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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Sounds like a super hard reach to avoid seeing the extremely large, racist elephant in the room - but OK, sure.

That directed at me?

If so, I would be disappointed if the NRA chose to make an issue of a similar case regarding a victim of ANY color. When engaging in an activity which is against the 'law abiding safe gun ownership' theme the NRA typically endorses, you can't really expect them to take up your case as a 'good example of a gun owning citizen'.

I just brought it up because it seems folks were wondering why the NRA did not make an issue of this case (I wondered the same thing until I found out the victim had been smoking pot).

It took days for that to be a matter of public record, and the NRA usually puts out something immediately. This is a contemporary piece of news on the subject.

NRA members want to know why their organization isn’t defending Philando Castile
http://fusion.kinja.com/nra-members-want-to-know-why-their-organization-isn-t-d-1793860142

Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question. Seems a REALLY poor policy to do so and I bet their lawyers advise against it, just because cases like this will pop up. Defending a guy who goes against the principles of your organization is bad policy.

 CptJake wrote:
Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question.

Pulse nightclub shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 48 hours later, blaming the Obama administration and political correctness

San Bernadino shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 26 hours later, blaming the Obama administration's foreign policy

Virginia reporter shooting: NRA has their web series host post a video 4 days later, blaming the Obama adminsitration and Hillary Clinton for trying to politicize the tragedy

Navy Yard Shooting: NRA goes on morning show, blames the military for not having more armed staff available.

Charleston church shooting: NRA board member posts 17 hours later, blaming the pastor who was killed in the attack because he voted against concealed carry.

Philando Castile was killed on July 6th, 2016. It came out publicly that he had marijuana in his system December 15th, 2016.

feth the NRA.

Also, just a reminder - not to you in specific, I mean we fundamentally agree - but in general - that this was the cop's argument for why he was in fear for his life.

"I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me," Yanez told the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Secondhand smoke as a pretense for executing someone.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure about the state this occurred, but in NC and GA, a concealed carry permit cannot be legally exercised when you're under the influence (drugs or alcohol). If you get caught with your weapon while drinking or high you can get in serious trouble.

Maybe this a reason the NRA did not make a big deal of the the fact the victim was a concealed carry permit holder?

This is true. Setting aside the NRA lack of response though, which is not uncommon in actual cases, that wouldn't be an issue unless he was arrested. The tape conversation had him speaking in a calm manner and doing what he was legally supposed to be doing.

Note: I know you're not defending any positions here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question. Seems a REALLY poor policy to do so and I bet their lawyers advise against it, just because cases like this will pop up. Defending a guy who goes against the principles of your organization is bad policy.

I've not seen them put anything except missives against legislation or cases testing legislation myself, but I don't read their stuff much given the massive junk mail blitz they do when I am a member.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.

Just pointing something out. The officer put 7 rounds into a vehicle with an unarmed female passenger. With children in the car.

Maybe the officer should have smoked a joint first to chill out....

 jmurph wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.

Just pointing something out. The officer put 7 rounds into a vehicle with an unarmed female passenger. With children in the car.

Maybe the officer should have smoked a joint first to chill out....

yep. We've had this before, especially in JDs that are antiCHL where the police will be very jumpy. At least in Texas that has mellowed out (plus its almost an auto "get a warning" when pulled over for speeding unless you're a jerk of course).

I hadn't thought about it before but the NRA quiet is vexing on it. But I have other issues with the NRA now, so thats not new.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Does the NRA usually put out something immediately? Honest question.

Pulse nightclub shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 48 hours later, blaming the Obama administration and treating people with respect

San Bernadino shooting: NRA puts out an op-ed 26 hours later, blaming the Obama administration's foreign policy

Virginia reporter shooting: NRA has their web series host post a video 4 days later, blaming the Obama adminsitration and Hillary Clinton for trying to politicize the tragedy

Navy Yard Shooting: NRA goes on morning show, blames the military for not having more armed staff available.

Charleston church shooting: NRA board member posts 17 hours later, blaming the pastor who was killed in the attack because he voted against concealed carry.

Philando Castile was killed on July 6th, 2016. It came out publicly that he had marijuana in his system December 15th, 2016.

feth the NRA.

The NRA doesn't really represent gun owners, and hasn't for a long time. They have long ceased from being the organization that moves to protect people's rights, to one that only cares about attacking D's and helping R's.

There have been a push away from this as more and more black people become gun owners (many being pushed by the apparent lack of concern over their lives by the police, and violent racist rhetoric that has popped up over the past few years) but it's not really going to change until Wayne LaPierre and his filth are gone.

The NRA doesn't give a gak about gun owners, maybe they did at some point, but they don't anymore.

The NRA is a lobbying and advertising organization and only serves the interests of arms manufacturers. They only care about 2nd Amendment issues as long as those issues result in you spending money and buying weapons. Your freedoms and rights are only important as long as they result in cash flow to the NRA and the firearm industry.

feth the NRA.

 d-usa wrote:
The NRA doesn't give a gak about gun owners, maybe they did at some point, but they don't anymore.

The NRA is a lobbying and advertising organization and only serves the interests of arms manufacturers. They only care about 2nd Amendment issues as long as those issues result in you spending money and buying weapons. Your freedoms and rights are only important as long as they result in cash flow to the NRA and the firearm industry.

feth the NRA.

Lets move off this shall we as thats US politics and the opinions of nongun owners about the NRA do not interest me which I am sure are now going to infest this thread in three two one...

Edited per Fraz's above post. TL;DR, some elements of the NRA have real value, the NRA-ILA is however...extremely disappointing.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Sounds like a super hard reach to avoid seeing the extremely large, racist elephant in the room - but OK, sure.

That directed at me?

If so, I would be disappointed if the NRA chose to make an issue of a similar case regarding a victim of ANY color. When engaging in an activity which is against the 'law abiding safe gun ownership' theme the NRA typically endorses, you can't really expect them to take up your case as a 'good example of a gun owning citizen'.

I just brought it up because it seems folks were wondering why the NRA did not make an issue of this case (I wondered the same thing until I found out the victim had been smoking pot).

I believe the cop fethed up massively and wish the prosecution had been able to turn that into a conviction. Totally separate issue from the NRA aspect in my mind.

It's directed at me - I am a racist for paraphrasing the defense attorney directly. LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just pointing something out. The driver was stoned while operating a motor vehicle. With children in the car.

Just pointing something out. The officer put 7 rounds into a vehicle with an unarmed female passenger. With children in the car.

Maybe the officer should have smoked a joint first to chill out....

First I just want to say - I'm glad this guy isn't patrolling the streets anymore - as both a pot smoker and a gun owner - It's a good thing hes off the streets. However, being in a nation of laws, it's a good idea to follow those laws. Smoking with kids in the car while driving and carrying a gun is not only excessive dumb - it's also illegal. When you are doing illegal things cops are much more likely to shoot you than when you are not doing illegal things. All the jury needs to do is prove a reasonable doubt for the charge of manslaughter. Is it reasonable to assume that a cop knowing a dude is stoned and not complying with him might do something really stupid? Like pull out his gun and try to outgun 2 cops who are trained to kill - No - it's not. So it's no surprise to me that he didn't get charged with manslaughter or murder. I'm glad we have a legal system that looks at things objectively.

Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Obey the law, citizen, or face the Peacemaker.

 jmurph wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Obey the law, citizen, or face the Peacemaker.

Obey the law, citizen, or face the Glock.
corrected your typo...

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Do any jurisdictions have the death penalty for driving under the influence?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

You are correct. Weed is legal in multiple states. Jaywalking is a substantially higher offense. Using the NK rule. They would have to drop mortar rounds on preregistered positions.

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

"I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me," Yanez told the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Yes. He "knew or suspected he was stoned" and used it as justification for why he opened fire.

Out of concern for the five-year-old girl who was in the car that he opened frigging fire into.

US police seem to be able to effectively execute people for the tiniest of reasons. If that doesn't concern anyone nothing will.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.

Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.

Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.

Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.

Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.

Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.

Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...

It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."

Paulsen spent a considerable amount of time questioning why Yanez would say Castile was going for his gun when it made zero sense for him to do so.
Other officers soon arrived and Yanez is heard cursing and saying he told Castile to stop.
Paulsen reminded the jury that a bullet hit Castile in what would have been his trigger finger – but there was no bullet damage around his pocket where he had the gun.
Leary refused a jury request to view a post-shooting video interview with Yanez by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, excerpts of which were read in court. “He had no complaints”, prosecutor Jeffrey Paulsen said at officer Jeronimo Yanez’s manslaughter trial. While it captures what was said between the two men and shows Yanez firing into the vehicle, it does not show what happened inside the auto or what Yanez might have seen.

http://christiannewstoday.com/usa/key-developments-in-minnesota-officers-manslaughter-trial/509995

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.

Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.

Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.

Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...

It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."

I'm not sure of your point. Regardless of the substance, DUI is arguably more responsible for injuries/accidents/deaths than jaywalking. I'm comparing the effects of two different crimes, you're mixing 'violent deaths' and murders. Not even close to my point.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Both are non violent, victimless crimes. He also has no proof he smoked in front of the child.

Jaywalking seems far more dangerous to me, honestly.

Driving under the influence is probably a cause of more accidents/injuries/deaths than jaywalking. Just a guess on my part, but one I am confident making.

Seeing as how "DUI" encompasses everything from driving while under the influence of prescription medication to alcohol to cocaine to marijuana...

It's like me saying "Violent deaths account for most murders. I'm confident in saying this."

I'm not sure of your point. Regardless of the substance, DUI is arguably more responsible for injuries/accidents/deaths than jaywalking. I'm comparing the effects of two different crimes, you're mixing 'violent deaths' and murders. Not even close to my point.

Sure, a DUI is. But I can also say the same about guns while using broad strokes and then you would get really upset. Lets not go there.

So lets see that DUI information dealing specifically with Marijuana. Because we are talking about a specific substance.

Of course driving while stoned is DUI, and I hope nobody in here is trying to claim it is not. But we are getting sidetracked from the real issue, which is that this chickengak cop panicked and murdered a man, then weaseled out of it with "he was high, so I had to shoot him" bullgak. This is a travesty of justice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jaywalking is a crime too. We sometimes frown on police shooting them in the head though.

We also have no evidence whatseover the officer knew or suspected he was stoned. Remember IN CONTRAST TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US they have the right to review all the evidence before making any statement.

Come on man - Jaywalking? False equivalence.

Yeah, there are plenty of places where pot is legal, so Fraz went with the more series crime.

Own your stupid bs statements, or don't make them.

He was able to drive without any signs of impairment, and was not pulled over for suspected DUI.

 d-usa wrote:
He was able to drive without any signs of impairment, and was not pulled over for suspected DUI.

He also could've been the Zodiac Killer. The police never can be too careful!

they never did catch the zodiac.