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.

1.7 seconds is not a double tap. That's actually quite a separation. That's not being able to think straight enough to have awareness of what's going on while you are aiming and shooting a gun.

 d-usa wrote:
1.7 seconds is not a double tap. That's actually quite a separation. That's not being able to think straight enough to have awareness of what's going on while you are aiming and shooting a gun.

I am completely agreeing with you. My point is that, the policy that police should be aware that someone may be armed with more than one weapon, does not translate to: double tap the suspect. Its not a logical argument or statement by the defense. Yet evidence was excluded or the jury bought it.

Having said that, I think part of it might be that that was a BG with a gun. PoPo could have put four in him at first opportunity and that would be legally correct. You're not going to get a lot of jury understanding about that.

So now it isn't even that the US police have to treat everyone as if they have a gun, they have to treat everyone as if they have multiple guns concealed all over their body so any motion towards any body part may be reaching for a weapon.

Jesus Christ...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So now it isn't even that the US police have to treat everyone as if they have a gun, they have to treat everyone as if they have multiple guns concealed all over their body so any motion towards any body part may be reaching for a weapon.

Jesus Christ...

No thats Minnesota. In Texas the rule is that every adult has a firearm. If they do not in fact have a firearm, policy is for you to direct them to the nearest firearm store, and you are authorized to escort them with full lights and sirens if the situation calls for it, at your discretion. *

Actual conversation with the Wife:
"Officer here is my license and CHL."
"Are you armed now."
"Yes, in my purse."
"GOOD! I don't know how many times I pull over someone with a CHL and they don't have it with them."



*Except East Texas. The laws of physics and the 211st century do not apply in East Texas.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
1.7 seconds is not a double tap. That's actually quite a separation. That's not being able to think straight enough to have awareness of what's going on while you are aiming and shooting a gun.

I am completely agreeing with you. My point is that, the policy that police should be aware that someone may be armed with more than one weapon, does not translate to: double tap the suspect. Its not a logical argument or statement by the defense. Yet evidence was excluded or the jury bought it.

Having said that, I think part of it might be that that was a BG with a gun. PoPo could have put four in him at first opportunity and that would be legally correct. You're not going to get a lot of jury understanding about that.

Kinda reminds me of the Jerome Ersland situation, he was the store owner who got convicted of murder for shooting the armed robber that he had already wounded and was laying on the floor.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/oklahoma-pharmacist-sentenced-life-killing-would-be-robber/#.WUri0IWcGUk

Pretty much every state has legal verbiage that you can shoot as many times as you need to in order to end an imminent threat but once the imminent threat is gone you can't fire any more rounds at or into somebody. If the attacker is now wounded and unarmed or wounded and not a visible imminent threat then there's no reason to keep shooting.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Text redacted for inappropriateness, motyak

This reminds me, I tried to follow that show Shots Fired but my recording was screwed up. I'm really pissed about that because in the current climate it feels like essential viewing.

 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.

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

This is really horrible logic and is all a completely terrible, terrible thing and I really want to vehemently disagree with it because it offends my sensibilities of right, wrong and the very nature of civilisation and my beliefs of the role of police in society (although, being British, we're more on the whole 'policing by consent' thing).


But... Ultimately, it's not like he can be, well, anymore dead. So, pretty much almost every situation is an improvement on that. And, if people really do start thinking like that, well, fowks. Your country is screwed. And especially if, hypothetically, and really unlikely it is, it could very well, theoretically be a situation where the "2nd Amendment" literally ends up being
used for, what I understand is its original purpose.

In other words, a not insignificant portion of the American populace not just realising, but then, angrily, acting on the understanding that those who have direct influence over their own lives are actively hostile and endangering to them.

This could very well be my sleep deprivation talking but this feels like it could be a thing if bridges aren't worked on getting rebuilt pronto.

I would not be surprised if we see a resurgence of black-panther-esque open-carry type situations. Policing the police again. I certainly wouldn't e opposed to it at this point.

The citizenry should not have to fear for there lives from the police. And the police should not be held to a higher standard than civilians. In fact, they should reasonably he held to a higher one considering the training they get.

 Co'tor Shas 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.

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

Yes because the PoPo are going to think and not shoot him and then shoot him again 1.7 seconds later...

 Compel wrote:
This is really horrible logic and is all a completely terrible, terrible thing and I really want to vehemently disagree with it because it offends my sensibilities of right, wrong and the very nature of civilisation and my beliefs of the role of police in society (although, being British, we're more on the whole 'policing by consent' thing).


But... Ultimately, it's not like he can be, well, anymore dead. So, pretty much almost every situation is an improvement on that. And, if people really do start thinking like that, well, fowks. Your country is screwed. And especially if, hypothetically, and really unlikely it is, it could very well, theoretically be a situation where the "2nd Amendment" literally ends up being
used for, what I understand is its original purpose.

In other words, a not insignificant portion of the American populace not just realising, but then, angrily, acting on the understanding that those who have direct influence over their own lives are actively hostile and endangering to them.

This could very well be my sleep deprivation talking but this feels like it could be a thing if bridges aren't worked on getting rebuilt pronto.

But doesn't a jury, which is made up of the community, acquitting him indicate that such feelings are not actually all that comment? It seems like people unhappy with the verdict are trying to have it both ways 1) juries made of the people that are policed are too comfortable with police violence and 2) people are getting fed up with police violence. I would expect that if this were perceived as a widespread problem, juries would be coming down harder.

Which is exactly the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from isolated, regional events. Those pointing out how rare police being shot are (despite the rate showing an upwards trend) ignore that wrongful police shootings are even rarer. Both are definitely problems, but the disingenuous arguments are not helpful at all. Really, the approach needs to be on a department by department basis with local voters and juries holding problem departments and officers accountable. If they do not, who is to blame?

As an aside, I think the Castile was a bad shoot and absolutely should have been prosecuted. Additionally, arresting the widow immediately afterwards was horrible. But juries let guilty people walk all the time, so it is what it is.

The Jury was 10 white folks and 2 black folks in MN. They were deadlocked for 5 days (but reportedly not along racial lines) and asked for Officer Yanez's statement in writing which was then denied.

They then had to break down the meaning of key words in the charges which led to the acquittal.

Remember the jury can only adjudicate on what it is permitted to see, and only on the charges it is told to review, and legal standards given by the judge.

Why did they refuse to let them see the statement?

You would probably have to get a copy of the court record to get that. Got a spare $50 grand?

From the reports, it appears that prosecutors did not initially offer Yanez's interview with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions but did try to offer it in rebuttal when Yanez took the stand, at which time the judge disallowed it. During deliberations, it also appears that the judge declined a full readback of Yanez's trial testimony.

The jury has since indicated it was initially 10-2 not guilty (and not split racially), which means it was never really close. They seemed to indicate that the wording of the law which requires "culpable negligence" was not met by the evidence.

My read on the facts is Yanez pulled a weak fishing stop and panicked once he knew a gun was in play. His response was totally inappropriate, and Castile paid the price despite not having done anything illegal. That whole line about feeling in danger because he would smoke weed in front of the daughter is a ridiculous, transparent justification. Odor of MJ give you probable cause to get everybody out and look for weed, not open fire on a guy driving with his wife and kid in a small town, suburban traffic stop. He could have easily just told Castile to freeze or stop moving entirely and pull him out if things felt "hinky" as he said. Yanez should never have had a badge and a weapon.

I watched the video finally.

Only a couple yers ago, there was a very popular gaming store on that street. It moved to a new location, nearby. I went to college not far from there, and my friend has an appartment about two blocks away. I have been on that stretch of road hundreds of times.

There is ordinary strip malls and small development on one side, and the other is actually farmland for the U of M College of Agriculture.

I have been pulled over not far from that location because I "looked" like a suspect in a nearby robbery. Seeing that video was chilling.

Well we always knew you looked at little sketchy Easy E.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we always knew you looked at little sketchy Easy E.

Yeah, and I was a white guy but driving a beat-up Oldsmobile Cutlass Cierra.

I got profiled almost every night driving that car through my small town at night. Once I upgraded cars, I never got pulled over again.

Profiling sucks.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we always knew you looked at little sketchy Easy E.

Yeah, and I was a white guy but driving a beat-up Oldsmobile Cutlass Cierra.

I got profiled almost every night driving that car through my small town at night. Once I upgraded cars, I never got pulled over again.

Profiling sucks.

Heh... you might be on to something...

I got pulled over all the time while DWW in my college years, in my ol' beatup Suzuki Swift.

Once I got my Saturn (first year model)... didn't happen again.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas 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.

BUT I agree with everything else you said.

Why? If he had surrendered to police after shooting one he would probably still be alive.

Yes because the PoPo are going to think and not shoot him and then shoot him again 1.7 seconds later...

What? There was only one policeman right?

 jmurph wrote:

But doesn't a jury, which is made up of the community, acquitting him indicate that such feelings are not actually all that comment? It seems like people unhappy with the verdict are trying to have it both ways 1) juries made of the people that are policed are too comfortable with police violence and 2) people are getting fed up with police violence. I would expect that if this were perceived as a widespread problem, juries would be coming down harder.

Isn't jury selection a thing? The people who are fed up with police violence end up being weeded out while the ones who think of that level of violence as acceptable or justifiable are kept, thus you end up with a biased jury despite looking for a fair one. A bit how people say that AI/algorithms are not biases and this to be trusted (it's a programme, it's logical!) while the actual algorithms are trained on biased datasets that unconsciously lead to AIs that are biased (one, two, three, four, five articles). True, if you ignore all the steps that could create bias and lead to a given situation.

Besides, marginalised people have been complaining about police brutality for eternity. It was supposed to get better with everybody having an smartphone/camera but now we just get to see people running away from cops getting gunned down (instead of reading police reports after the fact), and still nothing happens. Supposedly highly trained police officers are afforded the benefit of doubt and near infinite amounts leeway while civilians have to comply with inhumane standards (and still get shot). Maybe the people who are outraged just have no power to change the system?

Post like this, that look for quick excuses to justify these things, read like many other in a long line of "it can't be that bad" type of posts. I remember the difference in reaction when that mom pulled her son from that one BLM protest. Generally it was seen as her disciplining her punk ass son while — if you went looking for it — comments from black communities were about how she was just afraid that he's get shot/killed by the police (as in: she was not angry at him for being at a protest but at the situation and afraid for his life and didn't want him near the police). A shift in perspective allows for a completely different interpretations of the same situation. After all, this whole thread is about a black man who died because he did… nothing really wrong? … nothing that should get you killed?

Which is exactly the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from isolated, regional events. Those pointing out how rare police being shot are (despite the rate showing an upwards trend) ignore that wrongful police shootings are even rarer. Both are definitely problems, but the disingenuous arguments are not helpful at all. Really, the approach needs to be on a department by department basis with local voters and juries holding problem departments and officers accountable. If they do not, who is to blame?

It doesn't really look like a problem that isolated by individual department. Police shootings might happen a bit more often in some regions but they happen everywhere in the US at a higher rate than any other developed country (461 in 2017). You might be safe in a gated community but the police in the US seems generally trigger-happy, afraid, panicked, and/or paranoid to some degree, and whatever training they go through leads to that type of behaviour. You see it whenever police shootings are discussed here. Arguments from the US side tend to be along the lines of "shoot first"/"better safe than sorry" while the European side tends to be more for the deescalate/"don't shoot to kill" arguments. I remember around peak BLM even US veterans (Afghanistan/Iraq) commenting somewhere on how the the police should not confront protestors with weapons raised (or even in hand) and that they need to deescalate the situation, saying that the police is badly trained in that regard (and that was from people who worked is slightly more dangerous situations). This doesn't look like an issue of isolated bad departments or individuals in departments, this is about how police officers are trained to act and react: "By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years"

You might argue that they need to act like that for some reason or another (and that it's normal and the numbers are insignificant, all things considered) but that bodycount is not the result of some isolated incident but is caused by systemic issues. Police officers in other developed countries just couldn't get away with behaviour this excessive (be it because they are trained differently or because of the resulting public outrage). The police losing more and more trust with that type of incidents can't be good for future interaction between civilians and officers no matter how good, bad, biased, or unbiased the jury is or how prevalent police brutality actually is. A difference like this is not caused by individuals messing up:

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011,… most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

When I went for my driver's license in PA a few years ago (after having moved from Australia) they specifically made a point about not reaching for anything from when you saw the cop's siren. The advice was, yes, have your documents in an easy to reach place, but no, do not reach for them before the cop is next to your window asking for them. If at all possible keep both hands on the steering wheel until that time. Otherwise the cops are going to be walking up to you thinking "what the hell did he/she just reach for?"

In Australia when I got my driver's license they gave no such advice. In fact I remember someone on a TV show saying it may in some situations be a good idea to actually get out of your car and meet the cop face to face so they aren't talking down to you while you sit in your car... something which you would never do in the USA, it'll probably get you shot.

That said even in Australia I don't get out of my car, I know some people who do but to me it just seems like unnecessarily escalating the situation. In my experience it's the 5' tall female cops who act like bullies so getting out of the car and standing a foot over them probably isn't going to help anyway

I was told you should never make eye contact while smiling in a way that bares your teeth.

I was told to play dead......

..... or was that in case of bear attack？

Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

 jmurph wrote:

But doesn't a jury, which is made up of the community, acquitting him indicate that such feelings are not actually all that comment? It seems like people unhappy with the verdict are trying to have it both ways 1) juries made of the people that are policed are too comfortable with police violence and 2) people are getting fed up with police violence. I would expect that if this were perceived as a widespread problem, juries would be coming down harder.

Isn't jury selection a thing? The people who are fed up with police violence end up being weeded out while the ones who think of that level of violence as acceptable or justifiable are kept, thus you end up with a biased jury despite looking for a fair one. A bit how people say that AI/algorithms are not biases and this to be trusted (it's a programme, it's logical!) while the actual algorithms are trained on biased datasets that unconsciously lead to AIs that are biased (one, two, three, four, five articles). True, if you ignore all the steps that could create bias and lead to a given situation.

Besides, marginalised people have been complaining about police brutality for eternity. It was supposed to get better with everybody having an smartphone/camera but now we just get to see people running away from cops getting gunned down (instead of reading police reports after the fact), and still nothing happens. Supposedly highly trained police officers are afforded the benefit of doubt and near infinite amounts leeway while civilians have to comply with inhumane standards (and still get shot). Maybe the people who are outraged just have no power to change the system?

Post like this, that look for quick excuses to justify these things, read like many other in a long line of "it can't be that bad" type of posts. I remember the difference in reaction when that mom pulled her son from that one BLM protest. Generally it was seen as her disciplining her punk ass son while — if you went looking for it — comments from black communities were about how she was just afraid that he's get shot/killed by the police (as in: she was not angry at him for being at a protest but at the situation and afraid for his life and didn't want him near the police). A shift in perspective allows for a completely different interpretations of the same situation. After all, this whole thread is about a black man who died because he did… nothing really wrong? … nothing that should get you killed?

Which is exactly the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from isolated, regional events. Those pointing out how rare police being shot are (despite the rate showing an upwards trend) ignore that wrongful police shootings are even rarer. Both are definitely problems, but the disingenuous arguments are not helpful at all. Really, the approach needs to be on a department by department basis with local voters and juries holding problem departments and officers accountable. If they do not, who is to blame?

It doesn't really look like a problem that isolated by individual department. Police shootings might happen a bit more often in some regions but they happen everywhere in the US at a higher rate than any other developed country (461 in 2017). You might be safe in a gated community but the police in the US seems generally trigger-happy, afraid, panicked, and/or paranoid to some degree, and whatever training they go through leads to that type of behaviour. You see it whenever police shootings are discussed here. Arguments from the US side tend to be along the lines of "shoot first"/"better safe than sorry" while the European side tends to be more for the deescalate/"don't shoot to kill" arguments. I remember around peak BLM even US veterans (Afghanistan/Iraq) commenting somewhere on how the the police should not confront protestors with weapons raised (or even in hand) and that they need to deescalate the situation, saying that the police is badly trained in that regard (and that was from people who worked is slightly more dangerous situations). This doesn't look like an issue of isolated bad departments or individuals in departments, this is about how police officers are trained to act and react: "By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years"

You might argue that they need to act like that for some reason or another (and that it's normal and the numbers are insignificant, all things considered) but that bodycount is not the result of some isolated incident but is caused by systemic issues. Police officers in other developed countries just couldn't get away with behaviour this excessive (be it because they are trained differently or because of the resulting public outrage). The police losing more and more trust with that type of incidents can't be good for future interaction between civilians and officers no matter how good, bad, biased, or unbiased the jury is or how prevalent police brutality actually is. A difference like this is not caused by individuals messing up:

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011,… most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."

You can't compare US cops actions to other countries because of one simple reason.... US citizens carry guns around with them as a regular thing.

The assumption in every other country is that the person you are talking to doesn't have a gun on their person, if they do they're already doing something wrong, the very fact they have a gun is enough to know they're doing something illegal.

In the US cops have to be under the assumption that the person they're approaching probably has a gun and they may have it legally or not.

It completely changes the tone of any encounter.

FWIW every encounter I had with cops in the US was very friendly, on a whole I found them friendlier than Australian cops. A few times I went up to police to ask them questions about something and it was never a bad experience. Not that I have an exceptionally large number of interactions with police in Australia.

Ahh the Second Amendment. Killing innocents in your neighborhood since 1791.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Ahh the Second Amendment. Killing innocents in your neighborhood since 1791.

I don't think there's value in arguing gun laws within this thread other than to acknowledge that cops in most European countries don't have to conduct themselves under the same circumstances as US cops.

So let's ignore what seems to be a major factor (but of course not the only factor) in the way interactions with the police go down because........?

Some people seems to be thinking that something called an amendment isn't even hypothetically subject to the possibility of change, revision or......amendment.
Even introducing the idea that perhaps a conversation about that hypothetical possibility seems to set some of these people off.

In a thread about a controversial police shooting we still have to walk on egg shells around that topic.
Please, notice that I am not actually talking about the 2nd Amendment, but rather our attitudes towards discussion.