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.

I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

 d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

Depends.

Do more people die in traffic stops than in bathtubs? Thats usually the metric we use around here, I believe.

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

And what happens if a person with a gun defends themselves from attack and the attacker happens to be a policeman? That person gets 60 years.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I have had cops walk up to my car with their hand in their gun, and I've had them walk up with the hand arouns the grip and partially drawn. If I fear for my life, I should be able to kill him.

And what happens if a person with a gun defends themselves from attack and the attacker happens to be a policeman? That person gets 60 years.

No that person gets deaded..

This thread is depressing and makes me respect my local (swedish) policeforce even more.

*insert viral video about swedish off-duty cops on the N.Y. City Subway*

I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

1. The NRA doesn't get involved in cases that much, more about laws.
2. BLM narrative is sexier.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

This is an excellent point Kanluwen.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

But right now, I don't think we have all of the facts of this case.

As for as I know, none of the court's transcripts were released nor the defense's dash cam videos.

Which, if you ask me, is a startling lack of transparency.

I'm having trouble how those 12 juror's unanimously voted not guilty. With what we know publicly know, at best the officer would be convincted on that endangerment charge and hung juror over the manslaughter. At best.

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

 whembly wrote:

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

A policeman shooting an armed black man.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

A policeman shooting an armed black man.

Based on the news account, I see a case where the officer killed Castile for no good reason.

I want to review the court transcripts and any cam videos of the incident.

My hope is that the jurors had more information than we do... or that the Prosecution fethed up big (retrial!)... if not, then this looks to be simply a case where the jurors were afraid to convict law enforcement officers for an unjustly killing.

It's amazing how you can twist facts to suit your view, Whembly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's amazing how you can twist facts to suit your view, Whembly.

What exactly did I twist Kanluwen?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

But right now, I don't think we have all of the facts of this case.

As for as I know, none of the court's transcripts were released nor the defense's dash cam videos.

Which, if you ask me, is a startling lack of transparency.

I'm having trouble how those 12 juror's unanimously voted not guilty. With what we know publicly know, at best the officer would be convincted on that endangerment charge and hung juror over the manslaughter. At best.

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

Trials are typically public. Was this one not public?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's amazing how you can twist facts to suit your view, Whembly.

Wo wo, he is expressing what we all hope for, that the jury had a good legitimate reason for its decision. We should also remember, we may have seen evidence that the jury didn't get to see because it was excluded.

Like him I agree it would be good to see the dashcam and other footage because we did not see the actual event, but the aftermath.

I also don't see how this is a not guilty absent that evidence.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

But right now, I don't think we have all of the facts of this case.

As for as I know, none of the court's transcripts were released nor the defense's dash cam videos.

Which, if you ask me, is a startling lack of transparency.

I'm having trouble how those 12 juror's unanimously voted not guilty. With what we know publicly know, at best the officer would be convincted on that endangerment charge and hung juror over the manslaughter. At best.

But a fricking full not guilty? What did the juror see?

Trials are typically public. Was this one not public?

As far as I know... yeah it's public. But I can't find any court / dashcam transcripts.

Here's the court case filing I just read. From this document, the prosecution appears to have a slam dunk case.

The officer created an untenable situation by issuing two conflicting commands:

9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.”

Castile is operating under two commands. (1)Get his license, and (2)don’t reach for his gun.

Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him.

Still digging around if transcripts/camvids are available....

"Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him. "

I'd bet good money thats it right there. Now I could see not guilty for different levels of homcide, but the Prosecutor should have included lesser charges like accidental manslaughter etc.

Having said that, the more pragmatic of us may be of the opinion that odds are you get shot by the PoPo and it was a bad bad shoot, that nothing will happen.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I thought this one may be different since Mr. Castillo had a license and was clearly not a criminal.

I am surprised we have not heard more about the 2A aspects of the case in the media. Instead it neatly fell into the simple Black Lives Matter- style of narrative that we have seen elsewhere in the national media.

I think that's a symptom of the fact that none of the transcripts, nor dash cam has been released to the public.

That allows the public to fill in the void... and it's an extremely unflattering void... hence the BLM narratives.

...

Yeah, no. The reason you didn't hear more about the Second Amendment aspects of the case in the media is because it didn't fit the narrative that the main rabblerousers of the Second love to espouse.

"They needed to defend yourself from thugs/immigrants/rapists/criminals!"

Do you really think that it is a coincidence that the NRA has been so quiet on this? And that there wasn't really much on the 2nd Amendment aspect?

The NRA is extremely pro-Law Enforcement. Their members include LEOs. You think they're going to demonize LEOs?

I get they're pro-LEO. But, they're also massive advocates for CCW as well.

Well, they can take a pro-LE stance and say that if you CC they can lawfully kill you if they are scared of the fact that you are legally carrying like the NRA encourages you to do, and in the process piss off their entire CC support base.

Or they can take an anti-LE stance and say that LE are too scared of citizens who carry and need to be reigned in and can no longer be trusted to lawfully support and enforce the 2A, and in the process piss of their entire CC support base.

Or, my pure assumption, they know that their "minorities who CC legally" support base is a tiny slice compared to "white people who CC legally" and "law enforcement officers" support bases, and that taking a "we won't say gak about blacks getting killed for doing what we tell people to do" is the best stance for them to take.

That's my guess.

 Frazzled wrote:
"Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him. "

I'd bet good money thats it right there. Now I could see not guilty for different levels of homcide, but the Prosecutor should have included lesser charges like accidental manslaughter etc.

Having said that, the more pragmatic of us may be of the opinion that odds are you get shot by the PoPo and it was a bad bad shoot, that nothing will happen.

That's a very good point- the lesser included. I know that it happens that sometimes prosecutors don't want the lesser in the jury instruction and then it backfires when the jury comes back NG (but would have come back guilty on a lesser). So, for example, they may not find "knowing and intentional" but may find "reckless". It's really hard to say without knowing what was going on in the trial.

NRA is always quiet whenever a killing is bad/tragic. Unless it is to claim a gun could have prevented it.

Regardless, the USA is a big country, so just as a gang killing in NY doesn't mean much about the crime in Tampa, you should probably look at your own state/county to see what shape your PD is in. Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

That's my take on it, too.

jmurph wrote:Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

When you compare police killings in the US with any other developed country then it does sadly look like the police in the US are armed and scared thugs unfit to handle guns. There are just so many reports of the police killing people without reason or with reasons that wouldn't be seen as reasonable here. Those people shouldn't have been allowed to be police officers in the first place if they are so scared of everything.

Then there's the whole thing about people looking for any excuse for the office while also looking for the tiniest of false moves by the victim to feel better/safe about the police ("if I behave correctly surely they won't shoot me"). Literal discussion about how to behave in front of a police officer in the hope that they won't shoot you. People posting their protocol to avoid a bullet with replies saying that too correct or unthreatening behaviour in turn looks suspicious. Apparently you, as a civilian, can't win (and it gets worse if you are not white) and the flimsiest of excuses mean there are often no real or lasting consequences for the police officer. One got literary fired for not killing a man, the incentives are upside down.

That this rate of killings is seen as normal, acceptable, or even unavoidable in the US is really sad (and that's just the gun deaths caused by the police). There is a real need for a honest gun debate in the US and to think about the future of the 2nd amendment (and not just see it as some sort of natural law that always was, is, and will be) if things are to change for the better. Because the police are irrationally afraid of everyone being armed and can use that excuse for shooting anyone. But sadly this tweet is a succinct summary of futility of the gun debate situation in the US: "In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

American Politics post removed - Lorek

The trial info and dashcam should released later this week per an MPR report this morning.

American Politics post removed - Lorek

American Politics post removed - Lorek

[edit]

 Easy E wrote:
The trial info and dashcam should released later this week per an MPR report this morning.

That would be helpful. We should note that the dashcam may be frustratingly inconclusive. That happens too.

EDIT: Thanks Lorek for keeping the nonevent politics out.

I hope to God the jury know something we don't because all I see here is another cop getting away with murder.

 jmurph wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Castile continues to reach for his license and at the same time reassures Castile that he’s not reaching for the gun. Based on this court filing, Castile was following the Yanez's instructions... but Yanez appears to panick and shot him. "

I'd bet good money thats it right there. Now I could see not guilty for different levels of homcide, but the Prosecutor should have included lesser charges like accidental manslaughter etc.

Having said that, the more pragmatic of us may be of the opinion that odds are you get shot by the PoPo and it was a bad bad shoot, that nothing will happen.

That's a very good point- the lesser included. I know that it happens that sometimes prosecutors don't want the lesser in the jury instruction and then it backfires when the jury comes back NG (but would have come back guilty on a lesser). So, for example, they may not find "knowing and intentional" but may find "reckless". It's really hard to say without knowing what was going on in the trial.

From what I've been reading, the jurors tried to make the distinction that they found that the burden of proof was not met rather than finding Yanez innocent. One of the jurors claimed it was 10-2 on the "big deal" charge.

NRA is always quiet whenever a killing is bad/tragic. Unless it is to claim a gun could have prevented it.

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

Someone like Yanez had no business being a police officer. Period. End of story.

Regardless, the USA is a big country, so just as a gang killing in NY doesn't mean much about the crime in Tampa, you should probably look at your own state/county to see what shape your PD is in. Painting all police as armed thugs, though, is laughably misinformed.

I don't think anyone is painting them as "armed thugs". I think the insinuation is that there are individuals in their ranks who had no business being given a Nerf gun let alone a real firearm to enforce the law. Remember that law enforcement, despite being considered a job critical to the safety and security of a civilization, is considered a "fallback career" for many people because many agencies don't have strict requirements or training regimens.

It's a shame, but realistically we need a full scale purge of law enforcement organizations from top to bottom and far stricter hiring requirements. We need in-depth background checks, we need more community oriented training, we need to remove the practice of traffic stops period (Might sound silly, but traffic stops are less about "enforcement" and more about "revenue collection") and move to more speed-trap cameras being the way tickets get sent out. We need more practical less than lethal weapons, we need to emphasize less on the "Shoot first if you feel you're in danger" mentality and more than that...
We need to stop demonizing ethnic groups and start holding police accountable for their actions while acting within the color of law.

But that won't happen. Not one damn bit of it. We're going to keep getting stories like this and officers who had no business being in law enforcement will continue to be in law enforcement in one capacity or another.