Diamond Reynolds, who live-streamed the bloody aftermath of last year’s police shooting of her boyfriend, Philando Castile, would receive $800,000 in a settlement announced on Tuesday by officials in St. Anthony, Minn.
The settlement, which still must be approved by a judge, seemed likely to be the final legal development in a case that led to huge protests and a closely watched manslaughter trial. Jerry Faust, the mayor of St. Anthony, said in a statement that the agreement “opens the door to continued healing within our community.”
The settlement includes $675,000 from St. Anthony as well as $125,000 from the nearby city of Roseville and an insurance fund.
Ms. Reynolds, who claimed emotional distress and false arrest, said the settlement confirmed that what she experienced that night “was wrong.” Mr. Castile was killed by a St. Anthony officer, and Ms. Reynolds was held for questioning afterward by Roseville officers.
I still occassionaly drive by the site of this event.
- from the article.
This summer, St. Anthony agreed to pay a separate, nearly $3 million settlement to Mr. Castile’s estate. The city also reached a separation agreement with Officer Yanez and said he would not return to work there.
So now the tally is up to 3.8 million in settlements. That's some good justice there. I wonder the amount in settlements we'd have if Castile had pulled his gun out and greased both the officers?
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant.
To be fair you can't see Castile being noncompliant either and Yanez's testimony to the contrary is horribly unconvincing. Calling the officer incompetent isn't the same thing as saying he was out to kill someone. The guy's entire testimony in his defense honestly was kind of laced with stupidity and frantic victim blaming. Panicky and maybe a little incompetent is a pretty fair assessment given the facts in evidence (and part of the reason, at least according to the jury, that they didn't convict him).
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
Did I say the cop was 'looking to murder someone'? No, I did not. No need to forge the narrative here, buds.
Yanez didn't "say" anything. He shouted a series of conflicting orders in a panicked manner, like the incompetent cop he was.
djones520 wrote:Hey, don't get in the way of his narrative.
It's not a narrative. The fact that Yanez is a gakky cop shielded by very lenient use of force laws was established at his trial.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
Hey, don't get in the way of his narrative.
Could either one of you show me where in the video Mr. Castille broke the law?
Don't worry, I will wait. Take your time.
Also, in the video he informs the police he has a firearm on him and he is not reaching for it. That is what we like to call "being compliant with the law" as he has to do that. But you know, the narrative!
Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
It took 8 seconds for Castile to go from a law abiding CCW holder to being shot seven times at point blank by a gak cop who clearly could not handle the responsibility his badge gave to him.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Anyone have the link for the Dakka Bingo cards, I can't find it.
Also, that is a huge payout for a justified shooting. If I recall, those two women who got lit up during the manhunt for the renagade cop in LA a couple of years back only got $4 million combined.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.
Is it really surprising that I would call you a social justice warrior? You post on every thread that has anything to do with this subject. It wasn't ment to be offensive if you took it that way.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Anyone have the link for the Dakka Bingo cards, I can't find it.
Also, that is a huge payout for a justified shooting. If I recall, those two women who got lit up during the manhunt for the renagade cop in LA a couple of years back only got $4 million combined.
PFFF payouts are a joke. The cost of a trial and negative exposure would cost more than that in the long run. They are forced to shell out the money. It's not about justice.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.
Oh, okay. So why do we have to make the assumption that Yanez is not a raving lunatic?
He saw him moving his hands, again no evidence since we cannot see him, but we do now know where he was moving them. Castille informs the police he is armed and then says he is not reaching for his weapon. Which would have satisfied the officers commands not to reach for it. Because clearly he was not. Why do we assume that Castille is a raving lunatic looking to draw his weapon on an officer in a routine traffic stop but we assume Yanez is a sane upstanding police officer just looking to get home to his wife and kids?
Horsegak and you know it. That is an awful argument. Informing the officer you have a gun is what you are supposed to do. The Officer can then know that you are armed. If Castile could miraculously draw his weapon from a sitting position on the Officer, with another officer on the other side of the car watching inside, and shoot the officer. Holy crap that would be crazy. I mean, Yanez jumped but the other officer did not. I kinda wonder if, for some reason, the other Officer WAS AWARE OF PROTOCOL AND NOT A JUMPY GAKKY COP.
Please. The whole term and connotation of Social Justice Warrior is meant to be offensive.
And really, the evidence does point towards the officer being panicked and firing without any real cause.
And this whole 'wasn't compliant' was just a bunch of bull regardless. Let's see how well your brain processes a whole bunch of rapid fire contradictory commands when you suddenly have a gun pointed at you. At some point anyone is going to be non compliant. And this is besides the point that not immediately doing whatever an officer tells you to do is should not be a capital offence.
skyth wrote:And sorry, but not having your brain instantly register exactly what the cop is shouting at you is not grounds for being gunned down.
Yeah, this type of stuff is just completely nuts. I, as a foreigner, wouldn't want to get into a traffic stop in the USA. I might not understand an officer's accent or misinterpret a word and that might cause my death? That's just a surreal justification for shooting someone. On the other hand i'm white so I might have a higher chance of not ending up with a trigger happy officer… yay me?
I've not seen the video but if someone started yelling at me to do things so armed, I'm not sure I would be able to react in an intelligent manner within eight seconds.
Here in Spain, when a cop stops you in your car, is the people the one that yells at them.
They'll fine you, but nobody is shoot for that.
But I assume this is another case of people siding with/agaisn't the police guy based in their personal bias and feelings towards the police as an institution instead of looking at the facts, what the judge decide, and understanding that one isn't obligue to defend/critizise someone because he is part of a group that one simpatizes/despise.
We have a ton of that kind of issues here in Spain. Violence is bad. Unless it is done by my team. Then its technically still bad, but justificable for X o Y.
I've not seen the video but if someone started yelling at me to do things so armed, I'm not sure I would be able to react in an intelligent manner within eight seconds.
Whats the "Glass em all" one referencing? The rest are great.
Xenomancers wrote: The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance.
For this argument to be anything more than a cynical deflection, you would have to argue that the reason we see so many more shootings in the US is because the US is somehow unique in having non-compliant citizens. Which would be a staggeringly ridiculous thing to claim.
skyth wrote:And sorry, but not having your brain instantly register exactly what the cop is shouting at you is not grounds for being gunned down.
Yeah, this type of stuff is just completely nuts. I, as a foreigner, wouldn't want to get into a traffic stop in the USA. I might not understand an officer's accent or misinterpret a word and that might cause my death? That's just a surreal justification for shooting someone. On the other hand i'm white so I might have a higher chance of not ending up with a trigger happy officer… yay me?
Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops. Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
skyth wrote:And sorry, but not having your brain instantly register exactly what the cop is shouting at you is not grounds for being gunned down.
Yeah, this type of stuff is just completely nuts. I, as a foreigner, wouldn't want to get into a traffic stop in the USA. I might not understand an officer's accent or misinterpret a word and that might cause my death? That's just a surreal justification for shooting someone. On the other hand i'm white so I might have a higher chance of not ending up with a trigger happy officer… yay me?
Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops. Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates how? Without anything to back this up we are just left a population percentages, which do indicate disproportionate numbers of non 'white' people getting shot. Crime rates only work in as far as they are reported and the person behind it caught. The way you phrase it seems to indicate that one population group is more inclined to crime? How are you adjusting this?
skyth wrote:And sorry, but not having your brain instantly register exactly what the cop is shouting at you is not grounds for being gunned down.
Yeah, this type of stuff is just completely nuts. I, as a foreigner, wouldn't want to get into a traffic stop in the USA. I might not understand an officer's accent or misinterpret a word and that might cause my death? That's just a surreal justification for shooting someone. On the other hand i'm white so I might have a higher chance of not ending up with a trigger happy officer… yay me?
Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops. Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates how? Without anything to back this up we are just left a population percentages, which do indicate disproportionate numbers of non 'white' people getting shot. Crime rates only work in as far as they are reported and the person behind it caught. The way you phrase it seems to indicate that one population group is more inclined to crime? How are you adjusting this?
Take a look at any FBI database. African Americans are WAY more likely to be the instigators of any crime, violent crime in specific. Note though, that I am not saying Blacks are inferior. As any social activist would tell you, that's without adjusting for sociologist economics. The simple fact is that the police spend a disproportionate amount of time in poor, minority neighborhoods which see a majority of violent crime. This population is also more likely to be violent with the police. According to FBI stats, adjusting for population, Blacks are four times as likely as Whites to shoot a police officer.
skyth wrote:And sorry, but not having your brain instantly register exactly what the cop is shouting at you is not grounds for being gunned down.
Yeah, this type of stuff is just completely nuts. I, as a foreigner, wouldn't want to get into a traffic stop in the USA. I might not understand an officer's accent or misinterpret a word and that might cause my death? That's just a surreal justification for shooting someone. On the other hand i'm white so I might have a higher chance of not ending up with a trigger happy officer… yay me?
Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops. Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates how? Without anything to back this up we are just left a population percentages, which do indicate disproportionate numbers of non 'white' people getting shot. Crime rates only work in as far as they are reported and the person behind it caught. The way you phrase it seems to indicate that one population group is more inclined to crime? How are you adjusting this?
Take a look at any FBI database. African Americans are WAY more likely to be the instigators of any crime, violent crime in specific. Note though, that I am not saying Blacks are inferior. As any social activist would tell you, that's without adjusting for sociologist economics. The simple fact is that the police spend a disproportionate amount of time in poor, minority neighborhoods which see a majority of violent crime. This population is also more likely to be violent with the police. According to FBI stats, adjusting for population, Blacks are four times as likely as Whites to shoot a police officer.
Way more likely of "any crime" is a gross overstatement looking at the 2016 numbers. Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher.
Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time in minority neighbourhoods because of things like racial profiling. Its kind of a vicious circle, poor socioeconomics lead to crime, leading like you say to a disproportionate amount of time and effort there by law enforcement, skewing arrest data. Not saying its invalid of course, just saying its incomplete. When looking at this data you only see those arrested, not those who got away. African Americans are twice as likely to be arrested for crimes than 'whites' who are arrested proportionately to their population size. Thats not way more in my book and its accompanied by a ton of notes in the margin about how the statistics have come into being. Furthermore these are only arrests, not convictions.
Also going over the 2016 stats. The chance of shooting a police officer is about 2.5 times likelier as a 'white' person. But again, when spending disproportionate amounts of time and effort policing black communities, it distorts statistics to an extent.
It still doesn't explain how 'whites' are disproportionately shot more than 'black' people after adjusting. Unless crime numbers mean that one group 'deserves' it less? Unless I'm mistaken the FBI doesn't keep track of police shootings, no less which police shootings were justified versus innocent people getting killed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.
Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?
Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".
Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.
But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem when socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.
Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?
Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".
Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.
But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem with socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.
I didn't mean it like that. I agreed with Cudda that police spend more time policing 'black' communities, which skews the other crime data to an extent, not saying it skewed murder data. I will edit it with some spacing for clarity.
Yes, but in the US it affects certain 'races' relatively more, which is why I refer to it as racial profiling. Of course it has (terrible) historical reasons, but on average 'white' people are slightly higher up on the socioeconomic ladder. Race can become a subconscious issue due to these biases (both socioeconomic and crime sats). Again leading to a somewhat vicious circle. This wasn't necessarily about skewed stats or one group being more likely due to race, my problem with the original statement was this:
Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Its vague and trying to imply that its somehow worse for 'white' people because they are less disproportionately represented in crime numbers, without knowing the motivations behind the majority of police shootings because statistics are not really kept on them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Murder and manslaughter yes, other crimes are more in proportion with 'white' people comitting those crimes, while still higher. Yes law enforcement spend a good deal of time there because of things like racial profiling.
Err, isn't that suggesting that if there is over policing racial profiling, it's against white folk more than black folk?
Things like drug offences are more likely to be inflated by overpolicing because the more you police the more crimes you'll find. But murder stats aren't likely to be influenced by racial profiling, at least not a huge amount, because a dead person is always going to be investigated. You don't have 10 bodies show up in a predominantly white area and go "hmmm, oh well, lets ignore this and go investigate that 1 body we found in the predominantly black area".
Murder and manslaughter stats should be the least prone to being warped by over policing.
But "racial profiling" is always going to be a problem with socioeconomic levels are divided by race. You can completely take race out of the equation, look at other countries where the low social status people are the same race as the high social status people and the former will still rack up higher crime stats even though race isn't an issue.
I didn't mean it like that. I agreed with Cudda that police spend more time policing 'black' communities, which skews the other crime data to an extent, not saying it skewed murder data. I will edit it with some spacing for clarity.
Yes, but in the US it affects certain 'races' relatively more, which is why I refer to it as racial profiling. Of course it has (terrible) historical reasons, but on average 'white' people are slightly higher up on the socioeconomic ladder. Race can become a subconscious issue due to these biases (both socioeconomic and crime sats). Again leading to a somewhat vicious circle. This wasn't necessarily about skewed stats or one group being more likely due to race, my problem with the original statement was this:
Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Its vague and trying to imply that its somehow worse for 'white' people because they are less disproportionately represented in crime numbers, without knowing the motivations behind the majority of police shootings because statistics are not really kept on them.
And my problem was that US police are dangerous loose cannons and that being Black means you are almost certain to be shot.
cuda1179 wrote: And my problem was that US police are dangerous loose cannons and that being Black means you are almost certain to be shot.
Sure, I don't think they all are, but there is a problem with some bad eggs and the institutional defence of them that is (should be) disconcerting to everyone. Even if African Americans are seemingly (as in we don't have hard statistics because they aren't gathered) more frequently the victim. Yet the problem with political divisiveness is that it becomes a partisan instead of societal issue.
But then you said this and I'm curious about what adjustments you made to get to this conclusion, its a vague statement:
cuda1179 wrote: Also whites are more likely to get shot than Blacks, adjusting for variables. Twice as many whites get shot, but there are 4.5 times as many Whites. However, once adjusting for socioeconomics and crime rates whites are slightly more likely to take a bullet from a cop.
Xenomancers wrote: The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance.
For this argument to be anything more than a cynical deflection, you would have to argue that the reason we see so many more shootings in the US is because the US is somehow unique in having non-compliant citizens. Which would be a staggeringly ridiculous thing to claim.
It's actually not wrong to think different cultures would have different levels of compliance but that is not the issue. There are more shootings in the US because both police and citizens have guns - outside of any cultural differences - that is the main reason. My argument was that almost all police shootings of this type involve non compliance.
One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.
If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
Blackie wrote: One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.
If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
I don't get it ether. In this case I think it worked something like this. The cop was tried for manslaughter but he was deemed not guilty. The family then sued the police department and rather than take it to trial they just cut their losses to avoid bad exposure to the public and insurance covers a lot of that bill anyways. Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.
Oh, okay. So why do we have to make the assumption that Yanez is not a raving lunatic?
He saw him moving his hands, again no evidence since we cannot see him, but we do now know where he was moving them. Castille informs the police he is armed and then says he is not reaching for his weapon. Which would have satisfied the officers commands not to reach for it. Because clearly he was not. Why do we assume that Castille is a raving lunatic looking to draw his weapon on an officer in a routine traffic stop but we assume Yanez is a sane upstanding police officer just looking to get home to his wife and kids?
Horsegak and you know it. That is an awful argument. Informing the officer you have a gun is what you are supposed to do. The Officer can then know that you are armed. If Castile could miraculously draw his weapon from a sitting position on the Officer, with another officer on the other side of the car watching inside, and shoot the officer. Holy crap that would be crazy. I mean, Yanez jumped but the other officer did not. I kinda wonder if, for some reason, the other Officer WAS AWARE OF PROTOCOL AND NOT A JUMPY GAKKY COP.
Well - the other officer was in no position to react in anyway to Castile - from where he was he couldn't see a thing.
Xenomancers wrote: Being irresponsible for your own life isn't actually a crime. Not looking both ways before you enter traffic is just downright stupid. As is not complying with a LEO pointing a gun at you.
That is how you rationalize murder, folks!
This guy wasn't even convicted of a lesser crime than murder by a jury of his peers. The event is tragic but could have easily been avoided by something called compliance. The one thing that most police shootings have in common is someone not being compliant. If you truly want people to stop getting shot in traffic stops - you would preach compliance. You just want to be a social justice warrior.
He was compliant. He said in the video he had a weapon on him and he was not reaching for it. See, I know this because I watched the video again about 10-15 minutes ago.
Also, SJW really? Come on. Come on.
Lets be clear about the video evidence. We can't see Castile - only Yanez. So there is no way to know for sure what Castile is doing with his hands. We have to make an assumption here that Yanez is not a raving lunatic and just randomly deciding to shoot people up for whatever reason - there is no evidence of that. He saw him reaching for something and he repeated several commands for him to not do that. Never do we see Castiles hands go up (which we could have seen - and you would expect to see). Then he gets shot. Probably what happend was Castile decided to reach for his wallet and reasoned it was okay to do that - but you can't tell a cop you have a gun and reach for anything - that's probably up on the list of the dumbest possible thing you could do in a traffic stop.
Oh, okay. So why do we have to make the assumption that Yanez is not a raving lunatic?
He saw him moving his hands, again no evidence since we cannot see him, but we do now know where he was moving them. Castille informs the police he is armed and then says he is not reaching for his weapon. Which would have satisfied the officers commands not to reach for it. Because clearly he was not. Why do we assume that Castille is a raving lunatic looking to draw his weapon on an officer in a routine traffic stop but we assume Yanez is a sane upstanding police officer just looking to get home to his wife and kids?
Horsegak and you know it. That is an awful argument. Informing the officer you have a gun is what you are supposed to do. The Officer can then know that you are armed. If Castile could miraculously draw his weapon from a sitting position on the Officer, with another officer on the other side of the car watching inside, and shoot the officer. Holy crap that would be crazy. I mean, Yanez jumped but the other officer did not. I kinda wonder if, for some reason, the other Officer WAS AWARE OF PROTOCOL AND NOT A JUMPY GAKKY COP.
Well - the other officer was in no position to react in anyway to Castile - from where he was he couldn't see a thing.
That is 100% wrong. He was on the opposite side of the car looking in. He could the right side of his body. Notice he jumps back and never draws his weapon.
I've watched the video countless times dreadwinter. When the shots are fired he is standing near the trunk of the car - maybe inline with the back seat. No chance he saw anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.
The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.
Xenomancers wrote: Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.
The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.
A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.
Xenomancers wrote: I've watched the video countless times dreadwinter. When the shots are fired he is standing near the trunk of the car - maybe inline with the back seat. No chance he saw anything.
The cops are pretty much equally parallel to each other:
When he jumps back, he has to travel at least 4 or 5 feet until he is actually behind the car. Which would make sense, because obviously his partner was watching the passenger seat, because jfc, what kind of alternate reality do you have to invent where the cop's partner intentionally stands someplace where he can't see what's happening in the front seat of a stop he is conducting with his partner.
redleger wrote: Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
If only there was another possibility, such as that the cop didn't intend to murder anyone that morning, but he panicked, and used lethal force where it wasn't justified. If only we lived in a world where there was justice system that had degrees between "totally innocent" and "murder one".
watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.
Xenomancers wrote: Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.
The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.
A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.
Judges typically do not get in the way of a a settlement unless there is some sort of egregious stuff in there. Like a child molester not serving time - something like that would never pass. Something like this though - where a police department is essentially bribing someone for silence? Yeah...judges don't even read those settlements - they just sign.
Xenomancers wrote: watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.
He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.
I have to wonder what video you're watching where he's "strolling up and down the sidewalk for 30 seconds". It literally does not happen.
Xenomancers wrote: watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.
He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.
You see him lean forward because he can't see because he is at the back seat.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its the difference between a criminal and civil case. Just because a cop is not found guilty in a criminal trial does not mean the police department is absolved of all wrongdoing, so a civil case is not useless. That doesn't just happen in the US.
Xenomancers wrote: Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at it seeing as the city and the judge (almost certainly) seem to disagree with you.
The judge has very little to do with the settlement - all they do is approve the thing as far as I know. 2 lawyers negotiated the settlement - it's like a contracts. in essense she gets 800k dollars for being "emotionally traumatized" and "falsely arrested" and she in turn can't lead protests and march on town hall/ talk to the press - it's all in the settlement.
A judge still has to approve it, its still passes the judicial review was my point. No, in essence she got 800k for having her partner shot and watching him die in front of her and her child, after that incredibly traumatic event she herself was also falsely arrested in front of her child for good measure. How giving her and her child money to recover from that is a problem is beyond me. Castillo's estate got much more than she did.
Judges typically do not get in the way of a a settlement unless there is some sort of egregious stuff in there. Like a child molester not serving time - something like that would never pass. Something like this though - where a police department is essentially bribing someone for silence? Yeah...judges don't even read those settlements - they just sign.
Problem being that if this is apparently ok by judicial standards and therefore justice/justified in that sense.
Xenomancers wrote: watch the video - the second cop is strolling up and down that sidewalk for about 30 seconds of exchange between the first officer and the driver. When the shots are fired look at where he is. If anyone is incompetent it is the second cop.
He is definitely, 100% walking up to the passenger's side window when he stops. At one point you see him leaning forward to look at something.
You see him lean forward because he can't see because he is at the back seat.
Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?
Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?
Based upon the conscript threads, I think there's enough police officers for them to be in whatever positions they need to be for the sake of the argument.
Was he pacing up and down the street or is he leaning because he cannot see something? You are all over the place here. Have you watched the video?
Based upon the conscript threads, I think there's enough police officers for them to be in whatever positions they need to be for the sake of the argument.
You are arguing with a guy that said that Space Marines are the worst codex of 8th. This is a waste of time.
Cites, counties, and states have been paying out settlements for years for "bad" shootings.
Nothing will change from that.
Charging and actually convicting cops for bad shootings is what's required. Until the US makes a concerted effort to actually do that, to be willing to send bad cops to jail, the bad shootings will continue.
There have been a few cops recently that have faced police brutality/murder (can't recall offhand). Perhaps that will help them boys in blue pause now and again.
Easy E wrote: Guys, let's focus on the settlements and not re-try the case. That is over.
Does the policy of settlements after a shooting help or hinder in the reduction of police shootings?
given that the settlements are typically paid out by insurance companies or public funds set aside in such expectation, or are otherwise shielded (or are too small) from having any direct meaningful impact on the departments they are levied against, probably very little direct reduction in shootings.
Take it out of the pension fund and the departments actual operating budget or raise/bonus allocation and we'd probably see a greater impact
But their point really isnt to drop shootings, its to compensate those affected by them.
Blackie wrote:One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.
If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
Xenomancers wrote:
Blackie wrote: One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.
If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
I don't get it ether. In this case I think it worked something like this. The cop was tried for manslaughter but he was deemed not guilty. The family then sued the police department and rather than take it to trial they just cut their losses to avoid bad exposure to the public and insurance covers a lot of that bill anyways. Then Diamond (the girl friend) also sued for some bogus stuff and they just paid her off to shut up too. It is a sick system. Like I said - it is not justice.
Civil and criminal are two different animals. And it's not an indication of guilt (criminally) on the part of the defendant.
It's been that way for a long time now. It's a product of the litigious nature of modern America and the greed of lawyers that's mostly to blame here.
The same thing happened in the OJ Simpson case. Guy was acquitted of criminal charges but ended up paying for wrongful death in civil court. The standards of evidence between the two are very different.
In this case there was no need to prove criminal wrong doing on the part of the officer, only that he caused harm which is pretty easy to do. He did fire into a vehicle on nebulous reasons after all and someone died. I agree that it's a really shallow outcome and not real justice but it's better than nothing.
kronk wrote: Cites, counties, and states have been paying out settlements for years for "bad" shootings.
Nothing will change from that.
Charging and actually convicting cops for bad shootings is what's required. Until the US makes a concerted effort to actually do that, to be willing to send bad cops to jail, the bad shootings will continue.
There have been a few cops recently that have faced police brutality/murder (can't recall offhand). Perhaps that will help them boys in blue pause now and again.
Maybe.
Cities and counties have also been paying out for good shootings too. It seems like no matter what happened there's a decent chance of a lawsuit. Around here we call it the redneck/trailer park/ghetto lottery.
cuda1179 wrote: Hey, there are a plethora of videos that make Americans not want to encounter Russian cops.
Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?
Xenomancers wrote: It's actually not wrong to think different cultures would have different levels of compliance but that is not the issue. There are more shootings in the US because both police and citizens have guns - outside of any cultural differences - that is the main reason. My argument was that almost all police shootings of this type involve non compliance.
Yeah, but non-compliance happens. Sometimes its deliberate, but often as not its someone misunderstanding the request or just not complying fast enough, things that can happen easily when placed in a serious and unusual situation like a cop shouting orders at you.
I agree with the argument that people should comply, but I think its false to think that expecting more compliance will make these problems go away. Because there's nothing that will just make compliance go up, even if people all agree that they should, because failure to comply is often as not a mistake caused by the stress of the situation.
And yeah, I agree that the presence of guns is probably the reason this happens in the US more than other developed countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: One of the things about America that I've never understood is how a cop kills a citizen, usually unarmed, is found not guilty of any crime at a trial, but the victim's family received a settlement of millions.
If the cop's actions were justified why the settlement?
It looks like cops are allowed to murder people but because everyone knows that it's wrong the victim's family is entitled to get some millions. "Justice" served.
If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?
I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.
If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.
It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.
Shooting towards someone unarmed can be read into several ways instead: accident, self defense, manslaughter or murder. It's up to judges and jury to determine the outcome. And what America seems to do is to condone every killer cop of their actions but giving millions to the victims' families to compensate them.
In my country cops are not above the law and usually end up in prison when they commit serious crimes, even if they usually don't shoot towards unarmed citizens (I remember just one case about 10 years ago, of course the cop was jailed and he also became one of the most hated person in the country) but if their actions were justified no one gives you or your family some money. Not even a cent.
If those killer cops didn't do anything illegal the victims' families shouldn't receive any money, simple. IMHO the officer in the video deserved a life sentence.
Mario wrote: Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?
I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.
And at least in Russia you could accidentally drop a couple thousand roubles out the window into the officers hand to have them go away without shooting you. In the US you get shot whilst reaching for your wallet.
Mario wrote: Why the comparison to Russia, doesn't the USA see itself as a first world country anymore (you know, all the talk about "USA being number one")? How about Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or one of the Scandinavian countries?
I remember when the US led the world and showed people what a great nation could be, as distinct from a failed state like the USSR. Now it seems 'not as bad as Russia' is the best that can be hoped for.
And at least in Russia you could accidentally drop a couple thousand roubles out the window into the officers hand to have them go away without shooting you. In the US you get shot whilst reaching for your wallet.
If I crash my car in to yours, I might not have done anything illegal but I'll still be on the hook for fixing the damages. This is really no different.
It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.
Shooting towards someone unarmed can be read into several ways instead: accident, self defense, manslaughter or murder. It's up to judges and jury to determine the outcome. And what America seems to do is to condone every killer cop of their actions but giving millions to the victims' families to compensate them.
In my country cops are not above the law and usually end up in prison when they commit serious crimes, even if they usually don't shoot towards unarmed citizens (I remember just one case about 10 years ago, of course the cop was jailed and he also became one of the most hated person in the country) but if their actions were justified no one gives you or your family some money. Not even a cent.
If those killer cops didn't do anything illegal the victims' families shouldn't receive any money, simple. IMHO the officer in the video deserved a life sentence.
I am in agreement with you. If the cops is ruled not guilty - there should be no settlements. I don't agree that the officer should have a life sentence though. This video does meet the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt. We just can't see whats going on in there. If the man was pulling out a gun - he absolutely made the right call. If he wasn't - he shot a man for being scared and confused which is flat out terrible and deserves jail time.
Think about this. If a jury knows that the families are going to get settlements for big money - it makes them less likely to go for a guilty charge because it's kind of a win/win situation. One man gets to go free and the victims families get rich. The alternative is the cops life is destroyed (and you still really don't know if he did anything wrong) and the families still get rich.
Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.
There are gobs of reasons why someone acquitted at a criminal trial may still be liable in civil court. Nobody seems too broken up about OJ Simpson's situation, why should police get a special exemption?
Just here to stir. Scott clearly didn't comply. He got out of the car at the stop. He ran. He fought with the officer.
Despite your admitted troll post, I'm going to respond for the benefit of other readers unfamiliar with what you are referencing here. Scott was shot multiple times in the back by Slager, and then Slager planted a weapon on Scott's body. Nobody fought anyone.
criminal cases tend to require 'beyond reasonable doubt'
which is going to depend on what jurors thing but probably need them to be 95% (insert your own number here, some would want more than this, some will be happy with less) sure the accused is guilty
civil cases tend to require 'on balance of probabilities'
which many will take to mean 51%
so it's easy to see why a jury may find an officer (or anybody else) innocent of a shooting, but when it comes to a civil case they're much more likely to convict (plus it's easier to say guilty when it's only money at stake, especially if it's an insurance companies money)
Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.
cuda1179 wrote: Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.
They also settle because the cost of just paying up is lower than the cost of the trial itself. I don't think it was just about getting into good graces. A civil case would have dragged up all the ugliness that the DoJ investigation revealed and amplified it times a thousand. People can ignore some stuffy report from a government office with stats and assessments. It's harder to ignore people on the stand. Certainly the settlement was about saving face.
Blackie wrote: It is. If you crash your car into mine you're at fault and you must pay for that. In my country damaging other people property is illegal.
Uh, for something to be illegal it has to break a law, result in a criminal charge. Accidentally damaging someone else's car through a simple, non-negligent mistake isn't illegal, it won't produce a criminal charge. But that doesn't mean the person who made the mistake walks away, he is still responsible for fixing the other person's car.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am in agreement with you. If the cops is ruled not guilty - there should be no settlements.
No, there is a world of difference between an individual officer being found guilty of breaching a specific criminal standard, and the department as a whole being found responsible in a civil suit.
Once again, if you crash in to my car you might not have done anything criminally wrong, but you still made a mistake and its you that will pay to make it right, not me.
which is going to depend on what jurors thing but probably need them to be 95% (insert your own number here, some would want more than this, some will be happy with less) sure the accused is guilty
civil cases tend to require 'on balance of probabilities'
It's not just the difference in standards of doubt, the criminal charge also requires either a deliberate act, or a very high level of reckless or negligent behaviour to reach a criminal charge. Whereas the civil charge only really requires that a mistake was made, with no strong standard as to how careless that mistake was.
cuda1179 wrote: Well we do have Furgison, Missouri. Michael Brown did assault an officer, evidence shows that he tried to take his weapon, and even charged the officer once he had a gun drawn on him. Still there was a rather large civil settlement. Not saying that the officer was an angel, just saying that many times cities settle cases just to get into the good graces of certain communities.
They also settle because the cost of just paying up is lower than the cost of the trial itself. I don't think it was just about getting into good graces. A civil case would have dragged up all the ugliness that the DoJ investigation revealed and amplified it times a thousand. People can ignore some stuffy report from a government office with stats and assessments. It's harder to ignore people on the stand. Certainly the settlement was about saving face.
Wasn't it pointed out that although there was some "ugliness" in Ferguson that in fact it was marginally better than other major metropolitan areas like New York, LA, or Miami?
I heard people say it but I never saw the evidence to back it up. Doesn't really matter cause its beside the point. Rodney King. Stop and frisk. It's not like anyone is claiming New York LA or Miami (who I'm sure has plenty of scandals) are clean. The investigation of Ferguson made it pretty clear that any civil case would be very embarrassing indictment of the Ferguson justice system. No one in their right mind would want that to go forward. "New York is worse" is a really gakky defense strategy.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.
The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family? Not the cop because he didn't do anything wrong. Not the community because it's not responsible for that death. If the training was the cause of the bad decision why those trainings are not changed? Because they think they're appropriate, so not the training fault.
If someone dies for illness, suicide or because of an accident with no people involved do their families receive settlements? Of course not. A settlement is basically a refund that implies some fault somewhere, in cases like this one I don't see anyone taking responsability about what happened.
This settlement policy that is so common in the USA has the only purpose to stop the victim's familiy fight for justice and to cover up a murder. Simple.
Uh, for something to be illegal it has to break a law, result in a criminal charge. Accidentally damaging someone else's car through a simple, non-negligent mistake isn't illegal, it won't produce a criminal charge. But that doesn't mean the person who made the mistake walks away, he is still responsible for fixing the other person's car.
This is not true, breaking the law doesn't mean ending up in jail. Damaging other people's property is breaking the law even if the punishment is not a jail conviction. But if you don't pay for the damage caused I can call the police and that could lead to a criminal charge.
The comparison you made would be fair if you damage my car and walk free, which means you don't pay and nothing happens to you. In real life if you don't pay the police will come into your house
In this case the cop was cleared by any wrongdoing, he won't pay the settlement. The taxpayers and an insurance fund paid.
The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family?
People have already said this but I'll say it another way; being found not guilty in court is not the same thing as having done nothing wrong.
And being blunt, the community is kind of responsible. The state is supposed to be answerable to us, the voters. We're complacent. We'll complain left and right about the dangers of the state to individual life, but we happily ignore those dangers when they are inflicted on people we deem undesirable or unworthy. We create excuses and blame the victim. We apologize for law enforcement left and right, because we're not doing anything wrong and we just assume they will never hurt us. Until they do. And then they find some way, anyway, to paint you as a bad person because bad people are probably criminals too. Society enables these things to happen because society chooses not to care until its too late, and even then would rather look for excuses instead of solutions. So yeah. I think the community kind of is responsible. If society doesn't want to pay out huge sums to the families of people killed by cops, the solution is for cops to kill fewer people, not shrug and declare it "not our problem."
Disciple of Fate wrote: Not guilty means no settlement? So an innocent man/woman loses their life. A family loses a father/mother/son/daughter/etc. Who might be the primary provider for the family and nothing should happen? Just because the cop is declared not guilty? Frankly the notion that the department should go "well sucks to be the innocent person's family but not guilty so!", is absurd.
The point is: if the cop is cleared of any wrongdoing who should pay for the victim's family? Not the cop because he didn't do anything wrong. Not the community because it's not responsible for that death. If the training was the cause of the bad decision why those trainings are not changed? Because they think they're appropriate, so not the training fault.
If someone dies for illness, suicide or because of an accident with no people involved do their families receive settlements? Of course not. A settlement is basically a refund that implies some fault somewhere, in cases like this one I don't see anyone taking responsability about what happened.
This settlement policy that is so common in the USA has the only purpose to stop the victim's familiy fight for justice and to cover up a murder. Simple.
Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.
Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.
Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.
Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.
But if a cop is cleared of any wrongdoing his actions were not a mistake, were part of the training which is never questioned and was considerate appropriate. Otherwise there would be changes and there aren't any. The department and the city should not be responsible if they hired someone with all the appropriate requirements and he followed the traininig which is still considered appropriate.
Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver.
These are all examples in which someone has been judged at fault. Again if the trial demostrates that the actions of that cop were correct in that precise moment, by the law he should have zero fault on that matter. Like the department, that can be at fault if the cop didn't have the necessary requirements or the police training was considered wrong, dangerous or bad. But none of these things were questioned in this case or any other similar case.
A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.
But what the DA or the department thinks about that is irrelevant, if by the law the cop was cleared of wrongdoings he's an innocent man.
Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.
Yes they are some sort of cover up because the family will stop fighting for justice after receiving money. Instead they should continue fighting for a better society. The hypocrisy of this system is appalling, everyone knows that those cops are just murderers but no one wants to punish them, because americans are not impartial about this matter. Then to clear some coscience a huge settlement is given and everyone's happy. And with this system in the USA tons of innocent people are murdered for no reason.
Even the cop that recently got 20 years for shooting a man in the back while fleeing wasn't found guilty by one of those "impartial" jury despite the video showed a clear murder.
Who should pay? The department and by extension the city who employed the officer that made the fatal mistake of shooting someone innocent. The organization or entity these people work for holds responsibility for its own people. Just like the hot coffee lawsuit in which the woman suffered horrible burns, it was given to her by an employee but the company is responsible. Also training being appropriate? Really depends on who you're asking, but of course the department is going to deny training is insufficient because it makes them all look bad.
But if a cop is cleared of any wrongdoing his actions were not a mistake, were part of the training which is never questioned and was considerate appropriate. Otherwise there would be changes and there aren't any. The department and the city should not be responsible if they hired someone with all the appropriate requirements and he followed the traininig which is still considered appropriate.
No he is cleared of any criminal wrongdoings, which is the key distinction. He still made mistakes, but not sufficient to declare him guilty in a criminal case. Your "there would be changes" attitude is hopelessly optimistic. Sometimes its cheaper and easier to just face the music once in a while than to affect massive institutional changes. Standards and training might be considered appropriate without actually being so. Plus the department has responsibility beyond just meeting requirements for training such as keeping an eye on stress levels and perhaps mental state/problems that affect a person's ability to do their job. Responsibility goes beyond just checking a few boxes and throwing your hands up.
Suicide no. Illness or accident? That really depends on the circumstances. If a doctor didn't treat them properly or if the driver was drunk when he killed them there is a good basis for financial compensation. A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver.
These are all examples in which someone has been judged at fault. Again if the trial demostrates that the actions of that cop were correct in that precise moment, by the law he should have zero fault on that matter. Like the department, that can be at fault if the cop didn't have the necessary requirements or the police training was considered wrong, dangerous or bad. But none of these things were questioned in this case or any other similar case.
No they aren't. These could be civil trials. A doctor might be cleared of any criminal wrongdoings just like a driver or a police officer. The police officer at the end of the day shot an innocent man, he is clearly at fault for his death, just not criminally at fault. You keep missing the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit. And "any other similar case"? Bit of a sweeping an generalizing statement to make.
A main part of financial settlements isn't just death, its death unnecisarrily caused by the actions of a third person, them being either the cop, a negligent doctor or a drunk driver. In cases like this is becomes pretty clear that some people are not cut out to be police officers. Not only did the DA think the officer was wrong, they figured they had enough of a case to go to trial. Even though he was found not guilty its pretty clear who was held responsible and by extent his employer. Nobody is going to take the blame for murdering an innocent man, the fact that they pay out settlements makes it pretty clear the department knows its held responsible in the end.
But what the DA or the department thinks about that is irrelevant, if by the law the cop was cleared of wrongdoings he's an innocent man.
What the DA thinks isn't irrelevant now is it? The whole reason the cop got cleared and declared not guilty is because the DA saw enough of a case that he might be judged guilty. There were enough assumptions about reasonable guilt to decide to move to the trial stage, just because a jury saw it otherwise does not make the whole process beforehand irrelevant. And again, he was just cleared of criminal wrongdoings. It still makes the officer or the department liable for the death in different ways.
Again, settlements like this happen not only in the US. The settlements being so large and it being the US is what grabs our attention. Also the purpose is not to stop the family's fight for justice. They can't fight for that in a civil suit in the first place. There was a criminal trial, how is that covering up? An impartiat jury found him not guilty. Yes there might be flaws in the judicial/jury system, but its hardly a case of settlements=cover up.
Yes they are some sort of cover up because the family will stop fighting for justice after receiving money. Instead they should continue fighting for a better society. The hypocrisy of this system is appalling, everyone knows that those cops are just murderers but no one wants to punish them, because americans are not impartial about this matter. Then to clear some coscience a huge settlement is given and everyone's happy. And with this system in the USA tons of innocent people are murdered for no reason.
Even the cop that recently got 20 years for shooting a man in the back while fleeing wasn't found guilty by one of those "impartial" jury despite the video showed a clear murder.
But the family can only try to get others to fight for justice. Plus once they had a trial beyond going to a higher court there is little you can do. The woman in question settled on the amount after the criminal trial. The whole fighting for a better society thing is nonesense. Just because they lost a family member doesn't mean they should have the inherent obligation to champion massive change. Losing a family member like that can be incredibly tragic and invasive in people's personal lives. A settlement can function as closure while giving some sense of financial security in dealing with the aftermath. Expecting a grieving family to keep reopening old wounds to champion change in society that society should champion for them as the victims is just odd. The idea that settlements makes the people left behind happy is an even weirder idea. Ask anyone who lost someone close unexpectedly, money doesn't fix the sense of loss and certainly doesn't make you happy.
And no, there is a significant movement against police violence through groups such as Black Lives Matter. Plenty of people want police officers to be punished for these things. But that doesn't mean you have to impose the responsibility of championing that punishment on family members. They can if they want to, but it should never be requored/expected.
Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?
Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?
The jury didn't found him not guilty, there was a mistrial as the jurors failed to agree about the verdict. Then he pleaded guilty and the judge inflicted 20 years.
The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.
Wait, the cop who got 20 YEARS was ruled not guilty? So how did he get 20 years then?
The jury didn't found him not guilty, there was a mistrial as the jurors failed to agree about the verdict. Then he pleaded guilty and the judge inflicted 20 years.
The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.
A mistrial means mistrial. Its not not guilty, the jury didn't reach a verdict. And yes, that is the risk with citizen juries, sometimes they feth up.
Blackie wrote: The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.
We have posters in this very thread who are absolutely convinced that a cop cannot under any circumstance commit murder, and anyone who is killed by a cop had it coming. Only takes 1 of these people in the jury for a mistrial, right?
Blackie wrote: This is not true, breaking the law doesn't mean ending up in jail.
Go read my post again. Notice how many times I mentioned jail. Spoiler alert, it was zero times. What I said was that there are many times where a person can make a mistake, where they weren't negligent or reckless to the point of it being a crime, but they're still responsible for making the other party whole.
Damaging other people's property is breaking the law even if the punishment is not a jail conviction. But if you don't pay for the damage caused I can call the police and that could lead to a criminal charge.
You're completely wrong. If I damaged your property by mistake, it is not a police matter. For instance, if I say I really like your Forgeworld Imperial Knight, and I pick it up and accidentally drop it and it shatters, there is nothing stopping me from simply walking away. If you call the police they will likely tell you it is a civil matter, and tell you to take the matter through civil courts. And it would only be after determination in courts or arbitration, if I stil refused to pay then there'd be legal issues. But the charge then the legal issue would be contempt of court, for refusing to follow a legal ruling, at no point would the original accident ever become a criminal act.
Do you get it now? We don't criminalise accidents, but we give people affected by other's accidents a civil remedy.
As such, in a criminal prosecution 'sorry, I didn't mean to' can mean the officer avoids prison, but the officer and his employer will still be on the hook in a civil court for the harm done by the officer's mistake.
As such, in a criminal prosecution 'sorry, I didn't mean to' can mean the officer avoids prison, but the officer and his employer will still be on the hook in a civil court for the harm done by the officer's mistake.
Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.
Blackie wrote: The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.
We have posters in this very thread who are absolutely convinced that a cop cannot under any circumstance commit murder, and anyone who is killed by a cop had it coming. Only takes 1 of these people in the jury for a mistrial, right?
Ive read all these threads and never once have I gotten that impression. Most of the posters agree and there are few who don't. Castille can objectively be argued because the video does not show Castille. It only show the LEO giving commands multiple times. That objectively leads to an inference that he only after saying don't reach several times felt the need to respond with deadly force. This is not me defending but showing how objectively someone can come to that conclusion based on what is seen. I could also use different parts of the video to argue why the LEO is a murderer, although the video offers less in that regard, it can be done. So because someone manages to see one POV that disagrees with you does not mean they do not believe LEOs can not commit murder.
There are many on the OT forums, and I have stated something similar before, who will see any shooting by a LEO a murder due to bias.
For example I can not with no reasonable doubt say that Castile was murdered based on evidence. I can however say this donkey cave is a murderer. So just because someone can extract data from a situation that does not fit a narrative does not make said person malicious.
Blackie wrote: Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.
Blackie, you're being so obtuse here that I'm starting to believe it must be on purpose. My post wasn't about apologising, which is barely relevant to the legal process, and that should have been obvious to you if you read my post in its entirety. Just like my previous post had nothing to do with a jail sentence, but you decided to pretend it was.
Now I'll explain one more time, written just for you;
Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities. This means that often a bad shoot will not meet the criminal standard, but will meet the civil standard, which means the officer doesn't do jail time, but their employer will have to make reparations, which means ultimately that money comes from the taxpayer. You can get all bothered about that if you want, but it is what it is. It is the product of having a criminal standard that requires we only jail people we've proven guilty, and a civil standard that looks to the place the cost on the party who is most responsible for harm.
Blackie wrote: Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.
Blackie, you're being so obtuse here that I'm starting to believe it must be on purpose. My post wasn't about apologising, which is barely relevant to the legal process, and that should have been obvious to you if you read my post in its entirety. Just like my previous post had nothing to do with a jail sentence, but you decided to pretend it was.
Now I'll explain one more time, written just for you;
Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities. This means that often a bad shoot will not meet the criminal standard, but will meet the civil standard, which means the officer doesn't do jail time, but their employer will have to make reparations, which means ultimately that money comes from the taxpayer. You can get all bothered about that if you want, but it is what it is. It is the product of having a criminal standard that requires we only jail people we've proven guilty, and a civil standard that looks to the place the cost on the party who is most responsible for harm.
I understand that, I'm not saying that the law doesn't allow those settlements. I'm saying that it's unfair that murderers can walk free and taxpayers have to pay lots of money for their crimes. IMHO all those killer cops deserved 25 to life in prison an to pay compensation with their money, just like any other criminals. In my country when a cop gets a conviction, civil or penal it doesn't matter, it's on him to pay compensation, usually by selling his house when the amount of money he has to pay is very high. The department can even sue him and get compensation from him. What I see in the USA is that the law allows those murders, in Italy actions such those ones are never justified by a training or a protocol so it's never up to their employers to pay compensation.
Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities.
What you consider a mistake or an accident, in any civilized country (but one) would be considered reckless or negligent beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what you probably don't understand.
Blackie wrote: What you consider a mistake or an accident, in any civilized country (but one) would be considered reckless or negligent beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what you probably don't understand.
At no point did I ever comment on whether this particular shooting was merited. All I did was answer the question about why there could be not guilty verdict, but a civil settlement, a thing that appeared to be causing a great deal of confusion to several posters, particularly you.
You said it was a mistake, an accident. It wasn't. It was a legalized murder. That's why is see a lot of hypocrisy in those civil settlements.
If fact what really happens with these settlements is that people who aren't responsible (the department and the taxpayers) pay the entire amount of money, while the murderer walks free AND he doesn't even have to pay a compensation.
Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community. Everytime cops go to trials here they end up financially broken, even if they escape jail. But usually they got convicted. Putting a cop to a trial means that there are strong evidence to support the prosecution.
Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community.
I can understand this argument. If dirty cops get hit in their own pension plans, and know that it could happen, would they be less likely to go full agro when the event doesn't call for it?
As Easy E says, they still can and do lose their jobs AND have no chance of getting a similar job again (I think). Start a new career at 45 years old, fether.
No, I didn't. I made no comment on the case at all. I explained that something can be ruled an accident or similar, which would prevent criminal charges, but still leave a person (or their employer) responsible in civil court. I was explaining the law to people who were ignorant of the law.
You will find me saying not one damn thing about whether I personally believe it was an accident at all. You have simply assumed that I have an opinion on that, because that is what you do - read what you want to, rather than what people are actually saying.
Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community.
I'm 99% certain this is untrue, but honestly really can't be bothered arguing it with you. The idea that a country anywhere could operate where the employer isn't responsble for the actions of their employees is very silly.
I'm 99% certain this is untrue, but honestly really can't be bothered arguing it with you. The idea that a country anywhere could operate where the employer isn't responsble for the actions of their employees is very silly.
OK, IMHO it's the opposite. The idea of an employer being responsible of the reckless behaviour of their employees is absurd, the employer should be responsible only if he hired someone without the requirements or if the trained him badly. The employer should be responsible only if the reckless/criminal employee's behaviour reflects the company policy. I don't think police trainings teach cops to shoot at unarmed citizens. If they do, then you're right, there's the employer responsability as well. But if they don't those cops they should be alone responsible for their actions, they're grown men and women, not children.
We now have two cops that reached headline news because allegedely they raped two drunk american girls while being on duty, they say it was consensual sex. No way the department will be responsible for their actions, it doesn't matter if they end up guilty or not. The department will certainly sue them in a civil court because they disgraced the corp.
Blackie wrote: OK, IMHO it's the opposite. The idea of an employer being responsible of the reckless behaviour of their employees is absurd, the employer should be responsible only if he hired someone without the requirements or if the trained him badly. The employer should be responsible only if the reckless/criminal employee's behaviour reflects the company policy.
I understand how an immediate thought of fairness might lead to that conclusion, but think about it for a minute. Think about the captain of an oil tanker misjudging an approach and clipping a reef, spilling all the content in to the bay. Totally the captain's fault, there was nothing wrong with the equipment, policies or training from the company. The captain just made the wrong call.
But thing is, there's a clean up bill, lets say $200 million. The captain sells his house and his car, and hands of over his retirement savings. That only leaves the victims out of pocket $199.5 million.
Get it now? What you're talking about is a society where a company's employee, acting on request of the employee, can screw up and leave the victim out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all he can get from the employee is the guy's 2001 Fiesta and the CD his grandmother left him. Meanwhile the guy's billion employer skips away with nothing to pay.
So instead we have a simple principle. A company employs a person and gives them instructions, then that company is responsible if the person screws up doing that job and causes harm to someone.
I don't think police trainings teach cops to shoot at unarmed citizens.
What? Of course there's no training for shooting unarmed civilians. Don't be silly.
What there is is training for identifying a threat, dealing with people who may or may not be a threat. That's a split second call that can get screwed up. Too often screwed up, judging by the number of bad shoots we're seeing reported in the US these days.
But if they don't those cops they should be alone responsible for their actions, they're grown men and women, not children.
They are responsible, if a court determines they acted recklessly, or negligently, then they will be convicted. But in most cases courts aren't finding them negligent or reckless. That's a problem IMO, too many courts appear to give too much benefit of the doubt to the officer. But that's not the issue you're complaining about.
I understand how an immediate thought of fairness might lead to that conclusion, but think about it for a minute. Think about the captain of an oil tanker misjudging an approach and clipping a reef, spilling all the content in to the bay. Totally the captain's fault, there was nothing wrong with the equipment, policies or training from the company. The captain just made the wrong call.
But thing is, there's a clean up bill, lets say $200 million. The captain sells his house and his car, and hands of over his retirement savings. That only leaves the victims out of pocket $199.5 million.
Get it now? What you're talking about is a society where a company's employee, acting on request of the employee, can screw up and leave the victim out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all he can get from the employee is the guy's 2001 Fiesta and the CD his grandmother left him. Meanwhile the guy's billion employer skips away with nothing to pay.
So instead we have a simple principle. A company employs a person and gives them instructions, then that company is responsible if the person screws up doing that job and causes harm to someone.
I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.
When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.
That's a split second call that can get screwed up. Too often screwed up, judging by the number of bad shoots we're seeing reported in the US these days.
That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot. Consider the case of Daniel Shaver, that was not a split second decision, quite the opposite. I don't think good people would be involved in those kinds of shootings, killer cops are always bullys or drunkards, the split second call is only a justification, with people like them it's only a matter of time before they get involved in these kind of situations.
While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
cuda1179 wrote: While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
That sounds like a pretty good point of some kind when you omit that of the "armed" section, 13 were "armed" with toys, and 13 were "unknown" in addition to the 17 unarmed. So maybe it was 17 unarmed, but maybe it was nearly triple that number.
There really aren't any super great statistics since there is no mandatory reporting.
cuda1179 wrote: While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
That sounds like a pretty good point of some kind when you omit that of the "armed" section, 13 were "armed" with toys, and 13 were "unknown" in addition to the 17 unarmed. So maybe it was 17 unarmed, but maybe it was nearly triple that number.
There really aren't any super great statistics since there is no mandatory reporting.
Yes, some were armed with "toys", however a number of those " toy" guns were realistic replicas, and on at least two occassions that I know about they were real enough that the deceased used them to commit armed robbery and later pointed them at police. In these instances, even if not a real weapon a police shooting is justified.
cuda1179 wrote:While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
No, that's just when the initial post was made (it's how their CMS names the URL), you can click around below to get a specific year and so on from the database.
I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.
When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.
You're completely ignoring that at the point of pulling the trigger, the cop is making a judgement call on whether deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect using deadly force. It is a decision to shoot, whether it is a good decision is a judgement call made in a second, often with incomplete information. Just as the ship captain makes a decision about what path through the water his ship will to take, the officer makes a judgement call about whether to use deadly violence. Both can get it wrong at times, but being mistaken isn't automatically criminal.
That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot.
What? You're being ridiculous. For your argument to make sense, then the cop would arrive on the scene, draw his gun on the suspect and immediately know absolutely everything there is to know about the suspect, his armament, his willingness to violence and his mental stability. All instantly known. Then the officer sits there, gun pointed, just pondering that information, maybe discussing it with other officers, before eventually deciding after a few minutes that they're going to shoot. That's stupid in every possible way.
What actually happens is the officer draws his gun, then while the gun is drawn he starts trying to figure out what's going on. He gets a lot of small, partial clues, verbal and body cues indicating that suspect's mental state, and physical clues as to whether he might be armed. But even if the officer comes to believe the suspect is armed and is probably going to try and use the gun, the officer still doesn't shoot. It is only when the officer sees the suspect actually going for the weapon that he will fire. And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.
There is a real problem with police shootings in the US. It is a complex problem but one that needs to be discussed. But that conversation is made much harder, and is much less likely to go anywhere as long as people like you post absolute nonsense about police taking minutes to decide to shoot someone, or complaining that the absence of a criminal conviction against an officer means his department should have no civil liability for a bad shoot. So please stop.
I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.
When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.
You're completely ignoring that at the point of pulling the trigger, the cop is making a judgement call on whether deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect using deadly force. It is a decision to shoot, whether it is a good decision is a judgement call made in a second, often with incomplete information. Just as the ship captain makes a decision about what path through the water his ship will to take, the officer makes a judgement call about whether to use deadly violence. Both can get it wrong at times, but being mistaken isn't automatically criminal.
That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot.
What? You're being ridiculous. For your argument to make sense, then the cop would arrive on the scene, draw his gun on the suspect and immediately know absolutely everything there is to know about the suspect, his armament, his willingness to violence and his mental stability. All instantly known. Then the officer sits there, gun pointed, just pondering that information, maybe discussing it with other officers, before eventually deciding after a few minutes that they're going to shoot. That's stupid in every possible way.
What actually happens is the officer draws his gun, then while the gun is drawn he starts trying to figure out what's going on. He gets a lot of small, partial clues, verbal and body cues indicating that suspect's mental state, and physical clues as to whether he might be armed. But even if the officer comes to believe the suspect is armed and is probably going to try and use the gun, the officer still doesn't shoot. It is only when the officer sees the suspect actually going for the weapon that he will fire. And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.
There is a real problem with police shootings in the US. It is a complex problem but one that needs to be discussed. But that conversation is made much harder, and is much less likely to go anywhere as long as people like you post absolute nonsense about police taking minutes to decide to shoot someone, or complaining that the absence of a criminal conviction against an officer means his department should have no civil liability for a bad shoot. So please stop.
I agree with the guy with the funny accent. to quote Luke Skywalker" It's funny, everything in your sentence is wrong" Im pretty sure thats close enough to what he said anyway.
And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.
That's the origin of the problem. American cops shoot without thinking most of the times. In any other civilized country cops don't shoot if they see some strange move, they shoot only when they are 100% sure of the threat, not when they think they could be possibly in danger. IMHO if the scenario wasn't a real situation of danger the cop that shot down an unarmed civilian is nothing different than a murderer. And in fact I don't even think that's something that could happen to any american cop, but only to those ones who are nothing different than the Las Vegas shooter or any other american frustrated guy that at some point of his life decides to shoot dead someone. Good people and responsible cops don't get involved in those "accidents", only bullys, violent thugs, depressed guys (or with other mental issues) and heavy drinkers that also wear an uniform for a living, those bad apples are just a fraction of the entire corp.
Terms like "bad shoot" don't even exist in Europe, it's something created in the US to give a more misleading and reassuring name to murders or manslaughters.
Again it's certainly better having a few cops killed for not being jumping the typical american way and hundred of lives saved than the opposite. You shoot toward someone only if you are 100% sure of the threat, cops should never take split second decisions about using deadly force, that's what should be changed. But the american culture has roots in far west, "shoot first, ask later", "a sudden or clumsy move means reaching the holster", etc... It's time to understand that we're almost in 2018, and the USA are not like Tombstone anymore.
Those unpunished killings made by officers also fuel hate towards the police and make things like ambushes towards the cops (which don't exist in any civilized country) something real in the US.
The settlements are the ultimate joke since the community admits there was something wrong but no one even tries to change things while the cop doesn't get to pay in any possible way, no compensation from his pocket and usually also ending with a better job.
And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.
That's the origin of the problem. American cops shoot without thinking most of the times. In any other civilized country cops don't shoot if they see some strange move, they shoot only when they are 100% sure of the threat, not when they think they could be possibly in danger. IMHO if the scenario wasn't a real situation of danger the cop that shot down an unarmed civilian is nothing different than a murderer. And in fact I don't even think that's something that could happen to any american cop, but only to those ones who are nothing different than the Las Vegas shooter or any other american frustrated guy that at some point of his life decides to shoot dead someone. Good people and responsible cops don't get involved in those "accidents", only bullys, violent thugs, depressed guys (or with other mental issues) and heavy drinkers that also wear an uniform for a living, those bad apples are just a fraction of the entire corp.
Terms like "bad shoot" don't even exist in Europe, it's something created in the US to give a more misleading and reassuring name to murders or manslaughters.
Again it's certainly better having a few cops killed for not being jumping the typical american way and hundred of lives saved than the opposite. You shoot toward someone only if you are 100% sure of the threat, cops should never take split second decisions about using deadly force, that's what should be changed. But the american culture has roots in far west, "shoot first, ask later", "a sudden or clumsy move means reaching the holster", etc... It's time to understand that we're almost in 2018, and the USA are not like Tombstone anymore.
Those unpunished killings made by officers also fuel hate towards the police and make things like ambushes towards the cops (which don't exist in any civilized country) something real in the US.
The settlements are the ultimate joke since the community admits there was something wrong but no one even tries to change things while the cop doesn't get to pay in any possible way, no compensation from his pocket and usually also ending with a better job.
I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change. Once again I can speak from experience. I am not justifying murder. I am not even close to thinking that the cops are always right because that would be intellectually dishonest. But what I am getting at is after you have been shot at, really known you were probably going to die, your brain changes. The problem is that this form of anxiety disorder, or even adjustment disorder are not well recognized within many forces. So after you have witnessed another person try to murder you or your partner, it can lead to a premature decision making. Once again I do not excuse this, I think it shows a lack of training and discipline. I am merely pointing out your assessment only happens in the very small minority of the time, and actual fear for ones life, from experience of being around people who want to kill you, does happen. In hind sight it is easy to tear a scenario apart but that does nothign to alleviate a guilt a good man will now have over a premature, or bad decision based on experience.
redleger wrote: is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?
I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
What I'm trying to saying, and what I really think about this matter is that the majority of these bad shoots were not the consequence of split second decisions in which cops made made a bad judgement, but they just overreact to normal moves that shouldn't be perceived as suspicious or dangerous at all. The split second decision is just the excuse, they cannot argue in any other way to defend their actions.
I'm sure that making all those bad shoots criminal hundreds of lives could be spared without putting cops' lives at risk. Maybe 1 out of 1000 scenarios would involved a cop's death for not being jumpy, but I don't think cops' deaths would rise significantly if they were forced to shoot only if someone shot before them or a criminal is pointing a gun (for real and not because they felt an itch) towards someone.
Happy trigger cops are just murderers, a job doesn't define a man. Manners maketh man. And cops can be the worst people on Earth or the best ones. If they shoot someone that wasn't a real threat to anyone they should go to jail like any other citizen, simple.
redleger wrote: is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?
Exactly, imagine a scared black kid that shoots dead a cop only because he was thinking that the cop would kill him. Since he knows cops kill for no reason and usually without consequences. It's probably going to become a common scenario if things don't change.
I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
What I'm trying to saying, and what I really think about this matter is that the majority of these bad shoots were not the consequence of split second decisions in which cops made made a bad judgement, but they just overreact to normal moves that shouldn't be perceived as suspicious or dangerous at all. The split second decision is just the excuse, they cannot argue in any other way to defend their actions.
I'm sure that making all those bad shoots criminal hundreds of lives could be spared without putting cops' lives at risk. Maybe 1 out of 1000 scenarios would involved a cop's death for not being jumpy, but I don't think cops' deaths would rise significantly if they were forced to shoot only if someone shot before them or a criminal is pointing a gun (for real and not because they felt an itch) towards someone.
Happy trigger cops are just murderers, a job doesn't define a man. Manners maketh man. And cops can be the worst people on Earth or the best ones. If they shoot someone that wasn't a real threat to anyone they should go to jail like any other citizen, simple.
redleger wrote: is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?
Exactly, imagine a scared black kid that shoots dead a cop only because he was thinking that the cop would kill him. Since he knows cops kill for no reason and usually without consequences. It's probably going to become a common scenario if things don't change.
I think yall think I am defending bad shoots, I am not. I said I did not excuse bad shoots, just understand how they happen in some cases. Once again, not excusing them. The Mesa, AZ shoot is one in which I do not believe any defense was reasonable, I assert it was a flat out execution. Understanding how these things happen, and not just calling all cops bullies, which is an intellectually dishonest statement, is how we really create change. I agree with many of your points, but if a black kid shoots a cop over perception, they are wrong, just as the LEO who does the same thing is wrong. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior. You mention manners, and that is the tenant of manners. In the case of this shoot, that the post is based on, I watched it several times. I can not in good concious side with the wife for numerous reason, from her initial lies she was caught in, to the fact the cop, despite assertions to the contrary showed no visible signs of nervousness up to the point he begins saying do not reach several times and then opens fire. If his intention was to murder this guy, he would not have rotated to the front of the vehicle before shooting, he would have calmly pulled out his pistol and fired. I have seen close up shoot outs, and I can tell you nothing in this video screams murder happy cop. Does the wife deserve a pay out, sure. The child in the car was put in serious harm, there was trauma, and hopefully counseling and a college education paid for with this money or other useful spending of this money can help them move on. Unfortunately money does not help you forget. I got lots of money now and I remember ever horrible thing I have seen. But I have outlets now that help, and this payment hopefully can help with the road forward.
Understanding how these things happen, and not just calling all cops bullies, which is an intellectually dishonest statement, is how we really create change.
Not all of them, only the ones who shoot down unarmed people or use violence for no real reason, like that cop that arrested a nurse because she refused to let him take blood from an unconscious guy. They are only a tiny part of the police force, I believe. These things happen because in the USA a lot of people with problems, no matter if they are violent, bullys or just frustrated, end up shooting someone. Those bad shoots are nothing different, just those type of americans, that gunned down other guys because of their internal problems. Their job only lets them usually walk free. None of those bad shoots are accidents, they're a consequence of the fact that violent people have guns and once they snap they unleash their problems on other people. For people such those, it's only a matter of time, especially if they know that they will probably end up in a better spot after the shooting.
I agree with many of your points, but if a black kid shoots a cop over perception, they are wrong, just as the LEO who does the same thing is wrong. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
Of course, it's 100% wrong and something that should be avoided. But IMHO with this trend it's what will happen in America.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
We know that wouldn't happen though.
Well, there is at least a chance both would be charged now. That is an improvement. If it continues, it is only a matter of time* before "Blue Priviledge" will be worn out with juries.
*Time- This maybe measured in generations rather than years.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
We know that wouldn't happen though.
There are circumstances where using deadly force against unarmed individuals, by private citizens, is kosher. Having a weapon is not a prerequisite for getting you ass shot while committing a crime. Historically, there is closer scrutiny paid to police shootings of supposedly unarmed individuals than private citizens in the same situation.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
We know that wouldn't happen though.
Worked for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman's use of force was proven justified in the end. Even if ol' George is something of dick.
If it hadn't been an election year, making for a ripe sensationalist campaign opportunity to racially charge a story for ratings/circulation boosts, then we would have never heard of Zimmerman or Martin.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not enough evidence to convict and proven justified are two *very* different things.
They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with an eye witness account of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.
What you are saying is perfectly applicable to the original topic. That was just a case where there was not enough evidence and so settlements had to be made for some reason...though - the shooting could have been justified or have been a murder. Who knows?
Xenomancers wrote: They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.
There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not enough evidence to convict and proven justified are two *very* different things.
No, Zimmerman was acquitted because his testimony of events matched up with the forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and even matched up with Martin's last words to a female friend, on his cell phone, before the line went dead prior the event. There was plenty of evidence. And it was in favor of George Zimmerman. The State's witnesses, bought in by the Prosecution, ended up bolstering the Defense's case with their testimony.
This wasn't a case of an evil "white" racist out to kill a poor, innocent black boy. This was a tragic case of a troubled young man, walking down a dangerous path in life, making a bad (and eventually deadly) decision that evening. And he ended up eating a single 115 grain 9mm Sellier & Bellot hollowpoint, fired in self-defense from Zimmerman's Kel-Tec, as a result.
The police knew it. The jury knew it. The original prosecutor on the case (who saw no reason to bring it to trial) knew it, The member of the Special Prosecutor’s office (who was fired for doing what prosecutors are supposed to do and turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense) knew it. The defense knew it. And the Prosecution, whose whole case evolved from the media's manufactured fantasy, knew it. It was a taxpayer funded circus in response to the PR firm inspired frenzy whipped up by the media, and race problem profiteers, during an election year. I also find it very telling that the Martin family's lawyers (Crump and Jackson) hired a high powered PR magician (named Ryan Julison) to handle "media relations". And suddenly the outrage machine went into overdrive, when before there was hardly a peep about the shooting, other than your usual run of the mill news coverage.
Even the FBI, investigating potential Civil Rights Act violations on the part of Zimmerman, found no evidence that his actions were racially motivated.
Like many others, I think George Zimmerman is a dick. But dick, or not, his use of deadly force was legally justified. And he was acquitted as a result. Not from a simple "lack of evidence" to convict.
Xenomancers wrote: They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.
There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.
The eyewitness who saw the struggle never retracted what was told to police. To wit: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him. The other neighbors interviewed heard cries for help, a single shot, and then quiet. It was ascertained that the one crying out was Zimmerman. Combined with other evidence, the case wasn't in the Prosecution's favor.
redleger wrote: . You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.
The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.
We know that wouldn't happen though.
Well, there is at least a chance both would be charged now. That is an improvement. If it continues, it is only a matter of time* before "Blue Priviledge" will be worn out with juries.
*Time- This maybe measured in generations rather than years.
Of course there is that incident in Denver last week where one deputy was killed and several others shot up that is going to make police a tad antsy.
feeder wrote: In this brave new world, what feels like a fact is more important than what actually is a fact.
I don't consider self-appointed crusaders like Piers Morgan, Nancy Grace, HLN, CNN, MSNBC, or celebrities looking to score some PR points on social media, to be the arbiters of "facts". Even in this "Brave New World".
The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the public, thanks to the actions of flim-flam artists, before all the facts came to light in court. So, despite being acquitted of any criminal wrong doing by a jury, the public (those that still give a damn, at any rate) still believe the BS narrative spun that an innocent kid was murdered by Zimmerman.
I think with Zimmerman it's an issue of the dude seemingly involved himself in a situation he didn't need to, that got escalated to a point it never should have gotten to (neighborhood watch usually isn't thought of as proactive armed intervention when calling in suspiscous teenagers), and the dude can't seem to stop putting himself out there in ways that appear to invite confrontation of a similar nature, for little apparent good reason, and taking great pride in doing so.
That of course leads to very poor publicity, and a perception as a public menace by many. It doesn't help that the counterbacklash in support of zimmerman also seemed to take almost visceral glee in turning a teenager into some sort of monstrous boogeyman (with *generous* helpings of their own racial insinuations) in need of slaying and that the world was better off because of it, instead of treating it as the unfortunate results of an donkey-cave and an idiot teenager colliding.
Xenomancers wrote: They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.
There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.
Xenomancers wrote: They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.
There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.
The eyewitness who saw the struggle never retracted what was told to police.
No one claimed he did. You are inventing a strawman argument. What I said was that the single eyewitness strongly disagreed with the core argument of his defense: specifically, that he was having his head bashed in.
Asked by state prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda if he saw the “person on top” grabbing the head of the lighter skinned man and slamming it into the concrete, Good replied “No.”
oldravenman3025 wrote: To wit: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him. The other neighbors interviewed heard cries for help, a single shot, and then quiet.
None of which disagreed with my contention that Xenomancers was factually incorrect. A person who heard a fight is not an eyewitness.
This is also factually incorrect, or at best vague. The sole eyewitness, again:
Good also said that he was not sure who made the cries for help that several neighbors have described, although he said “the yelling sounded like it was coming from the person on the bottom.”
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers.
It's truly and deeply ironic you would post this despite at least 2 instances you engaged in historical revisionism of unpleasant facts in the last 2 hours.
feeder wrote: In this brave new world, what feels like a fact is more important than what actually is a fact.
I don't consider self-appointed crusaders like Piers Morgan, Nancy Grace, HLN, CNN, MSNBC, or celebrities looking to score some PR points on social media, to be the arbiters of "facts". Even in this "Brave New World".
The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the public, thanks to the actions of flim-flam artists, before all the facts came to light in court. So, despite being acquitted of any criminal wrong doing by a jury, the public (those that still give a damn, at any rate) still believe the BS narrative spun that an innocent kid was murdered by Zimmerman.
Surely my statement can be applied to those persons as well.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: - from the article.
This summer, St. Anthony agreed to pay a separate, nearly $3 million settlement to Mr. Castile’s estate. The city also reached a separation agreement with Officer Yanez and said he would not return to work there.
So now the tally is up to 3.8 million in settlements. That's some good justice there. I wonder the amount in settlements we'd have if Castile had pulled his gun out and greased both the officers?
How much money would you want in exchange for the cops needlessly shooting your significant other? I think Castille's family and loved ones would rather he not be dead then get this settlement.
I wish that St Anthony's had to pay even more. There's excuse for police training to produce officers that view citizens as mortal threats just because they're lawfully armed. Wisconsin is going to continue to issue concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens and the police are going to continue to have interactions with those citizens. Merely lawfully carrying isn't a justification for police to draw their weapons and point their guns at you while assuming you have ill intent towards them. If the bodycount and bad publicity isn't enough motivation for departments to have better training then hopefully massive settlements and higher insurance premiums will do the trick. I've had encounters with police while I was armed and everything went smoothly with a calm and professional demeanor from the LEOs, no guns drawn no screaming nobody died.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.
Dude...forensic evidence can't prove where your hand was during a shooting in which almost 10 rounds were fired. It's just not possible - even his he was shot in the hand. Whatever source claimed that is 100% gak.
It sucks but there just isn't enough evidence in this case. What we need is Body cameras on every officer - body cameras that never turn off.
I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?
"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.
Ouze wrote: I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?
"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.
I don't know the specifics of the case you are referring to but I think a body camera really would have been helpful in this case. If it gave a clear view of what Castle was doing with his hands anyways.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things.
In this Castle case - if we have video evidence of the victim raising his hands and getting blown away (not reaching for a gun) the police officer would have gone to jail for life. This is a good palce to start - whatever it costs IMO.
Body cameras are absolutely a component, their introduction needs to be increased, they should not be able to be turned off by the officer, and their footage needs to be made readily available and properly backed up (and not inconveniently lost as has happened in several instances).
That said, rules of engagement and qualified immunity are also way too loose. Neither an armed citizen nor a soldier in a warzone would get away with many shoots that police get away with, and that is a real issue. The training and mindset is very much "shoot first, ask questions later", "officer safety above all else", any possible hint of the most remote threat is perceived they are given the OK to clear leather and pull that trigger, and that leads to problems.
I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
Xenomancers wrote: I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.
feeder wrote: Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.
Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.
No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.
No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.
Dude...forensic evidence can't prove where your hand was during a shooting in which almost 10 rounds were fired. It's just not possible - even his he was shot in the hand. Whatever source claimed that is 100% gak.
It sucks but there just isn't enough evidence in this case. What we need is Body cameras on every officer - body cameras that never turn off.
The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol. Neither eyewitness testimony, from both officers and Diamond Reynolds, or video evidence from the squad car and the livestream provide any evidence of Castile's hand being in his pocket where is pistol was located. All the evidence points to Castile not reaching for his pistol which means he wasn't being noncompliant and didn't pose a threat and didn't need to be shot to death.
Here is Officer Yanez' testimony:
Yanez said Castile told him he had a gun at the same time he reached down between his right leg and the center console of the vehicle, the complaint said.
"And he put his hand around something," Yanez was quoted as saying. He said Castile's hand took a C-shape, "like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun."
Yanez said he then lost view of Castile's hand.
"I know he had an object and it was dark," he said. "And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die."
Yanez said he thought Castile had the gun in his right hand and he had "no option" but to shoot, the complaint said.
Accepting this testimony as truthful on face value then we know Castile's hand was between his leg and the center console. Where was his pistol? In the bottom of his shorts pocket where it was found by the EMTs who responded to the scene.
He [Castile] volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm, beyond what the law requires," Choi said. "He emphatically stated he was not pulling it out. He was restricted by his seat belt. He was accompanied by a woman and a young child."
Emergency medical personnel found a .40-caliber pistol in the right front pocket of Castile's shorts, Choi said. The gun was loaded but didn't have a round in the chamber, he said. Also found in Castile's clothing was his wallet, which contained his driver's license and a concealed carry permit, Choi said.
"We believe Philando Castile never tried to remove the gun from his right front pocket that was a foot deep," Choi said.
We also know that the bullet that hit Castile's trigger finger didn't damage his pistol or his pocket.
Prosecutor Jeff Paulsen highlighted autopsy evidence in his closing argument, reminding the jury of a bullet wound to what would have been Castile’s trigger finger — and that there was no corresponding bullet damage nor wounds in the area of Castile’s right shorts pocket, where he carried his gun. He also cited testimony from first responders who saw Castile’s gun in his pocket as he was loaded onto a backboard.
We also know that Officer Yanez never saw the gun because he says as much in the video of the incident:
“I don’t know where the gun was. He didn’t tell me where the (expletive) gun was. … I was (expletive) nervous. … I know I told him to get his hand off his (expletive) gun,” Yanez said in the dashcam recording.
During the trail Reynolds stated that Castile's hand was between his leg and the center console because Castile needed to unbuckle his seatbelt in order to get to his wallet so he could provide his DL and carry permit to Yanez.
“You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license,” Reynolds said to Yanez in the video. “Please don’t tell me he’s dead. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.”
Defense attorney Earl Gray pointed out inconsistencies in Reynolds’ version of what happened during his cross-examination. He focused on her statement that Castile had been reaching for his seat belt.
“Never … did you ever mention that he was trying to unlock his seat belt,” Gray told Reynolds of what she told police during her initial interviews about the incident. “You never said seat belt in the live-stream, did you?”
“No,” Reynolds responded.
“All the way through you said he was going for his wallet, correct,” Gray asked.
“That is correct,” Reynolds said.
She later clarified that while she said in her Facebook video and in later statements about the incident that Castile was reaching for his wallet, she implied that he needed to get his seat belt unbuckled first because it was preventing him from accessing it.
The only "evidence" there is of Castile being non compliant is Officer Yanez' interpretation of an ambiguous hand movement and there is ample evidence that Castile was in fact being compliant and not reaching for his pistol. Informing an LEO that you are lawfully armed isn't justification for having a gun pointed at you. Being lawfully armed doesn't make you an imminent threat to the officer or imply that you intend to do harm to the officer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
A better idea would be training LEOs not to draw on citizens simply because they are lawfully armed.
Xenomancers wrote: I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.
If they are reaching for a weapon is an actual reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestorjon
"The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol."
That would only be valid if only a single bullet was fired and even then it wouldn't be enough evidence. Because we don't know how exactly the man was sitting. However - I believe 9 shots were fired. There is no way to know which shot went through his hand. When you are getting shot at 9 times...you move around a little bit - it shouldn't really require explanation.
If cops are jumpy enough that people genuinely think citizens need to have a 'how not to get shot by the police at a traffic stop' video as part of driver's ed, then we need different cops.
Spinner wrote: If cops are jumpy enough that people genuinely think citizens need to have a 'how not to get shot by the police at a traffic stop' video as part of driver's ed, then we need different cops.
^
If we have to teach people to treat police officers like dangerous animals (no sudden movements, remain calm, dont run, etc), then that says a whole lot more about the police than it does anything else.
Xenomancers wrote: I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.
If they are reaching for a weapon is an actual reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestorjon
"The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol."
That would only be valid if only a single bullet was fired and even then it wouldn't be enough evidence. Because we don't know how exactly the man was sitting. However - I believe 9 shots were fired. There is no way to know which shot went through his hand. When you are getting shot at 9 times...you move around a little bit - it shouldn't really require explanation.
There's no evidence of any kind that shows that Castille ever put his hand on his pistol and there is ample evidence that the pistol never left his pocket. Therefore you claim that he was shot for being non compliant and reaching for his gun has no supporting evidence. There is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony from the officer who shot him that Castile's hand was outside his pocket so it's illogical to believe that he was reaching for the pistol that was in his pocket.
Your claim that getting shot 9 times makes the fact that his hand was shot while outside of his pocket away from his gun irrelevant is ludicrous. Do you think that Castille reached into his pocket grabbed his gun, was then shot multiple times by Yanez and while being shot Castille released his grip on his pistol, which somehow slid back into the bottom of his shorts pocket while Castille was in a seated position behind the steering wheel with his seat belt fastened, then Castille withdrew has hand from his pocket where it was shot in his trigger finger with one of the later rounds discharged by Yanez? That all of that happened within the few seconds that Yanez fired his shots into Castille and that Castille's body and the pistol behaved in such a fashion? Taking a few shots of 9mm to the torso while in a restrained seated position isn't going to make your body rag doll to the extent that you hand will simultaneously let go of the pistol your gripping and come flying out of your pocket to be hit with subsequent shots. You're going through a lot of mental gymnastics to try to justify the shootings which boils down to Yanez being scared and shooting Castile based on his interpretation of an ambiguous movement that wasn't overtly threatening at all.
I'm just saying nothing can be proven ether way. Being shot in the hand means nothing - he could have had his hand in the pocket and it came out somewhere within the 9 shots fired and got hit then.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm just saying nothing can be proven ether way. Being shot in the hand means nothing - he could have had his hand in the pocket and it came out somewhere within the 9 shots fired and got hit then.
By proven, what exactly do you mean?
The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.
Xenomancers wrote:I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.
Xenomancers wrote:I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.
The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.
In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.
Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.
Ouze wrote: I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?
"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.
I don't know the specifics of the case you are referring to but I think a body camera really would have been helpful in this case. If it gave a clear view of what Castle was doing with his hands anyways.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things.
In this Castle case - if we have video evidence of the victim raising his hands and getting blown away (not reaching for a gun) the police officer would have gone to jail for life. This is a good palce to start - whatever it costs IMO.
I'm not sure what you think goes on daily in combat, but dead kids are rare, and are rarely killed by people on the ground except in the most unusual and extreme of circumstances. Trigger discipline, threat identification, and escalation of force training happens daily before deployments, and constantly while deployed. Cops receive it rarely and have to certify on average yearly, some more. Soldiers qualify on these tasks quarterly and train on them daily. There is a supervisor who's main purpose in life is training them to not do stupid gak in combat. So while your statement about stakes being higher is absolutely correct, we trained to a higher standard for the purpose of only killing people that need to be killed lawfully in combat operations an no one else . now if you refer to bombed schools and hospitals, that is a different subject which I do not see how it can apply to this conversation, since cops do not have bombers circling the sky and AC-130 gun ship running around shooting 105mm howitzers out of the side.
The last major atrocity that took place was Robert Bales and he came from my Brigade while I was in Afghanistan; he will never see freedom again.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things. .
So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.
Xenomancers wrote:I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.
For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.
I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.
The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.
In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement
If people have to learn rules for interacting with law enforcement and treat them the way they do dangerous animals (no sudden movement, remain calm, don't run, etc) to avoid getting killed, that's a problem with law enforcement.
because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.
Or because they may realize that, from a legal perspective, there's really very little reason for the average citizen to want to have any interaction with the police. When the police can lie to you (and in fact do so as a routine part of procedure) but lying to them is a crime, can take your money and stuff even though you've been neither convicted nor even arrested and then put it to their own use/profit, can be ignorant of the law in investigation and enforcement (Heien v NC), and are under no legal duty to actually protect you, it's no wonder many people just don't like police even if they've done nothing wrong.
My experience on a jury a couple of months ago painfully undercut my impression of my local police. This was a Marijuana DUI case in a state where recreational MJ is legal. I was not left feeling confident in my local law enforcement after seeing 3 different officers and the State Toxicologist contradict each other multiple times on several counts (for example, one officer brought in from a nearby other department for a second opinion said they had very definitely noticed a strong green tongue, but a senior DUI specialist officer that had examined the alleged half an hour before had stated they had not seen such and would not have expected to see such given the type of marijuana use in question) and multiple other non-trivial mistakes (such as neither the DA nor any of the officers realized that the initial stop was predicated on what was believed to have been a run red light that was actually an unlighted yield lane...until the defense lawyer pointed that out in court with pictures of the intersection, which was a real awkward moment in court).
As such, when I see local police, I'm not filled with warm fuzzies. That's got nothing to do with "**** da po-leece" or "I pay your salary oinker", that's a "I'm not confident in the work these people do". It's not hard to see how that turns into "**** da po-leece" when that is a widespread perception in many communities.
Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.
Given that US law enforcement shoots and kills orders of magnitude more people than police in other developed nations, people see a systemic issue arising. German police shot and killed 13 people in 2016. US police shot and killed almost 1100, adjusted for population size differences, police in the US shoot and kill people at ~21x the rate of German law enforcement. You can see similar stats across pretty much all of western europe, japan, singapore, etc. One can make the argument that because the US is inherently a more violent place, police are going to have more violent encounters, but the rate of police shootings dramatically outstrips most differences in violent crime rates by several multiples (e.g. the homicide rate in Germany is 4-5x that of the US, but nowhere near the 21x rate of police killings) and there appears to be no correlation between violent crime rate and number of US police shootings at least within different areas of the US. Add to that major racial disparities in the population subset of people shot and killed by police (no matter how you want to explain them), and it's not hard to see why there are perceptions that there are problems with policing.
Yes, there is grandstanding, exaggerations, lies, hype, spin etc involved in this. Absolutely, the outrage machine plays that hard and certainly exists. It exists on all sides however, and any trivial action or character flaw on the part of those shot and killed by police, no matter how minor, also get seized upon and exaggerated by the other wing as perfect justification for anything the police do. Lets not pretend that such is one-sided.
oldravenman3025 wrote:
The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.
I see those videos via the US media, Here there's really not much attention paid to that situations beside occasionally in a documentary when it fits the topic and the USA somehow come up (or the occasional really big fuckup). It's just me seeing horrible stuff that no police officer would get away with over here (be it the action itself or the excuse afterwards), and the US police killing people at a higher rate than most other developed nations.
In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.
And "no desire to learn the basic rules for interacting with the law". Are you a human or a dog who needs to be trained to behave and not piss off a police officer? People shouldn't need to practice interactions with the police just so they don't get shot. That's some dystopian nightmare material. And even if some donkey-cave were to start with a tacky "I pay your salary" line (or worse) the officer—who is trained for the job—should be able to defuse that situation because that the job they chose and they should be proficient. It's telling that the police gets to the excuse of "I feared for my life" but civilians are supposed to play some emotionless robot just to reduce the chance of getting shot. That's completely backwards.
What's next, garbage collectors who don't want to touch the bin because it's icky?
Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.
When I see a video of somebody being shot dead for moving slightly in a way that displeases the officer and then all the devils advocacy starts with the usual "but he moved" or he didn't instantly follow the order (freezing out of fear and panic doesn't count for the civilian?) or because they didn't understand what the officer was saying then yes that's just people having the flimsiest excuses for gakky behaviour by the police (and it's similar reasoning that often leads to really soft penalties for the officer). That just shouldn't be normal behaviour for a police officer (or any other person).
feth that bs. You want Real World: In the US the police does shoot and kill at a rate that is much higher than in any developed country (over an order of magnitude higher and more per capita). You are free to keep living in your dream world and pretending that such a discrepancy in the numbers is totally normal and not something to be worried about.
My experience on a jury a couple of months ago painfully undercut my impression of my local police. This was a Marijuana DUI case in a state where recreational MJ is legal. I was not left feeling confident in my local law enforcement after seeing 3 different officers and the State Toxicologist contradict each other multiple times on several counts (for example, one officer brought in from a nearby other department for a second opinion said they had very definitely noticed a strong green tongue, but a senior DUI specialist officer that had examined the alleged half an hour before had stated they had not seen such and would not have expected to see such given the type of marijuana use in question) and multiple other non-trivial mistakes (such as neither the DA nor any of the officers realized that the initial stop was predicated on what was believed to have been a run red light that was actually an unlighted yield lane...until the defense lawyer pointed that out in court with pictures of the intersection, which was a real awkward moment in court).
As such, when I see local police, I'm not filled with warm fuzzies. That's got nothing to do with "**** da po-leece" or "I pay your salary oinker", that's a "I'm not confident in the work these people do". It's not hard to see how that turns into "**** da po-leece" when that is a widespread perception in many communities.
It doesn't really help either that whenever a shooting case goes to trial the whole thing becomes a glorious smorgasbord of contradiction, bizarre justification, and outright lying. The Castile case itself was a good example. Then there's the other recent case where body camera footage so damning that I think anyone who saw it and defended the officers involved can just be set to ignore permanently with no loss, but because the footage was so damning it got thrown out by a judge? I think if I murdered someone in front of a camera with custom gun slide that read "you're fethed" I'd never be shown such deference. That video would have been shown in court, the gun would have been shown, and I'd be in jail drop of a hat.
I'm less concerned about it now than I used to be. Especially now that incidents involving otherwise law abiding white Americans are starting to hit the public mind people are ignoring the problem less and less (and seriously that's just a whole other fething kettle there but w/e take what you can get I guess) .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: People shouldn't need to practice interactions with the police just so they don't get shot. That's some dystopian nightmare material. And even if some donkey-cave were to start with a tacky "I pay your salary" line (or worse) the officer—who is trained for the job—should be able to defuse that situation because that the job they chose and they should be proficient. It's telling that the police gets to the excuse of "I feared for my life" but civilians are supposed to play some emotionless robot just to reduce the chance of getting shot. That's completely backwards.
Pretty sure that kind of stuff is in most dystopian fiction as a go to scene for establishing "yes this is a dystopian fiction"
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things. .
So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.
That is the end result.
It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things. .
So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.
That is the end result.
It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.
The supposition is utterly false though, I have explained several times in these forums why its false, but whatever, muh narrative.
Ouze wrote: I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?
"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.
I don't know the specifics of the case you are referring to but I think a body camera really would have been helpful in this case. If it gave a clear view of what Castle was doing with his hands anyways.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things.
In this Castle case - if we have video evidence of the victim raising his hands and getting blown away (not reaching for a gun) the police officer would have gone to jail for life. This is a good palce to start - whatever it costs IMO.
I'm not sure what you think goes on daily in combat, but dead kids are rare, and are rarely killed by people on the ground except in the most unusual and extreme of circumstances. Trigger discipline, threat identification, and escalation of force training happens daily before deployments, and constantly while deployed. Cops receive it rarely and have to certify on average yearly, some more. Soldiers qualify on these tasks quarterly and train on them daily. There is a supervisor who's main purpose in life is training them to not do stupid gak in combat. So while your statement about stakes being higher is absolutely correct, we trained to a higher standard for the purpose of only killing people that need to be killed lawfully in combat operations an no one else . now if you refer to bombed schools and hospitals, that is a different subject which I do not see how it can apply to this conversation, since cops do not have bombers circling the sky and AC-130 gun ship running around shooting 105mm howitzers out of the side.
The last major atrocity that took place was Robert Bales and he came from my Brigade while I was in Afghanistan; he will never see freedom again.
I agree with everything you just said.
My previous statement was talking of the standard of "how they should be punished if they make a mistake and kill the wrong guy". US soldiers are trained much better than US police - I wasn't arguing against that.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm just saying nothing can be proven ether way. Being shot in the hand means nothing - he could have had his hand in the pocket and it came out somewhere within the 9 shots fired and got hit then.
By proven, what exactly do you mean?
The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.
They don't align. Because no evidence exist to align to that conclusion. It is impossible to prove where castile's hands were at the time of the shooting without video evidence. The only thing that "shot in the hand/hand was not in pocket" qubit is that - Castile's hand was not in his pocket when he got shot in the hand - over the course of 9 shots. His hand could have never been in the pocket or it could have got shot after the first shot while out of the pocket. It's very likely that his hand would have come out of his pocket if getting shot in the chest on shot 1 too.
I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things. .
So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.
That is the end result.
It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.
The supposition is utterly false though, I have explained several times in these forums why its false, but whatever, muh narrative.
What are you calling untrue? The international bit?
I feel cop apologist get closer and closer to this everyday:
Spoiler:
"But he moved his hand!" is not a valid reason to kill someone. If cops are so scared or trigger happy that they shoot a compliant, lawful abiding citizen then they never deserved to be a cop in the first place.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm just saying nothing can be proven ether way. Being shot in the hand means nothing - he could have had his hand in the pocket and it came out somewhere within the 9 shots fired and got hit then.
By proven, what exactly do you mean?
The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.
They don't align. Because no evidence exist to align to that conclusion. It is impossible to prove where castile's hands were at the time of the shooting without video evidence. The only thing that "shot in the hand/hand was not in pocket" qubit is that - Castile's hand was not in his pocket when he got shot in the hand - over the course of 9 shots. His hand could have never been in the pocket or it could have got shot after the first shot while out of the pocket. It's very likely that his hand would have come out of his pocket if getting shot in the chest on shot 1 too.
We have the sworn testimony of two eye witnesses. Officer Yanez states that he observed Castil place his right hand between his right leg and the center console and grab an object with his hand. Diamond Reynolds stated that Castile reached down with his right hand to unbuckle his seat belt so he could reach for his wallet. Both witnessing testified that Castile’s hand was outside his pocket which is consistent with the forensic evidence that his hand was outside of his pocket when it was struck by one of Yanez’ bullets. While it is not literally impossible that Castile’s hand wasn’t in his pocket all of the evidence we have makes it highly unlikely.
There was no reason for Castile to put his hand in his pocket in the first place. Why would he reach for his pistol? He had already pulled over with no issue or resistance when Yanez put his lights on, was sitting calmly in the car with the engine off and window down, had already handed over his insurance card and politely told Yanez he had a state issued concealed carry permit and was lawfully armed. His girlfriend and her child were in the car with him, a second officer was already on the scene and Castile’s pistol had an empty chamber. Castile would have had to dig his pistol out of the bottom of his pocket with his seat belt still fastened them bring it up around the steering wheel and rack the slide to chamber a round and start a gunfight with a police officer that was standing 2 feet away from him already pointing a loaded gun at him.
This also highlights the insanity of Yanez pointing a gun at Castile in the first place. Minnesota law requires concealed permit holders who are armed to disclose the fact that they are lawfully armed anytime they interact with law enforcement. Castile calmly told Yanez that he had a permit and was lawfully armed. How did Yanez react? Yanez became scared that Castile was going to try to murder him so he drew his duty pistol and pointed it at Castile. Castile calmly obeying the law triggered a reaction by Yanez to fear for his life and hold Castile at gunpoint. That’s an insane over reaction by Yanez. Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets. It’s indefensible behavior by Yanez. It doesn’t matter what the verdict was in the trial. Simply avoiding a murder conviction doesn’t mean that everything is ok. There is no reason for police to treat citizens with concealed carry permits like enemy combatants.
Prestor Jon wrote: Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets.
Objection! Castile smelled of marijuana, and a guy who would expose his child to secondhand smoke clearly would think nothing of murdering a police officer!
Prestor Jon wrote: Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets.
Objection! Castile smelled of marijuana, and a guy who would expose his child to secondhand smoke clearly would think nothing of murdering a police officer!
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
Castile was driving in a safe and lawful manner, not showing any signs of impairment. According to his sworn testimony Yanez told Castile that the only reason he pulled him over was for a nonworking brake light. Since there is no evidence that Castile's ability to operate the vehicle the fact that marijuana DUI laws exist isn't relevant to this incident. Castile had no criminal history of drug offenses, he had never received a marijuana DUI or had any felony convictions of any kind. Castile had maintained a clean criminal record for the entire time he had his carry permit and if he hadn't been shot to death by Officer Yanez then there wouldn't have been a need to do an autopsy that discovered THC in Castile's blood and people wouldn't be attempting to use it as some kind of post facto justification for his death.
The first thing he noticed when approaching the car, Yanez told investigators, was the smell of burning marijuana, according to the verbatim transcripts of the interview.
“I told them the reason for the traffic stop and then I wasn’t going to say anything about the marijuana yet because I didn’t want to scare him or have him react in a defensive manner. Um, he didn’t make direct eye contact with me and it was very hard to hear him, Uh he was almost mumbling when he was talking to me. And he was directing his voice away from me as he was speaking and as I was asking questions. Uh he kept his, hands in view and then I uh I believe I asked for, his license and insurance. And then I believe they told me, they asked for the reason for my traffic stop. And I told ’em the reason was the only, I think I told ’em the only rea, the reason I pulled you over is because the only active brake light working was the rear passenger side brake light.”
The traffic stop quickly shifted, Yanez said, when Castile told him he had a gun. Outside the car, Yanez could be seen sliding his hand onto his gun. According to Yanez, at the same time, he saw Castile “reaching down between his right leg, his right thigh area and the center console.”
Later, Yanez was asked again about what he perceived as Castile’s “general disposition.” The officer said Castile’s body language “appeared defensive to me,” and then described the interaction this way:
“As I was giving him direction about what to give me and to keep his hand in view um like I said I felt that he had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He didn’t want to follow what I was saying so he just wanted to do what he wanted to do.”
Yanez was also asked later about his previous experience with drivers who say they have firearms, and he said that drivers “always tell me that when they’re gonna reach for something and where their wallets at or what they’re gonna do.”
In the dash-cam video, moments after he is mortally wounded, Castile can be heard saying: “I wasn’t reaching.” It is the last time he is heard speaking on the dash-cam recording.
At the point when Yanez is reaching to draw his own pistol the only evidence of any kind of criminal activity on the part of Castile is the marijuana odor inside the car. Castile had a cop aim a loaded pistol at his chest because his car smelled like marijuana and he told the officer that he had a valid concealed carry permit after he calmly handed over his insurance card.
If Yanez wanted to know the location of Castile's weapon or the location of Castile's wallet he could have asked but he chose not to do so. If Yanez wanted Castile to keep his hands on the wheel or to hold them up he could have instructed Castile to do so but he chose not to do that. He told Castile not to reach for it.
According to Yanez, before he opened fire, Castile kept moving his hand. From the transcript:
Yanez: “I, believe I continued to tell him don’t do it or don’t reach for it and he still continued to move. And, it appeared to me that be had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He still reached down. … And, at that point I, was scared and I was, in fear for my life and my partner’s life. And for the little girl in the back and the front seat passenger and he dropped his hand down and, can’t remember what I was telling him but I was telling something as his hand went down I think. And, he put his hand around something. And his hand made like a C shape type um type shape and it appeared to me that he was wrapping something around his fingers and almost like if I were to put my uh hand around my gun like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun.”
Investigator: “Okay.”
Yanez: “That’s what it appeared to me.”
Yanez then said he kept seeing Castile moving his hand and “saw something in his hand,” adding that the driver “had no regard for what I was saying. Didn’t follow my direction.”
In the video recordings, Reynolds can be heard disputing this from inside the car, saying that Castile, who had been asked for his license when the stop began, was reaching for his ID, not for a gun.
Yanez, though, said he believed Castile had grabbed a gun:
“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out I, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die. And, I was scared because, I didn’t know if he was gonna, I didn’t know what he was gonna do. He just had somethin’ uh his hands and he, the first words that he said to me were, some of the first words he said is that he had a gun. And I thought he was reaching for the gun. I thought he had the gun in his hand, in his right hand. And I thought he had it enough to where all he had to do is just pull it out, point it at me, move his trigger finger down on the trigger and let off rounds. And I had no other option than, to take out my firearm and, and I shot. Um I shot him.”
Yanez said he did not remember the first two shots, but he remembered the last two. He also said he tried directing his gunfire “down as best I could,” to avoid Reynolds and her daughter. In his interview, Yanez said again moments later that he thought he saw Castile’s gun in his hands, and when asked about this later, Yanez said it looked to him like Yanez’s hand was “wrapped around the butt of a gun.”
“I just knew it was dark and I could barely see and I thought it was a firearm and I thought he was gonna shoot and kill me and I thought he was gonna shoot and kill my partner right after that.”
In describing his decision to fire, Yanez brought up the marijuana again, saying the smell was on his mind when he began shooting:
“As that was happening as he was pulling at, out his hand I thought, I was gonna die and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me. And, I let off the rounds and then after the rounds were off, the little girls was screaming.”
Yanez said he did not remember seeing anything in Castile’s hands after the gunshots. According to court records, officers and paramedics removed a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun from Castile’s pocket once he was taken out of the car; the gun had a loaded magazine but no round chambered.
Yanez stated that he saw Castile's hand gripping an object between his right leg and the center console. Castile's hand couldn't be inside his pants pocket trying to pull out his pistol unless Yanez is lying about seeing Castile's hand grab an object between his leg and the center console. The explanation that Castile was reaching with his right hand to unbuckle his seatbelt is an explanation that fits the testimony of both Yanez and Reynolds and the dying words of Castile himself. It's a better explanation than Castile deciding to pull over directly, listen to Yanez's explanation that he was pulled over for a broken tail light (never mentioning marijuana at all), calmly provide his insurance card, inform Yanez he was lawfully armed and then decide Oh no! I got lit this morning, if this cop finds out I'm doomed, I'm gonna have to kill him now!
It's important to remember that what the jury decided was that it was reasonable for Yanez to perceive that Castile's actions as an imminent threat, not that Castile actually intended to harm Yanez. The prosecution believed that Officer Yanez didn't control the encounter properly which led to a misunderstanding that led to Castile's unnecessary death. The jury decided that the shooting was a reasonable response to how Yanez perceived Castile's actions. Castile could have been acting in good faith the entire time and Yanez could perceive that good faith behavior as a threat, kill Castile and not be guilty of a crime. The amount of leeway given to LEOs to justify a lethal response puts a tremendous responsibility on their shoulders to properly control situations to avoid missteps that lead to a breakdown in communication that causes needless deaths. Those unnecessary deaths should never be excused or dismissed, they should be used as a catalyst for implementing measures to prevent them from ever recurring.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
Co'tor Shas wrote: But haven't you heard Ouze? Despite felonious deaths of LEOs being at some of the lowest point they have been since the 60's police are under siege!
I end up posting it in every police shooting thread sooner or later, so might as well now. There was a real and alarming spike in police deaths from 1965 to 1975. Deaths more than doubled. Police developed new techniques like special weapons teams, but mostly they shifted in culture. Community policing was replaced by law enforcement, if you get my meaning. And to be honest the changes were justified, because police deaths were increasing at a frightening rate, and were on track to start return to prohibition era levels if the trend continued for another decade.
But then something happened - the number of police deaths started falling as fast as it had risen. By 1985 it was lower than it had ever been, and since then its only gotten lower. But the police culture still hasn't normalised. Police are still acting like they're in a hostile environment, when that hostile environment went away decades ago.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual?
Is any of it not factual? Yeah. All of it is opinion. None of your assertions are "fact".
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
Spoiler:
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
Do you find it odd that cops always smell pot at traffic stops? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that most narcotics are out of your system in 24-48 hours and THC remains for up to 30 days. Yeah, I'm sure they are not playing the long odds when they are lying to detain someone.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
sebster wrote:There was a real and alarming spike in police deaths from 1965 to 1975. Deaths more than doubled. Police developed new techniques like special weapons teams, but mostly they shifted in culture. Community policing was replaced by law enforcement, if you get my meaning. And to be honest the changes were justified, because police deaths were increasing at a frightening rate, and were on track to start return to prohibition era levels if the trend continued for another decade.
But then something happened - the number of police deaths started falling as fast as it had risen. By 1985 it was lower than it had ever been, and since then its only gotten lower. But the police culture still hasn't normalised. Police are still acting like they're in a hostile environment, when that hostile environment went away decades ago.
Maybe drastically changing the police culture wasn't justified but just a emotional reaction to something they couldn't control? And now that this culture has established itself as the status quo it's hard to change to something that's less twitchy/murdery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
Spoiler:
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
Anecdotal to your very last sentence, Im high right now and I don't wanna shoot no one. But would a cop feel the same way if I was smoking in my vehicle, fit the "description" of someone on the BOLO, who failed to follow instructions to reach where he told me there was a weapon? I don't know.
Mario wrote: Maybe drastically changing the police culture wasn't justified but just a emotional reaction to something they couldn't control? And now that this culture has established itself as the status quo it's hard to change to something that's less twitchy/murdery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It doesn't really matter if the increase in danger was due to anything under police control or not. When a job becomes more dangerous, employers and employees naturally take more precautions. That's just going to happen in any profession.
The issue is that as things became safer, and are now safer than they've ever been, that culture of ultra-awareness of possible danger is still omni-present. Changing that culture is, well, as hard any cultural change is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been attempted and managed long before now. The problem is no real attempt has been made, at either a political or administrative level, largely because people still like to believe that the US is a wild, crime ridden jungle.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
[spoiler]
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
Anecdotal to your very last sentence, Im high right now and I don't wanna shoot no one. But would a cop feel the same way if I was smoking in my vehicle, fit the "description" of someone on the BOLO, who failed to follow instructions to reach where he told me there was a weapon? I don't know.
The only aspect of Castile that fit the BOLO description was his ethnicity that’s it. If his car hadn’t had a broken taillight then Yanez wouldn’t have had a pretext to pull him over in the first place.
And while I’m not high at the moment the struggle of fixing spoiler tags on my iPhone sure makes me wish I was.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
You are right, but without ESP there is no way for a cop to know that, and people in that situation push the boundaries occasionally so the assumption is one that can get you killed. Not likely but still possible.
And... if he was such a pot addled lunatic that would try to gun down a cop for a possible misdemeanor or minor traffic violation, why did he not do it the other 55 times he was pulled over or 22 times he was arrested? Yeah, it wasn't the person who never should of had a badge it was REEFER MADNESS.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
You are right, but without ESP there is no way for a cop to know that, and people in that situation push the boundaries occasionally so the assumption is one that can get you killed. Not likely but still possible.
You don't need ESP to know that when an individual is cooperating with you and has been acting in a cooperative manner the whole time during your interaction that (spoiler alert) you're not likely in any danger.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
And no, smelling like something is not enough to warrant an arrest, they have to prove you were breaking the law (ergo, use of the SFST which is weighted towards the cop, or a blood/breathalyzer test).
However that's all for alcohol, I'm not sure what rules they put in place for marijuana yet, so they very well might need more (or a warrant) to actually to do anything.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
The "description of a robbery suspect" that Castile fit was having a "wide nose." That is extremely tenuous at best.
Traffic violations that didn't pose a public safety risk or cause any accidents but did rack up fines he couldn't pay doesn't make Castile a dangerous criminal. Castile also managed to eventually pay off all his fines and resolve all of his cases. He had paid off his remaining balance and had resolved all his cases months prior to the final traffic stop.
How do you figure that it was "inevitable" that a citizen that was repeatedly fined for driving without insurance or on a suspended license and got a few parking tickets would be killed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop?
The threshold for justifying the behavior of Officer Yanez that you're establishing is so low that by its standard we should expect the vast majority of routine traffic stops to be conducted at gunpoint.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
spoiler
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
spoiler
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
This is directly from your quote-
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
In my response to Prestor Jon's post I outline the paragraph that specifically states MJ is omit from the 0 tolerance policy (AKA if you have had any amount in your system) It functions just like alcohol where you have to prove significant impairment. It is not omitted from DUI. Did you honestly think a state would legal sanction driving while stoned?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-jurors-hear-audio-from-after-deadly-shooting/ "Reynolds acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Earl Gray that she and Castile smoked regularly. She also acknowledged marijuana was in the car at the time."
"Gray cited a Facebook video Reynolds posted showing her and Castile smoking pot in a car with her daughter in the back seat the day before the shooting, but Castile's use of marijuana the day of the shooting wasn't addressed."
This establishes that he was likely high at the time of the stop - because they smoke in the car.
You are correct it never got that far. It was however the next logical step they were going to take. Arresting a person for a crime they are currently committing is standard procedure to check them for other crimes they are suspected off . For example - if they arrested him for DUI they would have him in jail to do lineups to see if the store owner that was robbed could identify him, ect.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
spoiler
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
This is directly from your quote-
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
In my response to Prestor Jon's post I outline the paragraph that specifically states MJ is omit from the 0 tolerance policy (AKA if you have had any amount in your system) It functions just like alcohol where you have to prove significant impairment. It is not omitted from DUI. Did you honestly think a state would legal sanction driving while stoned?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-jurors-hear-audio-from-after-deadly-shooting/ "Reynolds acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Earl Gray that she and Castile smoked regularly. She also acknowledged marijuana was in the car at the time."
"Gray cited a Facebook video Reynolds posted showing her and Castile smoking pot in a car with her daughter in the back seat the day before the shooting, but Castile's use of marijuana the day of the shooting wasn't addressed."
This establishes that he was likely high at the time of the stop - because they smoke in the car.
You are correct it never got that far. It was however the next logical step they were going to take. Arresting a person for a crime they are currently committing is standard procedure to check them for other crimes they are suspected off . For example - if they arrested him for DUI they would have him in jail to do lineups to see if the store owner that was robbed could identify him, ect.
You ARE allowed to drink and drive, so long as you're under whatever the limit is (i.e. Minnesota is 0.08% BAC), so yes some usage is permitted, and again, from the way he drove and acted it's clear he wasn't stoned out of his mind like you're making him out to be.
And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.
Minnesota DUI law:
2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .
State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?
This is directly from your quote-
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
I'll be more clear. Your assertion that Castile would get busted for DUI because he had THC in his bloodstream is false. Simply having THC in his bloodstream does not mean that Castile would be guilty of a DUI if there wasn't evidence of his ability to drive being impaired. Castile was not driving erratically, he had not committed a moving violation, he was driving in a safe and lawful manner. He was only pulled over because he "had a wide nose" and a broken tail light.
If you pull somebody over for having a broken tail light and find THC in their blood stream that is not grounds for a DUI charge because Minnesota exempted marijuana from their zero tolerance DUI law. If Yanez had pulled Castile over for driving dangerously or because he committed a moving violation and then found that Castile had THC in his system then Castile could get charged with a DUI. In this incident Castile could not have been charged with a DUI, at worst he could get charged with possession if Yanez found marijuana on his person or in the car.
Driving a car that smells like marijuana =\= a DUI in Minnesota. Safely and lawfully operating a vehicle in Minnesota with THC in your system =\= a DUI in Minnesota. So why do you think Castile was going to get charged with a DUI?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. What you should or shouldn't do to avoid making a cop nervous is dependent on the cop that pulls you over.
And again, Yanez testified in court that he shot Castile because he saw Castile's bare hand grasping an object between his right leg and the center console so I don't know why you keep stating that Castile had his hand in his pocket unless you think Yanez lied under oath.
Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Xenomancers wrote: Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
There is no zero tolerance policy in Minnesota for driving with THC in your system. Castile can drive all over Minnesota with THC in his bloodstream it's not illegal. It would only be illegal if the amount of THC in his system was great enough to impair his driving ability to the extent that he was driving in an erratic/unsafe/unlawful manner. Since there is literally zero evidence from the dash cam of Yanez's car, the radio call from Yanez or the testimony of Yanez that Castile's driving ability was impaired there's no way to charge Castile with a DUI.
2017 Minnesota Statutes
169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION.
Subd. 4.Requirement of urine or blood test. A blood or urine test may be required pursuant to a search warrant under sections 626.04 to 626.18 even after a breath test has been administered if there is probable cause to believe that:
(1) there is impairment by a controlled substance or a hazardous substance that is not subject to testing by a breath test;
(2) a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(3) the person is unconscious or incapacitated to the point that the peace officer providing a breath test advisory, administering a breath test, or serving the search warrant has a good-faith belief that the person is mentally or physically unable to comprehend the breath test advisory or otherwise voluntarily submit to chemical tests.
Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test under this subdivision only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered. This limitation does not apply to an unconscious person under the circumstances described in clause (3).
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
"And again, Yanez testified in court that he shot Castile because he saw Castile's bare hand grasping an object between his right leg and the center console so I don't know why you keep stating that Castile had his hand in his pocket unless you think Yanez lied under oath."
Given the proximity of the the two places and the fact that it was dark and said he couldn't see really good it could hardly be considered a lie if that were the case. However - everything I am reading from his actual sworn testimony says he reached for his pocket.
Xenomancers wrote: Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
There is no zero tolerance policy in Minnesota for driving with THC in your system. Castile can drive all over Minnesota with THC in his bloodstream it's not illegal. It would only be illegal if the amount of THC in his system was great enough to impair his driving ability to the extent that he was driving in an erratic/unsafe/unlawful manner. Since there is literally zero evidence from the dash cam of Yanez's car, the radio call from Yanez or the testimony of Yanez that Castile's driving ability was impaired there's no way to charge Castile with a DUI.
2017 Minnesota Statutes
169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION.
Subd. 4.Requirement of urine or blood test. A blood or urine test may be required pursuant to a search warrant under sections 626.04 to 626.18 even after a breath test has been administered if there is probable cause to believe that:
(1) there is impairment by a controlled substance or a hazardous substance that is not subject to testing by a breath test;
(2) a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(3) the person is unconscious or incapacitated to the point that the peace officer providing a breath test advisory, administering a breath test, or serving the search warrant has a good-faith belief that the person is mentally or physically unable to comprehend the breath test advisory or otherwise voluntarily submit to chemical tests.
Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test under this subdivision only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered. This limitation does not apply to an unconscious person under the circumstances described in clause (3).
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
How hard is it to have both hands on the wheel and have your licence and CCW in your hand at the same time? It's not contradicting at all. You should do both of these things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor - what part of that legal code specifies that in order to get DUI for MJ - you have to be seen driving eradicly? What part specifies that a feild test couldn't be used to determine intoxication?
@ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
How hard is it to have both hands on the wheel and have your licence and CCW in your hand at the same time? It's not contradicting at all. You should do both of these things.
How hard is it to recognize that I, like most (probably all) people don't drive with my license, registration, insurance and CCW in my hands while I grip the wheel. When you get pulled over by the police they are behind your car watching you while they run your plate and then watching you as they walk up to your car. Do you want to be reaching into your glove box for your registration and insurance and digging your DL and CCW out of your wallet while the cop that pulled you over is walking up to your car and can't see what you're reaching for? Or do you wait until the cop is next to you to reach for anything in your car so the cop can see your hands and know what you're grabbing?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor - what part of that legal code specifies that in order to get DUI for MJ - you have to be seen driving eradicly? What part specifies that a feild test couldn't be used to determine intoxication?
The statute I already posted explains that a police officer can get a search warrant to get a blood or urine sample for drug testing following a traffic stop provided there is probable cause that the person is suffering from impairment from a controlled substance that won't be detected by a breathalyzer, a schedule I or II drug other than marijuana or the person is unconscious or incapacitated.
There is no magic number for THC like there is for alcohol. It's not a crime to get pulled over and be found to have X amount of THC in your system. If you're exhibited impaired driving behavior and then you're found with marijuana in your system you can get a DUI charge because you were driving impaired. If you driving ability isn't impaired then the amount of THC in your system is irrelevant. Simply being high on marijuana isn't a crime in Minnesota, whether you're driving or not.
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.
This can be difficult to prove in many instances, however, because marijuana has a relatively short high. It can also stay in a user’s system for up to 30 days, which means that a person may test positive for marijuana even if he or she did not smoke it prior to or while driving a vehicle.
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
He wasn't going to be arrested most likely (for an out tail light, really? Or was it the weed that was perfectly legal? or the unimpaired driving? Which of those are arrest worthy?), and if he was it probably would have been bad for the PD. And again, try doing a SFST yourself, it's not easy OR reliable. Stumble? Put your arms out for balance during the walking portion? Can't recite the alphabet backwards without hesitation? Congrats! the officer could say you seem impaired and failed the test! The SFST is entirely subjective and hard enough when done without any pressure, and somewhere around of 1/3 of sober drivers fail the SFST. Refusing the SFST is perfectly legal (and not subject to being arrested on the spot...) so long as you then take a blood test or breathalyzer. So, considering he wasn't driving erratically, wasn't obviously impaired, and was compliant with the officer it's highly unlikely he'd be arrested over an out tail light!
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
Actually, he'd be alive if the cop wasn't a wuss and didn't shoot a man who was compliant. If a cop is scared of basic traffic stops with compliant citizens, they shouldn't be a cop as they clearly don't have the right mindset/temperament for the job.
Xenomancers wrote: So you are saying the police officer is lying? To protect himself? The man was actually being compliant? He shot a man for no reason?
If this has all been an elaborate bamboozle on your part until this point, then you sir, have played me for a fool. Congratulations.
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
Xenomancers wrote: So you are saying the police officer is lying? To protect himself? The man was actually being compliant? He shot a man for no reason?
Lying? About some parts, yes. He admitted to the shooting, and he was obviously lying about being in imminent and mortal danger because he smelled marijuana and there was a kid in the car! He got twitchy because the compliant and law abiding citizen legally owned a gun (The horror! The imminent danger to everything around them! Especially the cops!). Castile was complying with the order to get his ID and concealed carry permit, which caused his hand to go out of sight, which led to the shooting. His record however has nothing in it about any sort of violent crime or anything beyond minor violations like speeding, or not wearing a seat belt. There's nothing to warrant him being shot beyond "his hands went out of sight", which again, was to grab his ID and permit and that should never be enough to shoot a citizen who is being compliant. If the officer was so worried, he should have had Castile step out of the car.
The alternative is Castile, against all logical and rational thought, previous and current behavior, and current situation (i.e. girlfriend and kid in the car) decided that today he wasn't getting a minor fine or he'd dying trying to avoid it! And, instead of having his pistol ready when he was pulled over, he'd only go for it AFTER the cops walked up and started talking to him.
I think Occam's Razor can narrow this one down.
(and you have yet to reply to Ouze's excellent posts)
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.
However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.
This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?
Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
lol no, that is not how that works. Especially in Minnesota, where marijuana is exempt from DUI laws. Which has been stated before your post in this thread and then again after your post.
So, you attempted to educate me on something and it turns out, you didn't know what you were talking about.
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
I would like to know what a field sobriety test is for a stoned person. Honestly, the only way a cop is going to know I am stoned is if he mouth swabs me at the scene and even then, those are not highly accurate and I believe illegal for a cop to do in a lot of states.
How much have you been around marijuana? It seems you think that anybody smoking is going to be incoherently stoned no matter how much they consume.
Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Being told to not reach for a gun is not the same as being told not to move. Someone who is not reaching for a gun is less likely to stop moving when told to not reach for a gun than someone who is, due to the fact that they are being told to stop doing something they aren't doing.
If you were standing there tapping your foot and someone pointed a gun at you and told you not to wave your arms around, would you instantly realise they meant for your to stop tapping your foot?
This whole thing about Castille is sort of a red herring, anyway. The cop didn't pull him over for marijuana, and I bet he didn't know the guy had smoked weed until after the autopsy. He pulled him over for the tail light, Castillle mentioned he was legally armed, and (and now we get into opinion) - I think the cop panicked and shot him. The video is inconclusive either way.
The whole marijuana element is a post facto justification to shore up his defense, and I think a pretty weak sauce one at that, but if it's dumb and it works, is it dumb?
redleger wrote: Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone.
I hate when people say this, or "he just wanted to go home to his family", or other meaningless lines that get regurgitated when a cop kills someone, because it's feigned obtuseness - we all know there are different degrees of culpability, and a lack of intent isn't a lack of responsibility for your actions. No one thinks the cop was guilty of first degree, premeditated murder - literally no one is arguing this! However, I think there was a fair case for manslaughter. 12 people on a jury thought otherwise.
redleger wrote: Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Officer Yanez told Castile not to reach for his pistol. The only way for Castile to be non compliant with the order to not reach for his weapon would be if he was in fact reaching for his weapon. There is no conclusive evidence that Castile was in fact reaching to draw his weapon. Up until the point when Castile reaches for something he is being compliant. Officer Yanez never asks Castile where his weapon is located on his person or in the car. Yanez is already pointing his duty weapon at Castile prior to Castile moving his hand.
Castile shouldn't have been held at gunpoint in the first place. Informing an officer that you're lawfully armed shouldn't scare an officer to the point where he feels his life is in such imminent danger that he has to draw his duty weapon and point it at you. Once Castile is being held at gunpoint by a cop who is fearing for his life there is virtually nothing that Castile could do other than remain motionless that couldn't be interpreted by Yanez as a threatening move and get Castile killed.
Drawing your weapon and preparing to end the encounter with lethal force because you fear for your life isn't the proper response to a citizen who compliantly pulls over, turns off the car, hands a cop his insurance card and calmly informs the officer he's lawfully armed.
Castile shouldn't have been held at gunpoint in the first place. Informing an officer that you're lawfully armed shouldn't scare an officer to the point where he feels his life is in such imminent danger that he has to draw his duty weapon and point it at you. Once Castile is being held at gunpoint by a cop who is fearing for his life there is virtually nothing that Castile could do other than remain motionless that couldn't be interpreted by Yanez as a threatening move and get Castile killed.
Drawing your weapon and preparing to end the encounter with lethal force because you fear for your life isn't the proper response to a citizen who compliantly pulls over, turns off the car, hands a cop his insurance card and calmly informs the officer he's lawfully armed.
^This is really what it's all about.
Nobody is making the case that it's about Yanez walking up to the car intending to kill someone. It's about Police in some instances being far too ready to reach for their firearm, and, having grabbed the proverbial hammer, start to see everything as a nail. You don't draw and bring your weapon to bear simply because you find out someone is legally armed, that's not a threat in and of itself, exercising that right does not create a threat in and of itself. At that point, any move they make can look like a move for a weapon, and that's asking for unfortunate results.
redleger wrote: Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
redleger wrote: Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
Castile shouldn't have been held at gunpoint in the first place. Informing an officer that you're lawfully armed shouldn't scare an officer to the point where he feels his life is in such imminent danger that he has to draw his duty weapon and point it at you. Once Castile is being held at gunpoint by a cop who is fearing for his life there is virtually nothing that Castile could do other than remain motionless that couldn't be interpreted by Yanez as a threatening move and get Castile killed.
Drawing your weapon and preparing to end the encounter with lethal force because you fear for your life isn't the proper response to a citizen who compliantly pulls over, turns off the car, hands a cop his insurance card and calmly informs the officer he's lawfully armed.
^This is really what it's all about.
Nobody is making the case that it's about Yanez walking up to the car intending to kill someone. It's about Police in some instances being far too ready to reach for their firearm, and, having grabbed the proverbial hammer, start to see everything as a nail. You don't draw and bring your weapon to bear simply because you find out someone is legally armed, that's not a threat in and of itself, exercising that right does not create a threat in and of itself. At that point, any move they make can look like a move for a weapon, and that's asking for unfortunate results.
You are ignoring crucial parts of the case. He didn't draw his weapon because he found out Castile was armed. He drew his weapon because he says he saw him reach for it and even saw him grab it.
Are you saying that police should not point their weapon when they see a weapon in the subjects hands?
redleger wrote: Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Officer Yanez told Castile not to reach for his pistol. The only way for Castile to be non compliant with the order to not reach for his weapon would be if he was in fact reaching for his weapon. There is no conclusive evidence that Castile was in fact reaching to draw his weapon. Up until the point when Castile reaches for something he is being compliant. Officer Yanez never asks Castile where his weapon is located on his person or in the car. Yanez is already pointing his duty weapon at Castile prior to Castile moving his hand.
Castile shouldn't have been held at gunpoint in the first place. Informing an officer that you're lawfully armed shouldn't scare an officer to the point where he feels his life is in such imminent danger that he has to draw his duty weapon and point it at you. Once Castile is being held at gunpoint by a cop who is fearing for his life there is virtually nothing that Castile could do other than remain motionless that couldn't be interpreted by Yanez as a threatening move and get Castile killed.
Drawing your weapon and preparing to end the encounter with lethal force because you fear for your life isn't the proper response to a citizen who compliantly pulls over, turns off the car, hands a cop his insurance card and calmly informs the officer he's lawfully armed.
This is intentionally obtuse thinking. If a police officer is yelling at you not to reach for it - you should reach for NOTHING. Reaching for anything is non compliance.
He was as compliant as he could be with officers rapid fire shouting all sorts of commands. It's not really possible to be 100% compliant in that sort of stressful situation.
And the entire argument about him being disrespectful of the law is a bunch of bull. I'm sure if the police constantly followed you around looking for an excuse you would have a similar criminal record.
redleger wrote: Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
Officer Yanez told Castile not to reach for his pistol. The only way for Castile to be non compliant with the order to not reach for his weapon would be if he was in fact reaching for his weapon. There is no conclusive evidence that Castile was in fact reaching to draw his weapon. Up until the point when Castile reaches for something he is being compliant. Officer Yanez never asks Castile where his weapon is located on his person or in the car. Yanez is already pointing his duty weapon at Castile prior to Castile moving his hand.
Castile shouldn't have been held at gunpoint in the first place. Informing an officer that you're lawfully armed shouldn't scare an officer to the point where he feels his life is in such imminent danger that he has to draw his duty weapon and point it at you. Once Castile is being held at gunpoint by a cop who is fearing for his life there is virtually nothing that Castile could do other than remain motionless that couldn't be interpreted by Yanez as a threatening move and get Castile killed.
Drawing your weapon and preparing to end the encounter with lethal force because you fear for your life isn't the proper response to a citizen who compliantly pulls over, turns off the car, hands a cop his insurance card and calmly informs the officer he's lawfully armed.
This is intentionally obtuse thinking. If a police officer is yelling at you not to reach for it - you should reach for NOTHING. Reaching for anything is non compliance.
As soon as Castile informs Yanez he's armed Yanez starts drawing his pistol. He tells Castile not to reach for it, Castile tell Yanez he isn't reaching for it. Then Yanez shoots Castile. The officer on the other side of the car never even draws his gun during the stop.
Castile has nothing to fear, Yanez tells him the stop is about a taillight, Castile won't get a DUI, the worst case scenario is the pot smell triggers a search and Castile gets a misdemeanor possession charge depending on the amount of marijuana in the car (if there is any), and the pistol in Castile's pocket has an empty chamber so even if he wanted to shoot Yanez he'd have to chamber a round first. Yanez never asked Castile where the gun was and never told Castile to stop moving. Yanez testified in court that he couldn't tell what Castile was reaching for but he thought it could be the gun. By failing to control the situation Yanez allowed his fears to cause Castile's death.
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
The stakes were pretty low considering it was a busted tail light, and that's all they could have gotten him for, which is a pretty minor fine. That also isn't a real response, more of a sidestep to the question.
Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it. He doesn't pull it out of his holster until after saying "don't reach for it then" and "don't pull it out" then he draws screaming "don't pull it out".
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it. He doesn't pull it out of his holster until after saying "don't reach for it then" and "don't pull it out" then he draws screaming "don't pull it out".
Which Castille wasn't doing. If a cop stopped you, pulled a gun at you and yelled at you to stop whistling the Star-Spangled Banner when you weren't even humming, would you be confused? I sure as hell would.
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
The stakes were pretty low considering it was a busted tail light, and that's all they could have gotten him for, which is a pretty minor fine. That also isn't a real response, more of a sidestep to the question.
It is a real response. The question is actually the side step. At no time have I ever insinuated that police officers should draw their weapon on people just because they are armed.
Cops will mislead you intentionally to try to control a situation. If they are about to bust you for something but still just want to collect information...and you have an out tail light - that's all they are going to tell you. They wont tell you "hey man - I think your DUI and your licence might be suspended - plus you fit the description of a robbery that just happened - just wait here in your car while I go run this through the computer and call for back up...k?" They don't do that because that would be idiotic. So don't try to use the fact he said hes stopped for a tail light as a way of determining that that is all they were going to try to get him for.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it. He doesn't pull it out of his holster until after saying "don't reach for it then" and "don't pull it out" then he draws screaming "don't pull it out".
Which Castille wasn't doing. If a cop stopped you, pulled a gun at you and yelled at you to stop whistling the Star-Spangled Banner when you weren't even humming, would you be confused? I sure as hell would.
There is no way you can tell what Castille is doing and you know that. Any reasonable person will agree with me. If you 3 seconds ago you told a cop you have a gun and hes yelling at you to stop reaching for it - he probably thinks the thing you are reaching for is a gun even if it isn't and you should stop reaching for it. These are things that you should realize instantly.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
It is police job to enforce the law. Sometimes that means shooting people - sometimes that means drawing their weapon to show force. Big difference between a cop and a non cop here. You have no business reaching for your pistol in the first place - not in this situation anyways. You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against a police officer. There's a reason for that.
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
The stakes were pretty low considering it was a busted tail light, and that's all they could have gotten him for, which is a pretty minor fine. That also isn't a real response, more of a sidestep to the question.
It is a real response. The question is actually the side step. At no time have I ever insinuated that police officers should draw their weapon on people just because they are armed.
Cops will mislead you intentionally to try to control a situation. If they are about to bust you for something but still just want to collect information...and you have an out tail light - that's all they are going to tell you. They wont tell you "hey man - I think your DUI and your licence might be suspended - plus you fit the description of a robbery that just happened - just wait here in your car while I go run this through the computer and call for back up...k?" They don't do that because that would be idiotic. So don't try to use the fact he said hes stopped for a tail light as a way of determining that that is all they were going to try to get him for.
I didn't say "because they're armed" and neither did Ouze, it was about if they smell alcohol or MJ, which you are defending the cop pulling his gun and shooting the guy:
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?/quote]
"Fit the description of a robbery"? You mean having a wide nose which was the only thing? Really? That's not tenuous, that's just a downright lie to try and cover their asses after the fact. And they can check license plates to see who owns the vehicle, if their license is suspended, and a bunch of other things all with that handy computer they have in police cars, all before they get out of the car and walk up (i.e. in WA the CC database is linked to the driver's license database).
And what proof do you have they were gonna get him for anything else? His license was fine, he clearly wasn't driving erratically enough for them to pull him over for a DUI, or they would have said so. Now you're literally making stuff up about the situation, the only reason they pulled him over was the busted tail light, and all evidence points to nothing else. And again, you're assuming he'd run from the police after they stopped him, when at best he'd be facing a minor fine.
Again, lets use Occam's Razor:
Pay a minor fine, no jail time for a busted tail if the officer wasn't just informing them that it was busted as a friendly gesture and let them off with a warning
or:
Run from the police after they get out of their car and have informed you why you've been pulled over, which is certainly jail time on top of whatever other punishment that would incur (i.e. fines, charges of reckless driving, endangering others, etc)
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
The stakes were pretty low considering it was a busted tail light, and that's all they could have gotten him for, which is a pretty minor fine. That also isn't a real response, more of a sidestep to the question.
It is a real response. The question is actually the side step. At no time have I ever insinuated that police officers should draw their weapon on people just because they are armed.
Cops will mislead you intentionally to try to control a situation. If they are about to bust you for something but still just want to collect information...and you have an out tail light - that's all they are going to tell you. They wont tell you "hey man - I think your DUI and your licence might be suspended - plus you fit the description of a robbery that just happened - just wait here in your car while I go run this through the computer and call for back up...k?" They don't do that because that would be idiotic. So don't try to use the fact he said hes stopped for a tail light as a way of determining that that is all they were going to try to get him for.
Why do you keep believing that Castile was going to get busted for a DUI? That was NOT going to happen, it could NOT have happened under Minnesota law. Castile was not driving dangerously (too fast, too slow, swerving, etc.) so there was no evidence that his driving ability was impaired and driving a car with THC in your bloodstream is NOT a crime in Minnesota. The busted tail light allowed the cops to pull Castile over but the worst thing the "pot smell" in Castile's car would mean for him would be giving Yanez probable cause to search the car and see if there was enough marijuana in the car to bust Castile for possession which, depending on the amount found, could have been a minor misdemeanor.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
It is police job to enforce the law. Sometimes that means shooting people - sometimes that means drawing their weapon to show force. Big difference between a cop and a non cop here.
Enforcing the law does not mean shooting people, police are not supposed to be executioners. That's not how any of that works. People are only supposed to be shot when they present a danger to others and the shot is intended to stop that threat, same as if you or I shot someone. Shooting people has nothing to do with enforcing the law. These are different things. Police are put in situations where people present dangers to others as a matter of course in their occupation, hence why they are armed, but shootings have nothing to do with enforcement of the law in and of themselves.
You have no business reaching for your pistol in the first place - not in this situation anyways.
Neither does the officer without a clear and present danger...
You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against a police officer. There's a reason for that.
I am absolutely allowed to defend myself if the officer is not acting within the bounds of the law. If a cop just pulls out a baton and hits me because he doesnt like my face, I'm well within my rights to defend myself with force. It is against the law to resist lawful arrest (just as you cant claim self defense in shooting someone while burgling their home) but the idea that a badge makes one legally invincible to anything is both dangerous and incorrect.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
It is police job to enforce the law. Sometimes that means shooting people - sometimes that means drawing their weapon to show force. Big difference between a cop and a non cop here.
Enforcing the law does not mean shooting people, police are not supposed to be executioners. That's not how any of that works. People are only supposed to be shot when they present a danger to others and the shot is intended to stop that threat, same as if you or I shot someone. Shooting people has nothing to do with enforcing the law. These are different things. Police are put in situations where people present dangers to others as a matter of course in their occupation, hence why they are armed, but shootings have nothing to do with enforcement of the law in and of themselves.
You have no business reaching for your pistol in the first place - not in this situation anyways.
Neither does the officer without a clear and present danger...
You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against a police officer. There's a reason for that.
I am absolutely allowed to defend myself if the officer is not acting within the bounds of the law. If a cop just pulls out a baton and hits me because he doesnt like my face, I'm well within my rights to defend myself with force. It is against the law to resist lawful arrest (just as you cant claim self defense in shooting someone while burgling their home) but the idea that a badge makes one legally invincible to anything is both dangerous and incorrect.
Can you prove that you are allowed to defend yourself against a police officer?
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
It is police job to enforce the law. Sometimes that means shooting people - sometimes that means drawing their weapon to show force. Big difference between a cop and a non cop here.
Enforcing the law does not mean shooting people, police are not supposed to be executioners. That's not how any of that works. People are only supposed to be shot when they present a danger to others and the shot is intended to stop that threat, same as if you or I shot someone. Shooting people has nothing to do with enforcing the law. These are different things. Police are put in situations where people present dangers to others as a matter of course in their occupation, hence why they are armed, but shootings have nothing to do with enforcement of the law in and of themselves.
You have no business reaching for your pistol in the first place - not in this situation anyways.
Neither does the officer without a clear and present danger...
You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against a police officer. There's a reason for that.
I am absolutely allowed to defend myself if the officer is not acting within the bounds of the law. If a cop just pulls out a baton and hits me because he doesnt like my face, I'm well within my rights to defend myself with force. It is against the law to resist lawful arrest (just as you cant claim self defense in shooting someone while burgling their home) but the idea that a badge makes one legally invincible to anything is both dangerous and incorrect.
Can you prove that you are allowed to defend yourself against a police officer?
How about this, instead of me trying to prove a negative, find me a statute that declares Police Officers are some special class of citizen stating they cannot ever be harmed. As far as I am aware, none exists.
It is only illegal to use force against an officer using force if they are intending to arrest you for a crime or are otherwise acting in the course of their duties. Otherwise they are no different than anyone else.
Police officers are not Roman Tribunes, their persons are not Sacrosanct. Laws against resistance only apply to their duties and the process of a lawful arrest, there is no law anywhere that I am aware of stating that a Police Officer cannot be resisted with force otherwise.
If my neighbor happens to be a cop, gets drunk or emotionally agitated and swings at me or draws a weapon while we are having an argument about noise or yard stuff, there is no law that I am aware of stating that I cannot use force against that officer. If an officer comes home after work, decides he likes my TV, breaks into my place and attempts to steal it and attacks me when I walk in on him, there isn't a law in the nation that says I cannot respond with force. If a cop on duty just pulls out a baton and starts hitting people just because they can, there is no law stating that they cannot be resisted by force. Now, in many cases, the legal system, DA, etc wont prosecute the officers for wrongdoing, or theyll trump up charges against the non-officer, but there is no law or legal theory that fundamebtally holds an officer to be sacrosanct at all times, places, and circumstances.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Yes, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor offense in Minnesota, it's not a DUI. Having THC in your bloodstream while operating a vehicle is not a crime.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Yes, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor offense in Minnesota, it's not a DUI. Having THC in your bloodstream while operating a vehicle is not a crime.
Could have been arrested for having weed in the car then (we know there was weed in the car - Reynolds admitted to it.) I still think you are not interpreting the Minnesota DUI policy correctly ether. You make it sound like it's legal to drive high in Minnesota. It's not.
This article reference that they can arrest you simply for the suspicion of intoxication. They also have mouth swab testing.Basically. The only way he wasn't going to get arrested was if the officer had no interest in going through the process.
Merely trying to establish that Castille had a lot to lose by complying with Yanez. Likely about to lose money and freedom. Men have killed for much less.
What does Yanez have to gain here? Nothing. Killing a man on camera for no reason. Lose his job and given the climate about white cops killing blacks in "huge numbers" it's amazing that he didn't go to jail for murder. Thank goodness that we have a legal system that presumes innocence.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Xenomancers wrote: Putting your hand on your pistol is not the same as drawing it.
We're talking about a guy who got shot and killed at a traffic stop because a cop thought he *might* be *reaching* (not actively touching and certainly not drawing) for a weapon right? I'm gonna pause a moment for the irony to sink in here...
If I put my hand on my carry piece, in a way that is clearly and openly meant to make it easy for me to draw that weapon and show others that im ready to draw it, thats criminal brandishing, unless there is an immediate danger to my life, which does not include the simple knowledge that someone else also happens to be armed. Nor am I justified in clearing leather and pulling that trigger just because they move their hands or reach for something, that is not an immediate threat to my life. I see no reason why that's different for me than for a police officer. If i get in an accident with someone, and Im talking to them through their window, I'm not going to be justified in shooting them because they reached for...something. I'd be going to prison, for a long time, justifiably so, and nobody would be defending me in such a manner.
It is police job to enforce the law. Sometimes that means shooting people - sometimes that means drawing their weapon to show force. Big difference between a cop and a non cop here.
Enforcing the law does not mean shooting people, police are not supposed to be executioners. That's not how any of that works. People are only supposed to be shot when they present a danger to others and the shot is intended to stop that threat, same as if you or I shot someone. Shooting people has nothing to do with enforcing the law. These are different things. Police are put in situations where people present dangers to others as a matter of course in their occupation, hence why they are armed, but shootings have nothing to do with enforcement of the law in and of themselves.
You have no business reaching for your pistol in the first place - not in this situation anyways.
Neither does the officer without a clear and present danger...
You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against a police officer. There's a reason for that.
I am absolutely allowed to defend myself if the officer is not acting within the bounds of the law. If a cop just pulls out a baton and hits me because he doesnt like my face, I'm well within my rights to defend myself with force. It is against the law to resist lawful arrest (just as you cant claim self defense in shooting someone while burgling their home) but the idea that a badge makes one legally invincible to anything is both dangerous and incorrect.
Can you prove that you are allowed to defend yourself against a police officer?
How about this, instead of me trying to prove a negative, find me a statute that declares Police Officers are some special class of citizen stating they cannot ever be harmed. As far as I am aware, none exists.
It is only illegal to use force against an officer using force if they are intending to arrest you for a crime or are otherwise acting in the course of their duties. Otherwise they are no different than anyone else.
Police officers are not Roman Tribunes, their persons are not Sacrosanct. Laws against resistance only apply to their duties and the process of a lawful arrest, there is no law anywhere that I am aware of stating that a Police Officer cannot be resisted with force otherwise.
If my neighbor happens to be a cop, gets drunk or emotionally agitated and swings at me or draws a weapon while we are having an argument about noise or yard stuff, there is no law that I am aware of stating that I cannot use force against that officer. If an officer comes home after work, decides he likes my TV, breaks into my place and attempts to steal it and attacks me when I walk in on him, there isn't a law in the nation that says I cannot respond with force. If a cop on duty just pulls out a baton and starts hitting people just because they can, there is no law stating that they cannot be resisted by force. Now, in many cases, the legal system, DA, etc wont prosecute the officers for wrongdoing, or theyll trump up charges against the non-officer, but there is no law or legal theory that fundamebtally holds an officer to be sacrosanct at all times, places, and circumstances.
McCabe stated that an officer, in effecting an arrest, is allowed to use force, but only that force that is necessary.[11] He then noted that by striking Plummer with a nightstick before telling Plummer he was under arrest, Dorn had committed a battery by the use of excessive force.[12] Plummer was then entitled to defend himself, and when Dorn shot at Plummer, Plummer had "a clear right to defend himself, even to the taking the life of his assailant."[13] The court held, that by not giving adequate self-defense instructions to the jury, the trial court erred and the conviction was reversed.[14]
Subsequent developments[edit]
Citing cases[edit]
Wilson v. State[15] discusses Plummer, depicting it as saying that it applies to the situation where the arresting officer is using excessive force such that unless the arrestee defends himself or flees, he is likely to suffer great bodily harm or death.[16] The Wilson court was careful to note that a person may not resist an unlawful arrest where the officer does not use unlawful force.[17] Other cases citing Plummer likewise noted that while a person may defend himself against an officer's unlawful use of force, they may not resist an unlawful arrest being made peaceably and without excessive force. In 1995, the Seventh Circuit Court cited Plummer, noting that the privilege exists “not because its use is necessary to protect him from an unlawful arrest, but because it is the only way in which he can protect himself from death or serious bodily harm.”[18]
Xenomancers wrote: It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.
Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.
The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence)
I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
I don't have any data to support this but - I'd say it's pretty much common sense. As the stakes go up for the subject (serious jail time and fines, ect) they are more likely to react violently.
Well, I think I'm done here. 1.5 million DUIs per year in the US, and it's common sense they should be conducted at gunpoint, because it just makes sense the person would rather commit capital murder (which is a death penalty offense in 27 states) than get a DUI or pay a $200 fine.
Personally, I think you should have admitted you were wrong and stopped doubling down a while ago, personally In another thread I saw you you admit you were wrong about something so it's not like you're one of those people that can never do it. I'm wrong all the time! It happens.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Yes, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor offense in Minnesota, it's not a DUI. Having THC in your bloodstream while operating a vehicle is not a crime.
Could have been arrested for having weed in the car then (we know there was weed in the car - Reynolds admitted to it.) I still think you are not interpreting the Minnesota DUI policy correctly ether. You make it sound like it's legal to drive high in Minnesota. It's not.
This article reference that they can arrest you simply for the suspicion of intoxication. They also have mouth swab testing.Basically. The only way he wasn't going to get arrested was if the officer had no interest in going through the process.
Merely trying to establish that Castille had a lot to lose by complying with Yanez. Likely about to lose money and freedom. Men have killed for much less.
What does Yanez have to gain here? Nothing. Killing a man on camera for no reason. Lose his job and given the climate about white cops killing blacks in "huge numbers" it's amazing that he didn't go to jail for murder. Thank goodness that we have a legal system that presumes innocence.
There is no magic threshold for THC in your system that triggers a DUI charge. Minnesota doesn't have a zero tolerance policy on marijuana. If you're driving dangerously and you're under the influence of marijuana you get a DUI but you aren't driving dangerously you can't get arrested just for driving with THC in your system.
What does Minnesota law say about drugged driving?
According to Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.20, drugged driving happens when a person is operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance or any other substance that impacts the driver’s nervous system, brain or muscles in such a way as to substantially impair his or her ability to drive. If a person is found to be impaired by a hazardous substance in Minnesota, then he or she will face DWI charges.
How is drugged driving measured?
So far everything regarding drugged driving charges likely makes sense in that there are laws preventing drivers from operating a car while under the influence of dangerous drugs. However, the laws become very hazy when discussing how much drugs qualify a driver as impaired. In Minnesota, the law says that there is a zero tolerance policy for those found driving with any amount of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance in their blood. This is referred to as a per se offense and it means that for these substances there does not need to be any actual impairment in driving ability for the person to be slapped with a DWI charge and finding themselves in need of DUI defense.
What about marijuana?
Thankfully, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or marijuana metabolites (the chemical substance that remains after marijuana has been metabolized in a person’s system). The zero tolerance law also does not apply to any other substance not listed as a Schedule I or II drug. This means that for marijuana and other non-Schedule I or II substances, officers will have to determine that the consumption of a drug has substantially impaired your ability to safely drive before arresting you for DWI.
Well, I think I'm done here. 1.5 million DUIs per year in the US, and it's common sense they should be conducted at gunpoint, because it just makes sense the person would rather commit capital murder (which is a death penalty offense in 27 states) than get a DUI or pay a $200 fine.
Personally, I think you should have admitted you were wrong and stopped doubling down a while ago, personally In another thread I saw you you admit you were wrong about something so it's not like you're one of those people that can never do it. I'm wrong all the time! It happens.
The GAU-8 can fire 3,900 rpm and defeat MBTs, but not defeat a stubborn troll saying "nuh-uh!" over and over. Ironic.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.
Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.
redleger wrote: No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.
It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.
Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.
Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.
redleger wrote: No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.
It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.
Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.
Man that was alot to catch up on since this morning. OK, I am not pushing an agenda. I speak from enforcement experience, and like everyone here, from watching the video.
I acknowledge and udnerstand your attempt to deflect from common sense by saying that being told to stop doing something you are not doing can be confusing. In most situations this would hold water. When you see an officer remove his service pistol, move to the front of the car, sceaming blood curdlingly stop, dont reach, you freeze. You don't reach. You understand that this gak has gone sideways and you comply with the officers obvious intent. No one here, and I mean no one can 100% say what happened. You have a girlfriend who stated one thing, then got caught lying about it, you have a LEO who quite obviously from sight and sound was scared enough to screech dont reach for it that final time, a sound I have heard myself, I recognized it immediately. That was not fake. That was fear. I understand, feth the police right. I mean I myself am not fond of them, and they way they do business. But I would never begrudge a LEO the right to lawfully defend himself. Many here seem to want to. I want them to be trained the military specifications in ROE and CD prevention. To go through the pain staking process of training on it so it becomes muscle memory.
This is not one of the cases that I can in any way, when looking at the video without malice or benevolence, is a bad shoot with what I have read and seen. On these forums I have called out bad shoots, and explained why they were. This is not one of them. This LEO had everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.
Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.
redleger wrote: No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.
It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.
Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.
Man that was alot to catch up on since this morning. OK, I am not pushing an agenda. I speak from enforcement experience, and like everyone here, from watching the video.
I acknowledge and udnerstand your attempt to deflect from common sense by saying that being told to stop doing something you are not doing can be confusing. In most situations this would hold water. When you see an officer remove his service pistol, move to the front of the car, sceaming blood curdlingly stop, dont reach, you freeze. You don't reach. You understand that this gak has gone sideways and you comply with the officers obvious intent. No one here, and I mean no one can 100% say what happened. You have a girlfriend who stated one thing, then got caught lying about it, you have a LEO who quite obviously from sight and sound was scared enough to screech dont reach for it that final time, a sound I have heard myself, I recognized it immediately. That was not fake. That was fear. I understand, feth the police right. I mean I myself am not fond of them, and they way they do business. But I would never begrudge a LEO the right to lawfully defend himself. Many here seem to want to. I want them to be trained the military specifications in ROE and CD prevention. To go through the pain staking process of training on it so it becomes muscle memory.
This is not one of the cases that I can in any way, when looking at the video without malice or benevolence, is a bad shoot with what I have read and seen. On these forums I have called out bad shoots, and explained why they were. This is not one of them. This LEO had everything to lose and nothing to gain.
If this thread is going to continue assigning motives and the like to one side or the other (e.g. saying one side just thinks "f the police" when they've stated several times that's not what is going on, I'm going to lock it and ban this discussion from the OT. Warnings may follow because it is not polite to just ignore other users and argue around them. You've all been warned.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.
Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.
redleger wrote: No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.
It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.
Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.
Man that was alot to catch up on since this morning. OK, I am not pushing an agenda. I speak from enforcement experience, and like everyone here, from watching the video.
I acknowledge and udnerstand your attempt to deflect from common sense by saying that being told to stop doing something you are not doing can be confusing. In most situations this would hold water. When you see an officer remove his service pistol, move to the front of the car, sceaming blood curdlingly stop, dont reach, you freeze. You don't reach. You understand that this gak has gone sideways and you comply with the officers obvious intent. No one here, and I mean no one can 100% say what happened. You have a girlfriend who stated one thing, then got caught lying about it, you have a LEO who quite obviously from sight and sound was scared enough to screech dont reach for it that final time, a sound I have heard myself, I recognized it immediately. That was not fake. That was fear. I understand, feth the police right. I mean I myself am not fond of them, and they way they do business. But I would never begrudge a LEO the right to lawfully defend himself. Many here seem to want to. I want them to be trained the military specifications in ROE and CD prevention. To go through the pain staking process of training on it so it becomes muscle memory.
This is not one of the cases that I can in any way, when looking at the video without malice or benevolence, is a bad shoot with what I have read and seen. On these forums I have called out bad shoots, and explained why they were. This is not one of them. This LEO had everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Did the officer see a weapon?
I don't know did he? I have already stated shooting by a police officer is premature if he does not see a weapon, but that is the standard the ground forces in the military are trained to, not the forces in the police force. I would also add if intent to harm, even with harsh EOF, is shown then lethal force is ok. Obviously a different standard in a warzone though. Whether the officer saw the weapon or not, when told to stop reaching Castille did not stop. I am not an advocate of murder most of the time, but I do not believe this was murder, manslaughter, or any thing negligent. This was someone not complying, knowingly reaching in a direction his weapon was, because he did not wanna follow simple directions. None of us know where his hand was going, and until officer Yanez is proven to be a LEO that runs around trigger happy in this case, this single case he gets the benefit of the doubt from me, especially since 12 other Americans thought the same thing and they had access to way more information than any of us have access to.
I don't know did he? I have already stated shooting by a police officer is premature if he does not see a weapon, but that is the standard the ground forces in the military are trained to, not the forces in the police force. I would also add if intent to harm, even with harsh EOF, is shown then lethal force is ok. Obviously a different standard in a warzone though. Whether the officer saw the weapon or not, when told to stop reaching Castille did not stop. I am not an advocate of murder most of the time, but I do not believe this was murder, manslaughter, or any thing negligent. This was someone not complying, knowingly reaching in a direction his weapon was, because he did not wanna follow simple directions. None of us know where his hand was going, and until officer Yanez is proven to be a LEO that runs around trigger happy in this case, this single case he gets the benefit of the doubt from me, especially since 12 other Americans thought the same thing and they had access to way more information than any of us have access to.
You can read the entire transcript of Yanez' BCA interview in which he never claims to have seen Castile's pistol only that Castile was reaching for/grasping an object. Then while testifying at his trail Yanez says he clearly saw the gun. This is similar to the clarification by Reynolds that when she initially said Castile was reaching for his wallet in his back pocket she meant that he was reaching to unbuckle his seatbealt so he could more easily reach his wallet in his back pocket.
The jury doesn't have to believe that Yanez ever saw Castile's pistol or that Castile was reaching to draw his pistol. The jury only has to conclude that it was reasonable for Officer Yanez to believe that Castile could have been reaching for his pistol in order to acquit Yanez. Castile could have been reaching for his wallet while telling Yanez "I'm not reaching for it" when Yanez was yelling at him "Don't reach for it" and Yanez could have believed Castile was reaching for his pistol leading to him shooting Castile, and being acquitted.
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on Tuesday released the file from its investigation into the fatal shooting of motorist Philando Castile by St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minn., last July. Below is a transcript of the BCA's interview with Yanez after the shooting.
The interview became a point of contention during Yanez's trial. Prosecutors did not introduce that interview as evidence until cross-examining the officer on the stand. Judge William H. Leary III denied that request but allowed it to be referenced during Yanez’s cross-examination. During deliberations, jurors asked to see the interview transcript, but the judge again denied the request. Yanez was acquitted of all charges related to the shooting of Castile on Friday. WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT.
He told the jury that Castile stared straight ahead and had “total disregard” for the officer’s commands to stop reaching for the firearm that Castile had just seconds before disclosed he was carrying in the car. When he finally saw the top of Castile’s pistol appear near his “right thigh area,” Yanez said he had to act.
“I was able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand, and that’s when I engaged him,” Yanez told the jury. “I had no other choice. … I didn’t want to shoot Mr. Castile. Those were not my intentions.”
During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned why Yanez was vague about what he saw in his initial interview with BCA agents if he had been certain at that time that he’d seen Castile gripping a gun. Citing excerpts from that statement, prosecuting attorney Rick Dusterhoft said Yanez said things like “(Castile was gripping) something,” “it looked like,” and “it appeared” without ever explicitly saying he saw a gun.
He also recounted Yanez’s quote on the scene shortly after the shooting. At that time, Yanez said, “I don’t know where his gun was. … He never told me where his (expletive) gun was.”
Yanez said he meant at the time that he didn’t know where Castile’s firearm was initially, but then he saw it in his hand.
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.
Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.
Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.
redleger wrote: No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.
Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?
What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.
It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.
It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.
Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.
Great movie Super troopers. Maybe I was doing something wrong back in the day but that was a pretty standard size for a joint. Then again - joints were things for special occasions anyways or for bringing to parties. Casual smoke uses other devices.
I was merely trying to explain to people with 0 experience about MJ. 1.4 g is not a lot of product. It would be odd to have less than that on your person.
There is some fundamental flaws in your reasoning that show you are wrong.
redleger wrote: Whether the officer saw the weapon or not, when told to stop reaching Castille did not stop.
He did not stop reaching for his weapon because he never started reaching for his weapon. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's.
This was someone not complying, knowingly reaching in a direction his weapon was,
This was someone complying, reaching in the direction of the documents he had been asked to produce. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's.
because he did not wanna follow simple directions.
Not following directions is not justification by itself for being killed.
Even so, Castille was following directions. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's
None of us know where his hand was going,
That s not justification for being killed
and until officer Yanez is proven to be a LEO that runs around trigger happy
Yanez doesn't have to be trigger happy. But he should be held responsible for his actions. Sadly it seems we live in a world where people do not have to take responsibility for their actions and are supported by others who don't want people to be responsible for their actions either.
especially since 12 other Americans thought the same thing and they had access to way more information than any of us have access to.
That he was not found guilty is not definitive that he should not be culpable for his actions. It is plausible (and I'd suggest likely, as I have stated previously when discussing other cases) that the burden of proof and notions of proportional force and reasonable justification are rather screwed up in the US justice system.
First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.
Can you honestly explain to me how a not guilty verdict still makes culpable for the killing?
The reason he is found not guilty is the fact that he was (as far as the evidence can take us) acting in defense. This would indicate NO WRONG DOING.
Lets just imagine for a second that we did have a video showing Castile's hand on the gun and ignoring commands to not reach for it. Would your opinion change about how Yanez should be treated? It shouldn't - because nothing about what happened in that car would have changed. You would just know for sure what happened instead of 1 of 2 things that could have possibly happened. Our legal system presumes innocence. So should our social justice.
Xenomancers wrote: First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.
What if you have no weapon? You cannot comply with an order to stop doing something which you are not doing, nor have any ability to do.
If someone orders me to stop sticking my tongue out when I am not sticking my tongue out, what should I do?
Xenomancers wrote: First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.
Can you honestly explain to me how a not guilty verdict still makes culpable for the killing?
The reason he is found not guilty is the fact that he was (as far as the evidence can take us) acting in defense. This would indicate NO WRONG DOING.
Lets just imagine for a second that we did have a video showing Castile's hand on the gun and ignoring commands to not reach for it. Would your opinion change about how Yanez should be treated? It shouldn't - because nothing about what happened in that car would have changed. You would just know for sure what happened instead of 1 of 2 things that could have possibly happened. Our legal system presumes innocence. So should our social justice.
To not have been following directions to not reach for a weapon you would have to be reaching for a weapon. There is no evidence in this case that shows conclusively that Castile was reaching for his weapon that’s why Yanez was charged with a crime and put on trial.
Officer Yanez could have and should have handled the situation better. His handling of the situation contributed to his decision to use lethal force and he therefore bears some responsibility for Castile’s death.
The jury decided that it was reasonable for Yanez to perceive. Astile’s movement as an imminent threat to his life. The jury did not rule on whether or not Yanez handled the traffic stop badly and most importantly the jury did not rule on whether or not Castile actually intended to harm Castile. Castile could have meant Yanez no harm and been reaching for his wallet not his gun and Yanez could have lawfully killed Castile.
Castile has been pulled over dozens of times previously and never once acted violently towards the police. None of his previous traffic stops had escalated into violence or a DUI for driving stoned. Castile knee the routine of traffic stops he’s been through it plenty of times before and there was no sign of him harboring ill will or malice towards the police. The idea that on his 47th traffic stop he would suddenly decide to bang it out with 2 cops by trying to pull his gun that he was carrying on an empty chamber from his shorts pocket while in a seated position with his seatbelt on while his girlfriend and daughter were in the car with him strains credulity.
I would not believe that Yanez ha does the stop well if there was video of Castile actually pulling his gun because the exception doesn’t disprove the rule. Lawfully armed concealed carry permit holders shouldn’t be automatically treated as a threat by police. I’ve been around armed strangers plenty of times, people open carrying or concealed carrying at ranges and competitions as well as hunting and camping trips. I’ve never assumed that they were about to murder me anytime one of them reached for something.
The rest are great.
Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.
