uthorities say that a man is dead after being shot by police Wednesday evening after being pulled over in a traffic stop.
The incident took place in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, near Minneapolis.
The victim's name is Philando Castile, his mother Valerie told CNN affiliate WCCO.
No one besides Castile was injured in the shooting -- which comes amid a national debate in the U.S. on when officers can use lethal force -- Sgt. Jon Mangseth, the interim chief of the St. Anthony Police Department, told reporters.
In the car with him were a young girl and an adult woman, who live-streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook.
A busted tail light'
"Stay with me," are the first words heard in her video. "We got pulled over for a busted tail light in the back."
The camera shows the woman speaking, then turns to a man in a white shirt, covered in blood. Out the window appears to be a police officer with his gun drawn.
The footage was streamed on a Facebook account under the name Lavish Reynolds. WCCO spoke to Castile's family who identified the woman as Diamond Reynolds.
In the video's first minute, Reynolds says that Castile is licensed to carry a firearm. She claims that before the shooting, her boyfriend was trying to get his ID from his wallet in his back pocket.
The video appears to be shot with the phone's front-facing camera, so the perspective is flipped, as letters would be in a mirror. Because of this, the steering wheel appears to be on the wrong side of the car.
'Devastated'
Clarence Castile, Philando Castile's uncle, told CNN that the family is devastated.
"We all know my nephew was a good kid and we want justice as well as relief," he said.
The images of his nephew dying were the "most horrific thing I've ever seen in my life," Castile said Thursday morning on CNN's "New Day."
He and Valerie Castile, Philando's mother, stressed on "New Day" that Philando was law-abiding and a good person, and they expressed bitterness over the actions of the police.
"He's not an officer," Clarence Castille said. "He's just a man. An officer is supposed to protect and serve. That was a man who did that. That man is a destroyer and he came into our lives and done something and took something from us."
Castile said that Philando worked as a kitchen supervisor for the St. Paul School District. The last time the two of them spoke was in May. They talked about setting up a nest egg for Philando's eventual retirement.
"My nephew has a (concealed carry) permit, and still got killed for carrying a gun ... this needs to stop. This happens so often."
Valerie Castile said "they took a very good person" and wondered whether he was simply "black in the wrong place."
"Everybody that knows my son knows that he is a laid back, quiet individual that works hard every day, pays taxes and comes home and plays video games. That's it," she said. "He's not a gang banger. He's not a thug. He's very respectable. And I know he didn't antagonize that officer in any way to make him feel like his life was threatened."
She said she stressed to her son that if he ever had an encounter with police, he should "comply, comply, comply."
She said that when he got to a hospital to see her son, he was already dead and "they didn't let me see my son's body."
The mother said she hears people saying that police no longer racially profile people. She disagrees.
"We're ... hunted every day. It's a sign of war against African-American people as a whole," she said.
An ongoing investigation
Mangseth said there were two officers present when the incident occurred -- a primary officer responded, who he believes has more than five years of experience, and there was also a backup officer. Having both is standard procedure.
The St. Anthony's Police Department doesn't have body cameras, according to the department's office manager, Kim Brazil.
One officer has been placed on standard paid administrative leave, Mangseth said at a short news conference early Thursday morning.
No police were injured.
Mangseth said he hasn't seen the video, but he knows about it and that it was live-streamed on Facebook.
The nearly 10-minute video garnered more than 1 million views before it was pulled from Facebook.
It was then re-released on the social media platform with a graphic warning.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Assistance, a state-wide criminal investigative agency, was called and is investigating the incident, Mangseth said.
"We will release the information as we learn it, and we will address concerns as we are faced with them," he said.
Poll: 1 in 5 African-Americans report 'unfair' dealings with police in last month
Mangseth told reporters that it's the first officer-involved shooting in the area in more than 30 years.
"It's shocking," he said. "It's not something that occurs in this area often."
The shooting comes just a day after an officer-involved shooting was filmed by bystanders in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
37-year-old Alton Sterling died, sparking mourning and outrage across the country.
By early Thursday, protesters had begun to gather outside Minnesota Governor's Residence.
'I'm right here'
Reynolds narrates the incident throughout much of the video -- alerting her followers and the viewing public to what was happening.
She's calm and composed at first; a striking juxtaposition to the officers yelling expletives outside the vehicle.
"Please don't tell me this lord, please, Jesus don't tell me that he's gone," Reynolds pleads with police in a hauntingly calm voice.
"Please don't tell me that he's gone. Please officer don't tell me that you just did this to him."
She's then asked to step outside with her hands up. While being ordered to walk backwards toward police, she points the camera at them.
The phone is then thrown on the ground nearby. The camera faces up, and it keeps recording.
Reynolds begins to cry and lose her composure. She's heard wailing and pleading with officers. Police can also be heard in the background.
And camera keeps pointing up at the sky, before it goes black while the voices continue.
Reynolds eventually gets a hold of the phone again, and says she begins filming from the back seat of a police car with the little girl.
She seems calm again, alerting viewers to her location and asking someone to come pick her up.
"I can't believe they just did this," she says.
Then she screams.
"It's OK," the little girl says. "I'm right here with you."
CNN's Dave Alsup and Joe Sterling contributed to this report
This is blowing up locally.
They guy shot had a concealed carry permit and they were pulled over for a busted tail light.
Did he inform the officer he had a permit and whether he was carrying? Here in MI the officer knows before the stop if you have a permit when he runs your plate, but you must still inform.
Did he tell the officer he had his ID back there and was reaching for it? Did he reach for it quickly or slowly?
It's a very sad event but there's not enough detail to gak all over the officer imho. Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous aspects of the job for a policeman.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, unfortunately I think he should be charged with manslaughter. This definitely wasn't a case of self defense.
I haven't seen details released on just exactly how the traffic stop happened, but I myself have a huge distrust of LEOs in general. If this LEO does not get prosecuted, based on the facts as they have been reported, then I might hop on the bandwagon. So far most of the shootings being reported can be justified in accordance with procedure. When you do not comply with police, you automatically bring suspicion upon yourself, and a less disciplined weapon holder can over react.
As of right now, this LEO should be calling to whatever higher power he has, because he just committed a murder.
Frazzled wrote: The difficulty is its their word against hers, absent other evidence.
Yeah, unfortunately I can see this becoming a case where the officer states that he thought the victim was reaching for his pistol and since he was in fact carrying the officer is going to be cleared of charges. That would be a bad outcome for a host of reasons but it's an outcome that seems to occur with shocking regularity these days.
If it's correct that the police are supposed to check the number plate of a car they stop to see if the owner has a concealed carry permit, there should be a log of this check being made by the policemen in this case.
If not, strike one against them for not following correct procedure.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, unfortunately I think he should be charged with manslaughter. This definitely wasn't a case of self defense.
I haven't seen details released on just exactly how the traffic stop happened, but I myself have a huge distrust of LEOs in general. If this LEO does not get prosecuted, based on the facts as they have been reported, then I might hop on the bandwagon. So far most of the shootings being reported can be justified in accordance with procedure. When you do not comply with police, you automatically bring suspicion upon yourself, and a less disciplined weapon holder can over react.
As of right now, this LEO should be calling to whatever higher power he has, because he just committed a murder.
We don't know any of that.
The video starts after the guy was shot.
All we know is that that cop shot him, the guy had a CC License.
Where was the gun? Did they tell the cop he had a CCL? Did he tell the cop he had a gun? Did he move slowly or quickly reach for his wallet? Did he reach for his gun?
We don't know ANY of this, yet. Let's see the dash cam footage. Let's hear both sides of the story before we start calling people murderers.
The cop very well could be an donkey-cave and deserve to rot in jail. I'm certainly not a police apologist, but all we have right now is footage from after the event.
Frazzled wrote: The difficulty is its their word against hers, absent other evidence.
Yeah, unfortunately I can see this becoming a case where the officer states that he thought the victim was reaching for his pistol and since he was in fact carrying the officer is going to be cleared of charges. That would be a bad outcome for a host of reasons but it's an outcome that seems to occur with shocking regularity these days.
Unless the victim touched his weapon, reaching for anything inside your vehicle is not hostile intent, and therefore should not get the officer off. If the driver said he was carrying, then suddenly reached for his weapon, then I might side with the LEO. Unfortunately I don't think truth will come out.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, unfortunately I think he should be charged with manslaughter. This definitely wasn't a case of self defense.
I haven't seen details released on just exactly how the traffic stop happened, but I myself have a huge distrust of LEOs in general. If this LEO does not get prosecuted, based on the facts as they have been reported, then I might hop on the bandwagon. So far most of the shootings being reported can be justified in accordance with procedure. When you do not comply with police, you automatically bring suspicion upon yourself, and a less disciplined weapon holder can over react.
As of right now, this LEO should be calling to whatever higher power he has, because he just committed a murder.
We don't know any of that.
The video starts after the guy was shot.
All we know is that that cop shot him, the guy had a CC License.
Where was the gun? Did they tell the cop he had a CCL? Did he tell the cop he had a gun? Did he move slowly or quickly reach for his wallet? Did he reach for his gun?
We don't know ANY of this, yet. Let's see the dash cam footage. Let's hear both sides of the story before we start calling people murderers.
The cop very well could be an donkey-cave and deserve to rot in jail. I'm certainly not a police apologist, but all we have right now is footage from after the event.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, unfortunately I think he should be charged with manslaughter. This definitely wasn't a case of self defense.
I haven't seen details released on just exactly how the traffic stop happened, but I myself have a huge distrust of LEOs in general. If this LEO does not get prosecuted, based on the facts as they have been reported, then I might hop on the bandwagon. So far most of the shootings being reported can be justified in accordance with procedure. When you do not comply with police, you automatically bring suspicion upon yourself, and a less disciplined weapon holder can over react.
As of right now, this LEO should be calling to whatever higher power he has, because he just committed a murder.
We don't know any of that.
The video starts after the guy was shot.
All we know is that that cop shot him, the guy had a CC License.
Where was the gun? Did they tell the cop he had a CCL? Did he tell the cop he had a gun? Did he move slowly or quickly reach for his wallet? Did he reach for his gun?
We don't know ANY of this, yet. Let's see the dash cam footage. Let's hear both sides of the story before we start calling people murderers.
The cop very well could be an donkey-cave and deserve to rot in jail. I'm certainly not a police apologist, but all we have right now is footage from after the event.
I always say this whenever one of these events happen. Lets wait for the damn facts before we start casting judgement. No one ever seems to listen though.
Frazzled wrote: The difficulty is its their word against hers, absent other evidence.
Yeah, unfortunately I can see this becoming a case where the officer states that he thought the victim was reaching for his pistol and since he was in fact carrying the officer is going to be cleared of charges. That would be a bad outcome for a host of reasons but it's an outcome that seems to occur with shocking regularity these days.
Unless the victim touched his weapon, reaching for anything inside your vehicle is not hostile intent, and therefore should not get the officer off. If the driver said he was carrying, then suddenly reached for his weapon, then I might side with the LEO. Unfortunately I don't think truth will come out.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, unfortunately I think he should be charged with manslaughter. This definitely wasn't a case of self defense.
I haven't seen details released on just exactly how the traffic stop happened, but I myself have a huge distrust of LEOs in general. If this LEO does not get prosecuted, based on the facts as they have been reported, then I might hop on the bandwagon. So far most of the shootings being reported can be justified in accordance with procedure. When you do not comply with police, you automatically bring suspicion upon yourself, and a less disciplined weapon holder can over react.
As of right now, this LEO should be calling to whatever higher power he has, because he just committed a murder.
We don't know any of that.
The video starts after the guy was shot.
All we know is that that cop shot him, the guy had a CC License.
Where was the gun? Did they tell the cop he had a CCL? Did he tell the cop he had a gun? Did he move slowly or quickly reach for his wallet? Did he reach for his gun?
We don't know ANY of this, yet. Let's see the dash cam footage. Let's hear both sides of the story before we start calling people murderers.
The cop very well could be an donkey-cave and deserve to rot in jail. I'm certainly not a police apologist, but all we have right now is footage from after the event.
yes, all true. facts are scarce.
I don't think we'll ever know the "truth" either. The cop is going to recall events that justify has actions. The family of the victim will recall events that don't justify the shooting. I don't see forensics being of much help in this case.
It really strains credulity to think that somebody who passed the background checks and invested the time and effort into getting his license and carrying concealed would for some reason try to draw a gun on a cop during a traffic stop over a broken tail light with his family in the car with him. We know he had a clean record because he had his carry permit so it's not like he was scared of the cops finding a warrant for him or something like that.
Prestor Jon wrote: It really strains credulity to think that somebody who passed the background checks and invested the time and effort into getting his license and carrying concealed would for some reason try to draw a gun on a cop during a traffic stop over a broken tail light with his family in the car with him.
Pretty much my thinking, but people can make dumb moves from time to time. Someone did that here, but I doubt we'll ever find out for sure whether it was the cop or driver.
Frazzled wrote: Well, considering we literally have no information on what actually happened, I would make no statements until evidence appears.
Very sad.
Yup the stream doesn't show anything really indicative of what went down beforehand
the cop could have be completelty out of order, mistaken but frightened for his life, or genuilely reacting to the victim going for a gun
the victims girlfriend could be really lucky she got the live stream on (her and her daughter are alive and who knows what would have happened if the shoot was bad), she could be backing up a boyfriend who didn't play things right, or even trying to sell a totally bogus story to get revenge for a warented shooting
we just don't know
hopefully there's enough dash and body cam footage to let the authorities (and us) find out which
For all you know he was going for the gun, who can say? There's no information here.
I think in a country where guns are common place, legally and illegally held, you should make your intentions very clear during things like a traffic stop, and your movements slow and precise. If you don't like this, then you need to think about what it means to have a culture where guns are so widely owned. I somehow doubt the policeman intended to kill someone that morning, but it's no wonder things like this happen when someone makes a move that isn't clear in its intent. It takes a moment for someone to pull a gun and shoot someone, snap decisions are made.
Howard A Treesong wrote: For all you know he was going for the gun, who can say? There's no information here.
I think in a country where guns are common place, legally and illegally held, you should make your intentions very clear during things like a traffic stop, and your movements slow and precise. If you don't like this, then you need to think about what it means to have a culture where guns are so widely owned. I somehow doubt the policeman intended to kill someone that morning, but it's no wonder things like this happen when someone makes a move that isn't clear in its intent. It takes a moment for someone to pull a gun and shoot someone, snap decisions are made.
I don't think the concealed carry permit holder with the clean criminal record decided to draw on a cop and start a gunfight with his family in the car over a traffic stop concerning an innocuous infraction like a busted tail light. Which is more probable, that a citizen with no criminal history decided to try to murder 2 cops over a minor ticket or that a cop panicked when he saw an armed citizen and started shooting? We've seen cops panic and shoot unarmed people, we don't have any history of concealed carry permit holders attempting to murder cops over trivial tickets.
I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
I think this was just bad calls all around, also curious how experienced the cop was? without knowing all the facts it is hard to say what really happened.
The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Also not sure about else ware but in CA they generally keep you in the car for safety.
Desubot wrote: The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Also not sure about else ware but in CA they generally keep you in the car for safety.
still this sucks :/
From the story I read, he was sitting in the car when he reached for his wallet. It just happened though, and as we all know, the media is always wrong for the first couple days if not the first couple of weeks.
I'm still waiting for certain news agencies to retract the false statement that the orlando shooter used an AR-15 Assault rifle....wrong on so many levels
SemperMortis wrote: I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
Minnesota law says concealed carry permits have duty to inform LEOs that they have a permit and are armed and need to produce the permit. If the victim informed the officer that he was armed and had a permit, as required by law, he would then need to reach for his wallet and produce his permit. I have seen some people on other forums question the wisdom of the deceased carrying his wallet in his back pocket where it was close to the holstered pistol on his hip. Personally I wouldn't advise somebody to carry that way either but I prefer IWB appendix carry, of course that's just personal preference, carrying the way the deceased did is perfectly legal. Once he informed the officer he was armed and reaching for his permit the officer shouldn't have been alarmed by the sight of a holstered pistol.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
SemperMortis wrote: I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
Minnesota law says concealed carry permits have duty to inform LEOs that they have a permit and are armed and need to produce the permit. If the victim informed the officer that he was armed and had a permit, as required by law, he would then need to reach for his wallet and produce his permit. I have seen some people on other forums question the wisdom of the deceased carrying his wallet in his back pocket where it was close to the holstered pistol on his hip. Personally I wouldn't advise somebody to carry that way either but I prefer IWB appendix carry, of course that's just personal preference, carrying the way the deceased did is perfectly legal. Once he informed the officer he was armed and reaching for his permit the officer shouldn't have been alarmed by the sight of a holstered pistol.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
You have to put yourself in the cops shoes though. If you read the link i posted you can see how it should have happened. I think it is a better policy for the PD to disarm the man first and return the weapon afterwards. Of course this then strays into the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and and a host of other problems. But like I said, It is always better to be extra careful when dealing with the police when you are armed.
SemperMortis wrote: I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
Minnesota law says concealed carry permits have duty to inform LEOs that they have a permit and are armed and need to produce the permit. If the victim informed the officer that he was armed and had a permit, as required by law, he would then need to reach for his wallet and produce his permit. I have seen some people on other forums question the wisdom of the deceased carrying his wallet in his back pocket where it was close to the holstered pistol on his hip. Personally I wouldn't advise somebody to carry that way either but I prefer IWB appendix carry, of course that's just personal preference, carrying the way the deceased did is perfectly legal. Once he informed the officer he was armed and reaching for his permit the officer shouldn't have been alarmed by the sight of a holstered pistol.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
You have to put yourself in the cops shoes though. If you read the link i posted you can see how it should have happened. I think it is a better policy for the PD to disarm the man first and return the weapon afterwards. Of course this then strays into the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and and a host of other problems. But like I said, It is always better to be extra careful when dealing with the police when you are armed.
I strongly disagree with your proposed protocol. The LAST thing the cops should want me to do when I inform them that I am an armed permit holder is for me to handle my weapon at all, even if it's just to hand it over to them. If you have your permit you can carry concealed, there is no reason for LEOs to be afraid of permit holders, they've already demonstrated to the state that they are trustworthy and have been given permission to carry. I'd have just as much of a right to tell the cop to disarm for my safety than for him to demand it of me. Once it produce the carry permit and the police verify it's authentic we're done. Nobody has to be disarmed, no weapons need to drawn or handled. The surest way to make sure nobody gets shot and everybody stays safe is to keep all the guns holstered.
Desubot wrote: The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Also not sure about else ware but in CA they generally keep you in the car for safety.
Highlights:
- Governor is calling for the Feds to lead the investigation
- Girlfriend claims the victim identified he was a CC permit holder and was in fact carrying a weapon
- Nearby witnesses say the cop told the victim to put his hands up, and fired immediately after making the statement 4 or 5 times
- Dude had no criminal record
- Girlfriend claims no tail light damage existed
SemperMortis wrote: I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
Minnesota law says concealed carry permits have duty to inform LEOs that they have a permit and are armed and need to produce the permit. If the victim informed the officer that he was armed and had a permit, as required by law, he would then need to reach for his wallet and produce his permit. I have seen some people on other forums question the wisdom of the deceased carrying his wallet in his back pocket where it was close to the holstered pistol on his hip. Personally I wouldn't advise somebody to carry that way either but I prefer IWB appendix carry, of course that's just personal preference, carrying the way the deceased did is perfectly legal. Once he informed the officer he was armed and reaching for his permit the officer shouldn't have been alarmed by the sight of a holstered pistol.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
You have to put yourself in the cops shoes though. If you read the link i posted you can see how it should have happened. I think it is a better policy for the PD to disarm the man first and return the weapon afterwards. Of course this then strays into the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and and a host of other problems. But like I said, It is always better to be extra careful when dealing with the police when you are armed.
I strongly disagree with your proposed protocol. The LAST thing the cops should want me to do when I inform them that I am an armed permit holder is for me to handle my weapon at all, even if it's just to hand it over to them. If you have your permit you can carry concealed, there is no reason for LEOs to be afraid of permit holders, they've already demonstrated to the state that they are trustworthy and have been given permission to carry. I'd have just as much of a right to tell the cop to disarm for my safety than for him to demand it of me. Once it produce the carry permit and the police verify it's authentic we're done. Nobody has to be disarmed, no weapons need to drawn or handled. The surest way to make sure nobody gets shot and everybody stays safe is to keep all the guns holstered.
In the example I linked the officers actually disarmed the man. Simply by telling the officer and then following his instructions they were able to quickly solve the problem and because he was so cooperative the Police Officer only gave the guy a verbal warning to fix his tail light instead of a ticket.
Desubot wrote: The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Also not sure about else ware but in CA they generally keep you in the car for safety.
Highlights:
- Governor is calling for the Feds to lead the investigation
- Girlfriend claims the victim identified he was a CC permit holder and was in fact carrying a weapon
- Nearby witnesses say the cop told the victim to put his hands up, and fired immediately after making the statement 4 or 5 times
- Dude had no criminal record
- Girlfriend claims no tail light damage existed
wait the cop told the victim to put his hands up 4-5 times? before shooting him? something is not right here. as to the girlfriend something tells me she may be lying about something.
d-usa wrote: I've had cops draw on my when I told them that I carried, as has my brother. Some cops can't handle legal carry and shouldn't be cops.
I agree with that statement 100%. Just because you are using your 2nd amendment right you shouldn't be drawn on. Now if you are acting aggressively or erratically at the time, then yeah I think the cops have a right to be ready (not saying you were doing that at all btw, just using that as an example of when it would be ok)
SemperMortis wrote: I read earlier about this (cant remember where honestly) that the man identified himself to the officer as having both a concealed weapon and a CC permit, and after telling the cop this he reached behind his back for his wallet. From that point onward the details are completely non-existent but based solely on that I think both acted poorly, but the officer should not have fired his weapon at all. By the same token though I just recently read this article and it shows how this stop SHOULD have happened.
Regardless of your rights and what you think should happen, you should always act extra cautiously when interacting with law enforcement when you are armed. They aren't all racists, they aren't out to get you, but they do want to be treated like a human being and at the end of their shift they want to be alive and go home to their families.
Minnesota law says concealed carry permits have duty to inform LEOs that they have a permit and are armed and need to produce the permit. If the victim informed the officer that he was armed and had a permit, as required by law, he would then need to reach for his wallet and produce his permit. I have seen some people on other forums question the wisdom of the deceased carrying his wallet in his back pocket where it was close to the holstered pistol on his hip. Personally I wouldn't advise somebody to carry that way either but I prefer IWB appendix carry, of course that's just personal preference, carrying the way the deceased did is perfectly legal. Once he informed the officer he was armed and reaching for his permit the officer shouldn't have been alarmed by the sight of a holstered pistol.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
You have to put yourself in the cops shoes though. If you read the link i posted you can see how it should have happened. I think it is a better policy for the PD to disarm the man first and return the weapon afterwards. Of course this then strays into the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and and a host of other problems. But like I said, It is always better to be extra careful when dealing with the police when you are armed.
I strongly disagree with your proposed protocol. The LAST thing the cops should want me to do when I inform them that I am an armed permit holder is for me to handle my weapon at all, even if it's just to hand it over to them. If you have your permit you can carry concealed, there is no reason for LEOs to be afraid of permit holders, they've already demonstrated to the state that they are trustworthy and have been given permission to carry. I'd have just as much of a right to tell the cop to disarm for my safety than for him to demand it of me. Once it produce the carry permit and the police verify it's authentic we're done. Nobody has to be disarmed, no weapons need to drawn or handled. The surest way to make sure nobody gets shot and everybody stays safe is to keep all the guns holstered.
In the example I linked the officers actually disarmed the man. Simply by telling the officer and then following his instructions they were able to quickly solve the problem and because he was so cooperative the Police Officer only gave the guy a verbal warning to fix his tail light instead of a ticket.
Respectfully, just because it worked out ok in one instance doesn't make it smart policy to be asking citizens to needlessly handle firearms in front of nervous cops. That's a recipe for disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Minnesota does not require you to identify yourself as having a CCW...from what I have found.
Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol? Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.
Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm? Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
If the permit holder was taught that he had a duty to inform and produce his permit then that would explain why he would be reaching for his wallet after informing the cops even if he wasn't driving.
I will never consent to having a butterfinger officer try to disarm me. I won't stop them obviously, but I won't tell them that's okay. If they are okay with me removing and clearing my weapon then I am perfectly fine with doing that. Ideally, notification should be the end of the story. I always carry my license on the opposite side of my gun, and when I notify them that I carry I tell them it's on my right side and that I will get my wallet from the left.
wait the cop told the victim to put his hands up 4-5 times? before shooting him? something is not right here. as to the girlfriend something tells me she may be lying about something.
Typically in Texas interactions usually involve the CHLer telling the PoPo. The PoPo will usually just have them be cool and keep their hands away from the location. Some PoPo (especially in San Antonio and Austin which are pretty antiCHL) will stop you and the PoPo will remove the firearm. Safer than you doing it but scary as crap given police ND rates.
Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
Again to clarify, in the link i posted the OFFICERS disarmed the individual in question. The civilian never touched his weapon until the police returned it to him in an evidence bag unloaded and cleared.
I think that is a better way of doing things rather then asking for the man to give over his CC permit which will most likely be in your wallet, which will most likely be near your weapon, which will most likely put the officer stopping you on edge and give him a reasonable fear for his life.
Frazzled wrote: Typically in Texas interactions usually involve the CHLer telling the PoPo. The PoPo will usually just have them be cool and keep their hands away from the location. Some PoPo (especially in San Antonio and Austin which are pretty antiCHL) will stop you and the PoPo will remove the firearm. Safer than you doing it but scary as crap given police ND rates.
More bad policy. Why have people needlessly handling a firearm, especially if they are already feeling nervous/threatened, when all you have to do is have somebody hand over a paper card?
Teaching police to fear the populace and view us as a threat is a major factor in why we keep seeing this situations where cops feel the need to overreact and use excessive force.
Mr.bacon wrote: Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
This has been something I've noticed in quite a few of these shootings. There doesn't appear to be any requirement for the officer to provide first aid.
Mr.bacon wrote: Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
In a situation in which the suspect is still believed to be armed the officer is to avoid the suspect and keep him covered. Rendering first aid could expose the officer. It is unfortunate but that is what they do. Very similar to ROEs in combat. You don't render first aid to enemy wounded until they are definitely disarmed.
Frazzled wrote: Typically in Texas interactions usually involve the CHLer telling the PoPo. The PoPo will usually just have them be cool and keep their hands away from the location. Some PoPo (especially in San Antonio and Austin which are pretty antiCHL) will stop you and the PoPo will remove the firearm. Safer than you doing it but scary as crap given police ND rates.
More bad policy. Why have people needlessly handling a firearm, especially if they are already feeling nervous/threatened, when all you have to do is have somebody hand over a paper card?
Teaching police to fear the populace and view us as a threat is a major factor in why we keep seeing this situations where cops feel the need to overreact and use excessive force.
AS I said, they typically don't in Texas. especially in the last several years. San Antonio appears the major exception.
SemperMortis wrote: Again to clarify, in the link i posted the OFFICERS disarmed the individual in question. The civilian never touched his weapon until the police returned it to him in an evidence bag unloaded and cleared.
I think that is a better way of doing things rather then asking for the man to give over his CC permit which will most likely be in your wallet, which will most likely be near your weapon, which will most likely put the officer stopping you on edge and give him a reasonable fear for his life.
I don't want to derail the thread with this tangent so we may have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter who is handling the firearm, the fact remains thatnobody needs to be handling it at all. The surest way to make sure nobody gets shot is to keep the gun in the holster. If I declare that I'm a permit holder and carrying I can lift my shirt up so the cops can see my pistol and with my other hand take my wallet out of my pocket. The cops can see the pistol is safe and secure in my holster and keeping it that way ensures it's not a threat to anyone.
Mr.bacon wrote: Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
Its not their job to perform medical care on site.
as well its a liability thing
(IIRC)
which is complete bull gak but makes sense in our sue you sue me culture.
Mr.bacon wrote: Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
This has been something I've noticed in quite a few of these shootings. There doesn't appear to be any requirement for the officer to provide first aid.
I am not a lawyer, but calling an ambulance is legally all he's required to do, even as a PO.
Asterios wrote: The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Poor English on my part due to speed.
The cop fired 4 or 5 times, but gave the order once.
As soon as he told the guy to put his hands up he fired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr.bacon wrote: Okay so Let's keep some things in mind the guy shoot him 4 times. Okay we are still trying to figure out what happend there. But here's my question, why didn't the donkey-cave try to at least give some medical care? He had plenty of time to take him out the car and apply pressure to the wound but he didn't?
CPR was provided on scene before the ambulance arrived. I am unsure if it was the shooter or a different cop who arrived as back-up.
Asterios wrote: The only thing im confused about is usually when police pull you over, they will ask for license and registration first before you get out of the car. so why would be have been reaching for his wallet once he was out of the car.
Poor English on my part due to speed.
The cop fired 4 or 5 times, but gave the order once.
As soon as he told the guy to put his hands up he fired.
so the cop shot him 4-5 times at that close of a range with others in the car? this whole story sounds like something out of the movies.
• Police made a traffic stop around 9 p.m. near the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue and Fry Street in Falcon Heights.
• An officer fired his weapon and struck the man, who was a cafeteria supervisor at J.J. Hill Montessori School in St. Paul.
• Castile was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, where he died at 9:37 p.m.
• In the moments after the shooting, a woman who was in the car with Castile shot a video with her cellphone and live-streamed it on Facebook from an account linked to Lavish Reynolds.
Philando Castile, right, was shot Wednesday night during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights.
• The woman, Diamond Reynolds, who identified herself as Castile’s girlfriend, said in the video that “police shot him for no apparent reason, no reason at all.” The video shows the man in the driver’s seat slumped next to her, his white T-shirt soaked with blood on the left side.
• Reynolds said Castile was just reaching to get his ID when an officer fired four times.
• A child was in the car at the time of the incident.
• Reynolds said during a news conference outside the governor's residence Thursday that she and Castile were coming from the grocery store when they were stopped by police for a broken light. She said the light wasn't broken.
• Reynolds said she and Castile had been at a shop to get his hair done for his birthday. He would have turned 33 years old on July 16.
• St. Anthony interim police chief Jon Mangseth read a statement in which he confirmed a St. Anthony police officer pulled an individual over for a traffic stop. “During the stop, shots were fired,” he said. He did not name the individual, but said that an adult male had died.
• Protesters gathered in front of the governor’s residence in St. Paul demanding answers and blocking traffic.
• The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will lead the investigation.
• Gov. Mark Dayton said in a release that he has requested the U.S. Department of Justice "begin an immediate independent federal investigation" into the killing.
• During a news conference at the governor's residence, Dayton said: "My deepest condolences go out to the family and friends. On behalf of all decent minded Minnesotans, we are shocked and horrified by what occurred last night. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. It is not the norm in Minnesota. I promise … to see that this matter is brought to justice and all avenues are pursued and do a complete investigation. Justice will be served in Minnesota.”
• Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., also called for a federal investigation. He said in a statement: "I am horrified that we are forced to confront yet another death of a young African-American man at the hands of law enforcement. And I am heartbroken for Philando’s family and loved ones, whose son, brother, boyfriend, and nephew was taken from them last night."
• A vigil for Castile is planned for 5:30 p.m. Thursday at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School in St. Paul, where he was employed as a cafeteria worker.
• The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will lead the investigation.
• Gov. Mark Dayton said in a release that he has requested the U.S. Department of Justice "begin an immediate independent federal investigation" into the killing.
I like the idea of a third party investigating the incident. If the cop if found to be at fault, I hope they throw the book at him.
People have probably already made up their minds, either way. And that is unfortunate.
ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?
Asterios wrote: ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?
also lets hope the FBI don't investigate this
People deal with traumatic events in different ways. She thought he had just been murdered by the cops so she wanted to record it to show and preserve the evidence of that crime she just witnessed.
Asterios wrote: ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?
also lets hope the FBI don't investigate this
People deal with traumatic events in different ways. She thought he had just been murdered by the cops so she wanted to record it to show and preserve the evidence of that crime she just witnessed.
SemperMortis wrote: Rendering first aid could expose the officer. It is unfortunate but that is what they do. Very similar to ROEs in combat. You don't render first aid to enemy wounded until they are definitely disarmed.
Minnesota is not Afghanistan - your posts really illustrate terrifically why police departments generally should not hire former military.
I'd like to see the dashcam or body cam footage if it exists, but I am immediately wondering why the cop's gun was out at all.
SemperMortis wrote: Rendering first aid could expose the officer. It is unfortunate but that is what they do. Very similar to ROEs in combat. You don't render first aid to enemy wounded until they are definitely disarmed.
Minnesota is not Afghanistan - your posts really illustrate terrifically why police departments generally should not hire former military.
I'd like to see the dashcam or body cam footage if it exists, but I am immediately wondering why the cop's gun was out at all.
This... I heard on the radio that there's a dash cam... anyone see confirmation that's true?
Asterios wrote: ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?
Because this is a country where black men are regularly shot by cops and white people hem and haw that maybe he needed to be killed and that the independent video evidence not suppressed by the police is definitely suspicious because why did the person recording it not do exactly as I made up that they must?
She could have spontaneously manifested the divine light of God and proclaimed the beginning of the new faith as angels sang from horizon to horizon and you'd complain that she mentioned the wrong translation of the bible.
Asterios wrote: ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?
Because this is a country where black men are regularly shot by cops and white people hem and haw that maybe he needed to be killed and that the independent video evidence not suppressed by the police is definitely suspicious because why did the person recording it not do exactly as I made up that they must?
She could have spontaneously manifested the divine light of God and proclaimed the beginning of the new faith as angels sang from horizon to horizon and you'd complain that she mentioned the wrong translation of the bible.
problem is this is after the fact, and you are going to say what? she took out her Camera and started filming after the incident? think about it, the cop just shot the driver and next thing we know she pulls something out, you think the cop is going to say go ahead? or do you think hes gonna think shes pulling out a weapon, more I hear about this and the timing of the video something is wrong with this picture.
Reynolds said the officer came to the window and instructed them to put their hands in the air. He then asked to see Castile’s license and registration, which, Reynolds said, Castile kept in a thick wallet in a pants pocket.
“As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know: ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry,’ ” Reynolds said. “After that, he [the officer] began to take off shots: ba ba ba ba. ‘Don’t move, don’t move!’
That sounds like he was already reaching to his waist BEFORE he started to inform the officer that he was armed, which could cause panic in the moment as the standard protocol is generally understood to inform the officer immediately and make no movements until directly instructed to. Not saying that it excuses the officer, but I can see how it could cause somebody to panic, then add additional tension created by somebody screaming at the officer while there's movement from the driver. If the officer was already being cautious or is jumpy about a situation it doesn't take much to tip cautionary approach into fire mode and sadly it looks like somebody died because of that.
Having worked security I know I've been in situations that would have resolved without any conflict right until the angry friend/girlfriend/wife aggressively butts in and causes the situation to escalate when it never should have. Sudden emotional outburst or aggressive verbal confrontation can cause major problems with conflict escalation even if they were well intended. Distractions coming in from a 3rd party can cause the participants to lose focus and in a tense situation it can lead to panic from either side and add a gun into the mix it can be deadly. I've had perfectly calm and rational discussions turn suddenly violent (fist fights) because another person interjects themselves into the situation by yelling which triggers a fight or flight panic response from one of the main parties.
Basically you can be talking to a guy who's being relaxed and chill about you asking them to leave, other bystander has a sudden verbal outburst and next thing you know the guy is swinging at your head because it triggered an emotional panic state. Things could have been proceeding perfectly clam and then it spins 180 in a split second. I've also seen it happened in reverse where things were calm until security got startled and suddenly they start swinging first, people react strange when they are placed under sudden duress.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except if he were going to shoot you, why would he inform you of the fact that he has a gun, whether he was moving his hand or not?
He was reaching for his wallet, as instructed to by the police officer. He also informed the police officer of his armed state, as required.
Yes but if armed I'd think it'd be best to announce that you are before making any movement, not during. At least that's what they taught at the CCW courses I attended.
Basically this
Officer: Show me your license and registration
Me: Yes, but before I do anything I am a CCW permit holder and I need to inform you that I'm armed with my weapon at this location on my body. (or my weapon is in the glove box etc)
Me: Do you want me to disarm?
Officer: Yes/No then gives explicit instructions on how to proceed while keeping everything calm and frosty.
problem is all we know right now is based off of what the woman, said, the other eye witnesses only heard the officer tell him to get his hands up, so until we know all the facts any specualtion at this time is just that speculation.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except if he were going to shoot you, why would he inform you of the fact that he has a gun, whether he was moving his hand or not?
He was reaching for his wallet, as instructed to by the police officer. He also informed the police officer of his armed state, as required.
Yes but if armed I'd think it'd be best to announce that you are before making any movement, not during. At least that's what they taught at the CCW courses I attended.
Basically this
Officer: Show me your license and registration
Me: Yes, but before I do anything I am a CCW permit holder and I need to inform you that I'm armed with my weapon at this location on my body. (or my weapon is in the glove box etc)
Me: Do you want me to disarm?
Officer: Yes/No then gives explicit instructions on how to proceed while keeping everything calm and frosty.
That's how it's supposed to work, but for example I got pulled over the other day and completely forgot I even had a carry license. When you don't pull it out everyday it's easy to forget about(of course I don't usually carry my gun in the truck). Sounds to me that if he informed the officer as he was reaching for his wallet, it was because he suddenly remembered he was supposed to tell the officer.
Official updates from the local paper as of this morning:
• A vigil for Castile at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School in St. Paul, where he was employed as a cafeteria worker, led to a march to the governor's residence, where Gov. Mark Dayton met with Castile's family. Some protesters broke off and marched in the St. Paul streets, briefly blocking traffic and light-rail trains.
• The officer who shot Castile was identified as Jeronimo Yanez. Yanez and Joseph Kauser, who also was part of the traffic stop, have been placed on paid leave. Both have been with the St. Anthony police for four years.
• The Castile shooting and the fatal shooting in Louisiana of Alton Sterling led to protests in other cities. In Dallas, five police officers were killed by snipers and six others were hurt at a protest downtown.
If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.
Very glad that PA does not have duty to inform. It's none of their business whether or not you're carrying, and no good can come of informing a cop that you're armed - that knowledge only increases the likelihood of you being shot.
right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.
The video is evidence and I am sure will be part of the investigation. Therefore,t eh video is not irrelevant.
However, it will be combined with other testimony and evidence to try and get as good a picture as possible as to what happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.
To be clear the witness said the cop told the Castilo to put his hands up and then started shooting immediately after he said it 4 or 5 times.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.
Correct, IF, that's how it went down. We have no idea. Her video starts after the shooting, which makes it irrelevant.
The police started their investigation after the shooting, so it will be irrelevant as well?
No. One is a data point that does not show the actual event but is helpful with the aftermath as well as the veracity of the witnesses.
The other is the investigation.
Easy E wrote: The video is evidence and I am sure will be part of the investigation. Therefore,t eh video is not irrelevant.
However, it will be combined with other testimony and evidence to try and get as good a picture as possible as to what happened.
Asterios wrote: right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.
To be clear the witness said the cop told the Castilo to put his hands up and then started shooting immediately after he said it 4 or 5 times.
problem is the video is irrelevant pretty much since it adds no evidence other then what the witness said after, and if taking the other eyewitnesses testimony into consideration it sounds like the guy went to reach for his wallet and the cop saw the gun and then the excrement hit the fan, but this is if the driver did not inform the cop he was carrying and had a permit.
The other eyewitness could not see what was happening in the car due to the distance and angle. She could only report on what the officer outside the car shouted.
Easy E wrote: The other eyewitness could not see what was happening in the car due to the distance and angle. She could only report on what the officer outside the car shouted.
true but a couple things stick out to me and the main one is the video, if the shooting was an excited shooting like some believe why did the cop not shoot the passenger when she brought out the phone/camera? if it was an excited shooting and knowing a gun was on the driver would have assumed the passenger might have had a gun too and yet did not shoot her, also was that the whole video shot? the video could have been cropped which would also bring up that the investigation will investigate her phone to check the video and find out if it was edited and such. something does not sound right about this situation so I will hold my judgement till all facts are present.
Pure speculation but it could have been a case of:
"May I see some identification?"
"I need to tell you I'm carrying a concealed firearm"
Reaches for ID...
Bang! Bang!
"He has a license to carry! He has a license to carry!"
Bang! Bang!
Doesn't make it right and very sad for all either way though.
I think when cops are involved - keep hands in view, inform them of what you're going to do before you do it, move real slow.
KiloFiX wrote: I think when cops are involved - keep hands in view, inform them of what you're going to do before you do it, move real slow.
You can hear the cop in the audio. He clearly realized that this was a bad shooting and there was no way to make those bullets go back into his gun. The cop freaked and clearly escalated, making the situation spiral out of control when he should have been the one IN control.
With all the attention on bad shootings, one would think we'd be seeing less of this not more.
Is it any wonder African-americans feel like they're being treated as enemies of the state?
d-usa wrote: The video does bring to light quite a bit of evidence that can be useful in the investigation.
all the video shows is an officer with his gun drawn on a suspect he shot (in the arm according to the passenger) and the passenger (pretty calm)making some statements.
d-usa wrote: The video does bring to light quite a bit of evidence that can be useful in the investigation.
all the video shows is an officer with his gun drawn on a suspect he shot (in the arm according to the passenger) and the passenger (pretty calm)making some statements.
NO.
It also is supportive evidence of the veracity of both the shooter, the person recording, and the victim.
Frazzled wrote: Yes indeedy d-usa, just not video of the event itself.
Agree, I'm just countering the whole "it's completely useless since it doesn't have the shooting itself" argument.
Based on the emotions and behavior in the video, I feel very comfortable coming to two conclusions:
- The occupants of the vehicle were calm prior to the shooting. A shooting doesn't deescalate a situation, it will usually only crank up the emotions involved. I think if she, and even he, was agitated and aggresive prior to the shooting she would be even more so now. I also think the officers would have reacted to her differently.
- The officer was calm prior to the shooting. He didn't approach the vehicle intending to shoot anyone and likely didn't expect this to happen. He is still very calm after the fact and if he came in expecting a shootout he would be treating her very differently especially with the phone. His behavior after the shooting makes me think he simply misread a situation, panicked, and made a bad decision. And he knows he fethed up and doesn't escalate the situation.
One witness, I believe it was the girlfriend in the car, does mention that other responding police were comforting the sobbing officer after the shooting.
Easy E wrote: One witness, I believe it was the girlfriend in the car, does mention that other responding police were comforting the sobbing officer after the shooting.
I am not seeing how that is indicative of anything. The PoPo sho someone, and unlike wiener dogs are not heartless murdering machines. Whether innocent or guilty there would be emotion.
Now if the video records damaging statements from that huddle, however...
Based on the emotions and behavior in the video, I feel very comfortable coming to two conclusions:
- The occupants of the vehicle were calm prior to the shooting. A shooting doesn't deescalate a situation, it will usually only crank up the emotions involved. I think if she, and even he, was agitated and aggresive prior to the shooting she would be even more so now. I also think the officers would have reacted to her differently.
- The officer was calm prior to the shooting. He didn't approach the vehicle intending to shoot anyone and likely didn't expect this to happen. He is still very calm after the fact and if he came in expecting a shootout he would be treating her very differently especially with the phone. His behavior after the shooting makes me think he simply misread a situation, panicked, and made a bad decision. And he knows he fethed up and doesn't escalate the situation.
Easy E wrote: One witness, I believe it was the girlfriend in the car, does mention that other responding police were comforting the sobbing officer after the shooting.
I am not seeing how that is indicative of anything. The PoPo sho someone, and unlike wiener dogs are not heartless murdering machines. Whether innocent or guilty there would be emotion.
Now if the video records damaging statements from that huddle, however...
Yes, I agree. That is why I thought it was relevant. He realized that shooting a dude was a big deal!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Very glad that PA does not have duty to inform. It's none of their business whether or not you're carrying, and no good can come of informing a cop that you're armed - that knowledge only increases the likelihood of you being shot.
Indeed, Iowa doesn't either. I've never been pulled over while carrying, but I'd always intended to inform a LEO at first contact as the Sheriff's office recommends. I don't think that's the plan anymore unless I'm asked to get out of the car or I think I'm about to get frisked.
KiloFiX wrote: I think when cops are involved - keep hands in view, inform them of what you're going to do before you do it, move real slow.
Here's the thing, I should not have to do that. Nobody should have to live with the expectation that a cop is going to shoot you for being pulled over when your fething tail-light is out. It's smart to do it like that, but we shouldn't have to do that in the first place.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Very glad that PA does not have duty to inform. It's none of their business whether or not you're carrying, and no good can come of informing a cop that you're armed - that knowledge only increases the likelihood of you being shot.
Indeed, Iowa doesn't either. I've never been pulled over while carrying, but I'd always intended to inform a LEO at first contact as the Sheriff's office recommends. I don't think that's the plan anymore unless I'm asked to get out of the car or I think I'm about to get frisked.
I think even in "duty to notify" states there isn't clear agreement on how to notify.
Here in Oklahoma I have been recommended quite a few different approaches:
- Notify them as soon as they walk up to the window.
- Notify them after the initial pleasantries.
- Notify them saying "I am licensed to carry" and let them ask if you are carrying
- Notify them saying "I am licensed to carry and I am carrying right now"
- Notify them by simply handing them your CCL with your DL
matching does not a suspect make, maybe a person of interest at the most, but not a suspect. whether he was the robber or not has not been revealed at this point, in fact nothing has been revealed at this moment really about what is what.
From this, I gather the only thing the victim and the suspect have in common is" black male with corn rolls." If this incident is the result of police standards for matching a bolo over there, the entire department should be shut down and reorganized.
From this, I gather the only thing the victim and the suspect have in common is" black male with corn rolls." If this incident is the result of police standards for matching a bolo over there, the entire department should be shut down and reorganized.
But his source is such a reputable, hard-hitting newspaper of record. They're without a doubt free of any bias and a paragon of journalistic integrity.
Has the NRA spoken out about the killing of someone exercising their 2nd Amendment right? They are always encouraging people to get their CCL, so it seems that they would have an interest in this case.
d-usa wrote: Has the NRA spoken out about the killing of someone exercising their 2nd Amendment right? They are always encouraging people to get their CCL, so it seems that they would have an interest in this case.
I think they are waiting for the facts to come out first.
d-usa wrote: Has the NRA spoken out about the killing of someone exercising their 2nd Amendment right? They are always encouraging people to get their CCL, so it seems that they would have an interest in this case.
I think they are waiting for the facts to come out first.
Must be a new policy that they just implemented...
like I said they are waiting for the facts to come out which have been lacking in this case so far, we know more about other incidents and even the Dallas shooting then we know of the Minnesota shooting.
A) we don't know all the facts... so snopes is likely piss'n in the wind here... In fact, that should tell you something about snopes...
You clearly didn't read it because it says, in plain fething English, that we don't know all the facts but the "fact" that he was "wanted" is bull gak (along with all of the other garbage from that website's story). But I guess it's easier to vaguely reference that Snopes probably has a liberal bias or some dumb gak, so whatever.
That's a copy of a police scanner transcript that matches the description of the event.
Where do you think that story the Snopes article debunks got their information from? Oh, that's right, the transcript of the alleged police scanner audio given to the news station by a viewer.
Do we have more official report yet? Has the Dashboard cam been made public yet?
A) we don't know all the facts... so snopes is likely piss'n in the wind here... In fact, that should tell you something about snopes...
You clearly didn't read it because it says, in plain fething English, that we don't know all the facts but the "fact" that he was "wanted" is bull gak (along with all of the other garbage from that website's story). But I guess it's easier to vaguely reference that Snopes probably has a liberal bias or some dumb gak, so whatever.
Snopes been proven wrong on the more cultural/political events. All you have to do is look at the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown gak.
So no, feth snopes. (for that matter feth politifacts/wikipedia... especially during election seasons).
That's a copy of a police scanner transcript that matches the description of the event.
Where do you think that story the Snopes article debunks got their information from? Oh, that's right, the transcript of the alleged police scanner audio given to the news station by a viewer.
So "alleged" means "not true".
Jesus... the fething audio is on that site, just listen to it.
Unless, you subscribe to some crazy pants idea that it's faked.
*THAT* is what I was referring too...
Do we have more official report yet? Has the Dashboard cam been made public yet?
No.
Okay then.
EDIT: scooty... I'm not attacking you and if you think I am, I'll re-edit my post. The aftermath of the Michael Brown saga in Ferguson, with all the misdirection/lies/co-opted provocateurs... situation like this hits a little too close to home.
We still don't have a good picture PRIOR to the shooting... so, the abject glee I've seen to turn this officer into a pariah (ala, Officer Wilson) is fething pathetic.
If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.
whembly wrote: Snopes been proven wrong on the more cultural/political events. All you have to do is look at the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown gak.
Oh yeah? Got anything to back that up?
So no, feth snopes. (for that matter feth politifacts/wikipedia... especially during election seasons).
Yeah, I know you hate it when things prove what you believe wrong. You've made that pretty clear on more than one occasion.
So "alleged" means "not true".
Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.
Jesus... the fething audio is on that site, just listen to it.
I did.
Unless, you subscribe to some crazy pants idea that it's faked.
Is that what I said or are you again going to just assume that's what I said so you can try to make a point?
*THAT* is what I was referring too...
Look, I know you have issues with the word alleged, but those issues notwithstanding, the audio given to the news station is from a police scanner, not the police department. So until the police department comes out with audio, it's fething alleged.
Okay then.
So you're arguing just to argue?
EDIT: scooty... I'm not attacking you and if you think I am, I'll re-edit my post. The aftermath of the Michael Brown saga in Ferguson, with all the misdirection/lies/co-opted provocateurs... situation like this hits a little too close to home.
No, I think you're just being yourself.
If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.
EDIT: scooty... I'm not attacking you and if you think I am, I'll re-edit my post. The aftermath of the Michael Brown saga in Ferguson, with all the misdirection/lies/co-opted provocateurs... situation like this hits a little too close to home.
We still don't have a good picture PRIOR to the shooting... so, the abject glee I've seen to turn this officer into a pariah (ala, Officer Wilson) is fething pathetic.
If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.
I agree with all the witnesses and so forth who posted to the media how they saw Wilson shoot that guy as he was running or in cold blood ended up having lied while actual witnesses who saw the shooting said otherwise and yet the media squelched those reports, which is why I'm taking another wait and see for the facts on this before saying otherwise I don't want another innocent cops life ruined because of social media and lies if hes innocent then so be it, if hes guilty then hang him high, but until the facts come out I will stand by.
whembly wrote: Snopes been proven wrong on the more cultural/political events. All you have to do is look at the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown gak.
Oh yeah? Got anything to back that up?
Google is your friend. Anything politics that's not black&white.
So no, feth snopes. (for that matter feth politifacts/wikipedia... especially during election seasons).
Yeah, I know you hate it when things prove what you believe wrong. You've made that pretty clear on more than one occasion.
I.Was.Not.Proven.Wrong.
There was a BOLO that 'fit' Castile's description... the "allege" police scanner posted previously gave potential insight as to why Castile was pulled over.
So "alleged" means "not true".
Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.
Might as well have.
Jesus... the fething audio is on that site, just listen to it.
I did.
Unless, you subscribe to some crazy pants idea that it's faked.
Is that what I said or are you again going to just assume that's what I said so you can try to make a point?
Not quite...
*THAT* is what I was referring too...
Look, I know you have issues with the word alleged, but those issues notwithstanding, the audio given to the news station is from a police scanner, not the police department. So until the police department comes out with audio, it's fething alleged.
Sure... but to dismiss it outright because, derp-derp, the po po didn't confirm/deny it yet?
Okay then.
So you're arguing just to argue?
I'm sorry... that's what you were doing with your "Not quite..." retort.
EDIT: scooty... I'm not attacking you and if you think I am, I'll re-edit my post. The aftermath of the Michael Brown saga in Ferguson, with all the misdirection/lies/co-opted provocateurs... situation like this hits a little too close to home.
No, I think you're just being yourself.
Cool.
If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.
Yeah, because that always works.
Of course not and we should ALWAYS be on guard with that.
We wouldn't want someone to be too big *cough*Clinton*cough* who's above the law.
If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.
Yeah, because that always works.
Of course not and we should ALWAYS be on guard with that.
We wouldn't want someone to be too big *cough*Clinton*cough* who's above the law.
By too big and be above the law, do you mean anyone involved in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco?
You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.
Asterios wrote: like I said they are waiting for the facts to come out which have been lacking in this case so far, we know more about other incidents and even the Dallas shooting then we know of the Minnesota shooting.
And yet somehow in other cases they don't have any problem immediately posting strong comments about the importance of our second amendment rights.
You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.
Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.
There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.
You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.
Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.
There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.
Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.
You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.
Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.
There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.
Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.
No worries... 'tis all good bro.
*still looking to see if I can even do a selfie in the voting booth... some outfits prohibits "phone use" within the booth, but I don't recall seeing any prohibition signs and whatnot 4 years ago...
You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.
Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.
There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.
Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.
No worries... 'tis all good bro.
*still looking to see if I can even do a selfie in the voting booth... some outfits prohibits "phone use" within the booth, but I don't recall seeing any prohibition signs and whatnot 4 years ago...
Peregrine wrote: And yet somehow in other cases they don't have any problem immediately posting strong comments about the importance of our second amendment rights.
Affirming their die hard, bordering on religious, belief in the second amendment is usually the first thing the NRA does.
They didn't even do that, and they've been on quite the CCP bender the past two years.
They're response to this incident is near non-existent, and even if they wanted to sit back and wait for facts, as if we somehow don't have any, they offered nothing. Not even a "we firmly believe all Americans have a right to bear arms." And this is the same civil rights organization that fought a law to ban people on the no-fly list from buying fire arms and that list was invented to keep terrorists off planes!
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
To be fair, there could be a lot of reasons for their "meh" response. Just because something hits the news doesn't mean the NRA is watching, and the Dallas shooting certainly came hot on the heels of this reaching national attention. If I were a national lobbying group primarily concerned with gun rights, the events in Dallas would honestly have far more of my attention than those in Minnesota. The later incident might involve gun rights, but it's going to be far more about law enforcement policy than guns in the end. That's how it'll play out in the media, and the discussions it'll drive. It's more of an event with one foot in my door, as opposed waiting in my foyer demanding my attention.
Still. Would it kill me to write a sentence along the lines of "everyone has a 2nd to think about gun rights" (good slogan? )
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.
They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.
Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.
I didn't realize I slipped "racist" in there somewhere.
Oh, I don't think you're racist or even brought it up, I'm conflating other sites here, I actually agree with your own viewpoints most likely.
But many people across the Internet are trying to mix this NRA lack of response with racism against Black gun owners, even though the NRA has a track record of waiting before issuing statements, which I tried to show.
I'm not particularly pro-NRA but they've stuck to their principles on this one and aren't throwing Castile under the bus because he's Black,
Edit: Actually I've seen the same insinuations in this thread. People claiming that the NRA is quick to push for anything, when they usually wait at least a few days,
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.
They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.
Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.
I didn't realize I slipped "racist" in there somewhere.
Oh, I don't think you're racist or even brought it up, I'm conflating other sites here, I actually agree with your own viewpoints most likely.
But many people across the Internet are trying to mix this NRA lack of response with racism against Black gun owners, even though the NRA has a track record of waiting before issuing statements, which I tried to show.
I'm not particularly pro-NRA but they've stuck to their principles on this one and aren't throwing Castile under the bus because he's Black,
Edit: Actually I've seen the same insinuations in this thread. People claiming that the NRA is quick to push for anything, when they usually wait at least a few days,
thats what I said, they are waiting for the facts instead of posting in the heat of things, the NRA may be many things but I don't think Stupid is one of them.
According to the local county, this guy had never applied for a concealed weapons permit. The only word that he had one comes from the woman in the video.
Aside from the snippet that the cop thought these were armed robbers, we still know zero about what happened before she pushed record on her phone and only have her word on it.
Much like the misplaced outrage on the Baton Rouge shooting and everyone jumping to conclusions before information came out, this case has to evolve more before we can figure out what happened.
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.
12050(a)(2)(A)(ii):
If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.
12050(a)(2)(A)(ii): If the licensee's place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.
I'm not sure what your point is, except maybe that California CCW laws and policies are ridiculous and potentially an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. This man in question wasn't in California anyway, and wouldn't have had a California license since they don't issue them to non-residents.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
Exactly, the carry permit paperwork is processed by your resident county LEO but the permit itself is a state issues permit that is valid throughout the state. No state has permits that are only valid in the issuing county. Since permits are state issued many states have databases that LEOs can check when they stop someone.
Minnesota has a duty to inform statute so it is highly likely that he informed the cop. Even if he didn't the mere fact that he was armed doesn't justify the cop killing him. He was legally armed, had a clean record, had his family in the car and no reason whatsoever to draw on the cops and there's no evidence so far that he did anything wrong.
I heard on the radio that this deportment in Minnesota hadn't had an officer involved shooting in 30 years. It's not like this happened in a gang infested urban ghetto with high crime. There was no reason for the cops to be that nervous, fearful and trigger happy.
What this starting to look like is the cops had a bolo for somebody that vaguely resembles the victim so they pulled him over on a "busted tail light" stop to check him out, saw he was carrying, got scared and blasted him.
In the posted video his pistol isn't even out. It's not in his hand or in his lap. I'd be willing to bet that the pistol was still secured in his holster when he got shot. There is literally no reason for him to have tried to draw on 2 cops with his family in the car.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.
12050(a)(2)(A)(ii):
If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.
You are misreading that statute. If the place of business pulled the permit, i.e. to keep a gun by the cash register, the permit is only good for that business in that location. It's not a carry permit because a business location can't go anywhere. In that instance a brick and mortar business has to get the permit from their county sherrif and it's good for that single location and other locations in other counties have to get a separate permit.
It also has nothing to do with the incident in Minnesota.
Hordini wrote: In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.
but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?
Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.
then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.
I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.
Exactly, the carry permit paperwork is processed by your resident county LEO but the permit itself is a state issues permit that is valid throughout the state. No state has permits that are only valid in the issuing county. Since permits are state issued many states have databases that LEOs can check when they stop someone.
Minnesota has a duty to inform statute so it is highly likely that he informed the cop. Even if he didn't the mere fact that he was armed doesn't justify the cop killing him. He was legally armed, had a clean record, had his family in the car and no reason whatsoever to draw on the cops and there's no evidence so far that he did anything wrong.
I heard on the radio that this deportment in Minnesota hadn't had an officer involved shooting in 30 years. It's not like this happened in a gang infested urban ghetto with high crime. There was no reason for the cops to be that nervous, fearful and trigger happy.
What this starting to look like is the cops had a bolo for somebody that vaguely resembles the victim so they pulled him over on a "busted tail light" stop to check him out, saw he was carrying, got scared and blasted him.
In the posted video his pistol isn't even out. It's not in his hand or in his lap. I'd be willing to bet that the pistol was still secured in his holster when he got shot. There is literally no reason for him to have tried to draw on 2 cops with his family in the car.
problem is thats the problem we are only conjecturing and guessing here, the cop could have removed the gun or any thing, if what you say about the department not having an officer involved shooting in 30 years, it makes one wonder why now? the cop who did the shooting was not a rookie he had been with the department for 4 years, so why? feel like we are missing something here.
Asterios wrote: if what you say about the department not having an officer involved shooting in 30 years, it makes one wonder why now? the cop who did the shooting was not a rookie he had been with the department for 4 years, so why? feel like we are missing something here.
The reason it happened now and not before could be anything from random chance stopping every other possible shooting through the cop having a bad day and to the growing fear among the white middle class. You're working from the assumption that it's obviously weird that a cop shot a black man and trying to come up with even the smallest complaint against the man that died to justify his death with no interest at all in the greater pattern of police violence in the US. There is no reason to suspect some conspiracy for why it happened now. It's just one of the latest in a long string of shootings.
I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.
d-usa wrote: I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.
d-usa wrote: I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.
Such as?
Speculations mentioned so far in this thread: He had his gun out and the only reason we don't see it is because the cop has already removed it. He didn't have a permit at all. He was hostile to the cop. The recording was made to create a false narrative.
Rumors that have been disproven repeated in this thread: He was a suspect in a robbery (which has been disproven, he was initially pulled over because "he had a wide nose like a guy that they might be looking for"), the county said he didn't have a permit (the same county admits that any other county could have issued it and a source confirmed he was licensed).
What we do know and has been pretty much confirmed:
- He was pulled over because the cops wanted to check him out
- He was licensed to carry
- He was shot
- We have video footage after the shooting that shows the atmosphere and behaviors of everybody involved.
Hordini wrote: I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.
Illinois has some pretty patchwork CC laws in place because there is no primacy in that state. An issued permit "should" be allowed but if so residents of Chicago would just go to another county and get their permits instead of being held hostage by the corrupt mayor and city council.
d-usa wrote: My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.
A LOT of the membership (including myself) are pissed that there is no statement regarding Philando Castile's murder even while there was an immediate response to the shootings in Dallas.
I'm not ready to call the NRA leadership racist but they are certainly pro police, almost militantly so. With so many military and police as members, I suspect they don't want to be seen as throwing a brother officer under the bus before the facts are known. The problem is, this brings the NRA into collusion with those who support cops at any cost, even bad cops, as part of that thin blue line/code of silence stuff. People who support the innocent and the community understandably see this as choosing a side - the wrong side - for political reasons.
Wayne LaPierre has been tireless in support of the 2nd Amendment but I say he is completely wrong and out of touch here. I suspect this will do significant damage the NRA's image and that is unfortunate.
Asterios wrote: if what you say about the department not having an officer involved shooting in 30 years, it makes one wonder why now? the cop who did the shooting was not a rookie he had been with the department for 4 years, so why? feel like we are missing something here.
The reason it happened now and not before could be anything from random chance stopping every other possible shooting through the cop having a bad day and to the growing fear among the white middle class. You're working from the assumption that it's obviously weird that a cop shot a black man and trying to come up with even the smallest complaint against the man that died to justify his death with no interest at all in the greater pattern of police violence in the US. There is no reason to suspect some conspiracy for why it happened now. It's just one of the latest in a long string of shootings.
and let me guess when the Ferguson shooting happened you were probably saying it was the cops fault, and he intentionally killed him because the guy was black? sounds racist to me.
what it comes down to now is we have no evidence of what happened, what proof do you have? and where is it? and what growing fear among the white middle class? and yes it is fundamentally wierd for cops to shoot anyone, but let us look at some of those other cop killings, where they had a pattern of issues, also you keep saying white.
now while some of this story is pure conjecture and wishful thinking there is some evidence in there:
like people believed the cops let him die with no life saving techniques used, that was a lie, like how The police officer is heard on the video screaming, “I told him not to reach for it, I told him to get his hand off it!!”, but then again like probably with Fergusen you are ready to convict a cop just because the suspect was black, ready to convict before the evidence is presented.
and then there is your comment about white middle class? what has that to do with the officer who shot Castile? the officer was not White.
But I didn't, which tells me you just want to think I said it.
Sure... but to dismiss it outright because, derp-derp, the po po didn't confirm/deny it yet?.
Did I say "dismiss outright?" I'm pretty sure I didn't and this is you putting words in my mouth again. When I say alleged, all that means is that it's unconfirmed and should be treated with a grain of salt. In this instance, we have an alleged police scanner recording given to a news stations from an anonymous source and the police department has yet to confirm its authenticity. Could the officers have pulled over Castile because he kinda fit the description of a perp from four days prior? Sure, that sounds like something cops would do and in fact, is probably what they did do. Regardless of the reason the police felt it necessary to pull the man over (whether it's because he kind of resembled a BOLO, he had a broken taillight, or just another case of DWB), the stop ended in a way it shouldn't have which is something we can all agree on at this point.
Still, you jumped down my throat over over the Snopes article even though at the top of the article is says, "WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case." That information comes from the purported scanner audio (that despite your best efforts to claim I said otherwise), is most likely authentic and is being treated as such by Snopes (even though they lie all the time, apparently).
what County was he licensed to carry from? so far to my knowledge that has not been proven yet. only thing proven is the county he was in he was not licensed to carry, that is all.
I would like something more than single news site having a "source" for the proof of permit.
But then a lot of people only needed the sheriff's tweet saying "We didn't issue one" and then ignore his other tweets "but he could've got one elsewhere" to state factually that he never had a permit ever.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like something more than single news site having a "source" for the proof of permit.
But then a lot of people only needed the sheriff's tweet saying "We didn't issue one" and then ignore his other tweets "but he could've got one elsewhere" to state factually that he never had a permit ever.
like I said not saying he had a permit or not, since no evidence has been brought forth to collaborate or deny it, only thing we have is that the sheriff of his county did not issue him one. and thats it.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like something more than single news site having a "source" for the proof of permit.
But then a lot of people only needed the sheriff's tweet saying "We didn't issue one" and then ignore his other tweets "but he could've got one elsewhere" to state factually that he never had a permit ever.
Kelly, the Attorney representing the officer, has confirmed that he had a valid permit to carry the gun.
“(Castile) had a permit to carry a gun,” Kelly said. “The officer did not know that at the time of the shooting, and he did not know with any certainty whether the gun was present with a permit or not a permit. Regardless of whether it was permitted or not, the actions of Mr. Castile and his failure to comply with directions from Officer Yanez was what led to this.”
and let me guess when the Ferguson shooting happened you were probably saying it was the cops fault, and he intentionally killed him because the guy was black? sounds racist to me.
The US is built on the violent subjugation of racial minorities and black people are one group that has long been the face of violent crime. The police force came into existence to help support the ruling class against all internal groups that were harmed by capitalism. The US police has famously enforced explicitly racist policies in living memory and continues to enforce policies that are implicitly racist and continue to understand what is criminal and who commits crimes in terms that are racial. This sounds racist to you because you probably view racism as a very abstract dislike rather than anything inseparable from material forces.
Asterios wrote: and what growing fear among the white middle class?
That their economic advantages will crumble and that demographics will shift such that they'll have to fully embrace Hispanic whites. This is why Trump has support and why he happens now instead of a decade ago.
Kelly, the Attorney representing the officer, has confirmed that he had a valid permit to carry the gun.
Thanks. I sincerely hope we don't get a bunch of posts from people that are directly lifted from the conservatives treehouse website after its utterly disgusting article.
and let me guess when the Ferguson shooting happened you were probably saying it was the cops fault, and he intentionally killed him because the guy was black? sounds racist to me.
The US is built on the violent subjugation of racial minorities and black people are one group that has long been the face of violent crime. The police force came into existence to help support the ruling class against all internal groups that were harmed by capitalism. The US police has famously enforced explicitly racist policies in living memory and continues to enforce policies that are implicitly racist and continue to understand what is criminal and who commits crimes in terms that are racial. This sounds racist to you because you probably view racism as a very abstract dislike rather than anything inseparable from material forces.
Asterios wrote: and what growing fear among the white middle class?
That their economic advantages will crumble and that demographics will shift such that they'll have to fully embrace Hispanic whites. This is why Trump has support and why he happens now instead of a decade ago.
and I repeat what has that to do with a Native American Officer shooting a suspect? furthermore where is your evidence all police departments and officers do such actions? and what about all the Black officers who killed Black people?
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like something more than single news site having a "source" for the proof of permit.
But then a lot of people only needed the sheriff's tweet saying "We didn't issue one" and then ignore his other tweets "but he could've got one elsewhere" to state factually that he never had a permit ever.
Kelly, the Attorney representing the officer, has confirmed that he had a valid permit to carry the gun.
“(Castile) had a permit to carry a gun,” Kelly said. “The officer did not know that at the time of the shooting, and he did not know with any certainty whether the gun was present with a permit or not a permit. Regardless of whether it was permitted or not, the actions of Mr. Castile and his failure to comply with directions from Officer Yanez was what led to this.”
well that answers that question now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not.
That cops understand criminality and view the danger level of people through a racial lens, like much of the rest of society, is most certainly relevant.
Rosebuddy wrote: That cops understand criminality and view the danger level of people through a racial lens, like much of the rest of society, is most certainly relevant.
where more Blacks commit more crimes against Blacks even though they are a smaller percentage of the population, where more blacks kill blacks then any other race? and so forth?
Asterios wrote: well that answers that question now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not.
No, actually it doesn't
how does it not answer the question if the driver had a CCW or not?
That isn't what you said.
As can clearly be read above, you said, "that question now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not." All it is confirming is that he did indeed have a valid carry permit, not whether or not he told the officer about it. The officer's lawyer is claiming that he did not, because if he said otherwise he wouldn't be a very good lawyer. Castile's girlfriend is claiming he did tell the officer. So it's a lawyer's word against the victim's girlfriend.
d-usa wrote: I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.
Ironically, false rumors and speculations perpetuated by the ever present "waiting for the facts" crowd.
Asterios wrote: well that answers that question now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not.
No, actually it doesn't
how does it not answer the question if the driver had a CCW or not?
That isn't what you said.
As can clearly be read above, you said, "that question now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not." All it is confirming is that he did indeed have a valid carry permit, not whether or not he told the officer about it. The officer's lawyer is claiming that he did not, because if he said otherwise he wouldn't be a very good lawyer. Castile's girlfriend is claiming he did tell the officer. So it's a lawyer's word against the victim's girlfriend.
read what I said and what it was in response too this part "well that answers that question" was in reference to if he had a CCW permit, this part "now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not." is now asking whether he identified having said permit or not, as in there is no definitive answer to this question now.
Asterios wrote: read what I said and what it was in response too this part "well that answers that question" was in reference to if he had a CCW permit, this part "now the question is if Castile identified he had a permit and/or gun or not." is now asking whether he identified having said permit or not, as in there is no definitive answer to this question now.
Yeah, you're right.
Due in part to your poor grammar, I misread your statement. My apologies.
not saying it was a good shoot or bad shoot, but you notice the lack of anything BLM protests about the killing or such and yet they claim they are not just about Black lives, yet the proof is evident.
in fact couldn't find anything about the BLM saying anything about this shooting.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Did you just post infowars as a source? Regardless of the message, that's hilarious.
Yea, that's the problem with AJ. He taints everything he touches just because it's him. He's also ran with unsubstantiated material in the past which turned out not to be true so he's not exactly a paragon of journalism.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would like something more than single news site having a "source" for the proof of permit.
But then a lot of people only needed the sheriff's tweet saying "We didn't issue one" and then ignore his other tweets "but he could've got one elsewhere" to state factually that he never had a permit ever.
Kelly, the Attorney representing the officer, has confirmed that he had a valid permit to carry the gun.
“(Castile) had a permit to carry a gun,” Kelly said. “The officer did not know that at the time of the shooting, and he did not know with any certainty whether the gun was present with a permit or not a permit. Regardless of whether it was permitted or not, the actions of Mr. Castile and his failure to comply with directions from Officer Yanez was what led to this.”
Short of Castile drawing his pistol and attempting to attack the cops I can't think of any type of noncompliance that he could do while sitting in a parked car that would justify officer Yanez shooting him.
whembly wrote: For those how don't like raw "stats", here's a visual representation on US Citizen killed by Police in 2016 so far:
Spoiler:
EDIT: asterios... be a bit more judicious when using Breibart or InfoWars as sources... that's like using Talking Points Memos or DailyKos.
my post was not about Cops killing Blacks, but about Blacks killing blacks which they have killed many more blacks then anyone combined and yet the Black Lives matter don't seem to care about that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Did you just post infowars as a source? Regardless of the message, that's hilarious.
I just clicked the links didn't pay attention to the source, but still its on a lot more sources then just that one site, and I repeat where are the Black Lives Matter protesters since they say they are for all races being killed by the cops? rather absent on that so maybe there is some truth the "only" Black Lives Matter as suggested by many maybe?
As it goes I understand that there are some cops who take things to extreme, but they are not the only factor to consider, in other words they are not the core factor, there are bigger issues in this country and no one thing will fix them all.
Asterios wrote: my post was not about Cops killing Blacks, but about Blacks killing blacks which they have killed many more blacks then anyone combined and yet the Black Lives matter don't seem to care about that.
This is something that's been discussed on this forum lots of times. For one, BLM is not representivie of every problem that black people have in this country, pretty much only the police one. Second, there are marches, rallies, and community meetings all of the time to address the issue of violence in the black community, especially in cities like Chicago (seriously, google it yourself and see).
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening.
I just clicked the links didn't pay attention to the source,
That is a huge, huge issue, and I would hope that people who follow the news as closely as you do would take a little more care than that.
As it goes I understand that there are some cops who take things to extreme, but they are not the only factor to consider, in other words they are not the core factor, there are bigger issues in this country and no one thing will fix them all.
Right. No one thing is ever going to fix any major issue. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps toward resolving it.
Asterios wrote: my post was not about Cops killing Blacks, but about Blacks killing blacks which they have killed many more blacks then anyone combined and yet the Black Lives matter don't seem to care about that.
This is something that's been discussed on this forum lots of times. For one, BLM is not representivie of every problem that black people have in this country, pretty much only the police one. Second, there are marches, rallies, and community meetings all of the time to address the issue of violence in the black community, especially in cities like Chicago (seriously, google it yourself and see).
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening.
True. There's also the fact that local and state govt actually have the power to address and rectify problems with the police departments they oversee. New laws/regulations can be passed to increase the usage of body cameras, police training and procedures, community outreach, transparency, the publicizing of data, establishing third party oversight and increasing accountability, etc. therefore it makes sense to have protests directed to motivate that kind of political action. In regards to black on black crime it's much harder to resolve the causes behind the problem with new laws or govt action.
I just clicked the links didn't pay attention to the source,
That is a huge, huge issue, and I would hope that people who follow the news as closely as you do would take a little more care than that.
As it goes I understand that there are some cops who take things to extreme, but they are not the only factor to consider, in other words they are not the core factor, there are bigger issues in this country and no one thing will fix them all.
Right. No one thing is ever going to fix any major issue. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps toward resolving it.
I saw it as one of a few dozen links on the shooting and still could not find any BLM protests about it.
I agree steps should be taken, but you don't bandage a leg if the arm is injured, and then things like this don't help:
he says he doesn't justify it, but he understands it, how is the killing of 5 cops who did nothing understandable? that is like killing some black people because other black people are killing people. may not condone it but understand it (not my belief, but its essentially what he said)
True. There's also the fact that local and state govt actually have the power to address and rectify problems with the police departments they oversee. New laws/regulations can be passed to increase the usage of body cameras, police training and procedures, community outreach, transparency, the publicizing of data, establishing third party oversight and increasing accountability, etc. therefore it makes sense to have protests directed to motivate that kind of political action. In regards to black on black crime it's much harder to resolve the causes behind the problem with new laws or govt action.
All of Which Dallas had done and yet the hate was so much someone decided to kill some of them, also as to body cameras evidently not so reliable (Baton Rouge cops "Claimed" theirs fell off during scuffle).
I find it sad that nobody in this thread thinks that veteran suicides matter. Or that childhood cancer victims matter. Or that people who drown in their own bathtubs matter.
At this point in history, I think that people who go "black lives matter, but I thought all lives matter" are either willfully ignorant or purposefully obtuse.
d-usa wrote: I find it sad that nobody in this thread thinks that veteran suicides matter. Or that childhood cancer victims matter. Or that people who drown in their own bathtubs matter.
At this point in history, I think that people who go "black lives matter, but I thought all lives matter" are either willfully ignorant or purposefully obtuse.
Spoiler:
problem with that cartoon is if my neighbor's house was on fire and mine was in danger I would have been spraying both houses, but thats me.
I think it is willfully ignorant to ignore all else but one part, its not one part it is much bigger then that.
problem with that cartoon is if my neighbor's house was on fire and mine was in danger I would have been spraying both houses, but thats me.
"That is completely outside the analogy."
Personally, when we respond to a Code Blue at work, I usually switch CPR between the guy without a pulse and the guy with a pulse. Just in case, you know?
I just clicked the links didn't pay attention to the source,
That is a huge, huge issue, and I would hope that people who follow the news as closely as you do would take a little more care than that.
As it goes I understand that there are some cops who take things to extreme, but they are not the only factor to consider, in other words they are not the core factor, there are bigger issues in this country and no one thing will fix them all.
Right. No one thing is ever going to fix any major issue. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps toward resolving it.
I saw it as one of a few dozen links on the shooting and still could not find any BLM protests about it.
I agree steps should be taken, but you don't bandage a leg if the arm is injured, and then things like this don't help:
he says he doesn't justify it, but he understands it, how is the killing of 5 cops who did nothing understandable? that is like killing some black people because other black people are killing people. may not condone it but understand it (not my belief, but its essentially what he said)
True. There's also the fact that local and state govt actually have the power to address and rectify problems with the police departments they oversee. New laws/regulations can be passed to increase the usage of body cameras, police training and procedures, community outreach, transparency, the publicizing of data, establishing third party oversight and increasing accountability, etc. therefore it makes sense to have protests directed to motivate that kind of political action. In regards to black on black crime it's much harder to resolve the causes behind the problem with new laws or govt action.
All of Which Dallas had done and yet the hate was so much someone decided to kill some of them, also as to body cameras evidently not so reliable (Baton Rouge cops "Claimed" theirs fell off during scuffle).
The hate was from one individual. The murderer hates cops, lived in Texas so he shot cops in Texas. If the murderwr was in a different state he would have shot cops there. I think the Dallas PD was a target of opportunity not the target of a specific grudge.
problem with that cartoon is if my neighbor's house was on fire and mine was in danger I would have been spraying both houses, but thats me.
"That is completely outside the analogy."
Personally, when we respond to a Code Blue at work, I usually switch CPR between the guy without a pulse and the guy with a pulse. Just in case, you know?
but what if you have 2 guys without a pulse? and you are the only one to give CPR too?
The murderer hates cops, lived in Texas so he shot cops in Texas. If the murderwr was in a different state he would have shot cops there. I think the Dallas PD was a target of opportunity not the target of a specific grudge.
Totally agree.
I think it's similar to Orlando, which was picked because the guy lived in Orlando. Or San Bernardino, which was picked because the guy worked in San Bernardino.
The murderer hates cops, lived in Texas so he shot cops in Texas. If the murderwr was in a different state he would have shot cops there. I think the Dallas PD was a target of opportunity not the target of a specific grudge.
Totally agree.
I think it's similar to Orlando, which was picked because the guy lived in Orlando. Or San Bernardino, which was picked because the guy worked in San Bernardino.
problem with that cartoon is if my neighbor's house was on fire and mine was in danger I would have been spraying both houses, but thats me.
"That is completely outside the analogy."
Personally, when we respond to a Code Blue at work, I usually switch CPR between the guy without a pulse and the guy with a pulse. Just in case, you know?
but what if you have 2 guys without a pulse? and you are the only one to give CPR too?
Then I find two more people with a pulse and divide my attention between all four of them of course.
If there are two strawmen, which one do you keep on stuffing?
The murderer hates cops, lived in Texas so he shot cops in Texas. If the murderwr was in a different state he would have shot cops there. I think the Dallas PD was a target of opportunity not the target of a specific grudge.
Totally agree.
I think it's similar to Orlando, which was picked because the guy lived in Orlando. Or San Bernardino, which was picked because the guy worked in San Bernardino.
what about the guy who tried to kill Trump?
Explain how this is relevant, and I might humor myself to type a response that will get nowhere.
The problem with that cartoon is the standard knee jerk reaction. real life example. When a Soldier gets a DUI/DWI the entire platoon is brought in, talked to about the dangers of drunk driving, has their weekend ruined, has to hear more and more talk about alcohol abuse and the truth is 1 out of 50ish personnel did something stupid. Instead of doing battle drills, or working on equipment promoting readiness to do our job, we are hearing about this one incident, so it makes it see like all other issues are not as important.
Black lives do matter, but so do all. When you start only talking about black lives, you insinuate that none of the others matter as much. I think a more appropriate statement would be, black lives have the same worth as all other lives.
This is I think the main kick back for the slogan and movement. Regardless of anyone spins this movement, the insinuation is there.
redleger wrote: The problem with that cartoon is the standard knee jerk reaction. real life example. When a Soldier gets a DUI/DWI the entire platoon is brought in, talked to about the dangers of drunk driving, has their weekend ruined, has to hear more and more talk about alcohol abuse and the truth is 1 out of 50ish personnel did something stupid. Instead of doing battle drills, or working on equipment promoting readiness to do our job, we are hearing about this one incident, so it makes it see like all other issues are not as important.
Black lives do matter, but so do all. When you start only talking about black lives, you insinuate that none of the others matter as much. I think a more appropriate statement would be, black lives have the same worth as all other lives.
This is I think the main kick back for the slogan and movement. Regardless of anyone spins this movement, the insinuation is there.
No. That is not insinuated at all. The whole movement is because certain people act as though black lives don't matter and that racism doesn't exist any more.
It's sad that people need to be reminded that black lives matter.
Jokes aside, there are differences in many areas, in how police deal with minorities (this includes poor people in general) vs. other groups. On a larger scale, we have a training issue in how police interact in general. )
They have been taught-control the situation, and to escalate measures to retain control. That is the general culture. They have not been taught a de-escalation culture, that may be seen in several countries in Europe.
This culture needs to be changed, while retaining the training and equipment for dealing with armed persons, cartels, postal agents...the usual dangerous criminals.
OT but there is a good bit of internal blowback at the NRA for not standing up more quickly for the CHLer in Minnesota.
redleger wrote: The problem with that cartoon is the standard knee jerk reaction. real life example. When a Soldier gets a DUI/DWI the entire platoon is brought in, talked to about the dangers of drunk driving, has their weekend ruined, has to hear more and more talk about alcohol abuse and the truth is 1 out of 50ish personnel did something stupid. Instead of doing battle drills, or working on equipment promoting readiness to do our job, we are hearing about this one incident, so it makes it see like all other issues are not as important.
Black lives do matter, but so do all. When you start only talking about black lives, you insinuate that none of the others matter as much. I think a more appropriate statement would be, black lives have the same worth as all other lives.
This is I think the main kick back for the slogan and movement. Regardless of anyone spins this movement, the insinuation is there.
I agree. The issue is entirely more complex/nuanced than a meme or pithy comment from either side of the argument can portray.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
If you look at offender data and assume that 92 percent of murders are committed by males, you find that young black males were about 8 times more likely to commit murders than similarly aged white males. However, a lot of murders occur where the offender isn’t identified and that this problem is greater for gang related murders. To try to deal with this, we have made some calculations using victim data. Adjusting the data by the rate that blacks and whites kill members of their own and other races, young black males were 9 times more likely to commit murders than similarly aged white males.
Of course both sources above are going to be using the same type (though not same period) data and will be pulling specific information out that lends credibility to their arguments. An African-American person is 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person. Contrast that statement with the data that shows African-American men are 9 times more likely than their White peers to commit murders or other violent offenses.
You can also look at the populations of the communities and their related racial diversity; an argument could be said that if the population is majority xRace that the likelihood of a negative experience with the police will be proportionally higher in that community. There are real issues with profiling in some communities in the US but I'd argue that profiling is less of a concern when the majority of a community is one race or another. An African-American person is more likely to be pulled-over by the police in Ferguson with a 67.4% African-American population than one of the few other races on the street, all things being equal.
It's very easy to over-simplify situations and data when the real issues are much more nuanced and not nearly as clean as what pundits would have you think. Does this mean that there aren't potential abuses, weaknesses, etc? No. But assuming there are based upon isolated incidents is also wrong. Let's look at Minnesota; in 2015 13 people were killed by police in the entire state. Of these 13, 9 had a history of mental illness. I could just as readily remove race completely from the equation and state that mentally ill people are much more likely to be killed by police than any race/ethnic category and therefor "Crazy Lives Matter"(tm) should be the major discussion.
Also, this data fails to look at the vast majority of traffic stops that do not end in a police shooting or necessarily any confrontation, violence whatsoever;but hey, that doesn't generate ratings.
Data can be skewed to narrate any story that you want to tell. I'm not saying that discussions on race relations don't have merit; just that it's easy for people with an agenda to create drama in greater proportion than the problem.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- When Philando Castile saw the flashing lights in his rearview mirror, it wasn't unusual. He had been pulled over at least 52 times in recent years in and around the Twin Cities and given citations for minor offenses including speeding, driving without a muffler and not wearing a seat belt.
He was assessed at least $6,588 in fines and fees, although more than half of the total 86 violations were dismissed, court records show.
Sounds like more "Broken Windows" related nonsense to me.
Philando Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun when he was shot and killed by a St. Anthony police officer, a source confirmed to the Star Tribune Friday.
Although the names of gun permit holders are not public under state law, a source confirmed Castile was issued the permit when he lived in Robbinsdale.
Robbinsdale is another nearby community on the outskirts of the Twin Cities that is in a different county than St. Paul/Falcon Heights where Castile was shot.
Thing I don't like about those numbers is they don't take account of who was aggressive towards police or unarmed or such, since if you have 10 black people killed by police and yet those 10 black people were armed and trying to shoot the police, and yet only one white guy was killed by police who was trying to kill them, does it indicate the police are out to get black people? or could it be the other way around? I mean look at what we see on the news and such, already several times this year black people were killed by cops, but we have only heard of very few of them a small drop in the bucket, why is that? with social media prevalant you think we would have heard of more then a handful of them, and then there was the last black guy killed by police, should he be included in the numbers? after all he killed 5 cops injured several more, problem is nobodies stats takes into account that.
Asterios wrote: Thing I don't like about those numbers is they don't take account of who was aggressive towards police or unarmed or such, since if you have 10 black people killed by police and yet those 10 black people were armed and trying to shoot the police, and yet only one white guy was killed by police who was trying to kill them, does it indicate the police are out to get black people? or could it be the other way around? I mean look at what we see on the news and such, already several times this year black people were killed by cops, but we have only heard of very few of them a small drop in the bucket, why is that? with social media prevalant you think we would have heard of more then a handful of them, and then there was the last black guy killed by police, should he be included in the numbers? after all he killed 5 cops injured several more, problem is nobodies stats takes into account that.
Here is an interesting article that touches on the subject, specifically racial bias in police shootings.
Asterios wrote: Thing I don't like about those numbers is they don't take account of who was aggressive towards police or unarmed or such, since if you have 10 black people killed by police and yet those 10 black people were armed and trying to shoot the police, and yet only one white guy was killed by police who was trying to kill them, does it indicate the police are out to get black people? or could it be the other way around? I mean look at what we see on the news and such, already several times this year black people were killed by cops, but we have only heard of very few of them a small drop in the bucket, why is that? with social media prevalant you think we would have heard of more then a handful of them, and then there was the last black guy killed by police, should he be included in the numbers? after all he killed 5 cops injured several more, problem is nobodies stats takes into account that.
Of the 990 people killed by police in 2015, 730 of them were actively attacking the officer(s). 782 were in possession of a deadly weapon.
By Race.
494 were white, of these 394 (79.76%) were attacking the officer.
258 were black, of these 183 (70.93%) were attacking the officer.
Using just surface data, there's no real correlation between race and aggressive behavior towards police. Anecdotally, I think there's a strong correlation between location and police shootings. Washington Post's data engine isn't granular enough to differentiate between urban areas but if someone were interested enough, they have each case listed and the interested party could look at each individual event and create a statistic for urban vs suburban/rural.
Pertinent to this case. In 2015, 12 people were killed by the police, 8 white, 3 black and 1 "other" in Minn. If you look at census data, Minn was 85% white and 6% black. Using the data, about 67% of those killed by police were white and 25% were black; a much higher percentage to population ratio.
Again, this does not take into account related factors such as where the events occurred, backgrounds of those involved, etc. Just bland data that can be skewed to fit one narrative or another if taken by itself.
Edit:
Interestingly, police are much more likely to be killed by a white person.
In 2014, 59 alleged offenders were identified in connection with the 51 law enforcement
officers feloniously killed. Of those offenders, the following characteristics are known:
The average age of the alleged offenders was 31 years old.
The average height was 5 feet 10 inches tall, and the average weight was 180 pounds.
54 of the alleged offenders were male, and 5 were female.
42 of the alleged offenders were white, 13 were black, 2 were American Indian/Alaska Native, 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander, and race was not reported for 1 offender.
50 of the alleged offenders had prior criminal arrests.
11 of the alleged offenders were under judicial supervision at the time of the incidents.
11 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the fatal incidents.
2 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of alcohol or were intoxicated at the time of the fatal incidents.
Asterios wrote: Thing I don't like about those numbers is they don't take account of who was aggressive towards police or unarmed or such, since if you have 10 black people killed by police and yet those 10 black people were armed and trying to shoot the police, and yet only one white guy was killed by police who was trying to kill them, does it indicate the police are out to get black people? or could it be the other way around? I mean look at what we see on the news and such, already several times this year black people were killed by cops, but we have only heard of very few of them a small drop in the bucket, why is that? with social media prevalant you think we would have heard of more then a handful of them, and then there was the last black guy killed by police, should he be included in the numbers? after all he killed 5 cops injured several more, problem is nobodies stats takes into account that.
Here is an interesting article that touches on the subject, specifically racial bias in police shootings.
Of the 990 people killed by police in 2015, 730 of them were actively attacking the officer(s). 782 were in possession of a deadly weapon.
By Race.
494 were white, of these 394 (79.76%) were attacking the officer.
258 were black, of these 183 (70.93%) were attacking the officer.
so over half were attacking the officers about 70% or so so that means there might not be so much bias as one would think.
I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
That is my take on it. Anytime an innocent life is taken, it is a tragedy. Is it such a problem that it warrants the attention it is getting though? Especially in comparison to some other issues, such as 8% of the population committing something like 52% of all of the murders in the nation?
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
I'm thinking the all lives matter group is more right then just the Black Lives matter.
but as has been said before numbers can be altered to make it look like anything.
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
That is my take on it. Anytime an innocent life is taken, it is a tragedy. Is it such a problem that it warrants the attention it is getting though? Especially in comparison to some other issues, such as 8% of the population committing something like 52% of all of the murders in the nation?
You seem to be setting this up as an "either or" choice. I say, both. Yes, the taking of innocent life by law enforcement most certainly is worth the attention it is getting. Do other sectors of society need to be held to account as well? Absolutely.
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
That is my take on it. Anytime an innocent life is taken, it is a tragedy. Is it such a problem that it warrants the attention it is getting though? Especially in comparison to some other issues, such as 8% of the population committing something like 52% of all of the murders in the nation?
It certainly is when the life was taken by someone who was supposed to be protecting it.
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
That is my take on it. Anytime an innocent life is taken, it is a tragedy. Is it such a problem that it warrants the attention it is getting though? Especially in comparison to some other issues, such as 8% of the population committing something like 52% of all of the murders in the nation?
You seem to be setting this up as an "either or" choice. I say, both. Yes, the taking of innocent life by law enforcement most certainly is worth the attention it is getting. Do other sectors of society need to be held to account as well? Absolutely.
No, I'm not. I just don't like highlighting smaller issues, and ignoring bigger ones because their "inconvenient". I also have a very strong belief that if we get the bigger issue under control, the smaller issue would greatly drop as well.
It just seems to me, like #BLM is getting a lot of attention. I am not opposed to that. Social change requires getting the attention of lots of people, preferably those in a position to change any policies leading to this.
where is the outcry on #22. The VA is in shambles, vets are homeless, I see no ralies in their name. That is a real statistic, not over inflated, although this year its down to 20 so the VA says, but they are not worth the money they are paid.
Where is the outcry against the Wounded Warrior Program. They fired the CEO, but that doesn't recoup the money embezzled.
Where is the rally against crooks being let off because of their status, while people who have done far less of an offense are hammered like a 2 penny nail.
There are many reasons for outcries of justice, and I believe that they should be heard. But the numbers do not seem to match the attention its getting.
If there is a problem, then lets get to the root and fix it, but it requires BOTH parties to share blame, find common ground, and fix it. I know just because there is a bad shoot doesn't mean the person is racist anymore than when I patrol a foreign neighbor hood and I am weary of locals as they watch us move. Doesn't make me racist, makes me a realist. lets pin the rose where it belongs and maybe quit throwing the R word around just because something bad happens.
1) DO NOT ATTACHED PICTURES THAT ARE NOT WARGAMING RELATED TO DAKKA DAKKA
2) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL TEXT IN ANY PICTURES YOU POST/LINK TO/ETC. - WATCH OUT FOR ANY 'LANGUAGE' CONTAINED WITHIN
redleger wrote: when I patrol a foreign neighbor hood and I am weary of locals as they watch us move. Doesn't make me racist, makes me a realist. lets pin the rose where it belongs and maybe quit throwing the R word around just because something bad happens.
That's part of the problem right there. The police are outsiders and the neighborhoods they patrol are 'foreign' to them. That creates fear and hostility (on both sides).
redleger wrote: when I patrol a foreign neighbor hood and I am weary of locals as they watch us move. Doesn't make me racist, makes me a realist. lets pin the rose where it belongs and maybe quit throwing the R word around just because something bad happens.
That's part of the problem right there. The police are outsiders and the neighborhoods they patrol are 'foreign' to them. That creates fear and hostility (on both sides).
On the bright side, it makes for great Television
Because this is America, and that's what really matters
redleger wrote: when I patrol a foreign neighbor hood and I am weary of locals as they watch us move. Doesn't make me racist, makes me a realist. lets pin the rose where it belongs and maybe quit throwing the R word around just because something bad happens.
That's part of the problem right there. The police are outsiders and the neighborhoods they patrol are 'foreign' to them. That creates fear and hostility (on both sides).
I can get behind that statement 100%. It may be part of the problem, but it should not be confused with racism.
ST. PAUL, Minn. - More than 100 people were arrested and 21 officers were injured after protesters brought I-94 to a screeching halt for more than five hours Saturday night.
Authorities say during the course of the protests on 94 and later, on Grand and Dale, 21 officers from multiple agencies suffered injuries. The injuries were primarily caused by fireworks, rocks, bricks, glass bottles and chunks of concrete that were directed at officers, some hitting them in the head. St. Paul Police said someone threw a Molotov cocktail at officers, as well.
On Sunday evening, St. Paul Police learned one of the officers injured last night had a large concrete block dropped on his head. That officer is now suffering from a spinal fracture.
In total, more than 100 people were arrested -- 52 were taken into custody for public nuisance and unlawful assembly during an incident around 4 a.m. at Grand and Dale in St. Paul and 50 were arrested for third-degree riot overnight on I-94. At least eight of the 50 people arrested by the State Patrol were from outside of Minnesota.
Police in riot gear warned the crowd several times that arrests would be made if they didn't clear the scene, and after tactics like inert smoke, tear gas and marking rounds failed to disperse the crowd, arrests began.
Those arrested were loaded onto buses and removed from the scene.
Interstate 94 was finally reopened around 1:49 a.m., after authorities removed debris from the highway.
“On behalf of myself and our entire family, we urge all people to remain peaceful in all demonstrations throughout our community and our nation. When demonstrations become violent, it disrespects my son and his memory. Philando was a man of peace and dignity. Please, I ask you to at all times remain peaceful in your expressions of concern regarding his death at the hands of the police. I promise that we will not rest until justice prevails,” said Valerie Castile, mother of Philando Castile, in a statement Sunday.
The crowd moved from the freeway back to the governor's mansion where more disruption occurred. A few tried to get back on I-94 but were stopped by police. Several protesters then laid down in the street near Grand and Dale around 2:39 a.m., refusing police commands to clear the area.
Arrests began around 3:01 a.m., with authorities taking protesters one by one.
The shutdown started much earlier in the evening, when the crowd began marching from the Governor's residence in St. Paul around 7 p.m., where protesters have been gathered for the past three days. The Minnesota State Patrol tried, unsuccessfully, to stop them from entering the freeway around 7:30 p.m.
Initially protesters blocked eastbound traffic near Lexington Parkway, but they then crossed the median barrier to block vehicles in both directions. Officers gave more than a dozen orders for the crowd to disperse before they moved in to make arrests just before 10 p.m.
The family of Castile spoke out against the violence.
redleger wrote: I am seeing a lot of numbers being thrown around, and once again, I am no genius but seems like although there seems to be a problem it is not as proportional or huge as many are making it out to be. I mean lots of white dudes get shot, percentage wise looks bad, but there is no geographical data to back this up with.
I am no dismissing any tragedy, I just think maybe, just maybe there is a bit of inflation going on here.
Bingo. According to the FBI:
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.
It's all well and good to look at demographics and claim the world is painting people with the same brush but the opposite is also true. The chance of a cop killing the average person is statistically minuscule and the number of cops who kills someone is a lower percent of the population of cops than the percent of murderers in any other demographic you choose.
Yes, every life is precious, I truly believe this; however, there's an issue with media-fed bandwagoning that makes matters look much worse than they actually are. There is nothing wrong and something entirely wholesome about having community discussions on use of force and other issues but if the media and community applied their expectation of police perfection to the greater community, we'd have marches every day against one group of people or another.
redleger wrote: when I patrol a foreign neighbor hood and I am weary of locals as they watch us move. Doesn't make me racist, makes me a realist. lets pin the rose where it belongs and maybe quit throwing the R word around just because something bad happens.
That's part of the problem right there. The police are outsiders and the neighborhoods they patrol are 'foreign' to them. That creates fear and hostility (on both sides).
I can get behind that statement 100%. It may be part of the problem, but it should not be confused with racism.
That is how crime lords and bad cops are made, people always saying cops use to be so friendly ect then you remember the cops use to be the mafia and hired mafia to keep the streets cleaner. Cops getting friendly with drug dealers does not make things better, just them ignoring them and needing to be paid off for their mouth to keep shut.
I don't know whether to laugh or be horrified at the idea that you'd bunch "people who hate America" in with rapists, murderers, and child molesters as though there weren't anyone with legitimate reasons for hating America. It's jingoism at its worst and it's unanimously being applauded in this thread.
redleger wrote: well Im ok with hating people who hate America. I applaud your right to hate us, but doesn't mean I have to think highly of you.
And now you're assuming that I hate America.
you was a general term not "you" as in almightywalrus but you, the people who would hate america.
sadly most of the world hates america for their unrest gun issues and general we know how to do everything better behavior. Not to mention the 12 year war that just spawned a new serpent head that all of us got roped into.
redleger wrote: well Im ok with hating people who hate America. I applaud your right to hate us, but doesn't mean I have to think highly of you.
And now you're assuming that I hate America.
you was a general term not "you" as in almightywalrus but you, the people who would hate america.
sadly most of the world hates america for their unrest gun issues and general we know how to do everything better behavior. Not to mention the 12 year war that just spawned a new serpent head that all of us got roped into.
It's just plain silly and a counterproductive waste of energy for a person to "hate" any country. The US has over 300 million citizens and pretty much all of us won't even know of the existence of a person who "hates" us, so we're not going to care. Holding a grudge against hundreds of millions of strangers because of some governmental policy or law that you don't agree with doesn't make sense to me. That's the kind of thinking that leads to people believing that murdering thousands of people who work in office buildings in NYC is justifiable because of governmental foreign policy decisions that they had no input on and date back to historical events that occurred before they were alive.
redleger wrote: well Im ok with hating people who hate America. I applaud your right to hate us, but doesn't mean I have to think highly of you.
And now you're assuming that I hate America.
you was a general term not "you" as in almightywalrus but you, the people who would hate america.
sadly most of the world hates america for their unrest gun issues and general we know how to do everything better behavior. Not to mention the 12 year war that just spawned a new serpent head that all of us got roped into.
It's just plain silly and a counterproductive waste of energy for a person to "hate" any country. The US has over 300 million citizens and pretty much all of us won't even know of the existence of a person who "hates" us, so we're not going to care. Holding a grudge against hundreds of millions of strangers because of some governmental policy or law that you don't agree with doesn't make sense to me. That's the kind of thinking that leads to people believing that murdering thousands of people who work in office buildings in NYC is justifiable because of governmental foreign policy decisions that they had no input on and date back to historical events that occurred before they were alive.
Which may be true but what the outside world see's effects what people think of the populace in general. So far what the world sees
1: Trump hates muslims mexicans and americans say he hates women and british people. ( so if he gets voted in so do most americans)
2: America tried to westernize many muslim countries and created a void by killin sadam.
3: black people and white people hate each other and murder each other in mass.
4: women do not get paid half of what men do.
5: They agreed to terms that most of the rest of the world hates with the iran deal.
6: putin saying america needs to back off of matters that dont concern them.
7: There will be a weekly mass shooting
8: when going to usa get a medical plan ready or a quick way to get home.
9: everyone has a gun try to bring one with you or you risk being shot.
So true or not thats what people think of and see, hell I forget what country put it out but there is a travel warning for black men going to usa when taliing to police.
redleger wrote: well Im ok with hating people who hate America. I applaud your right to hate us, but doesn't mean I have to think highly of you.
And now you're assuming that I hate America.
you was a general term not "you" as in almightywalrus but you, the people who would hate america.
sadly most of the world hates america for their unrest gun issues and general we know how to do everything better behavior. Not to mention the 12 year war that just spawned a new serpent head that all of us got roped into.
It's just plain silly and a counterproductive waste of energy for a person to "hate" any country. The US has over 300 million citizens and pretty much all of us won't even know of the existence of a person who "hates" us, so we're not going to care. Holding a grudge against hundreds of millions of strangers because of some governmental policy or law that you don't agree with doesn't make sense to me. That's the kind of thinking that leads to people believing that murdering thousands of people who work in office buildings in NYC is justifiable because of governmental foreign policy decisions that they had no input on and date back to historical events that occurred before they were alive.
Which may be true but what the outside world see's effects what people think of the populace in general. So far what the world sees
1: Trump hates muslims mexicans and americans say he hates women and british people. ( so if he gets voted in so do most americans)
2: America tried to westernize many muslim countries and created a void by killin sadam.
3: black people and white people hate each other and murder each other in mass.
4: women do not get paid half of what men do.
5: They agreed to terms that most of the rest of the world hates with the iran deal.
6: putin saying america needs to back off of matters that dont concern them.
7: There will be a weekly mass shooting
8: when going to usa get a medical plan ready or a quick way to get home.
9: everyone has a gun try to bring one with you or you risk being shot.
So true or not thats what people think of and see, hell I forget what country put it out but there is a travel warning for black men going to usa when taliing to police.
So you're saying that you "hate" the USA and by extension all of us who live here because of stuff you see on tv or the internet? Pretty much everythiing you listed is just hyperbolic nonsense. Hate whatever you want as much as you want, it just negatively impacts your own mental and emotional well being while having a neglible impact on anything else.
OgreChubbs wrote: Which may be true but what the outside world see's effects what people think of the populace in general. So far what the world sees
1: Trump hates muslims mexicans and americans say he hates women and british people. ( so if he gets voted in so do most americans)
2: America tried to westernize many muslim countries and created a void by killin sadam.
3: black people and white people hate each other and murder each other in mass.
4: women do not get paid half of what men do.
5: They agreed to terms that most of the rest of the world hates with the iran deal.
6: putin saying america needs to back off of matters that dont concern them.
7: There will be a weekly mass shooting
8: when going to usa get a medical plan ready or a quick way to get home.
9: everyone has a gun try to bring one with you or you risk being shot.
So true or not thats what people think of and see, hell I forget what country put it out but there is a travel warning for black men going to usa when taliing to police.
All that makes as much sense as the asinine stuff that Trump says; painting entire countries and peoples with the same paranoid histrionic brush or basing a person's perceptions of a country off of satirical movies and magazines. That doesn't say much for a person willing to do such things' ability to separate reality from fantasy and I'd almost say that such a person should receive medical attention.
It would be just as easy to say the following:
1. All leaders of Canada are Rob Ford.
2. Going to a cafe in Paris means you'll be shot and/or blown up by an Islamic extremist.
3. Germany is host to a live, viable Nazi party ala Adolph Hitler.
4. Russians are vodka-swilling imperialists that care nothing for national borders or treaties.
5. Going to a Soccer match in England will get you brained by a drunken club member.
6. Bulls roam the streets of Spain and kill people willy-nilly.
All that makes as much sense as the asinine stuff that Trump says; painting entire countries and peoples with the same paranoid histrionic brush or basing a person's perceptions of a country off of satirical movies and magazines. That doesn't say much for a person willing to do such things' ability to separate reality from fantasy and I'd almost say that such a person should receive medical attention.
It would be just as easy to say the following:
1. All leaders of Canada are Rob Ford.
2. Going to a cafe in Paris means you'll be shot and/or blown up by an Islamic extremist.
3. Germany is host to a live, viable Nazi party ala Adolph Hitler.
4. Russians are vodka-swilling imperialists that care nothing for national borders or treaties.
5. Going to a Soccer match in England will get you brained by a drunken club member.
6. Bulls roam the streets of Spain and kill people willy-nilly.
Etc.
None of this is true!
Don't even start talking about the Easter Bunny or Christmas!
Lol read above to see why people have bad opnions of usa. You become ignorant and rude when told you are doing something wrong. i am moving on and as soon as you can understand, seeing what is wrong and being told about it is not hate it is fixing mistakes.
So say anying rude you want but what the world thinks is getting worse with the news, and as I type this three more shot to death at a courthouse
OgreChubbs wrote: Lol read above to see why people have bad opnions of usa. You become ignorant and rude when told you are doing something wrong. i am moving on and as soon as you can understand, seeing what is wrong and being told about it is not hate it is fixing mistakes.
So say anying rude you want but what the world thinks is getting worse with the news, and as I type this three more shot to death at a courthouse
Its in no way on topic but why not: 1: Trump hates muslims mexicans and americans say he hates women and british people. ( so if he gets voted in so do most americans) ***He loves all people. When President he will love them all more than any other President ever.
2: America tried to westernize many muslim countries and created a void by killin sadam. ***Just Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraw you're right-not so hot. Afghanistan should have been radioactive so its an improvement.
3: black people and white people hate each other and murder each other in mass. ***I missed walking over and murdering my next door neighbor and John across the street. Thanks I'll get on that.
4: women do not get paid half of what men do. ***Grammatically are you saying women get paid less? You betcha. Now if controlled for dangerous occupations and action time on the job its much closer, but the last stuides I saw did have a discrepancy. A lot like Canada.
5: They agreed to terms that most of the rest of the world hates with the iran deal. ***There were multiple states that participated. Would you prefer war?
6: putin saying america needs to back off of matters that dont concern them. ***You mean the guy who invaded Georgia, Crimea and now the larger Ukraine?
7: There will be a weekly mass shooting ***Daily you bunch of wussies.
8: when going to usa get a medical plan ready or a quick way to get home. ***Don't come here. You push out a hardworking Asian or Latin American coming here to work hard.
9: everyone has a gun try to bring one with you or you risk being shot. ***What do you mean "a" gun?
OgreChubbs wrote: You become ignorant and rude when told you are doing something wrong.
While I do often find this to be the case, might I suggest your script needs improvement? It's definitely got all the action and thrills of a summer blockbuster, but Hollywood usually likes a bit of authenticity in its fictions.
Back to topic. Am I the only annoyed with the attempts at character assassination of the victim? (not in this thread but on the internetz overall) Unless its relevant to the actual event- its not relevant.
3. Germany is host to a live, viable Nazi party ala Adolph Hitler.
That partly true, we have a political party that tries to present their racism in new and innovative ways. They even know how to get attention:
1. Say something racist but slather copious amounts of innuendo on top of it (they can be subtler than Trump in that regard)
2. Wait for people to call you out, start backpedalling, and say people just misunderstood your statement
3. Complain about PC culture
4. Collect attention
The untrue part is the viable bit. They wouldn't have total power because our constitution doesn't have that bug it had when Hitler rose to power (Enabling Act)
I think I've asked this before but never really got an answer.
Does America do/consider some form of community policing? That mention of "foreign neighbourhoods" got me thinking.
I probably do have a coloured view of things, as I've never lived outside of jogging distance of a police station throughout my life, even if it's only a tiny 2 person post.
Anyhow, in the UK, we've got "Community Support Officers" - also known by a bunch of other names. They're effectively volunteer policemen (though I would imagine they get paid / reimbursed for their time). You might either see one walking round with a 'proper' policeman on days (well, more correctly, Friday and Saturday evenings), or walking round in groups of 2. They're also the people that would turn up if you reported a burglary or something police related that's not pressing or dangerous. They're not empowered to make arrests, but are empowered to take crime numbers and probably issue some form of citations or the like.
They're also the people that'd end up going to primary schools or whatever for show and tell days. I think that sort of thing, in theory at least, is a big component of the UK's approach to "Policing by consent."
Not that I'm saying it actually, you know, works all the time... But yeah, just a view from over the pond.
So yeah, onto another subject that's kind of related. There is a larp/board game created by Indiecade that's designed to make you think a little more about this topic. I kind of really want to roll my eyes as a result of it but, apparently done properly it's had a bit of a positive effect, so that's probably just me being the cynical Scot.
Compel wrote: I think I've asked this before but never really got an answer.
Does America do/consider some form of community policing? That mention of "foreign neighbourhoods" got me thinking.
I probably do have a coloured view of things, as I've never lived outside of jogging distance of a police station throughout my life, even if it's only a tiny 2 person post.
Anyhow, in the UK, we've got "Community Support Officers" - also known by a bunch of other names. They're effectively volunteer policemen (though I would imagine they get paid / reimbursed for their time). You might either see one walking round with a 'proper' policeman on days (well, more correctly, Friday and Saturday evenings), or walking round in groups of 2. They're also the people that would turn up if you reported a burglary or something police related that's not pressing or dangerous. They're not empowered to make arrests, but are empowered to take crime numbers and probably issue some form of citations or the like.
They're also the people that'd end up going to primary schools or whatever for show and tell days. I think that sort of thing, in theory at least, is a big component of the UK's approach to "Policing by consent."
Not that I'm saying it actually, you know, works all the time... But yeah, just a view from over the pond.
So yeah, onto another subject that's kind of related. There is a larp/board game created by Indiecade that's designed to make you think a little more about this topic. I kind of really want to roll my eyes as a result of it but, apparently done properly it's had a bit of a positive effect, so that's probably just me being the cynical Scot.
There certainly is a sort of neighborhood watch groups who will often note suspicious people that dont be long there. or have your car toed while you are at a friends house /salty
There certainly is a sort of neighborhood watch groups who will often note suspicious people that dont be long there. or have your car toed while you are at a friends house /salty
Or follow a black kid 'cause they're in a hoody, against the advice of the actual police, then shoot said kid when he violently confronts them about it.
Yeah, we have Neighbourhood Watch as well, but that's a lot less formal a thing and is mostly organised by that one jerk on a powertrip that wants to rule over your street...
There certainly is a sort of neighborhood watch groups who will often note suspicious people that dont be long there. or have your car toed while you are at a friends house /salty
Or follow a black kid 'cause they're in a hoody, against the advice of the actual police, then shoot said kid when he violently confronts them about it.
Break out the bingo cards, ladies and gents
For taking us to this road, you have done a dark and terrible dead.
Compel wrote: I think I've asked this before but never really got an answer.
Does America do/consider some form of community policing? That mention of "foreign neighbourhoods" got me thinking.
I probably do have a coloured view of things, as I've never lived outside of jogging distance of a police station throughout my life, even if it's only a tiny 2 person post.
Anyhow, in the UK, we've got "Community Support Officers" - also known by a bunch of other names. They're effectively volunteer policemen (though I would imagine they get paid / reimbursed for their time). You might either see one walking round with a 'proper' policeman on days (well, more correctly, Friday and Saturday evenings), or walking round in groups of 2. They're also the people that would turn up if you reported a burglary or something police related that's not pressing or dangerous. They're not empowered to make arrests, but are empowered to take crime numbers and probably issue some form of citations or the like.
They're also the people that'd end up going to primary schools or whatever for show and tell days. I think that sort of thing, in theory at least, is a big component of the UK's approach to "Policing by consent."
Not that I'm saying it actually, you know, works all the time... But yeah, just a view from over the pond.
So yeah, onto another subject that's kind of related. There is a larp/board game created by Indiecade that's designed to make you think a little more about this topic. I kind of really want to roll my eyes as a result of it but, apparently done properly it's had a bit of a positive effect, so that's probably just me being the cynical Scot.
Yes, we have similar programs usually int he form of Sheriff's Reserves, Police Auxiliary, etc. Essentially, they are part-time cops that are called up to help police big events or similar situations.
redleger wrote: well Im ok with hating people who hate America. I applaud your right to hate us, but doesn't mean I have to think highly of you.
And now you're assuming that I hate America.
you was a general term not "you" as in almightywalrus but you, the people who would hate america.
sadly most of the world hates america for their unrest gun issues and general we know how to do everything better behavior. Not to mention the 12 year war that just spawned a new serpent head that all of us got roped into.
Most of us pay our taxes, feth our spouses, and go to work. Some drink beer, but the elite of us drink bourbon.
If that's a reason to hate us, that's cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Yeah, we have Neighbourhood Watch as well, but that's a lot less formal a thing and is mostly organised by that one jerk on a powertrip that wants to rule over your street...
We mainly just have the neighborhood watch, as mentioned above.
Anyhow, in the UK, we've got "Community Support Officers" - also known by a bunch of other names.
There are certain areas that have Volunteer Police, but I don't think it is a nation wide program. For example, here is the Houston VIP website: http://www.houstontx.gov/police/vip/
The Houston Police Volunteer Initiatives Program (VIP) is for individuals who wish to volunteer their time as members of the Houston Police Department. The greatest asset of any community is its people. A barometer of that value is the willingness of the people to volunteer. HPD recognizes the importance of volunteers and the valuable contributions they can provide the department. Our goal is to enhance the quality of life in the city of Houston by working as a team. As a Police VIP volunteer, you become a member of our team.
Returning Volunteer
VOLUNTEERS:
are individuals who perform services without pay
augment HPD staff but do not replace paid staff positions
are non sworn member and do not have the authority or duties that would classify them as a police officer
have been selected for a volunteer position by HPD
are expected to perform a minimum of 12 hours per month
turn in a monthly time sheet signed by the Division Coordinator
address all questions, concerns, complaints with their VIP coordinator
must attend a mandatory orientation class
are “authorized volunteers” – completed a background investigation and fingerprint identification check
You are disqualified from becoming a Police VIP if any of the following apply. The following are also grounds for dismissal from the program once you are approved.
Criminal Offenses:
Three (3) or more traffic violations during the last eighteen (18) months.
Felony or Class A Misdemeanor conviction (includes Felony or Class A Misdemeanor Deferred Adjudication convictions).
Class B Misdemeanor in the past ten (10) years (includes Deferred Adjudication convictions).
Family Violence offense conviction.
Indictment for any criminal offense (approval or reinstatement is based on disposition of court case).
Not living in the United States legally.
Under 17 years of age (except YPAC students).
Had / have a pattern of abusing prescription drugs.
Dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
Current City Employee (unless participating in Citizen Patrol).
Physical / mental disability that would substantially impair an individual’s ability to perform their duties.
Unlawful sexual conduct prior to and/or during volunteer term.
Inappropriate behavior relating to sexual harassment or racial slurs.
Committed an act or behavior tending to bring reproach and/or discredit to themselves and/or the Houston Police Department.
Used, tried, or sold any dangerous drugs or narcotics including cocaine, crack heroin, LSD.
Of course programs like having reserve deputies can also be abused and cause problem. Like the instance of a 73 year old reserve deputy in Tulsa accidentally shooting and killing an unarmed man because he thought he was using his taser instead of his pistol.
Prestor Jon wrote: Of course programs like having reserve deputies can also be abused and cause problem. Like the instance of a 73 year old reserve deputy in Tulsa accidentally shooting and killing an unarmed man because he thought he was using his taser instead of his pistol.
Frazzled wrote: Back to topic. Am I the only annoyed with the attempts at character assassination of the victim? (not in this thread but on the internetz overall) Unless its relevant to the actual event- its not relevant.
No, Fraz, you are not the only one. If you look at all my posts in this thread, you'll see one recurring theme. I've always put the blame where it belongs - with the cop. I don't know who Philando Castile was but the existence of a CCP shows he wasn't a criminal and even if he were, he didn't deserve to die over a busted tail light.
Frazzled wrote: Back to topic. Am I the only annoyed with the attempts at character assassination of the victim? (not in this thread but on the internetz overall) Unless its relevant to the actual event- its not relevant.
No, Fraz, you are not the only one. If you look at all my posts in this thread, you'll see one recurring theme. I've always put the blame where it belongs - with the cop. I don't know who Philando Castile was but the existence of a CCP shows he wasn't a criminal and even if he were, he didn't deserve to die over a busted tail light.
I agree that him having a CCP showed he had never been a convicted criminal. And the blame as of right now looks like the LEOs to shoulder. However he was not pulled over for a busted tail light, and we should be factual in discussing this when assigning blame, using logic not emotion.
Frazzled wrote: Back to topic. Am I the only annoyed with the attempts at character assassination of the victim? (not in this thread but on the internetz overall) Unless its relevant to the actual event- its not relevant.
No, Fraz, you are not the only one. If you look at all my posts in this thread, you'll see one recurring theme. I've always put the blame where it belongs - with the cop. I don't know who Philando Castile was but the existence of a CCP shows he wasn't a criminal and even if he were, he didn't deserve to die over a busted tail light.
Yeah I'm really interesting in hearing the cops' excuse for why Castile needed to be shot. The only reason I can think of is if Castile tried to draw his pistol and engage the cops which makes no sense whatsoever. The cop's lawyer claims Castile was noncompliant but I can't think of any level of noncompliance short of attacking the cops that would justify the escalation of force directly to lethal force.
The training that cops get for dealing with lawfully armed citizens is often shown to be extremely shoddy. I know people who had cops hold them at gunpoint when they explained that they had a carry permit and were armed, get hassled by getting spread on the car hood or pavement, be disarmed and have their gun checked for being stolen, etc. That last part always puzzles me. If I tell a cop that I've passed a background check, have been issued a permit to carry, and am carrying a pistol how in the world does that suggest in any way that the gun I'm carrying has any reasonable chance to be stolen? There's no probable cause, no reason to suspect that I went through all the legal hassle to get a permit just to carry stolen property on my person.
Cops need to stop treating citizens as enemy combatants. It is extremely rare for cops to die in the line of duty and those numbers haven't shown an increase as the number of states issuing carry permits and the number of people obtaining them has steadily risen over the the years. In all of these publicized instances the cops always escalate the situation faster than would be prudent for any armed citizen and the overarching theme seems to be that cops expect immediate and total compliance and if they don't get it they'll use exterme levels of force to achieve that compliance in the name of officer safety. Training needs to emphasize patience and the importance of deescalating situations instead of prioritizing control and dominance above all else.
There has been no evidence made public to show that Castile was a threat to the cops or had any intention or motivation to be a threat to the cops yet the cops thought he was an immediate deadly threat that had to shot multiple times. That kind of disconnect should rarely if ever happen, instead it seems to happen frequently across the country.
Frazzled wrote: Back to topic. Am I the only annoyed with the attempts at character assassination of the victim? (not in this thread but on the internetz overall) Unless its relevant to the actual event- its not relevant.
No, Fraz, you are not the only one. If you look at all my posts in this thread, you'll see one recurring theme. I've always put the blame where it belongs - with the cop. I don't know who Philando Castile was but the existence of a CCP shows he wasn't a criminal and even if he were, he didn't deserve to die over a busted tail light.
I agree that him having a CCP showed he had never been a convicted criminal. And the blame as of right now looks like the LEOs to shoulder. However he was not pulled over for a busted tail light, and we should be factual in discussing this when assigning blame, using logic not emotion.
Was he pulled over for the BOLO? Media reports haven't really gotten any clearer and informative lately.
as of right now, initial reports probably all based on the female occupant, and the reason stated by the LEO was probably a broken tail lights, however I have not seen anything disproving or substantiating the released audio. So it would be even more current to just leave the last part out. However I don't think the audio was faked, but I will concede that it can not be proven until it is released by the sheriffs office.
At least eight of the 50 people arrested by the State Patrol were from outside of Minnesota.
Why does this matter?
It doesn't. It seems like whoever wrote that is trying to establish grounds for the narrative that the outrage over the death of Castile is trumped up by outside agitators and that the people of Minnesota aren't terribly upset by it. Of course even if that narrative is true, it changes none of the facts concerning the incident ittself.
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.
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. 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.
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 benifit 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.
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.
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.
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.
The cops were already on the lookout for a black man with dreadlocks that had committed an armed robbery the day before. 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.
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 benifit 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.
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.
Multiple sources have confirmed that Castile has a valid carry permit.
And cops don't make a milisecond decision to shoot somebody on a daily basis. Cops rarely shoot anyone and the vast majority of cops are never involved in a shooting because the job isn't that dangerous. This is just another example of cops fear biting.
Xenomancers wrote: 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 benifit 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. .
It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).
TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.
Xenomancers wrote: 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 benifit 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. .
It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).
TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.
That was certainly one of the more disturbing posts I've seen on Dakka.
Why are the unwashed masses expected to be composed and trained on how to interact with someone who is supposed to be a highly skilled trained professional? And the trained professional is allowed to freak out and lose his gak over the tiniest thing and allowed to say 'it is a mistake, benefit of the doubt! Justified action!"
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.
We have no idea if Casile was being compliant. The fact that he got shot kind of suggests he wasn't. Is there any way of really knowing that? The video is useless in this regard. I have conceded that I think this cop made a mistake - which is bound to happen in any situation where human error is possible. However, if you don't think cops are forced to make decisions like this all the time - you are most certainly wrong. Otherwise we are totally in agreement - this wasn't a malicious act - it was a conceivable mistake.
nkelsch wrote: Why are the unwashed masses expected to be composed and trained on how to interact with someone who is supposed to be a highly skilled trained professional? And the trained professional is allowed to freak out and lose his gak over the tiniest thing and allowed to say 'it is a mistake, benefit of the doubt! Justified action!"
This is an amazingly fair point. My only pragmatic response would be: because they have guns pointed at your head and odds are nothing is going to happen to them like what could happen to you.
skyth wrote: Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.
Agreed. But it does wonders to help with the 'not being shot by cops' part. As the wife and I CHL , this is a concern.
On this principle I try to avoid non-competition interaction at all times.
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
Xenomancers wrote: 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 benifit 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. .
It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).
TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.
I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.
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.
.
We have no idea if Casile was being compliant. The fact that he got shot kind of suggests he wasn't. Is there any way of really knowing that? The video is useless in this regard. I have conceded that I think this cop made a mistake - which is bound to happen in any situation where human error is possible. However, if you don't think cops are forced to make decisions like this all the time - you are most certainly wrong. Otherwise we are totally in agreement - this wasn't a malicious act - it was a conceivable mistake.
What level of noncompliance would justify the use of lethal force? The use of lethal force suggests that the officer thought Castile posed a clear immediate threat of harm to the officer. That's not a matter of noncompliance that's alleging that Castile was attacking or attempting to attack the cops. The idea that a law abiding citizen with a carry permit and his family in the car with him suddenly decided to try to gun down two cops during a routine traffic stop for no reason strains credulity.
What appears to be the case in this instance is that a cop with multiple years of service felt so threatened by interacting with a peaceful law abiding armed citizen that the slightest ambiguous movement by that citizen triggered an immediate lethal response. Police need to handle such a situation with calm patience and deescalate any tension in a confident manner. What they shouldn't be doing is confronting citizens at gunpoint freaked out on a hair trigger.
We have no idea if Casile was being compliant. The fact that he got shot kind of suggests he wasn't. Is there any way of really knowing that? The video is useless in this regard. I have conceded that I think this cop made a mistake - which is bound to happen in any situation where human error is possible. However, if you don't think cops are forced to make decisions like this all the time - you are most certainly wrong. Otherwise we are totally in agreement - this wasn't a malicious act - it was a conceivable mistake.
Is there anything to indicate that Mr. Castile was not being compliant? I mean, it's like everyone else said - you seem to be arguing that the officer made a mistake and yet this was somehow justified at the same time. Just because it's a tough job with inherent risks doesn't mean that it can't be done badly.
And deecisions like what? Decisions over whether or not to shoot someone they've pulled over for a traffic stop? I certainly hope that's not the immediate thought process.
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
Xenomancers wrote: 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 benifit 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. .
It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).
TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.
I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.
Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
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 certainly wouldn't encourage being a jerk to a cop; it's just that the way it was being phrased seemed to suggest that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone for 'not complying', which I strongly disagree with. If you're caught speeding, say, five miles over and get pulled over and act like an a-hole, you don't get to complain for getting a ticket instead of a warning. If you're doing five over, act like an a-hole to the officer who pulls you over, and he blows you away, that's completely different.
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? .
Do you really believe Mr. Castile drew on the officer for no reason with his family in the car? Why is that so much easier to believe than the officer was dangerously nervous for whatever reason.?
Xenomancers wrote: 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 benifit 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. .
It would appear you are literally conceding the cop made a mistake, and a man is dead, but the officer gets the benefit of the doubt (even though you think he probably made a mistake), and that if there is a gun involved you support the cop (even though you think he made a mistake and now an innocent man is dead).
TBH, "the liberal media" isn't the biggest problem with your post in my opinion.
I am a middle of the road atheist. The bias in the media is literally sickening. I am forced to dig through 20 to 30 articles on a subject to find some semblance of fact. If you can't acknowledge the bias in the media - it just means you are hearing everything you want to hear.
How is atheism at all relevant?
I am simply stating my biases. As in - I probably roll more liberal than not and I can still acknowledge the agenda in the majority of our news. Agenda is not truth. It is relevant because there isn't a real non bias new organization you can really follow these days.
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.
It doesn't matter what I think. That was what the eyewitness in the Star Tribune Local Newspaper stated.
The only relevance that the eyewitness mentioned 4 to 5 shots, it also matches what another eyewitness (Mrs. Reynolds) said, therefore corroborating that part of the story.
Everything beyond that is speculation/bias which is something you have stated you dislike.
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.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.
How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.
How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.
You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.
skyth wrote: Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.
unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.
skyth wrote: Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.
unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.
Yes, its systemic. But being a male sexual organ to the cop definitely does not promote 2 way trust.
skyth wrote: Encouraging all interactions with police to be done with the fear that they might shoot you is not the way to get better and more effective policing.
unfortunately from a practical standpoint, with the way police forces and the judicial system have evolved, there's very little to be positive about with police interactions. There is very little reason for an average citizen to feel anything but fear and discomfort around police, even taking away firearms and lethal force, the system is set up such that there's usually very little upside to engaging with the police in almost any capacity.
Yes, its systemic. But being a male sexual organ to the cop definitely does not promote 2 way trust.
while I dont disagree (I'm all for people not being jerks to each other), its also something a trained professional should be able to deal with in a responsible manner without affecting their duties. People being rude to cops is going to inherently be part of the job, and if escalation to the threat or use of force is the response, the problem lies far more with the police.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.
How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.
You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.
No, I wasn't. Not at all. Where do you see my statement advocating it's okay to "not be polite and compliant with a cop"? Please, specifically point that out to me.
redleger wrote: Once again, we have no reputable agencies that can lay out the facts for us, and we may very well have to wait till trial.
As for the compliance part, compliance with police for lawful instructions is not an option. To say otherwise is to incite unlawful activity. I am not saying you have to say sir and ma'am if you were raised to not say those things, but when a cop says stop, and you continue moving, there is some individual responsibility in play for not complying. Now whether or not you get shot over that is based on many factors, how fast were you moving, what was your demeanor, were you showing hostility. At the very least it results in handcuffs, or possibly being tossed on the ground, and if you fail to comply, you invited that upon yourself.
Would you be rude to your pastor, or whatever person you hold in esteem as having authority? Then why would you say there is no reason to be polite to a police officer? No one is saying rudeness gets you shot, but as an individual, i choose to not antagonize someone who can ruin my day.
I don't see why anyone else here would think that it is ok to be a ass hat to a cop.
None of that however is related to the issue of whether the police have the legal capacity to shoot in this this instance. While I do not know Red Stick LA law, I am sure it is similar to other states. The officer can shoot if they have a reasonable belief or fear of harm to themselves or others (there are other reasons but not pertinent to this event). If he weren't wearing a badge he would be in good old Angola until he grew very old.
no it was in response to other posts about why the heck you would need to not be rude and non compliant to cops. And we are in agreement on the cop issue.
How about the duty of a police officer to hold a law abiding citizen in esteem? And the inalienable rights guaranteed to them therein? If citizens have to start worrying about having their civil rights disregarded...in a very lethal manner...simply because an officer believes he/she hasn't been adequately kowtowed to enough and takes that as "cause" to go to Robocop mode, then there's more than justification in the demonstrations going on.
You seem to be missing the point. You were implying it ok to not be polite and compliant with a cop, cause they shouldn't shoot you. Im saying it unlawful to be non compliant. Its unlawful for him to shoot you for that reason too. Do not advocate illegal and dangerous activity by saying its ok to be non compliant and rude. read up on possible outcomes, other than being shot in the above quote.
it is unlawful if the orders given are themselves lawful. A police order to let them into your home is not necessarily lawful.
BigWaaagh wrote: Where do you see my statement advocating it's okay to "not be polite and compliant with a cop"? Please, specifically point that out to me.
Or really when anyone did that in this thread, for I too am curious.
I saw a few people indicate that the population shouldn't be reduced to bootlickers during every encounter with police for fear of being shot to death, but if you equate that with advocating that it's OK to be rude to the police... well, I can't help you with that one.
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.
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.
I don't think facing a 6-7% chance of facing a single instance of assault in a year makes being a cop an incredibly dangerous job. A 2% chance of sustaining an injury in the line of duty once a year isn't very dangerous either. According to OSHA over 4,821 workers died on jobsites in 2014. Contrast that to 124 deaths in the line of duty for police, 50 by firearm, which was a large increase from 2013 when 102 offcers died, 32 by firearm.
Construction work is a common occupation that is far more dangerous than being a cop. I'm not saying being a cop isn't dangerous at all, I'm saying it's not nearly dangerous enough for police officers to be trained to be as fearful of the public as they are. The vast majority of all interactions between cops and citizens are going to be peaceful and uneventful.
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):
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?)
No worries... 'tis all good bro. 
