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.

**Prestor Jon**

agnosto wrote:
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.

I totally agree. We shouldn't rush to judgement and we don't know exactly what happened and may never know exactly what happened. I don't think any of the parties approached this tragedy with malice aforethought. The primary purpose behind me posting my suppositoins was to provide an explanation as to how an encounter between police and a carry permit holder, two parties that should be able to interact cordially without issue, could so easily go awry and lead to a needless death. It also provided more context for me to opine about the current standards and practices of police training that are feel are woefully inadequate in some respects.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Agreed. I've never understood the level of disdain most cops have for their IA departments. It's like they don't believe they should be held accountable or that bad cops should be rooted out. I think most cops are good people because most people in general are good people but it is perplexing and frustrating the way a lot of LEOs an pundits are so quick to deny and dismiss any accusation of wrongdoing or negligence leveled at police. Cops are human, they're going to make mistakes and the best way to deal with those mistakes is in an objective and transparent manner.

**skyth**

Reminds me of a story...it boils down to a man being afraid of a gay man because the gay man might treat him like he treats women...

In this case the police don't like the fact that they might get treated like they treat civilians they deal with.

**Asterios**

As I said before we do not know what happened yet, we only know what the passenger said, as far as we know the guy could have pulled his gun or tried to on the cop, but we do not know, and for those of you who say nobody would do that with their girlfriend and children in the car obviously do not watch the news I've seen to many times where shooters would hide behind their kids and such while shooting at the police:

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/06/15/prosecutors-man-uses-baby-as-shield-after-125-mph-car-chase/

http://wsvn.com/news/child-used-as-human-shield-saved-by-police-officer/

http://www.statesboroherald.com/archives/74094/preview/

and then the scum who killed their children and SO's

so yes it is feasible, but is this what happened? we do not know, since we do not know what happened or how it happened. just because someone got on Camera and said that is what happened after the fact does not make it fact, its like the incident that happened in Ferguson, lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

**nkelsch**

Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

**SemperMortis**

nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

not true at all, but since i don't feel like opening up that can of worms again, i will just point out that you are biased in your viewing of police around the US. and that you are wrong in regards to Ferguson.

**Asterios**

nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

actually there was plenty of testimony that supported the officers statement, so get the facts right.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-new-forensic-evidence-game-changer-mike-brown-officer-darren-wilson-case/ (a bit right wing but points out the facts)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html (and from the left wing, which still supports the evidence)

**nkelsch**

SemperMortis wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

not true at all, but since i don't feel like opening up that can of worms again, i will just point out that you are biased in your viewing of police around the US. and that you are wrong in regards to Ferguson.

Considering the DOJ reports show the biases of that police department, the malfeasance fo the DA and the falsehoods of manufactured witnesses intentionally designed to skirt justice from a DA... I am perfectly comfortable with believing the DOJs findings of how police operate in the US over what the police say.

Same with the Chicago reports... The problem is once the DOJ comes in and finds out that the police and local authority have destroyed the case, justice can't be had, only 'stop future incidents from happening.'

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

**Asterios**

nkelsch wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

not true at all, but since i don't feel like opening up that can of worms again, i will just point out that you are biased in your viewing of police around the US. and that you are wrong in regards to Ferguson.

Considering the DOJ reports show the biases of that police department, the malfeasance fo the DA and the falsehoods of manufactured witnesses intentionally designed to skirt justice from a DA... I am perfectly comfortable with believing the DOJs findings of how police operate in the US over what the police say.

Same with the Chicago reports... The problem is once the DOJ comes in and finds out that the police and local authority have destroyed the case, justice can't be had, only 'stop future incidents from happening.'

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

and yet not one word about Wilson in that article, so by your statement if a black guy robs people all black guys should be considered crooks? I mean you are lumping all cops in because of a few bad ones.

also love how the article goes on and on how the city is concerned about money and so forth, duh, you need money to make a city work, police, firefighters and all that do not work for free so they cost money.

**nkelsch**

Asterios wrote:

and yet not one word about Wilson in that article, so by your statement if a black guy robs people all black guys should be considered crooks? I mean you are lumping all cops in because of a few bad ones.

also love how the article goes on and on how the city is concerned about money and so forth, duh, you need money to make a city work, police, firefighters and all that do not work for free so they cost money.

I am lumping them all in because they have found it really was ALL OF THEM... That is what the reports found. Shows the police violate rights systematically, Lie, abuse minorities and then have the local courts do it too... It wasn't isolated bad apples... they were all doing it, and as a matter of department POLICY. And yet we are supposed to believe those people when they testify and run a corrupt grand jury which was proven to be shown later to have high profile witnesses like witness 40 lying to the grand jury after being coached by local police with no consequences?

So DOJ finds deep, widespread, systematic corruption, violence and rights violation almost exclusively upon racial lines... but yet we trust the police's statements unflinchingly because they are police....

Again... Shooting a black man who might look like a suspect is a good shoot in your alls eyes. Police get every benefit of the doubt but the victim probably was using his child as a human shield in your guys universes.

**Asterios**

nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:

and yet not one word about Wilson in that article, so by your statement if a black guy robs people all black guys should be considered crooks? I mean you are lumping all cops in because of a few bad ones.

also love how the article goes on and on how the city is concerned about money and so forth, duh, you need money to make a city work, police, firefighters and all that do not work for free so they cost money.

I am lumping them all in because they have found it really was ALL OF THEM... That is what the reports found. Shows the police violate rights systematically, Lie, abuse minorities and then have the local courts do it too... It wasn't isolated bad apples... they were all doing it, and as a matter of department POLICY. And yet we are supposed to believe those people when they testify and run a corrupt grand jury which was proven to be shown later to have high profile witnesses like witness 40 lying to the grand jury after being coached by local police with no consequences?

So DOJ finds deep, widespread, systematic corruption, violence and rights violation almost exclusively upon racial lines... but yet we trust the police's statements unflinchingly because they are police....

Again... Shooting a black man who might look like a suspect is a good shoot in your alls eyes. Police get every benefit of the doubt but the victim probably was using his child as a human shield in your guys universes.

you mean like the "witness" who reported that Brown was running away and it turns out the witness was not even in the same state? and that the evidence showed that was not the case? so you say it is ok to commit a crime and use your own child as a human shield then? ok I see where you are coming from and welcome to my ignore list.

**nkelsch**

Asterios wrote:

you mean like the "witness" who reported that Brown was running away and it turns out the witness was not even in the same state? and that the evidence showed that was not the case? so you say it is ok to commit a crime and use your own child as a human shield then? ok I see where you are coming from and welcome to my ignore list.

You were the one speculating that the victim in this case 'could have been doing such a thing as it is things people have been known to do'.

You like to widely speculate on how many ways the victim deserved it but want 'facts only facts' in defense of the cop.

Asterios wrote:
but we do not know, and for those of you who say nobody would do that with their girlfriend and children in the car obviously do not watch the news I've seen to many times where shooters would hide behind their kids and such while shooting at the police:

You compare the victim to people who use their children as human shields and that is ok and reasonable justification for a cop to be given benefit of the doubt.

I provide a DOJ report that proves conclusively the entire police force of a town was involved in massive violations of rights and illegal activity mostly along racial lines and you respond with 'clearly not the one officer who was involved with a shooting, can't use a broad brush!'

Seriously?

**Easy E**

nkelsch wrote:
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.

Which is why the Governor put a different group in charge of the State investigation, The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (?) and asked for a federal DoJ investigation as well.

Pretty smart move in my opinion.

**whembly**

nkelsch wrote:
Asterios wrote:
lots of people got online and said so and so happened and it turns out they were lies.

Actually, the only 'lies' in Fergeson was 'witness 40' which was confirmed to be a mentally ill white woman who was no where near the incident and coached by police to make up false testimony and the DA who presented her to the grand jury admitted he knew she was lying. All the other witnesses had consistent stories which conflicted with the police officer.

The lies of the officer and the false statements from witness 40 derailed the grand jury. Exactly the type of 'blue wall' tactics which we are worried of.

Citation needed.

Because if that's true, the Holder's DoJ truly fethed up in epic proportion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
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.

Which is why the Governor put a different group in charge of the State investigation, The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (?) and asked for a federal DoJ investigation as well.

Pretty smart move in my opinion.

Agreed. That was very smart of the Governor to do...

**Easy E**

Interesting new article about Castile's driving record...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/15/485835272/the-driving-life-and-death-of-philando-castile

was stopped by police 46 times and racked up more than $6,000 in fines. Another curious statistic: Of all of the stops, only six of them were things a police officer would notice from outside a car — things like speeding or having a busted muffler.

So that begs the question, of the 40 other times, why were they stopping him?

Philando Castile's driving problems often appeared to be triggered by something small —a problem with his license plate or blocking an intersection. When he couldn't keep up with the fines, his license would get suspended and he'd keep driving.

One six-year period in particular — from 2006 to 2012 — stands out. Castile was stopped 29 times during that period. Sometimes he was fined $270, sometimes $150, but it kept adding up. He soon amassed more than $5,000 in fines.

Starting to look like Ferguson all over again.

This week, the St. Anthony Police Department released statistics on their traffic stops. They show that officers issue citations at the same rate as neighboring suburbs but police disproportionately arrest African-Americans.

About 7 percent of the residents in the area patrolled are African-American but this year they make up about 47 percent of arrests. The data show that since 2011, African-Americans have been making up a larger percentage of arrests.

Okay? That begs the begs the question of "WHY?" again. These are stats from the police department themselves.

From 2012 to late 2014 — like clockwork — he paid off fine after fine, some of them more than $500 a month.

"He was trying to make it right," said Beverly Castile, Philando's aunt. "And it was right. He paid off all his tickets, got his license back and everything else. It was done right."

So, here we have a guy doing what the system has been asking him to do. The attempts to smear this guys name as a robbery suspect and a person unwilling to follow basic traffic laws are starting to look a bit ridiculous after reviewing the Police Departments own records and looking closer at Mr. Castile's own record.

This doesn't tell us anything about the "shoot" itself, but it does point to a racial profiling problem, if not a class profiling problem.

I wonder at what point he got his CCP and how many times he was stopped after getting that CCP? Was he frequently stopped by the same officers? The data doesn't tell us this yet.

**agnosto**

Pretty damning. That article makes it sound like profiling at its worst.

**nkelsch**

agnosto wrote:
Pretty damning. That article makes it sound like profiling at its worst.

Like when Baltimore police 'over-policed' sections in order to make the claim they were 'high crime' areas so being in a 'high crime' area justifies 'probable cause' for a stop with no other evidence or justification.

So you target people, pump the statistics to make it look like they are criminals then use the 'they are committing crimes at a higher rate' to erode what rights they do have left.

I see people with busted bumpers, cracked windshields, broken lights, messed up or covered plates and so on driving next to and past police daily, never stopped. But in some areas they are pulling people over for 'something hanging on the rear view mirror' and 'broken tail lights which aren't broken' multiple times?

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

**Easy E**

nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

**Xenomancers**

Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
Pretty damning. That article makes it sound like profiling at its worst.

That is excactly what you should expect from an NPR article.

**A Town Called Malus**

Xenomancers wrote:
Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

You find it more believable that he was reaching for a gun because he has a criminal history which involves no violent crimes, not even resisting arrest, whatsoever? I mean, why would he reach for it now, when he was paying off his fines and had his family in the car rather than at any other stop?

**SemperMortis**

That is excactly what you should expect from an NPR article.

lmao, I love NPR. They pretend to be neutral and get upset when someone points out that they lean so far left that they can't even see the center anymore

**Easy E**

Xenomancers wrote:
Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

Judge, I rest my case about using this data to discredit the victim.

In that NPR article there is also a link to the source materials you can review for yourself free of the NPR filter.

**Asterios**

I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

**Xenomancers**

Easy E wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

Judge, I rest my case about using this data to discredit the victim.

In that NPR article there is also a link to the source materials you can review for yourself free of the NPR filter.

Regardless of the datas sources the NPR article paints a very grim picture which is completely the opposite conclusion that should be drawn. Instead of blaming the individual for his 46 traffic stops in the time period - NPR blames police and suggests that the quantity of stops indicates police wrong doing. Also don't pretend that a history of being a non law abiding citizen would in any way help a case in court from your perspective.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

You find it more believable that he was reaching for a gun because he has a criminal history which involves no violent crimes, not even resisting arrest, whatsoever? I mean, why would he reach for it now, when he was paying off his fines and had his family in the car rather than at any other stop?

He has a criminally stupid criminal history...repeating the same offense over and over and over. It shows a complete and utter disrespect for the law. Exactly the kind of person I would think would do something explicitly because he was told not to. Granted the fact that he has shown repeated stupitiy - it's not hard for me to draw a conclusion he did something stupid yet again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
That is excactly what you should expect from an NPR article.

lmao, I love NPR. They pretend to be neutral and get upset when someone points out that they lean so far left that they can't even see the center anymore

I used to listen to NPR. Now any time I do I want to vomit. Every single day...another story about inner city youth and their struggle. Then an interview with a muslim or something talking about how they don't hate america....My friends...this is brainwashing at it's worst. Just because they play piano inbetween interviews doesn't make this any less GAK.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

Bravo! This is exactly the point.

**d-usa**

His own damn fault, having a job and whatnot.

**Asterios**

the problem is people are claiming cops are stereotyping races and such, maybe true with some cops but not all cops, so does it make it better when certain people in the community start stereotyping all cops as bad? like with some posters here and this article here?

http://fox40.com/2016/07/14/sheriff-restaurant-owner-told-his-deputies-law-enforcement-no-longer-welcome/

and then you have people who claim BLM is not racist and they care about all lives, yet where was the BLM when this happened?

http://fox40.com/2016/07/14/fresno-police-video-shows-shooting-of-unarmed-suspect/

but then again the suspects family does not believe police used excessive force, even though they shot him twice while on the ground.

but the one thing that irks me the most , you see all these BLM protesters protesting the police, yet where are they protesting the Black on Black killings? why don't they protest to clean up their own neighborhoods and get rid of the druggies and ne'er do wells from their neighborhoods? and yet when a black kills a black and the cops ask if anyone saw anything the usual response is no or i'm not a snitch, albeit this is not just a black issue either, all races are like this and distrust the cops, yet when a criminal element is shooting at people who are the first ones they call? what will happen if the cops decide to quit and don't show up for work?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.

Yeah, you're just going to post links to stories about people using children as human shields and speculate that maybe Castile did as well because you know, other people have done that in the past.

It's getting increasingly difficult to post in the OT, considering how you've raised the bar so high.

Xenomancers wrote:
No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

Yes, the jump from driving with a suspended license to potential cop killer is well known. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

Of course, it could be just a product of our wonderful municipal violations system. I guess it could be either way.

**Asterios**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I repeat until all facts and evidence are presented neither side is guilty nor innocent.
Yeah, you're just going to post links to stories about people using children as human shields and speculate that maybe Castile did as well because you know, other people have done that in the past.

It's getting increasingly difficult to post in the OT, considering how you've raised the bar so high.

no i'm saying it could be possible, just that saying it is not is not reasonable, but unlike you i'm not ruling anything out till the facts come to light and right now, we only have a he said/she said situation and a serious lack of facts except that the cop shot the driver, we do not know why and under what circumstances. so good try on your attempt to move the goal posts, but keep chugging away.

**Spinner**

Has the cop actually said that he was drawn on?

**Asterios**

Spinner wrote:
Has the cop actually said that he was drawn on?

to my knowledge, no, in fact only thing we have heard really was the passengers story.

**curran12**

And, logically, if he was drawn on, why hasn't he, or the department said so?