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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What proof is there btw that Castile was reaching for his wallet and not a gun? Isn't it basically his word against the girlfriends word? not exactly proof positive

He was reaching for his CCP.

Dread I mean, what proof was there in regards to that? Who said he was doing that? to my knowledge (limited because I don't usually follow clickbait/race bait) the only proof is his girlfriend saying he was doing that....which again would become his word vs her word.

The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio. There is the fact that he had absolutely zero reason to pull a weapon on two cops. There is the eyewitness that said he was given a warning then immediately shot.

I mean, there is plenty of evidence to back this up. You will never get video evidence of this, even if there is a dashcam. The dashcam was not in the car right on top of him to video record it. The evidence we have now is probably the best we will get in that regard.

I honestly didn't know and that is why I asked dread, but realistically that still boils down to he said she said. Yes she has herself on her cellphone camera saying "He was reaching for his wallet" but that doesn't prove anything. I could steal a cupcake and put it on camera after it happened and say "I was getting my wallet to pay for this" and it wouldn't change anything either, it is still he said she said. I am not defending the cop or the victim, just showing that at the moment there are very few ACTUAL facts in regards to this case and as is usually the best course of action, we should all wait for evidence to appear and to see what happens. Jumping on the media's click bait and false reporting gets tiring. I am still waiting for the major news outlets to apologize to Armalite for mislabeling their weapon as the one used in the Orlando Massacre.

You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

So wouldn't that same belief also be given to the cop in question? Innocent until proven guilty, and all insubstantial evidence, such as a video of someone tied to the victim saying he didn't do anything wrong not being held as proof positive of guilt?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

So wouldn't that same belief also be given to the cop in question? Innocent until proven guilty, and all insubstantial evidence, such as a video of someone tied to the victim saying he didn't do anything wrong not being held as proof positive of guilt?

Except we know that he is guilty of shooting Castile. It is up to the police officer and his representatives to put forth the case that it was justifiable. That is an affirmative defence which places the burden of proof of showing that there were extenuating circumstances which justify his actions on the defendant.

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

I am trying to figure out how you "escalate the situation" to where what happened is not at least voluntary manslaughter on the part of the police officer.
And this is the problem. Something happens and at worst sometimes the officer is suspended or maybe fired.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

I am trying to figure out how you "escalate the situation" to where what happened is not at least voluntary manslaughter on the part of the police officer.
And this is the problem. Something happens and at worst sometimes the officer is suspended or maybe fired.

Here's what it comes down to - is the cop permitted to use his weapons when he feels threatened while on duty? The answer is yes.
Do we have reasonable evidence that the cop did feel threatened? Yes - victim had a gun and matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. Plus multiple witnesses saying he presented a verbal warning.
It's hard for me to see a crime being committed here. You would have to have malice, intent, or negligence to be murder or manslaughter. Malice and intent can be ruled out, negligence would be very hard to prove here without a video record of the event. We need that dashcam.

Here's what it comes down to - is the cop permitted to use his weapons when he feels threatened while on duty? The answer is yes.

***oh its not nearly that simple now is it. Most jurisdictions have this requirement that that fear be REASONABLE (and of course the usual -fear of imminent death or injury).

Following your standard I could walk down the street blasting away muttering "I'm in fear I'm in fear!" No thats not how it works for everyone else, and the law is the same for them.

It is NOT reasonable to shoot every CHL carrier you pull over, because they have a weapon and for some strange reason could draw it. Thats not even a lucid statement where nearly every state has legal CHL.

We know how this went. They stopped him. He said he had a firearm they freaked and when he moved to get his wallet they blew him to hell.
Thats manslaughter boys and girls.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Here's what it comes down to - is the cop permitted to use his weapons when he feels threatened while on duty? The answer is yes. Doesn't there need to be a reasonable fear of harm? Saying that you felt threatened doesn't give you carte blanche, you need to justify your feelings. So far all we have is person reaching for something, which after asking them for their wallet is not unreasonable.
Do we have reasonable evidence that the cop did feel threatened? Yes - victim had a gun and matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. Plus multiple witnesses saying he presented a verbal warning. The description of the armed robbery suspect was extremely vague, to the point of applying to a large proportion of the black community. There was no suggestion of physical build, age, height etc. It was just black man with dreads and a wide nose. Also, at least one of those witnesses says that he issued a warning but fired immediately afterwards, without giving any time for Castile to hear, process and acknowledge the warning. Also, he had a license to carry so him having a gun is not grounds to shoot him. If the mere act of having a gun can make a police officer feel threatened and a police officer feeling threatened is justification for shooting, then anybody carrying a gun can legally be shot by the police for reaching for anything which may possibly be near where their gun is holstered.
It's hard for me to see a crime being committed here. You would have to have malice, intent, or negligence to be murder or manslaughter. Malice and intent can be ruled out, negligence would be very hard to prove here without a video record of the event. We need that dashcam.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

I am trying to figure out how you "escalate the situation" to where what happened is not at least voluntary manslaughter on the part of the police officer.
And this is the problem. Something happens and at worst sometimes the officer is suspended or maybe fired.

I was posing an alternative narrative that's just as specious as those assuming the cop got out of his car, walked up to Mr. Castile, and opened fire without provocation. I mean, there are people in this thread saying it was a clear case of murder when murder hinges on intent. You stating voluntary manslaughter would be more appropriate should the officer be found guilty.

It's boggling that people in this thread, not pointing at you Frazz, are stating "facts" when there's currently just one side of the argument. Unfortunately, Mr. Castile isn't able to tell us if he was reaching for his license or his gun or if he even kept them on the same side of his person. We don't know. Assuming the officer is 100% in the wrong is just knee-jerk mob mentality when none of us were there. At least wait until trial before piling wood for the bonfire.

I hear you, and thats why I am saying manslaughter. I don't presume the intent for murder. This fits common definitions of manslaughter (voluntary I'd proffer) very well. Absent Castillo actually drawing the pistol, there's no reasonable here. If I see a bunch of bad guys (you know known criminals like murderers, thieves, girl scouts) if one puts their hand in their pocket I can't open up on them with a Ma Deuce.

Thats not how it works, well for everyone besides the police it seems.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

<----- Is not defending the cop.


How do we know this fact? Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

Her stating that is what happened does not make if a fact. It makes it testimony. Words have meaning, Deadwinter. Don't use the word "fact" if you don't know what a fact is.

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

<----- Is not defending the cop.


How do we know this fact? Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

Her stating that is what happened does not make if a fact. It makes it testimony. Words have meaning, Deadwinter. Don't use the word "fact" if you don't know what a fact is.

Thank you for making my point better then I did

 Frazzled wrote:
I hear you, and thats why I am saying manslaughter. I don't presume the intent for murder. This fits common definitions of manslaughter (voluntary I'd proffer) very well. Absent Castillo actually drawing the pistol, there's no reasonable here. If I see a bunch of bad guys (you know known criminals like murderers, thieves, girl scouts) if one puts their hand in their pocket I can't open up on them with a Ma Deuce.

Thats not how it works, well for everyone besides the police it seems.

Going completely off of current information and one side of what happened (I'm unaware of an official statement of events from the police), yes, I'd very much think a final charge of voluntary manslaughter would fit. Again, that's going completely off of current information and one side's account.

If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

Well in Los Angelse if you were a suspect in a crime, the PoPo would not have gotten near the vehicle. You would have come out, laid down with one foot over another and arms outstretched. You would stay like that until other units showed up and you would be completely covered.

They would not have approached the vehicle at all until everyone was down cuffed and searched.

 agnosto wrote:
@Prestor John

I understand your point and the scenario you present is certainly feasible; however, the facts are really lacking here. We simply can't attribute all blame to the officer when we don't know what happened or was said before the Mr. Castile's girlfriend began her recording. While it's entirely possible that the officer was completely at fault, it's also entirely possible that Mr. Castile or his girlfriend were at fault of escalating the situation.

Consider another scenario wherein the officer pulls them over and speaks with them calmly while the girlfriend is making snide comments to the officer or talking over him while he is attempting to communicate with Mr. Castile. Possibly other actions or words were exchanged before the shooting.

None of the above is cause for Mr. Castle to lose his life but neither would it make him a completely innocent victim of a killer cop. We don't know and may never know what all happened but we can try to keep an open mind instead of gathering up the torches and pitchforks.

One thing I do know is that the officer will have to live the rest of his life with the outcome here and so unfortunately will Mr. Castile's family.

agnosto, I hear what you're saying and I agree that people should be civil and polite when interacting with the police or anyone else. Being rude/obnoxious is pretty much universally counter productive and typically makes one look petty. Having a nasty disposition never helps a situation. However, it's still never right to respond to verbal barbs/attitude with physical violence.

I put the majority of the responsibiliy for the incident on the cops because they're the trained professionals who are supposed to assert and maintain control of the situation. It's the cops' job to make sure an obnoxious person doesn't create a scene that leads to unnecessary violence. The cops have the authority and the responsibility, they're in charge so if the situation goes sideways and ends with the cops shooting somebody that didn't need to get shot, it's the cops' fault. The police are the professionals, they have the training, they're supposed to be able to handle high stress situations in a calm manner, control the situation, issue clear commands and give people the opportunity to comply. The civilians aren't in control, don't have any special training and aren't mind readers, they don't know what the police want and expect until the police make it clear with instructions. It's not Castile's, or any other lawfully armed citizen's, responsibility to know that he's one false move away from getting shot as soon as he tells a cop he's legally armed and to know just what constitutes such an action. It's not Castile's job to know exactly how to handle an encounter with police, it's the police's job to control the situation and clearly communicate to Castile what he needs to do and give him a chance to do it.

I don't think the cops involved in this incident are horrible people or that they had any premeditated intent to shoot anybody that day. I think they lost control of a situation that they're supposed to be able to handle and it resulted in somebody losing his life for no justifiable reason. The only thing that should have caused those cops to lose control of that situation would be if Castile just suddenly had the homicidal uge to start a gunfight with the cops. If Castile attacked the cops he's responsible for his actions and for forcing the cops to shoot him. I personally think it's highly unlikely that any party involved suddenly had the desire to start a shootout, I think there was miscommunication and actions/intents were misread and there was overreaction on the part of the cops. It's a terrible tragedy for everybody involved.

I'm a carry permit holder and in my state I have a duty to inform the police that I'm carry anytime I have an encounter with them while armed. I don't want cops to view me as an imminent threat just because I'm lawfully armed. I'm a law abiding citizen with no animosity towards cops, I don't want to find myself in a situation where if a cop misreads a simple move I make that I'll get shot to death. Regardless of any legal consequences for the cops involved in this situation I want this incident to lead to an honest objective examination of how police departments train their officers to deal with lawfully armed citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

The driver wasn't the suspect in an armed robbery. The driver had the same hairstyle as a suspect in an armed robbery but he wasn't specifically a suspect for any crime, he just had a passing resemblance to somebody else who was a suspect.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
If the driver was a suspect in an armed felony robbery... a traffic stop is literally the WORST time to attempt to apprehend him. Why did he need to stop for identification? Running the plates gives you a home address and a picture ID which you can then run a check on.

You can then just go to their house and have a discussion or just observe them. Like real police work... opposed to 'black guy int he white neighborhood, get him!'

The driver wasn't the suspect in an armed robbery. The driver had the same hairstyle as a suspect in an armed robbery but he wasn't specifically a suspect for any crime, he just had a passing resemblance to somebody else who was a suspect.

But clearly to the officer, the passing resemblance was all his brain needed to institute a 'felony stop' which involved interacting at gunpoint...

So it sounds like the officer either connected some dots with some bigoted thoughts or lacked training in his job. Otherwise it is literally legal for any cop to shoot anyone who might partially resemble a suspect which is not a good thing for society. (and since to many racist people, all X look alike)

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You could steal a cupcake and put it on camera saying you didn't do it. I would believe you until you were proven to be guilty.

So wouldn't that same belief also be given to the cop in question? Innocent until proven guilty, and all insubstantial evidence, such as a video of someone tied to the victim saying he didn't do anything wrong not being held as proof positive of guilt?

No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We know that he was a licensed for CC. That is a fact. He had every right to have his gun on him. We know for a fact that is not illegal. We also know that he was not reaching for his weapon, he was reaching for his wallet. No amount of character assassination is going to change that.

<----- Is not defending the cop.


How do we know this fact? Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


The video after the fact where she is explaining what just happened immediately after the shooting. Since it had just happened, she was able to accurately remember and then get it on audio.

Her stating that is what happened does not make if a fact. It makes it testimony. Words have meaning, Deadwinter. Don't use the word "fact" if you don't know what a fact is.

Because you can look at the situation and understand what has happened. The man had a CCP in his right back pocket, he informed the officer beforehand that he had a CCP, he reached for his right side. There is no situation where it makes any sense to draw on two officers after telling them you are armed. You also have witnesses saying that he was reaching for his wallet, all recorded in the heat of the moment. You also have witnesses saying he was given little to no warning before being shot. That is how you can discern that it is a fact. I also know what a fact is, kind of like I know how to solve problems and come to conclusions based on evidence.

Soooo, yeah what else?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Because you can look at the situation and understand what has happened.

1. The man had a CCP in his right back pocket, he informed the officer beforehand that he had a CCP, he reached for his right side.

2. There is no situation where it makes any sense to draw on two officers after telling them you are armed.

3. You also have witnesses saying that he was reaching for his wallet, all recorded in the heat of the moment.

4. You also have witnesses saying he was given little to no warning before being shot.

5. That is how you can discern that it is a fact.

6. I also know what a fact is, kind of like I know how to solve problems and come to conclusions based on evidence.

7. Soooo, yeah what else?

1. His CCP was on one side, his gun was on the other. Those are facts/falsehoods that can be proven either way. You can't prove that he reached for the side with the CCP and not the side with the gun. The side he reached for was not recorded, that I've seen so far. You only have testimony.

2. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. That is immaterial. A hypothetically cornered individual can do any dumb thing.

3. No. It was recorded AFTER the event. Not during. After. Also, that is not a fact. That is testimony.

4. More testimony.

5. No, that is how you discern probable guilt.

6. You have shown repeatedly that you don't know what a fact is in this thread. Testimony is a form of evidence and is used in courts of law, arrangements, other legal proceedings, and is further used to determine if charges will be filed. In this case, it is likely and rightfully so.

7. Sooo yeah, you need to learn the difference between facts and testimony. It's really not hard. I believe in you. You can be a winner.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

Innocent until proven guilty in the US of A, mother fethers!

Full disclosure, I'm leaning towards this being a bad shoot and the cop should see the wrong side of some prison bars.

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

You're arguing its he state's burden to prove a murder was unjustified correct? Now on the non-police side its the exact opposite-the use of self defense is usually an affirmative defense (the shooter has the burden of proof) except maybe in Florida....

I do not know what Minnesota law is in relation to police as a the standard.

 Frazzled wrote:

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

You're arguing its he state's burden to prove a murder was unjustified correct?

Correct.

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

No. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was a bad shoot. Period.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Because you can look at the situation and understand what has happened.

1. The man had a CCP in his right back pocket, he informed the officer beforehand that he had a CCP, he reached for his right side.

2. There is no situation where it makes any sense to draw on two officers after telling them you are armed.

3. You also have witnesses saying that he was reaching for his wallet, all recorded in the heat of the moment.

4. You also have witnesses saying he was given little to no warning before being shot.

5. That is how you can discern that it is a fact.

6. I also know what a fact is, kind of like I know how to solve problems and come to conclusions based on evidence.

7. Soooo, yeah what else?

1. His CCP was on one side, his gun was on the other. Those are facts/falsehoods that can be proven either way. You can't prove that he reached for the side with the CCP and not the side with the gun. The side he reached for was not recorded, that I've seen so far. You only have testimony.

2. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. That is immaterial. A hypothetically cornered individual can do any dumb thing.

3. No. It was recorded AFTER the event. Not during. After. Also, that is not a fact. That is testimony.

4. More testimony.

5. No, that is how you discern probable guilt.

6. You have shown repeatedly that you don't know what a fact is in this thread. Testimony is a form of evidence and is used in courts of law, arrangements, other legal proceedings, and is further used to determine if charges will be filed. In this case, it is likely and rightfully so.

7. Sooo yeah, you need to learn the difference between facts and testimony. It's really not hard. I believe in you. You can be a winner.

A rule about Dakka I long ago took to heart, when Kronk is not posting something absurd, you need to farkin listen.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

NO. In arguing self defense-which is what this is-you are admitting to the crime already, saying it was justifiable under the law. At least for non-Police the burden is completely on you.*


*Except for Florida. I think the standard there is whether or not the defendant asked a bystander to "hold his beer and watch this" first.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, because the Cop is not the victim here. The cop shot a man, that is indisputable. Now he has to prove that his shoot was good.

I though in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

even if you are a cop.

or not i dont know.

NO. In arguing self defense-which is what this is-you are admitting to the crime already, saying it was justifiable under the law. At least for non-Police the burden is completely on you.*


*Except for Florida. I think the standard there is whether or not the defendant asked a bystander to "hold his beer and watch this" first.

Fair enough old man.

ya learn something new every day.

 djones520 wrote:


A rule about Dakka I long ago took to heart, when Kronk is not posting something absurd, you need to farkin listen.

Sadly, I'm mostly absurd and should generally be ignored, but thank you djones.

Prestor Jon wrote:

agnosto, I hear what you're saying and I agree that people should be civil and polite when interacting with the police or anyone else. Being rude/obnoxious is pretty much universally counter productive and typically makes one look petty. Having a nasty disposition never helps a situation. However, it's still never right to respond to verbal barbs/attitude with physical violence.

I put the majority of the responsibility for the incident on the cops because they're the trained professionals who are supposed to assert and maintain control of the situation. It's the cops' job to make sure an obnoxious person doesn't create a scene that leads to unnecessary violence. The cops have the authority and the responsibility, they're in charge so if the situation goes sideways and ends with the cops shooting somebody that didn't need to get shot, it's the cops' fault. The police are the professionals, they have the training, they're supposed to be able to handle high stress situations in a calm manner, control the situation, issue clear commands and give people the opportunity to comply. The civilians aren't in control, don't have any special training and aren't mind readers, they don't know what the police want and expect until the police make it clear with instructions. It's not Castile's, or any other lawfully armed citizen's, responsibility to know that he's one false move away from getting shot as soon as he tells a cop he's legally armed and to know just what constitutes such an action. It's not Castile's job to know exactly how to handle an encounter with police, it's the police's job to control the situation and clearly communicate to Castile what he needs to do and give him a chance to do it.

I don't think the cops involved in this incident are horrible people or that they had any premeditated intent to shoot anybody that day. I think they lost control of a situation that they're supposed to be able to handle and it resulted in somebody losing his life for no justifiable reason. The only thing that should have caused those cops to lose control of that situation would be if Castile just suddenly had the homicidal urge to start a gunfight with the cops. If Castile attacked the cops he's responsible for his actions and for forcing the cops to shoot him. I personally think it's highly unlikely that any party involved suddenly had the desire to start a shootout, I think there was miscommunication and actions/intents were misread and there was overreaction on the part of the cops. It's a terrible tragedy for everybody involved.

I'm a carry permit holder and in my state I have a duty to inform the police that I'm carry anytime I have an encounter with them while armed. I don't want cops to view me as an imminent threat just because I'm lawfully armed. I'm a law abiding citizen with no animosity towards cops, I don't want to find myself in a situation where if a cop misreads a simple move I make that I'll get shot to death. Regardless of any legal consequences for the cops involved in this situation I want this incident to lead to an honest objective examination of how police departments train their officers to deal with lawfully armed citizens.

All very reasonable and more than likely an accurate assessment; however, that said, it's impossible to tell since we don't know pretty much anything for certain about the event and likely will never know certain things. My main point is in cautioning people from jumping to suppositions when all of the facts are not released and there is only currently one, partial testimony from one point of view.

Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

 agnosto wrote:


Personally, my gut tells me it was a bad shoot but I'm not ready to start construction on a gallows without at least hearing both sides of the story.

The problem is when police are involved when it comes to incidents involving police malfeasance , they have a documented history of:
*Planting evidence
*Falsifying evidence
*making false statements
*Refusing to make statements
*instructing other police to make false statements
*Other police voluntarily choosing to purger themselves by making false statements

So it makes it very hard for *ANYONE* to believe any reports that come out of police investigating themselves as when the DOJ investigates they find amazingly high rates of issues with those investigations and there is literally no consequence to those officers.

If we didn't have dirty cops and the blue wall of silence, I would be perfectly happy to let the chips fall where they may, but it has been proven we as a society cannot trust officers to investigate other officers impartially or reliably in almost every cop-involved situation. If it doesn't come from the DOJ report, I will be wearing my 'Skepticals'. Too bad DOj reports come after the police already destroyed the case with false evidence and statements and justice is never going to be done.

Nkelsch has the way of it. No group should police its own.