Woman Live Streams Aftermath of Fatal Police Shooting

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.

**Frazzled**

The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

NO NO NO
That is incredibly wrong. Maybe in Britain that is the case. In Latin America it is often assumed you are a guerilla and this is in fact either an ambush for the police, or an opportunity for the police to enrich themselves. In many countries in LA if you get into a wreck both sides leave quickly before the police come, because the police will throw you in jail until you pay them off.

We should also remember, per the most recent reports, Mexico is now the second most violent place on the globe, only behind Syria.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/10/527794495/mexico-is-called-worlds-second-most-violent-country

**AllSeeingSkink**

Frazzled wrote:
The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

NO NO NO
That is incredibly wrong. Maybe in Britain that is the case. In Latin America...

Yeah sorry I should have said "every other western country" or maybe "almost every other western country". The person I was replying to has a German flag next to their name, was talking about Europe and had links referring to other western countries.

I wasn't comparing the US to Somalia, and when most people think "geeze, American cops are trigger happy" they aren't using Mexico as their benchmark

My apologies I should have been clearer so you didn't have to go off on your rant

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
So let's ignore what seems to be a major factor (but of course not the only factor) in the way interactions with the police go down because........?

I never said ignore it, I said acknowledge it as a factor but also that a detailed discussion of it is probably beyond the scope of this thread (and is liable to get it locked).

**Xenomancers**

d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

Getting your wallet out of your pocket before the police officer gets out of his car (which usually takes quite a while) isn't going to spook anyone. If it does - at least you are going to have everything they want you to present and can keep your hands clear and visible through out the traffic stop.

**Frazzled**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

NO NO NO
That is incredibly wrong. Maybe in Britain that is the case. In Latin America...
Yeah sorry I should have said "every other western country" or maybe "almost every other western country". The person I was replying to has a German flag next to their name, was talking about Europe and had links referring to other western countries.

I wasn't comparing the US to Somalia, and when most people think "geeze, American cops are trigger happy" they aren't using Mexico as their benchmark

My apologies I should have been clearer so you didn't have to go off on your rant

You forget, the US is not part of Europe, but the Americas.

**Xenomancers**

Steelmage99 wrote:
So let's ignore what seems to be a major factor (but of course not the only factor) in the way interactions with the police go down because........?

Some people seems to be thinking that something called an amendment isn't even hypothetically subject to the possibility of change, revision or......amendment.
Even introducing the idea that perhaps a conversation about that hypothetical possibility seems to set some of these people off.

In a thread about a controversial police shooting we still have to walk on egg shells around that topic.
Please, notice that I am not actually talking about the 2nd Amendment, but rather our attitudes towards discussion.

The Bill of Rights is basically the core rules of the constitution. Might as well just write a whole new constitution at that point.

**Frazzled**

Ixnay on the politicsay

**Kanluwen**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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

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

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

Yes because the PoPo are going to think and not shoot him and then shoot him again 1.7 seconds later...

What? There was only one policeman right?

Now, this is something worth mentioning.

What the hell was the partner doing during all of this? Did he testify against Yanez?

If not, then that's another head to put on a pike. Because really, there was no way shape or form that he should have been able to testify that what Yanez did was right--unless he's as shoddily trained as Yanez was.

Yanez, as a wonderful example of what cops are told not to do during a traffic stop, was way too close to the car and in the wrong spot going off of the dashcam footage. Police are told that they should never put themselves close enough for someone to grab them or their service weapon and never at a straight angle. He should have been something like 5-6 feet away and standing in such a way that he could see what the people in the vehicle were doing from the side view mirrors.

**Ahtman**

US politics is that you? Is this me?

**Kanluwen**

Ahtman wrote:
US politics is that you? Is this me?

Putting it rather gently, situations like this are almost always going to have a bit of a political element to them.

**Ahtman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
US politics is that you? Is this me?

Putting it rather gently, situations like this are almost always going to have a bit of a political element to them.

Of course, but we also need to use a bit of thought to avoid straying to far off topic such as, oh lets say, amending the Constitution or gun rights in general.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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

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

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

Yes because the PoPo are going to think and not shoot him and then shoot him again 1.7 seconds later...

What? There was only one policeman right?

Now, this is something worth mentioning.

What the hell was the partner doing during all of this? Did he testify against Yanez?

If not, then that's another head to put on a pike. Because really, there was no way shape or form that he should have been able to testify that what Yanez did was right--unless he's as shoddily trained as Yanez was.

Yanez, as a wonderful example of what cops are told not to do during a traffic stop, was way too close to the car and in the wrong spot going off of the dashcam footage. Police are told that they should never put themselves close enough for someone to grab them or their service weapon and never at a straight angle. He should have been something like 5-6 feet away and standing in such a way that he could see what the people in the vehicle were doing from the side view mirrors.

Indeed!
1. There are bits where you see the second officer, but it would be interesting to find out what evidence the second officer gave.
2. He was lateral. PoPo where always at a hard angle to me (in Cali they were usually well behind the vehicle or still at their car if they were nervous.).

This is the deal, like everyone there are many/most good police officers out there. I had one last night come out and move his car for me because it was oriented to where it was difficult for me to get around and we cackled for a second. They get painted with the same brush as the bad cops though because of this stuff.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Frazzled wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

NO NO NO
That is incredibly wrong. Maybe in Britain that is the case. In Latin America...
Yeah sorry I should have said "every other western country" or maybe "almost every other western country". The person I was replying to has a German flag next to their name, was talking about Europe and had links referring to other western countries.

I wasn't comparing the US to Somalia, and when most people think "geeze, American cops are trigger happy" they aren't using Mexico as their benchmark

My apologies I should have been clearer so you didn't have to go off on your rant

You forget, the US is not part of Europe, but the Americas.

*double checks memory* Nope, I definitely did NOT forget that, but thanks for checking

You may have forgotten that my point was that you CAN'T compare the cops in other western countries to the cops in the USA because reasons. I also don't think it's terribly useful to compare them to Mexican cops even though they happen to exist on the same continent, as far as socio-economic factors are concerned the US ranks closer to most of Europe by a long shot than it does Mexico.

**Frazzled**

As far as crime is concerned it ranks closer to Latin America however.

EDIT we are getting a bit off topic. Lets agree that we understand each other's points.

**Xenomancers**

Kanluwen wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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

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

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

Yes because the PoPo are going to think and not shoot him and then shoot him again 1.7 seconds later...

What? There was only one policeman right?

Now, this is something worth mentioning.

What the hell was the partner doing during all of this? Did he testify against Yanez?

If not, then that's another head to put on a pike. Because really, there was no way shape or form that he should have been able to testify that what Yanez did was right--unless he's as shoddily trained as Yanez was.

Yanez, as a wonderful example of what cops are told not to do during a traffic stop, was way too close to the car and in the wrong spot going off of the dashcam footage. Police are told that they should never put themselves close enough for someone to grab them or their service weapon and never at a straight angle. He should have been something like 5-6 feet away and standing in such a way that he could see what the people in the vehicle were doing from the side view mirrors.

The other officer most certainly testified. There is an officers code though - his testimony probably was a reiteration of what you can see in the video. When asked questions about Yanez state of mind or intent - he probably just stated something like "I can't claim to know the intent or his mind" "He appeared to have normal body language" "the subject did not comply to 3 consecutive commands" - that sort of thing. If asked something like "would you have shot in that situation?" "I didn't have the same angle and Yanez - if I saw him reaching for a gun I am trained to shoot". If anything it would just hurt the attorneys case against Yanez.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Kanluwen wrote:
Now, this is something worth mentioning.

What the hell was the partner doing during all of this? Did he testify against Yanez?

I don't think he really said a whole lot, , he said he didn't feel alarmed or threatened prior to the shooting. I seem to recall somewhere he said couldn't hear the conversation from the side of the vehicle he was on and couldn't see what Castile was reaching for.

**Easy E**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

jmurph wrote:

But doesn't a jury, which is made up of the community, acquitting him indicate that such feelings are not actually all that comment? It seems like people unhappy with the verdict are trying to have it both ways 1) juries made of the people that are policed are too comfortable with police violence and 2) people are getting fed up with police violence. I would expect that if this were perceived as a widespread problem, juries would be coming down harder.
Isn't jury selection a thing? The people who are fed up with police violence end up being weeded out while the ones who think of that level of violence as acceptable or justifiable are kept, thus you end up with a biased jury despite looking for a fair one. A bit how people say that AI/algorithms are not biases and this to be trusted (it's a programme, it's logical!) while the actual algorithms are trained on biased datasets that unconsciously lead to AIs that are biased (one, two, three, four, five articles). True, if you ignore all the steps that could create bias and lead to a given situation.

Besides, marginalised people have been complaining about police brutality for eternity. It was supposed to get better with everybody having an smartphone/camera but now we just get to see people running away from cops getting gunned down (instead of reading police reports after the fact), and still nothing happens. Supposedly highly trained police officers are afforded the benefit of doubt and near infinite amounts leeway while civilians have to comply with inhumane standards (and still get shot). Maybe the people who are outraged just have no power to change the system?

Post like this, that look for quick excuses to justify these things, read like many other in a long line of "it can't be that bad" type of posts. I remember the difference in reaction when that mom pulled her son from that one BLM protest. Generally it was seen as her disciplining her punk ass son while — if you went looking for it — comments from black communities were about how she was just afraid that he's get shot/killed by the police (as in: she was not angry at him for being at a protest but at the situation and afraid for his life and didn't want him near the police). A shift in perspective allows for a completely different interpretations of the same situation. After all, this whole thread is about a black man who died because he did… nothing really wrong? … nothing that should get you killed?

Which is exactly the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from isolated, regional events. Those pointing out how rare police being shot are (despite the rate showing an upwards trend) ignore that wrongful police shootings are even rarer. Both are definitely problems, but the disingenuous arguments are not helpful at all. Really, the approach needs to be on a department by department basis with local voters and juries holding problem departments and officers accountable. If they do not, who is to blame?
It doesn't really look like a problem that isolated by individual department. Police shootings might happen a bit more often in some regions but they happen everywhere in the US at a higher rate than any other developed country (461 in 2017). You might be safe in a gated community but the police in the US seems generally trigger-happy, afraid, panicked, and/or paranoid to some degree, and whatever training they go through leads to that type of behaviour. You see it whenever police shootings are discussed here. Arguments from the US side tend to be along the lines of "shoot first"/"better safe than sorry" while the European side tends to be more for the deescalate/"don't shoot to kill" arguments. I remember around peak BLM even US veterans (Afghanistan/Iraq) commenting somewhere on how the the police should not confront protestors with weapons raised (or even in hand) and that they need to deescalate the situation, saying that the police is badly trained in that regard (and that was from people who worked is slightly more dangerous situations). This doesn't look like an issue of isolated bad departments or individuals in departments, this is about how police officers are trained to act and react: "By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years"

You might argue that they need to act like that for some reason or another (and that it's normal and the numbers are insignificant, all things considered) but that bodycount is not the result of some isolated incident but is caused by systemic issues. Police officers in other developed countries just couldn't get away with behaviour this excessive (be it because they are trained differently or because of the resulting public outrage). The police losing more and more trust with that type of incidents can't be good for future interaction between civilians and officers no matter how good, bad, biased, or unbiased the jury is or how prevalent police brutality actually is. A difference like this is not caused by individuals messing up:

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011,… most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."

You can't compare US cops actions to other countries because of one simple reason.... US citizens carry guns around with them as a regular thing.

The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

In the US cops have to be under the assumption that the person they're approaching probably has a gun and they may have it legally or not.

It completely changes the tone of any encounter.

Help me understand why it changes the tone of the encounter? I do not understand.

**OgreChubbs**

I am just confused with this whole thing.

What I heard was
Man said I have a gun
Cop said ok just don't reach for it
Man starts to move and reach around
Cop screams stop moving stop moving
Man says just a minute just a minute keeps moving
Cop screams stop moving
Man says just, just
Cop screams shoots crazy and screams I told him to stop moving sounds like he is about to cry.

I do not see this as murder or anything but just like an encounter of idiots and people with too many guns.

When 80% of the world is full of idiots who freak out easy. Then 90% of Americans have guns..... This stuff kinda seems like a natural thing. You give someone a way to defend themselves and end a life easy. Then you give this abilities to everyone...... it is bound to happen, It sucks that it is sometimes a officer who does it, but I wonder if there was less guns then the cops would be less edgy.

Btw the cop here is a idiot he should lose his job his right to carrying and be place no a life long probation and need to be checked in on, by a mental health perfessional. He is ovbiously easly cracked and dangerious.

But the last time I was at a traffic stop I had my hands on the wheel, he said give me your info. I said k then started to dig in my glove box while cursing because I stabbed my finger on the ice breaker then the compartment in the middle. He just looked at me confused then, me and the wife dug through papers for a couple minutes. Then we got into a argument over which as the newest papers then the cop laughed and said just move along there is a pile up behind ya. Don't think he ever did see my info.

Less guns means less gun deaths, if everyone who had a gun was arrested unless it was a long rifle then even illegal guns would go away. Because no one would have them, also trying to rob a back which a long rife that shoots one bullet a minute......would be a lot more difficult. Look at the Brunei supporter 10 feet away and missed.

When everyone has a gun people are scared of people acting weird and reaching around.

I see it like this 2 examples the police gave me when I was young doing a visit with the school.

Exp 1
There is 10 people in the room and a cop needs to find out what happened.
7 of them have weapons and and fiddling around reaching for things.
One of them grabs something and moves towards you.
You believe he is a threat do to this.

Exp 2
Same as before but no one has a weapon
A man grabs something and stand there holding it not moving.
You see him as a threat but not an urgent threat.

One of this scenarios can end dangerious , can you guess which and who ends up getting hurt. Anwser was number 1 and everyone ends up getting hurt do to this.

So
I just mark this as too many guns made another deadly encounter happen. Cops are just people and too many guns too many people results in American statics for gun violence and deaths.

**Kanluwen**

You're missing where Yanez(I refuse to refer to him as officer or policeman--he doesn't deserve to be called Paul Blart let alone anything relating to real law enforcement)told Castillo to hand him his license and registration.

How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?

**AllSeeingSkink**

Easy E wrote:
Help me understand why it changes the tone of the encounter? I do not understand.

Really? We're going to go through this? In 99.9% of encounters with civilians cops in most other countries will not have to deal with a weapon greater than a knife. This means that those cops are not nearly as worried about potentially being shot themselves. Most other countries if you are carrying while wandering around in a public place you are automatically doing something illegal compared to the US where many people are legally carrying, that means the mental path from "this person is carrying a weapon" to "this person is potentially dangerous and carrying a weapon" is far more nuanced (thus prone to human error) in the US than it would be in a country where carrying a gun in public is in and of itself illegal.

The 10 year average for number of US police killed in the line of duty is 151, in the UK it's, what, about 1 per year on average?

This is the list of all British police officers killed since 1900 (minus those related to the Roal Ulster Constabulary, the Troubles and WW2).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

This is the American list, even if you subtract off the "Automobile accident" ones to bring it more in line with the British one, the number of US cops killed by gunfire dwarfs the British list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

**OgreChubbs**

Kanluwen wrote:
You're missing where Yanez(I refuse to refer to him as officer or policeman--he doesn't deserve to be called Paul Blart let alone anything relating to real law enforcement)told Castillo to hand him his license and registration.

How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?

I don't know I just think as soon as someone says I have a gun then moves..... they need to die before they kill me. But that's also why I can't be a cop lol. I have majour social anxiety and see everyone as a threat all the time. So if someone says I have a gun in public I see it as a threat of them saying ( I'm going to kill you while I reach for something) but again not a cop.

Either way he killed this man and should be thrown in jail for 5 for man slaughter lose his job and be put in mental health for this issue. Also people with bad nerves and anxiety should not have weapons. Fear overrides all training and common sense and ends up with dead people.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Kanluwen wrote:
How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?

The license and registration came earlier, the cop asked for them, there was some fumbling about inside the car, dude handed cop something, cop is looking through it for about 4 or 5 seconds before dude says he has a firearm and then apparently starts reaching for something.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
You're missing where Yanez(I refuse to refer to him as officer or policeman--he doesn't deserve to be called Paul Blart let alone anything relating to real law enforcement)told Castillo to hand him his license and registration.

How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?

Its a test for psychokinetic powers. You have to mentally lift your wallet and float it to the officer maybe?

Interesting aside. how long before they will have acamera that, as soon as they seen your face, pattern recognizes you with all the information. up on the PoPo's HUD of his Google 12 helmet cam? 5 years? 10?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
You're missing where Yanez(I refuse to refer to him as officer or policeman--he doesn't deserve to be called Paul Blart let alone anything relating to real law enforcement)told Castillo to hand him his license and registration.

How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?

I don't know I just think as soon as someone says I have a gun then moves..... they need to die before they kill me. But that's also why I can't be a cop lol. I have majour social anxiety and see everyone as a threat all the time. So if someone says I have a gun in public I see it as a threat of them saying ( I'm going to kill you while I reach for something) but again not a cop.

Either way he killed this man and should be thrown in jail for 5 for man slaughter lose his job and be put in mental health for this issue. Also people with bad nerves and anxiety should not have weapons. Fear overrides all training and common sense and ends up with dead people.

Do not forget, under the state law the victim is required by law to inform the officer if he is armed. In Texas we have to caugh up our CHL when ID is asked for, even though both are tied now and it comes up when the officer runs the TDL anyway.

**Xenomancers**

Do we know who owned the car? Technically who's registration was it?

**Frazzled**

What are you trying to garner from that?

**Xenomancers**

Frazzled wrote:
What are you trying to garner from that?

Well they wouldn't be asking for the mans registration if it wasn't his car and it was in the passenger seat would they? So unless it was his car - they weren't addressing him with license and registration questions.

Plus if this guy is a robbery suspect - there should have been some effort to separate the suspect from the rest of the people in the car - did it not get to that point? It just seems odd that a robbery suspect sat in the car for so long.

**Frazzled**

Robbery suspect? I thought this was a normal traffic stop? Did I miss some key info?

**Prestor Jon**

Frazzled wrote:
Robbery suspect? I thought this was a normal traffic stop? Did I miss some key info?

The cops thought Castile resembled the general description of a robbery subject so they used the broken taillight as an excuse to make the stop. IIRC the make and model of the car wasn't associated with the robbery and neither were the girlfriend and daughter in the car.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
How exactly does one hand you their license and registration without reaching for something?
The license and registration came earlier, the cop asked for them, there was some fumbling about inside the car, dude handed cop something, cop is looking through it for about 4 or 5 seconds before dude says he has a firearm and then apparently starts reaching for something.

I thought that was his insurance card not his drivers license? State law also requires concealed permit owners to both verbally inform police that you are lawfully armed and produce the permit itself to show the officers. Prior to the shooting Castile hadn't given Yanez his carry permit.

**WrentheFaceless**

Frazzled wrote:
Robbery suspect? I thought this was a normal traffic stop? Did I miss some key info?

He's looking for something to blame the victim for Fraz

**Frazzled**

I was thinking if they were stopping a robbery suspect they appeared remarkably nonchalant about it.

**jmurph**

That's because it was pretty much a pretext. Dude's only match was he was a BM with a wide nose. Pretty awful. Also, he never mentions that as to why he felt threatened, indicating it wasn't the real reason for the stop, which was probably just a fishing expedition.