Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 13:27:10
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/11 14:41:44
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/11 16:15:25
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
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".
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 17:26:28
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 17:39:23
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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)
Which is more likely?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/11 18:27:08
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 18:42:18
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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 $200 fine.
Personally, I think you should have admitted you were wrong and stopped doubling down a while ago, personally In another thread I saw you you admit you were wrong about something so it's not like you're one of those people that can never do it. I'm wrong all the time! It happens.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/11 22:30:54
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ 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 $200 fine.
Personally, I think you should have admitted you were wrong and stopped doubling down a while ago, personally In another thread I saw you you admit you were wrong about something so it's not like you're one of those people that can never do it. I'm wrong all the time! It happens.
The GAU-8 can fire 3,900 rpm and defeat MBTs, but not defeat a stubborn troll saying "nuh-uh!" over and over. Ironic.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ 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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
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.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
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.
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.
