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.

 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.

For what its worth, I think this is a tragic situation that could've been avoided had cooler heads been involved. I just don't see criminality.

I think the evidence, or lack thereof is enough for reasonable doubt.

It was a valid stop, as a brake light is out, as seen in the dashcam. The conduct of the officer is professional, informative and courteous, up until the firearm is mentioned. When the firearm is mentioned, the tone changes, as befits a potentially dangerous escalation and there are then three commands, and some sort of physical action regarding the firearm before shots fired.

When the firearm is mentioned, a command is given. Did the driver comply? If he did, what is the driver doing to warrant a second command? What does the officer perceive him to be doing? And what is he doing to warrant the third command? What does the officer perceive him to be doing? Prior to the third command the officer seemed to lunge into the cab of the car to stop something or restrain the driver. What's going on there? Then shots fired.

Its on the prosecution to convince the jury that the cop acted recklessly, resulting in a fatality. (second degree manslaughter). A valid traffic stop. Professional conduct. No red flags there.

When the firearm is mentioned, the officer goes on alert as seen in the dashcam. Perfectly natural response in my opinion. Verbal command is given. No shots fired.

A second command is needed, for whatever reason, and is given, in a more urgent tone. No shots fired.

A third command is needed, for whatever reason, and is given. Followed by a physical action thats looks to be some sort of restraining move inside the cab of the vehicle. This is the part where the officer perceives his life is in danger and decides to use deadly force. Shots are then fired that hit the driver and no one else in the car. Now we're in reckless territory, according to the prosecution. Defense will point to everything prior to shots fired, and note the exact opposite of recklessness.

Three instances of the officer trying to de-escalate verbally, and potentially one physical action to avoid what the officer perceived to be a possible confrontation before the officer felt his life in danger and took action. Doesn't seem reckless to me. Or most importantly, the jurors. Had it been a questionable/unlawful stop, had the officer been needlessly confrontational/unprofessional from the start, had fewer warnings been given, had more evidence of criminality been available, then I believe heavier charges probably would've been brought out and probably would've stuck.

As it stands, the system went through the motions and the people decided.

Heads up: Off to bed. Any response will have to wait.

 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.

r
"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.

DING DING DING! Probably something PoPo expect from any compliant citizen anytime they make a stop. Have your stuff out and ready to give to the officer. If you don't have your stuff ready - it's already a bad sign. I bet you in traffic stop 101 that is the first warning sign to an officer that something is wrong and they need to be extra vigilant. Not complying with commands immediately is probably another. This is yet another reason I don't carry a firearm on my person in the car - it's in the glove box. They want to see it? They can get it out of the freaking glove box themselves.

When I get stopped I have my license in hand and my hands on the wheel. I tell them my registration is in the glove box and ask permission to reach for it.

Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

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

I have no words.

Yanez obviously was spooked.

100% Police Malfeasance.

wow he was playing with his pistol as soon as driver said he was armed and drew to shoot as soon as driver complied to get his license. that POS is guilty.

 nels1031 wrote:

 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.

For what its worth, I think this is a tragic situation that could've been avoided had cooler heads been involved. I just don't see criminality.

I think the evidence, or lack thereof is enough for reasonable doubt.

It was a valid stop, as a brake light is out, as seen in the dashcam. The conduct of the officer is professional, informative and courteous, up until the firearm is mentioned. When the firearm is mentioned, the tone changes, as befits a potentially dangerous escalation and there are then three commands, and some sort of physical action regarding the firearm before shots fired.

When the firearm is mentioned, a command is given. Did the driver comply? If he did, what is the driver doing to warrant a second command? What does the officer perceive him to be doing? And what is he doing to warrant the third command? What does the officer perceive him to be doing? Prior to the third command the officer seemed to lunge into the cab of the car to stop something or restrain the driver. What's going on there? Then shots fired.

Its on the prosecution to convince the jury that the cop acted recklessly, resulting in a fatality. (second degree manslaughter). A valid traffic stop. Professional conduct. No red flags there.

When the firearm is mentioned, the officer goes on alert as seen in the dashcam. Perfectly natural response in my opinion. Verbal command is given. No shots fired.

A second command is needed, for whatever reason, and is given, in a more urgent tone. No shots fired.

A third command is needed, for whatever reason, and is given. Followed by a physical action thats looks to be some sort of restraining move inside the cab of the vehicle. This is the part where the officer perceives his life is in danger and decides to use deadly force. Shots are then fired that hit the driver and no one else in the car. Now we're in reckless territory, according to the prosecution. Defense will point to everything prior to shots fired, and note the exact opposite of recklessness.

Three instances of the officer trying to de-escalate verbally, and potentially one physical action to avoid what the officer perceived to be a possible confrontation before the officer felt his life in danger and took action. Doesn't seem reckless to me. Or most importantly, the jurors. Had it been a questionable/unlawful stop, had the officer been needlessly confrontational/unprofessional from the start, had fewer warnings been given, had more evidence of criminality been available, then I believe heavier charges probably would've been brought out and probably would've stuck.

As it stands, the system went through the motions and the people decided.

Heads up: Off to bed. Any response will have to wait.

I appreciate your reasoned and cogent response but I respectfully disagree with your dismissal of a couple key aspects of the interaction.

Most importantly, Officer Yanez never actually saw Castile's pistol. He only knew Castile was armed because Castile told him so, the police didn't know what Castile was carrying or where it was on his person. Officer Yanez's testimony is clear that he never positively identified a gun in Castile's hand just an ambiguous reaching motion for something that Yanez feared might be a gun. The prosecution stated that when the scene was processed Castile's pistol was still in his pocket. There's no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony that Castile put his hand in the pocket where the gun was or that he ever put his hand on his gun at all only that he was reaching for something.

Officer Yanez trusted Castile's word that he was armed but then didn't trust Castile's word that he wasn't reaching for it even when Castile hadn't shown any previous signs of noncompliance or aggression. I think one can make a supported and cogent argument that Castile was a potential threat because he was armed but could not have posed an imminent threat that warranted lethal force in the absence of a positive identification that Castile was in fact drawing or holding his pistol. If the gun was found in Castile's hand or even half out of his pocket or if Officer Yanez had testified that he positively identified the object Castile might have been reaching for as definitely being a pistol not some ambiguous shape that might have been a pistol I would believe that Officer Yanez was justified to fear for his life but none of that was proven at the trial so I don't.

In regards to Officer Yanez repeating commands I don't think that works in his favor. His commands weren't clear, were contradictory and he escalated the verbal exchange into profane shouting while Castile and the other occupants of the car remained calm. Prior to Officer Yanez shooting Castile, Castile had yet to show the police his concealed carry permit and his DL, which is required to do. The law requires Castile to verbally inform the police he is lawfully armed and then show them his permit. Castile had already complied with the first step and needed to do step 2, show his permit and ID. Officer Yanez ordered Castile not to reach for his gun, if Castile was in fact reaching for his permit/DL and not his gun, and the audio and transcripts show that Castile told Yanez he wasn't reaching for his gun, then he was in fact complying with the commands.

It's not unreasonable to believe that the verbal exchange between Officer Yanez and Castile consisted of Officer Yanez telling Castile not to reach for something that Castile wasn't actually reaching for so Castile didn't immediately stop reaching for the other thing. If what Officer Yanez really wanted Castile to do was stop moving or show him his hands then Officer Yanez should have telling Castile that but Yanez wasn't yelling Stop! or Freeze! or Don't Move! or Show me your hands! he was yelling Don't reach for it! and Castile was replying, I'm not reaching for it.

A compliant, calm, lawfully armed citizen shouldn't be automatically viewed by a police officer as an imminent lethal threat. The defense needed to prove that it was entirely reasonable for Officer Yanez to believe that Castile was about to make an attempt to murder him, that whatever transpired in those few seconds prior to the shooting provided justification for Officer Yanez to fear for his life. There's no evidence, including Officer Yanez's own testimony that proves Castile ever actually put his hand on his pistol at any point during the encounter which makes it impossible for me to believe that Castile posed an imminent lethal threat that required a lethal response from Officer Yanez.

The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the triala dn events calld 74 seconds ont eh MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

Finally, all this "Bulletproff Mind" training is teaching cops to shoot first and ask questions later. All cops go through this training and is very popular with departments and consultants at the moment.
.

Yeah the whole "mindset" and "tactical" bs is ruining police. Deaths in the line of duty are very rare, construction workers have a higher fatality rate in the US than cops and more police die in traffic accidents than gunfights. Real life isn't like a Michael Bay movie and when cops go out on patrol they're not going to roll up onto the Battle of Fallujah. Yes, police work is a very stressful and dangerous job but actual life and death situations are rare. There are hundreds of thousands of LEOs in the US and in a typical year less than 50 are killed in gunfights and while police should be trained to deal with rare worst case scenarios they should not be expecting to encounter rare worst case scenarios. It's like you should know CPR but you should recognize that you'll only ever need to use it rarely if ever.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/12/are-most-job-related-deaths-of-police-caused-by-traffic-incidents/?utm_term=.02ac17c0cd57

It also doesn't help that a lot of people, including many on Dakka Dakka, believe that cops are gunned down at a higher rate every single year for the past few years despite the evidence showing otherwise. When everybody thinks that cops are dying left and right from bullets, it's easy to take that fear into consideration when making verdicts that rely on "was the black guy scary enough to shoot".

But cops dying form shootings are still down, and cops are much more likely to die from car accidents or heart attacks. But if you tell them to slow the feth down rather than going on 100+ MPH chases through neighborhoods you are soft on crime

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

Sounds like the state can get an appeals on those ground to get a re-trial.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

Sounds like the state can get an appeals on those ground to get a re-trial.

This is totally without any actual legal knowledge of any kind on my part, but I think that a jury verdict of "not guilty" always sticks and double jeopardy protection means that even if the state (either as executive or judicial) screws up it's on them and not on the person that benefited from that screw-up. Guilty can be appealed til the cows come home, but a Not Guilty is good for life.

I might be completely wrong here of course.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

Sounds like the state can get an appeals on those ground to get a re-trial.

This is totally without any actual legal knowledge of any kind on my part, but I think that a jury verdict of "not guilty" always sticks and double jeopardy protection means that even if the state (either as executive or judicial) screws up it's on them and not on the person that benefited from that screw-up. Guilty can be appealed til the cows come home, but a Not Guilty is good for life.

I might be completely wrong here of course.

Unless it has changed since the 50s I think that is correct. It is the reason that the people who killed Emmett Till were able to admit that they actually did kill him after they were found not guilty with no legal repercussions.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

Sounds like the state can get an appeals on those ground to get a re-trial.

This is totally without any actual legal knowledge of any kind on my part, but I think that a jury verdict of "not guilty" always sticks and double jeopardy protection means that even if the state (either as executive or judicial) screws up it's on them and not on the person that benefited from that screw-up. Guilty can be appealed til the cows come home, but a Not Guilty is good for life.

I might be completely wrong here of course.

You're right in a sense.

But I'm zero'ing on that controversial procedural issue. That's what the Appeals Court (and Supreme) are there for... if the lower court's ruling was deemed unwarranted, the Appeals/Supreme court can order a retrial.

However, you are right about double-jeopardy if the Appeals/Supreme rule that as kosher.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Unless it has changed since the 50s I think that is correct. It is the reason that the people who killed Emmett Till were able to admit that they actually did kill him after they were found not guilty with no legal repercussions.

So let's go after this guy the same way those kinds of killers were put out of action back in the day... have the Federal government charge officer Yanez with violating Castille's civil rights. It's how the problem of the "all white jury" was circumvented to get a measure of justice for the victims. Maybe it is time to use Federal courts to avoid the "all blue jury".

*takes a look at the current POTUS and the current AG*
*takes a look at the rules about politics*
*walks away*

 Easy E wrote:
The jury did not get to read the transcript or hear the recording of the Yanez interview that was quoted on the previous page due to a procedural issue witht eh prosecution and the order of the Judge. That is a pretty controversial decision at the moment in MN.

There is also a Podcast on the trial and events calld 74 seconds on the MPR website that people interested in the case should check out.

.

Thats what I was afraid of. Important evidence being left out. Its hard to fault the jury when they do not have that information.

It was a valid stop, as a brake light is out, as seen in the dashcam. The conduct of the officer is professional, informative and courteous, up until the firearm is mentioned. When the firearm is mentioned, the tone changes, as befits a potentially dangerous escalation and there are then three commands, and some sort of physical action regarding the firearm before shots fired.

Here is where we completely disagree. CCL is fully legal in that state. There is no escalation that Yanez himself did not do. A firearm is mentioned and he almost draws his weapon at the statement. That is wrong on its face.

Additionally he has been given commands to get his license, at the same time he is being told to not reach for it. He's literally doing what an officer told him to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Unless it has changed since the 50s I think that is correct. It is the reason that the people who killed Emmett Till were able to admit that they actually did kill him after they were found not guilty with no legal repercussions.

So let's go after this guy the same way those kinds of killers were put out of action back in the day... have the Federal government charge officer Yanez with violating Castille's civil rights. It's how the problem of the "all white jury" was circumvented to get a measure of justice for the victims. Maybe it is time to use Federal courts to avoid the "all blue jury".

This is indeed a valid method to approach it as well.

 d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

This is why I also said "hands on the wheel" so it's obvious what I reached for and still hold.

Clearly, the only way to ensure you don't get shot is to make sure the officer knows they're in complete control at all times. People should respond to being pulled over by cuffing themselves to the wheel and inviting the officer to remove their ID and any weapons they may be carrying from their pockets.

It didn't go over that well last time, but I'm willing to keep trying!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

This is why I also said "hands on the wheel" so it's obvious what I reached for and still hold.

When you moved you pushed the drugs underneath the seat, adjusted your gun to make it easy to draw on the cop in case he gets suspicious, and got your ID in your hand on the wheel to try to keep him from having a reason to suspect anything. But for many cops, the fact that you moved around the car is already escalating the situation before he ever got out of his seat. Me getting my wallet from my pocket and then putting my hands on the wheel resulted in the cop walking up to my window with his gun half drawn, at 8:15 am in front of a grade school in the suburbs.

If there is a magical formula of behavior that keeps cops from being idiots during a stop, the entire nation would be glad to have them.

 d-usa wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

This is why I also said "hands on the wheel" so it's obvious what I reached for and still hold.

When you moved you pushed the drugs underneath the seat, adjusted your gun to make it easy to draw on the cop in case he gets suspicious, and got your ID in your hand on the wheel to try to keep him from having a reason to suspect anything. But for many cops, the fact that you moved around the car is already escalating the situation before he ever got out of his seat. Me getting my wallet from my pocket and then putting my hands on the wheel resulted in the cop walking up to my window with his gun half drawn, at 8:15 am in front of a grade school in the suburbs.

If there is a magical formula of behavior that keeps cops from being idiots during a stop, the entire nation would be glad to have them.

Do not move, do not squirm, do not get out of the car, and only do anything after getting express permission from the cop. no sudden movements. pick up the can citizen.

honestly its insane. i never had any sort of issue when iv been pulled over like 8 times now (for speeding but i never seen a spooked cop.

What's your race? This question may not be liked by many, but being pulled over is one of those areas where white privileged exists.

I'm white, and the majority of my interactions with cops when pulled over have been professional and courteous. But I've had a gun half drawn because I moved and got my wallet and then put my hands on the steering wheel before the cop ever got out of his car. My brother had a cop draw on him and scream at him to get out of the car and lay on the ground when he informed him that he had a concealed carry license and was carrying. Stupid cops exist, and some get even stupider when a gun is added into the mix, even if it is a legal gun.

 d-usa wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

This is why I also said "hands on the wheel" so it's obvious what I reached for and still hold.

When you moved you pushed the drugs underneath the seat, adjusted your gun to make it easy to draw on the cop in case he gets suspicious, and got your ID in your hand on the wheel to try to keep him from having a reason to suspect anything. But for many cops, the fact that you moved around the car is already escalating the situation before he ever got out of his seat. Me getting my wallet from my pocket and then putting my hands on the wheel resulted in the cop walking up to my window with his gun half drawn, at 8:15 am in front of a grade school in the suburbs.

If there is a magical formula of behavior that keeps cops from being idiots during a stop, the entire nation would be glad to have them.

Only hardened criminals looking to commit murder/kidnapping drive around with broken tail lights. If that tail light was fixed, it would mean they were a compliant and good standing citizen!

I agree there is no magical formula here, I do have my method of doing things and it has worked out well.

I don't have anything ready for them. Nothing. I reach for nothing, I will only get something for them if they ask for it. I know where all my stuff is at and I can get to it quickly, same spot every time. Window is still up when they walk up, they gotta knock. Usually I sit and play on my phone while I wait for them to take forever.

The only time I reached for something was the first time I got pulled over, reached for my wallet and got it out. The cop made sure to ask what I was reaching for when he came up. In a traffic stop, they are not there to help you. They are there to catch you with something or doing something.

Asian. they always act professional some times they let me off the hook or otherwise help me out with a lower penalty (was speeding double the posted sign which is bad)

I'm definitely thinking that more places (England included in this), not just America, may need to take a leaf out of Scotlands book and consider Not Proven as an additional possible verdict in trials.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Depending on the cop, it is actually the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do if you get pulled over.

Reaching for your wallet causes movement, and if the cop sees you moving at all while in the process of pulling you over they can already decide that you just got your gun or hid your drugs, and they can escalate the situation from there. Getting your wallet when instructed can be seen as getting a gun, not getting a wallet when instructed because you don't want them freaking or can be seen as resisting a lawful order, reaching for your wallet to get it ready before the cop gets to your window can be seen as getting ready to kill him, not getting it ready can be seen as him being an idiot.

Cops being to stupid and/or to scared to be wearing a badge is the reason my wallet is sitting in my door handle whenever I carry. Just my own experiences with officers has shown that they cannot be trusted to react to lawful carry in a reasonable manner. The fact is that there is zero reason that being informed of lawful carry should make a situation more tense than not knowing if someone is unlawfully carrying.

This is why I also said "hands on the wheel" so it's obvious what I reached for and still hold.

When you moved you pushed the drugs underneath the seat, adjusted your gun to make it easy to draw on the cop in case he gets suspicious, and got your ID in your hand on the wheel to try to keep him from having a reason to suspect anything. But for many cops, the fact that you moved around the car is already escalating the situation before he ever got out of his seat. Me getting my wallet from my pocket and then putting my hands on the wheel resulted in the cop walking up to my window with his gun half drawn, at 8:15 am in front of a grade school in the suburbs.

If there is a magical formula of behavior that keeps cops from being idiots during a stop, the entire nation would be glad to have them.

Only hardened criminals looking to commit murder/kidnapping drive around with broken tail lights. If that tail light was fixed, it would mean they were a compliant and good standing citizen!

I agree there is no magical formula here, I do have my method of doing things and it has worked out well.

I don't have anything ready for them. Nothing. I reach for nothing, I will only get something for them if they ask for it. I know where all my stuff is at and I can get to it quickly, same spot every time. Window is still up when they walk up, they gotta knock. Usually I sit and play on my phone while I wait for them to take forever.

The only time I reached for something was the first time I got pulled over, reached for my wallet and got it out. The cop made sure to ask what I was reaching for when he came up. In a traffic stop, they are not there to help you. They are there to catch you with something or doing something.

Thats what the victim did in this case, with unfortunate results.

The wallet in my hand thing was personally pushed in CA. I think they even had PSAs about it. That may have changed as life has evolved some since I've been there. While the wife has been pulled over I have not been in, well how old are you people?*

*I ACTIVELY avoid police interaction outside of shooting competitions when they are in a nonprofessional capacity.

And another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/us/milwaukee-heaggan-brown-shooting-trial/index.html

 d-usa wrote:
And another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/us/milwaukee-heaggan-brown-shooting-trial/index.html

That second shot is murder. The guy was on the floor, his gun was over a fence.

"Police are trained to assume that a suspect may have a second weapon."

Like I said, juries across the US agree that the cops can kill you because they are scared about what you may do, not because of what you are actually doing.

Based on that CNN article...

The prosecution is basing it on 1.69 seconds separating the two shots.

Yeah... this is not the same thing as the Castile thing...

 d-usa wrote:
"Police are trained to assume that a suspect may have a second weapon."

Like I said, juries across the US agree that the cops can kill you because they are scared about what you may do, not because of what you are actually doing.

Agreed, being trained to be aware the suspect may have a second weapon would impugn being aware of that, not double tapping the suspect.

Did the jury get the dashcam with sound? I can't play the sound here, without the sound it looks like a good shoot. Verbiage from the article says 1.7 second difference. Thats a good bit of time.