Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

The dash cam isn't going to show anything meaningful. It's video shot through the windshield of the police cruiser parked behind Castile's car so it's not going to show Castile's movements inside his car well at all.

We already know a lot of the salient facts:

Castile pulled over to the side of the road and turned off his car when the police pulled up behind him.
Castile left his seatbelt on, waited for the police to approach his car and then calmly handed over his insurance card
Officer Yanez asked Castile for his Driver's License
Castile calmly informed Yanez that he was lawfully armed (as CCW holder are required to do by state law)
Officer Yanez placed his hand on his own pistol, partially drew it and commanded Castile not to reach for his pistol
Castile told Officer Yanez he wasn't reaching for it
Less than 10 seconds later Officer Yanez shot and killed Castile because he believed Castile posed an imminent lethal threat to him

Castile pulled over without trying to evade the police, he did not attack the police when they were approaching his car, he didn't have his gun in his hand or in his lap when the police arrived at his car, he calmly and voluntarily informed the police he was armed, his girlfriend and daughter were in the car with him at the time. In Officer Yanez's account we are to believe that after being calm and compliant throughout the encounter Castile suddenly decided to draw his gun and attempt to murder the two police officers and he not only decided to try to draw on the cops from the seated position behind the steering wheel with his seatbelt on after informing the cops he was armed, but he did it in such a slow and inept manner that Castile's gun was still in his pocket when Officer Yanez shot him.

Police shouldn't be allowed to treat potential threats as if they were imminent threats and preemptively shoot people. That same kind of behavior from a lawfully armed citizen would never be tolerated or acquitted. With the prosecution stating that Castile's pistol was still in his pocket when he died it strains credulity to believe Officer Yanez saw Castile put his hand on his pistol in a manner that made it reasonable to perceive Castile to be an imminent lethal threat.

Transcript of encounter: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/us/philando-castile-shooting-officer-trial-timeline/index.html
Prosecution states Castile's gun was in his pocket when he died: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/philando-castile-trial-verdict/index.html

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

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

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Mario wrote:

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."

That tweet has no bearing on this event whatsoever and it's a hilariously ignorant tweet too. Nobody with any knowledge of US history, culture and law should have expected some kind of federal legislative response to Newtown. I mean really, did the person who tweeted that not know that Columbine happened or did the tweeter just not think that the teenage murder victims counted as children? I don't see how that last paragraph of holier than thou cultural stone throwing made it past the No US Politics ban.

 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

 Frazzled 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Why not? What were you doing that would justify the cops pointing their guns at you and treating you as an imminent threat they would require lethal force to stop? It doesn't matter what area your in, if all you did was commit a minor moving violation there's no reason for the cops to treat you like that just because the possibility of you actually becoming a threat is greater than zero.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Why not? What were you doing that would justify the cops pointing their guns at you and treating you as an imminent threat they would require lethal force to stop? It doesn't matter what area your in, if all you did was commit a minor moving violation there's no reason for the cops to treat you like that just because the possibility of you actually becoming a threat is greater than zero.

It did matter. I was driving through a very heavy gang area late at night. I was guilty of DWW in an area where you only do that if you are looking for drugs or companionship (or you were very late coming back from university). There's the way things aught to be and the way things are. Given the number of continuous shootings in the area including at PoPo I could understand and they were otherwise always extremely professional-but not to be ed with during the initial stop. Once you were talking to them it was ok.

Now that doesn't actually relate well to this incident, just that some areas are different and you have to take that into account.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

"Shot first", as in not declared his intention to get his ID or complying with the jumped up Paul Blart wanna-be.

 Frazzled 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

I absolutely would blame them. That's clearly indicative of a dysfunctional relationship with the population and a mindset of fear, combativeness, and a view that the citizen is the enemy, none of which is good from a policing standpoint or a social contract standpoint, and if that area of town is really *that* bad, then there are other issues and they shouldn't be doing random solo stops.

I'm oot and aboot late at night/early morning not uncommonly, both on foot and car. I carry not uncommonly while doing so. I would never draw that weapon without an imminent and immediate physical threat, and such was drilled at every step of my CHL training. I would expect a police officer, as a fellow civilian and citizen beholden to not only uphold the law but be an exemplar of it, to act with no less restraint.

Drawing at a stop just as a matter of course, to me at least, is brandishing, and that's illegal for you and me, and should apply to police officers no less.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

"Shot first", as in not declared his intention to get his ID or complying with the jumped up Paul Blart wanna-be.

Ok, I am slightly confused with what you are trying to say, so can't comment appropriately.

All indications are that he did everything he was taught to do. My wife was pulled over last week and she did the exact same thing. The difference:

*here, CCer gets shot while fully complying.
*there, CCer gets told "good" that she is armed, and is given a warning ticket.

I think the only difference i would have done in his shoes is get my wallet in my hand as soon as stopped.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

"Shot first", as in not declared his intention to get his ID or complying with the jumped up Paul Blart wanna-be.

Ok, I am slightly confused with what you are trying to say, so can't comment appropriately.

All indications are that he did everything he was taught to do. My wife was pulled over last week and she did the exact same thing. The difference:

*here, CCer gets shot while fully complying.
*there, CCer gets told "good" that she is armed, and is given a warning ticket.

I think the only difference i would have done in his shoes is get my wallet in my hand as soon as stopped.

The difference is that your wife isn't a black man, Frazzled.

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

Why not? What were you doing that would justify the cops pointing their guns at you and treating you as an imminent threat they would require lethal force to stop? It doesn't matter what area your in, if all you did was commit a minor moving violation there's no reason for the cops to treat you like that just because the possibility of you actually becoming a threat is greater than zero.

It did matter. I was driving through a very heavy gang area late at night. I was guilty of DWW in an area where you only do that if you are looking for drugs or companionship (or you were very late coming back from university). There's the way things aught to be and the way things are. Given the number of continuous shootings in the area including at PoPo I could understand and they were otherwise always extremely professional-but not to be ed with during the initial stop. Once you were talking to them it was ok.

Now that doesn't actually relate well to this incident, just that some areas are different and you have to take that into account.

So you were racially profiled and had guns pointed at you based on assumptions that weren't supported by any actions on your part other than driving down the street. Driving While White is no better of a reason for pulling somebody over than Driving While Black. It's a lazy practice that can easily create situations that go sideways. You didn't do anything wrong but agents of the state are pointing guns at you anyway and if that kind of treatment upsets you then you better hide it well because anything less than very polite behavior on your part could see your life ruined or ended. Defaulting to treating everyone like criminals is the opposite of good police work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled 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.

I have had PoPo with guns drawn and aimed at stops. Given the area and time of night I was stopped I didn't blame them a bit.

I absolutely would blame them. That's clearly indicative of a dysfunctional relationship with the population and a mindset of fear, combativeness, and a view that the citizen is the enemy, none of which is good from a policing standpoint or a social contract standpoint, and if that area of town is really *that* bad, then there are other issues and they shouldn't be doing random solo stops.

I'm oot and aboot late at night/early morning not uncommonly, both on foot and car. I carry not uncommonly while doing so. I would never draw that weapon without an imminent and immediate physical threat, and such was drilled at every step of my CHL training. I would expect a police officer, as a fellow civilian and citizen beholden to not only uphold the law but be an exemplar of it, to act with no less restraint.

Drawing at a stop just as a matter of course, to me at least, is brandishing, and that's illegal for you and me, and should apply to police officers no less.

Don't worry Vaktahi, you'll have nothing to fear when you're "oot and aboot" because as a Canadian you'll be incredibly polite even under the most stressful of conditions.

The difference is that your wife isn't a black man, Frazzled.

And/or was stopped by a better cop (aka I am agreeing with your earlier post with an example).

There-cop shoots him. Here, cop congratulates stoppee for being able to defend herself and lets her go with a warning. *






*TexMex superior Space Nazis from the Moon inferior!

Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Sure there is, but he would be alive.

And you would be surprised the groups that would likely have gotten involved defending him; including the ACLU.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Yes. I hope this is seen as cultural commentary and not political, because I don't think this is really a party line issue, but: the US ultimately still has an awful lot of racism. Not necessarily the overt kind as much, with burning crosses and public lynchings - but we still have plenty of more subtle racism. To a police officer, a black man is legitimately more scary. They get pulled over more for less adequate reasons, cops are more inclined to shoot, and with less cause. I don't think is a particularly controversial set of facts. When the cops do shoot, they are way, way more unlikely to be charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. That's just how it is in the US.

This is why the NRA has been so silent on this: what you think would a textbook case of what they are most worried about, a overzealous government agent killing a lawful firearm owner who did nothing wrong. Ultimately firearm rights are very strongly a white privilege. You see it time and time again - a black man buying a toy rifle in Walmart shot and killed, in an open carry state. A 14 year old boy shot and killed by a cop within 2 seconds of jumping out of the car while he had a BB gun in his waistband, again in an open carry state. The Black Panthers march with firearms, and Ronald Reagan gets onboard with gun control. Again, this isn't a political issue - it's a cultural one. This is just how it is in the US.

I think the only thing that can fix it is the passage of time, maybe a few decades.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't see how that last paragraph of holier than thou cultural stone throwing made it past the No US Politics ban.

He rolled a natural 100 on the first Dakka moderation table, and then 97!
I wasn't so lucky with my own comment .
Pretty hard to even post on this thread without saying stuff that relates to US politics to be honest. This is so representative of issues that are all considered “US politics”: guns, racism, …

 Ouze wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Yes. I hope this is seen as cultural commentary and not political, because I don't think this is really a party line issue, but: the US ultimately still has an awful lot of racism. Not necessarily the overt kind as much, with burning crosses and public lynchings - but we still have plenty of more subtle racism. To a police officer, a black man is legitimately more scary. They get pulled over more for less adequate reasons, cops are more inclined to shoot, and with less cause. I don't think is a particularly controversial set of facts. When the cops do shoot, they are way, way more unlikely to be charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. That's just how it is in the US.

This is why the NRA has been so silent on this: what you think would a textbook case of what they are most worried about, a overzealous government agent killing a lawful firearm owner who did nothing wrong. Ultimately firearm rights are very strongly a white privilege. You see it time and time again - a black man buying a toy rifle in Walmart shot and killed, in an open carry state. A 14 year old boy shot and killed by a cop within 2 seconds of jumping out of the car while he had a BB gun in his waistband, again in an open carry state. The Black Panthers march with firearms, and Ronald Reagan gets onboard with gun control. Again, this isn't a political issue - it's a cultural one. This is just how it is in the US.

I think the only thing that can fix it is the passage of time, maybe a few decades.

I don't think time is the answer. No matter how much time passes if the legislation or policing tactics primarily negatively impact only one segment of society and the rest of society can conveniently overlook it then it won't ever change. There's a lot of laws that are vestiges of Jim Crow that are still on the books because the people who are most vulnerable to them are the easiest to dismiss. If you want to purchase or carry a pistol in NC you have to go through your county sheriff, there's 100 counties so there's 100 sheriffs and they all have the power to deny you based on their discretion and the primary reason that system exists is to prevent black people from getting and carrying handguns because sheriffs could deny them without needing the state to pass an overtly racist law to support the denial of their 2A rights.

In a similar vein, there's the situation like what Frazzled experienced, drive through a neighborhood that you don't belong in and the cops pull you over without affording you any presumption of innocence. Frazz can brush it off because its a rare occurrence for him but there's a whole segment of the population that get treated like that by the cops every time and that is incredibly counter productive to doing good police work. As long as the people living different segments of a city/town have very different interactions with the police it's going to be very difficult to get them to agree that a problem exists or that changes have to be made.

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Technically, thanks to the precedent this sets, when a cop approaches a person, that person should now be able to lawfully kill them. Because that's enough for them to feel that their life is threatened. However, let's not pretend for one second that Castile or anyone else would be living happily ever after if they shot a cop because they "felt their life was in danger". They'd be sent down for it. Because there's one law for the police and another for the rest of you.

Yes. I hope this is seen as cultural commentary and not political, because I don't think this is really a party line issue, but: the US ultimately still has an awful lot of racism. Not necessarily the overt kind as much, with burning crosses and public lynchings - but we still have plenty of more subtle racism. To a police officer, a black man is legitimately more scary. They get pulled over more for less adequate reasons, cops are more inclined to shoot, and with less cause. I don't think is a particularly controversial set of facts. When the cops do shoot, they are way, way more unlikely to be charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. That's just how it is in the US.

This is why the NRA has been so silent on this: what you think would a textbook case of what they are most worried about, a overzealous government agent killing a lawful firearm owner who did nothing wrong. Ultimately firearm rights are very strongly a white privilege. You see it time and time again - a black man buying a toy rifle in Walmart shot and killed, in an open carry state. A 14 year old boy shot and killed by a cop within 2 seconds of jumping out of the car while he had a BB gun in his waistband, again in an open carry state. The Black Panthers march with firearms, and Ronald Reagan gets onboard with gun control. Again, this isn't a political issue - it's a cultural one. This is just how it is in the US.

I think the only thing that can fix it is the passage of time, maybe a few decades.

I don't think time is the answer. No matter how much time passes if the legislation or policing tactics primarily negatively impact only one segment of society and the rest of society can conveniently overlook it then it won't ever change. There's a lot of laws that are vestiges of Jim Crow that are still on the books because the people who are most vulnerable to them are the easiest to dismiss. If you want to purchase or carry a pistol in NC you have to go through your county sheriff, there's 100 counties so there's 100 sheriffs and they all have the power to deny you based on their discretion and the primary reason that system exists is to prevent black people from getting and carrying handguns because sheriffs could deny them without needing the state to pass an overtly racist law to support the denial of their 2A rights.

In a similar vein, there's the situation like what Frazzled experienced, drive through a neighborhood that you don't belong in and the cops pull you over without affording you any presumption of innocence. Frazz can brush it off because its a rare occurrence for him but there's a whole segment of the population that get treated like that by the cops every time and that is incredibly counter productive to doing good police work. As long as the people living different segments of a city/town have very different interactions with the police it's going to be very difficult to get them to agree that a problem exists or that changes have to be made.

I should be more clear. I am not brushing off why I was being pulled over, but the methodology of the stop itself, which was no different than when I was a passenger and the driver was not DWW but was DWBrown.

Dashcam video is out on Huffington Post. Maybe the jury felt sorry for the officer after looking at the video?

What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Verdicts like this will result in more cops living in fear, and in more people remaining in fear every time those cars light up.

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Fun fact, Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect or serve anything as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as reinforced in two separate cases.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

So... I saw the dash cam.

I have no words.

Yanez obviously was spooked.

100% Police Malfeasance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Fun fact, Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect or serve anything as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as reinforced in two separate cases.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

And blacks don't have a constitutional right to go to a white school, gays don't have a constitutional right to marry, gun owners have no constitutional right to be considered a militia, and on and on and on.

The courts have often upheld gak decisions, and we never stopped accepting those gak decisions. So why should we stand by this one, while cops who are too afraid to be police officers are trusted with a badge and a gun, with the knowledge by all that they are above the law?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... I saw the dash cam.

I have no words.

Yanez obviously was spooked.

100% Police Malfeasance.

50% Police Malfeasance.

50% Americans on Juries across the country saying "cops can kill black people because they are scary".

Cops are just the ones killing the minorities. Juries are the ones saying that it's okay.

Saw the video.

Good with the verdict, myself.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What a giant load of steaming gak on the law that police are supposed to protect and serve.

Fun fact, Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect or serve anything as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as reinforced in two separate cases.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

And blacks don't have a constitutional right to go to a white school, gays don't have a constitutional right to marry, gun owners have no constitutional right to be considered a militia, and on and on and on.

The courts have often upheld gak decisions, and we never stopped accepting those gak decisions. So why should we stand by this one, while cops who are too afraid to be police officers are trusted with a badge and a gun, with the knowledge by all that they are above the law?

Not trying to say anyone should just accept it, just dispelling the notion of "protect and serve" is all. An unfortunate reality.

 nels1031 wrote:
Saw the video.

Good with the verdict, myself.

Really? I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

If people were interested in sharing, they would have shared. Otherwise this is known as baiting.

 d-usa wrote:
If people were interested in sharing, they would have shared. Otherwise this is known as baiting.

Hold your horses champ. Catching up on TV!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Saw the video.

Good with the verdict, myself.

Really? I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Curious as well, seeing as if a cop acted like that where I'm form, not only would they loose their license and their job - they would be charged (and convicted, no doubt) of manslaughter.
Killing someone because you are scared of the worst possible eventuality ("he *might* have a gun, and he *might* reach for it, better shoot him"), then you shouldn't be a police. You're just a scared thug with a gun.

This reminds me of another cop video I saw afew days ago; the cop shot the (black) man in his back while he was running away, 5 times.
If you shoot someone in the back 5 times, you're not trying to apprehend or stop him from running away (you shoot them once, maybe twice, in the legs - not the back), you're trying to kill them, probably for no other reason than that they slapped you in the face.

An excerpt from the transcript:


So concerned about the welfare of the 5-year old child being exposed to imaginary second-hand marijuana smoke that he put seven rounds into the car.