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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Snopes been proven wrong on the more cultural/political events. All you have to do is look at the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown gak.

Oh yeah? Got anything to back that up?

Google is your friend. Anything politics that's not black&white.

So no, feth snopes. (for that matter feth politifacts/wikipedia... especially during election seasons).

Yeah, I know you hate it when things prove what you believe wrong. You've made that pretty clear on more than one occasion.

I.Was.Not.Proven.Wrong.

There was a BOLO that 'fit' Castile's description... the "allege" police scanner posted previously gave potential insight as to why Castile was pulled over.

So "alleged" means "not true".

Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.

Might as well have.

Jesus... the fething audio is on that site, just listen to it.

I did.

Unless, you subscribe to some crazy pants idea that it's faked.

Is that what I said or are you again going to just assume that's what I said so you can try to make a point?

Not quite...

*THAT* is what I was referring too...

Look, I know you have issues with the word alleged, but those issues notwithstanding, the audio given to the news station is from a police scanner, not the police department. So until the police department comes out with audio, it's fething alleged.

Sure... but to dismiss it outright because, derp-derp, the po po didn't confirm/deny it yet?

Okay then.

So you're arguing just to argue?

I'm sorry... that's what you were doing with your "Not quite..." retort.

EDIT: scooty... I'm not attacking you and if you think I am, I'll re-edit my post. The aftermath of the Michael Brown saga in Ferguson, with all the misdirection/lies/co-opted provocateurs... situation like this hits a little too close to home.

No, I think you're just being yourself.

Cool.

If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.

Yeah, because that always works.

Of course not and we should ALWAYS be on guard with that.

We wouldn't want someone to be too big *cough*Clinton*cough* who's above the law.

Be more polite posting, rule 1 isn't optional

 whembly wrote:

If it turns out that this officer essentially executed Castille, then throw the book at him... hard.

Yeah, because that always works.

Of course not and we should ALWAYS be on guard with that.

We wouldn't want someone to be too big *cough*Clinton*cough* who's above the law.

Asterios wrote:
like I said they are waiting for the facts to come out which have been lacking in this case so far, we know more about other incidents and even the Dallas shooting then we know of the Minnesota shooting.

And yet somehow in other cases they don't have any problem immediately posting strong comments about the importance of our second amendment rights.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.

Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.

There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.

Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.

There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.

Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.

Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.

There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.

Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.

No worries... 'tis all good bro.

*still looking to see if I can even do a selfie in the voting booth... some outfits prohibits "phone use" within the booth, but I don't recall seeing any prohibition signs and whatnot 4 years ago...

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 whembly wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

You'll argue, and I'm not in the bet, but everybody knows you're pulling that lever for Trump in November. Just let the hate flow through you. Embrace the dark side and be complete. Stop with the pound symbols and admit it already.

Nope. Still #NeverTrump, #NeverHillary.

There were rumblings that The Green Party is trying to get Sanders on their ticket... if so, *he* has my protest vote.

Honestly you could selfie yourself pulling any other lever but I'd still think it was photoshopped and you went Trump. That's getting Rule 1'y and OT though so I will bow out.

No worries... 'tis all good bro.

*still looking to see if I can even do a selfie in the voting booth... some outfits prohibits "phone use" within the booth, but I don't recall seeing any prohibition signs and whatnot 4 years ago...

think I heard it was against the law.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yet somehow in other cases they don't have any problem immediately posting strong comments about the importance of our second amendment rights.

Affirming their die hard, bordering on religious, belief in the second amendment is usually the first thing the NRA does.

They didn't even do that, and they've been on quite the CCP bender the past two years.

They're response to this incident is near non-existent, and even if they wanted to sit back and wait for facts, as if we somehow don't have any, they offered nothing. Not even a "we firmly believe all Americans have a right to bear arms." And this is the same civil rights organization that fought a law to ban people on the no-fly list from buying fire arms and that list was invented to keep terrorists off planes!

My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

 d-usa wrote:
My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

To be fair, there could be a lot of reasons for their "meh" response. Just because something hits the news doesn't mean the NRA is watching, and the Dallas shooting certainly came hot on the heels of this reaching national attention. If I were a national lobbying group primarily concerned with gun rights, the events in Dallas would honestly have far more of my attention than those in Minnesota. The later incident might involve gun rights, but it's going to be far more about law enforcement policy than guns in the end. That's how it'll play out in the media, and the discussions it'll drive. It's more of an event with one foot in my door, as opposed waiting in my foyer demanding my attention.

Still. Would it kill me to write a sentence along the lines of "everyone has a 2nd to think about gun rights" (good slogan? )

 d-usa wrote:
My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.

Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.

Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.

I didn't realize I slipped "racist" in there somewhere.

 d-usa wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.

Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.

I didn't realize I slipped "racist" in there somewhere.

Oh, I don't think you're racist or even brought it up, I'm conflating other sites here, I actually agree with your own viewpoints most likely.

But many people across the Internet are trying to mix this NRA lack of response with racism against Black gun owners, even though the NRA has a track record of waiting before issuing statements, which I tried to show.

I'm not particularly pro-NRA but they've stuck to their principles on this one and aren't throwing Castile under the bus because he's Black,

Edit: Actually I've seen the same insinuations in this thread. People claiming that the NRA is quick to push for anything, when they usually wait at least a few days,

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My die hard conservative right absolutely pro-gun military veteran "liberals are morons" friends on Facebook are even slamming the NRA over this.

I don't think that's really warranted. as the NRA has usually waited awhile.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

They waited a week after Sandy Hook, and no matter your political inclinations, that was much worse than Dallas 2016.

Anything to try and pin racism on the Republican adherents I guess.

I didn't realize I slipped "racist" in there somewhere.

Oh, I don't think you're racist or even brought it up, I'm conflating other sites here, I actually agree with your own viewpoints most likely.

But many people across the Internet are trying to mix this NRA lack of response with racism against Black gun owners, even though the NRA has a track record of waiting before issuing statements, which I tried to show.

I'm not particularly pro-NRA but they've stuck to their principles on this one and aren't throwing Castile under the bus because he's Black,

Edit: Actually I've seen the same insinuations in this thread. People claiming that the NRA is quick to push for anything, when they usually wait at least a few days,

thats what I said, they are waiting for the facts instead of posting in the heat of things, the NRA may be many things but I don't think Stupid is one of them.

Asterios wrote:

thats what I said, they are waiting for the facts instead of posting in the heat of things

The facts as determined by whom? Does your call for waiting for "the facts" mean anything other than waiting for the official police statement?

According to the local county, this guy had never applied for a concealed weapons permit. The only word that he had one comes from the woman in the video.

Aside from the snippet that the cop thought these were armed robbers, we still know zero about what happened before she pushed record on her phone and only have her word on it.

Much like the misplaced outrage on the Baton Rouge shooting and everyone jumping to conclusions before information came out, this case has to evolve more before we can figure out what happened.

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

This also discusses the comment by the sheriff's twitter.

Importantly:



Regardless of any bias by Snopes, the sheriffs tweets are those shown, that is factual. I even went to his twitter and checked.

A news site has come out saying that a source has informed them the guy had a permit. http://www.startribune.com/philando-castile-had-permit-to-carry-gun/386054481/

Source is not given though (and I know nothing of the site), so again, wait and see.

In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.

unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.

12050(a)(2)(A)(ii):
If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.

unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.

12050(a)(2)(A)(ii):
If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.

I'm not sure what your point is, except maybe that California CCW laws and policies are ridiculous and potentially an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. This man in question wasn't in California anyway, and wouldn't have had a California license since they don't issue them to non-residents.

Exactly, the carry permit paperwork is processed by your resident county LEO but the permit itself is a state issues permit that is valid throughout the state. No state has permits that are only valid in the issuing county. Since permits are state issued many states have databases that LEOs can check when they stop someone.

Minnesota has a duty to inform statute so it is highly likely that he informed the cop. Even if he didn't the mere fact that he was armed doesn't justify the cop killing him. He was legally armed, had a clean record, had his family in the car and no reason whatsoever to draw on the cops and there's no evidence so far that he did anything wrong.

I heard on the radio that this deportment in Minnesota hadn't had an officer involved shooting in 30 years. It's not like this happened in a gang infested urban ghetto with high crime. There was no reason for the cops to be that nervous, fearful and trigger happy.

What this starting to look like is the cops had a bolo for somebody that vaguely resembles the victim so they pulled him over on a "busted tail light" stop to check him out, saw he was carrying, got scared and blasted him.

In the posted video his pistol isn't even out. It's not in his hand or in his lap. I'd be willing to bet that the pistol was still secured in his holster when he got shot. There is literally no reason for him to have tried to draw on 2 cops with his family in the car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.

unless their business or place of employment was the basis for issuance.

12050(a)(2)(A)(ii):
If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.

You are misreading that statute. If the place of business pulled the permit, i.e. to keep a gun by the cash register, the permit is only good for that business in that location. It's not a carry permit because a business location can't go anywhere. In that instance a brick and mortar business has to get the permit from their county sherrif and it's good for that single location and other locations in other counties have to get a separate permit.

It also has nothing to do with the incident in Minnesota.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In regards to him not having a permit from the local county, there are a lot of ways that he could potentially have a valid permit from somewhere else. He could have a permit from an adjacent county (or another county in the state if he was a resident somewhere else), or he could even have a permit from another state that has reciprocity with the state he was in.

but where are the permits allowed, if he got a CCP from another county is it good in that county?

Yes, a state-issued permit should be good throughout the state. I'm not away of any state in which a valid CCW license ceases to be recognized when you cross a county line.

Crossing state lines, however, is different. Some states have reciprocity and some don't. But in any case, the police officer wouldn't know until he actually saw the license in question, and even if he had a permit that wasn't valid or wasn't recognized in the state he was in, that's not a reason to shoot the holder of the license.

then come to California, where such permits are issued by county and/or city not state wide. as to whether the officer was even notified of the permit we do not know, we only have the word of the one passenger, we have not even heard from the officer(s) in question as of yet.

I've been there. Permits are issued by county in California, just like they are in every other state that I'm aware of. Those permits aren't valid just in the county they are being issued in - they are valid in every county in the state.

Exactly, the carry permit paperwork is processed by your resident county LEO but the permit itself is a state issues permit that is valid throughout the state. No state has permits that are only valid in the issuing county. Since permits are state issued many states have databases that LEOs can check when they stop someone.

Minnesota has a duty to inform statute so it is highly likely that he informed the cop. Even if he didn't the mere fact that he was armed doesn't justify the cop killing him. He was legally armed, had a clean record, had his family in the car and no reason whatsoever to draw on the cops and there's no evidence so far that he did anything wrong.

I heard on the radio that this deportment in Minnesota hadn't had an officer involved shooting in 30 years. It's not like this happened in a gang infested urban ghetto with high crime. There was no reason for the cops to be that nervous, fearful and trigger happy.

What this starting to look like is the cops had a bolo for somebody that vaguely resembles the victim so they pulled him over on a "busted tail light" stop to check him out, saw he was carrying, got scared and blasted him.

In the posted video his pistol isn't even out. It's not in his hand or in his lap. I'd be willing to bet that the pistol was still secured in his holster when he got shot. There is literally no reason for him to have tried to draw on 2 cops with his family in the car.

problem is thats the problem we are only conjecturing and guessing here, the cop could have removed the gun or any thing, if what you say about the department not having an officer involved shooting in 30 years, it makes one wonder why now? the cop who did the shooting was not a rookie he had been with the department for 4 years, so why? feel like we are missing something here.

Asterios wrote:
if what you say about the department not having an officer involved shooting in 30 years, it makes one wonder why now? the cop who did the shooting was not a rookie he had been with the department for 4 years, so why? feel like we are missing something here.

The reason it happened now and not before could be anything from random chance stopping every other possible shooting through the cop having a bad day and to the growing fear among the white middle class. You're working from the assumption that it's obviously weird that a cop shot a black man and trying to come up with even the smallest complaint against the man that died to justify his death with no interest at all in the greater pattern of police violence in the US. There is no reason to suspect some conspiracy for why it happened now. It's just one of the latest in a long string of shootings.

I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.

 d-usa wrote:
I like that the audio and video recording we have is completely unreliable and doesn't tell us anything about the shooting, but what we do have are a bunch of speculations and false rumors that have been disproven which are still repeated as explanations for the event.

Such as?