.

This is why the NRA has been so silent on this: what you think would a textbook case of what they are most worried about, a overzealous government agent killing a lawful firearm owner who did nothing wrong. Ultimately firearm rights are very strongly a white privilege. You see it time and time again - a black man buying a toy rifle in Walmart shot and killed, in an open carry state. A 14 year old boy shot and killed by a cop within 2 seconds of jumping out of the car while he had a BB gun in his waistband, again in an open carry state. The Black Panthers march with firearms, and Ronald Reagan gets onboard with gun control. Again, this isn't a political issue - it's a cultural one. This is just how it is in the US.

I think the only thing that can fix it is the passage of time, maybe a few decades.

I don't think time is the answer. No matter how much time passes if the legislation or policing tactics primarily negatively impact only one segment of society and the rest of society can conveniently overlook it then it won't ever change. There's a lot of laws that are vestiges of Jim Crow that are still on the books because the people who are most vulnerable to them are the easiest to dismiss. If you want to purchase or carry a pistol in NC you have to go through your county sheriff, there's 100 counties so there's 100 sheriffs and they all have the power to deny you based on their discretion and the primary reason that system exists is to prevent black people from getting and carrying handguns because sheriffs could deny them without needing the state to pass an overtly racist law to support the denial of their 2A rights.

In a similar vein, there's the situation like what Frazzled experienced, drive through a neighborhood that you don't belong in and the cops pull you over without affording you any presumption of innocence. Frazz can brush it off because its a rare occurrence for him but there's a whole segment of the population that get treated like that by the cops every time and that is incredibly counter productive to doing good police work. As long as the people living different segments of a city/town have very different interactions with the police it's going to be very difficult to get them to agree that a problem exists or that changes have to be made.

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Fun fact, Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect or serve anything as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as reinforced in two separate cases.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

 whembly wrote:
So... I saw the dash cam.

I have no words.

Yanez obviously was spooked.

100% Police Malfeasance.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Fun fact, Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect or serve anything as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as reinforced in two separate cases.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

And blacks don't have a constitutional right to go to a white school, gays don't have a constitutional right to marry, gun owners have no constitutional right to be considered a militia, and on and on and on.

The courts have often upheld gak decisions, and we never stopped accepting those gak decisions. So why should we stand by this one, while cops who are too afraid to be police officers are trusted with a badge and a gun, with the knowledge by all that they are above the law?