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.

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

Well, there is at least a chance both would be charged now. That is an improvement. If it continues, it is only a matter of time* before "Blue Priviledge" will be worn out with juries.


*Time- This maybe measured in generations rather than years.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

Worked for Zimmerman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

There are circumstances where using deadly force against unarmed individuals, by private citizens, is kosher. Having a weapon is not a prerequisite for getting you ass shot while committing a crime. Historically, there is closer scrutiny paid to police shootings of supposedly unarmed individuals than private citizens in the same situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

Worked for Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's use of force was proven justified in the end. Even if ol' George is something of dick.


If it hadn't been an election year, making for a ripe sensationalist campaign opportunity to racially charge a story for ratings/circulation boosts, then we would have never heard of Zimmerman or Martin.

Not enough evidence to convict and proven justified are two *very* different things.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not enough evidence to convict and proven justified are two *very* different things.

They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with an eye witness account of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.

What you are saying is perfectly applicable to the original topic. That was just a case where there was not enough evidence and so settlements had to be made for some reason...though - the shooting could have been justified or have been a murder. Who knows?

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.

There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.

In this brave new world, what feels like a fact is more important than what actually is a fact.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not enough evidence to convict and proven justified are two *very* different things.

No, Zimmerman was acquitted because his testimony of events matched up with the forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and even matched up with Martin's last words to a female friend, on his cell phone, before the line went dead prior the event. There was plenty of evidence. And it was in favor of George Zimmerman. The State's witnesses, bought in by the Prosecution, ended up bolstering the Defense's case with their testimony.


This wasn't a case of an evil "white" racist out to kill a poor, innocent black boy. This was a tragic case of a troubled young man, walking down a dangerous path in life, making a bad (and eventually deadly) decision that evening. And he ended up eating a single 115 grain 9mm Sellier & Bellot hollowpoint, fired in self-defense from Zimmerman's Kel-Tec, as a result.


The police knew it. The jury knew it. The original prosecutor on the case (who saw no reason to bring it to trial) knew it, The member of the Special Prosecutor’s office (who was fired for doing what prosecutors are supposed to do and turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense) knew it. The defense knew it. And the Prosecution, whose whole case evolved from the media's manufactured fantasy, knew it. It was a taxpayer funded circus in response to the PR firm inspired frenzy whipped up by the media, and race problem profiteers, during an election year. I also find it very telling that the Martin family's lawyers (Crump and Jackson) hired a high powered PR magician (named Ryan Julison) to handle "media relations". And suddenly the outrage machine went into overdrive, when before there was hardly a peep about the shooting, other than your usual run of the mill news coverage.

Even the FBI, investigating potential Civil Rights Act violations on the part of Zimmerman, found no evidence that his actions were racially motivated.


Like many others, I think George Zimmerman is a dick. But dick, or not, his use of deadly force was legally justified. And he was acquitted as a result. Not from a simple "lack of evidence" to convict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.

There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.

The eyewitness who saw the struggle never retracted what was told to police. To wit: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him. The other neighbors interviewed heard cries for help, a single shot, and then quiet. It was ascertained that the one crying out was Zimmerman. Combined with other evidence, the case wasn't in the Prosecution's favor.

 Easy E wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.

The law is meant to be applied equally to everyone. If police get off not guilty for shooting unarmed people because they personally felt that maybe the person had a gun and maybe they were reaching for it to maybe shoot at them without ever actually seeing a weapon, then so should everyone else.

We know that wouldn't happen though.

Well, there is at least a chance both would be charged now. That is an improvement. If it continues, it is only a matter of time* before "Blue Priviledge" will be worn out with juries.


*Time- This maybe measured in generations rather than years.

Of course there is that incident in Denver last week where one deputy was killed and several others shot up that is going to make police a tad antsy.

 feeder wrote:
In this brave new world, what feels like a fact is more important than what actually is a fact.

I don't consider self-appointed crusaders like Piers Morgan, Nancy Grace, HLN, CNN, MSNBC, or celebrities looking to score some PR points on social media, to be the arbiters of "facts". Even in this "Brave New World".


The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the public, thanks to the actions of flim-flam artists, before all the facts came to light in court. So, despite being acquitted of any criminal wrong doing by a jury, the public (those that still give a damn, at any rate) still believe the BS narrative spun that an innocent kid was murdered by Zimmerman.

I think with Zimmerman it's an issue of the dude seemingly involved himself in a situation he didn't need to, that got escalated to a point it never should have gotten to (neighborhood watch usually isn't thought of as proactive armed intervention when calling in suspiscous teenagers), and the dude can't seem to stop putting himself out there in ways that appear to invite confrontation of a similar nature, for little apparent good reason, and taking great pride in doing so.

That of course leads to very poor publicity, and a perception as a public menace by many. It doesn't help that the counterbacklash in support of zimmerman also seemed to take almost visceral glee in turning a teenager into some sort of monstrous boogeyman (with *generous* helpings of their own racial insinuations) in need of slaying and that the world was better off because of it, instead of treating it as the unfortunate results of an donkey-cave and an idiot teenager colliding.

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.

There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.

Amended. Nothing disagreed with evidence though.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are different but Zimmerman was proven justified through self defense because martin literally attacked him - with several eye witness accounts of Martin charging and beating Zimmerman to the ground.

There was a single eyewitness who did not see who started the fight, and in fact disagreed with a significant piece of Zimmerman's defense.What you have posted is factually incorrect.

The eyewitness who saw the struggle never retracted what was told to police.

No one claimed he did. You are inventing a strawman argument. What I said was that the single eyewitness strongly disagreed with the core argument of his defense: specifically, that he was having his head bashed in.

Asked by state prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda if he saw the “person on top” grabbing the head of the lighter skinned man and slamming it into the concrete, Good replied “No.”

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
To wit: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, assaulting him. The other neighbors interviewed heard cries for help, a single shot, and then quiet.

None of which disagreed with my contention that Xenomancers was factually incorrect. A person who heard a fight is not an eyewitness.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It was ascertained that the one crying out was Zimmerman.

This is also factually incorrect, or at best vague. The sole eyewitness, again:

Good also said that he was not sure who made the cries for help that several neighbors have described, although he said “the yelling sounded like it was coming from the person on the bottom.”

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers.

It's truly and deeply ironic you would post this despite at least 2 instances you engaged in historical revisionism of unpleasant facts in the last 2 hours.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
In this brave new world, what feels like a fact is more important than what actually is a fact.

I don't consider self-appointed crusaders like Piers Morgan, Nancy Grace, HLN, CNN, MSNBC, or celebrities looking to score some PR points on social media, to be the arbiters of "facts". Even in this "Brave New World".


The "court of public opinion" and "muh feelz" supposedly doesn't count in cases like this, only a day in a court of law, tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, Zimmerman was tried and convicted by the public, thanks to the actions of flim-flam artists, before all the facts came to light in court. So, despite being acquitted of any criminal wrong doing by a jury, the public (those that still give a damn, at any rate) still believe the BS narrative spun that an innocent kid was murdered by Zimmerman.

Surely my statement can be applied to those persons as well.

This thread isn't about Martin and Zimmermann, this thread is about Diamond Reynolds and Philando Castile.

Fair enough, my apologies.

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.

Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.

No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.

No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
- from the article.
This summer, St. Anthony agreed to pay a separate, nearly $3 million settlement to Mr. Castile’s estate. The city also reached a separation agreement with Officer Yanez and said he would not return to work there.

So now the tally is up to 3.8 million in settlements. That's some good justice there. I wonder the amount in settlements we'd have if Castile had pulled his gun out and greased both the officers?

How much money would you want in exchange for the cops needlessly shooting your significant other? I think Castille's family and loved ones would rather he not be dead then get this settlement.

I wish that St Anthony's had to pay even more. There's excuse for police training to produce officers that view citizens as mortal threats just because they're lawfully armed. Wisconsin is going to continue to issue concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens and the police are going to continue to have interactions with those citizens. Merely lawfully carrying isn't a justification for police to draw their weapons and point their guns at you while assuming you have ill intent towards them. If the bodycount and bad publicity isn't enough motivation for departments to have better training then hopefully massive settlements and higher insurance premiums will do the trick. I've had encounters with police while I was armed and everything went smoothly with a calm and professional demeanor from the LEOs, no guns drawn no screaming nobody died.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.

Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.

No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.

No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.

Dude...forensic evidence can't prove where your hand was during a shooting in which almost 10 rounds were fired. It's just not possible - even his he was shot in the hand. Whatever source claimed that is 100% gak.

It sucks but there just isn't enough evidence in this case. What we need is Body cameras on every officer - body cameras that never turn off.

I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?

"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.

 Ouze wrote:
I thought that was a solution too, until a cop choked a guy to death for selling cigarettes and skated despite the whole thing being caught on video. The problem is ultimately with the amount of deference that police are given by prosecutors, and in the jury box. As has been pointed out many times, police use of lethal force in this country that sometimes don't even get a serious investigation would have incurred a court martial had it been a soldier in an actual combat theater: Why do we demand better trigger discipline, professionalism, and consequences from a 19 year old in an active war zone than we do from a police officer in Ohio?

"I was scared" in and of itself should not be a blank check to negligent homicide. Qualified immunity has limits and those have slipped immensely.

I don't know the specifics of the case you are referring to but I think a body camera really would have been helpful in this case. If it gave a clear view of what Castle was doing with his hands anyways.

I always hear this comment about the military being held to a higher standard than cops but I don't believe it. In a warzone there are untold numbers of atrocities taking place that are ignored - covered up - ect. You can't ignore a dead civilian on the street next to a school - it gets a lot more attention is all. When military members are caught making mistakes/commiting war crimes - the stakes are higher too. So the have to drop the hammer when an infantry man kills an unarmed women or a child - the politics between nations are affected by these things.

In this Castle case - if we have video evidence of the victim raising his hands and getting blown away (not reaching for a gun) the police officer would have gone to jail for life. This is a good palce to start - whatever it costs IMO.

Body cameras are absolutely a component, their introduction needs to be increased, they should not be able to be turned off by the officer, and their footage needs to be made readily available and properly backed up (and not inconveniently lost as has happened in several instances).

That said, rules of engagement and qualified immunity are also way too loose. Neither an armed citizen nor a soldier in a warzone would get away with many shoots that police get away with, and that is a real issue. The training and mindset is very much "shoot first, ask questions later", "officer safety above all else", any possible hint of the most remote threat is perceived they are given the OK to clear leather and pull that trigger, and that leads to problems.

I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.

For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.

For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.

Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Probably zero. Justified self defence doesn't apply vs a badge.

Panicky, incompetent cops gunning down compliant citizens on camera tend to be expensive for the force.

No where in the video can you see him being compliant. You can hear the LEO say several times don't reach for it before he shoots him though. Go ahead and keep thinking the LEO was just looking to murder someone.

No where in the video or in the actual physical evidence is there anything that shows that Castile had his hand anywhere near the pocket in which his pistol was located. In fact, the physical evidence of the bullet wounds places his hand several inches away from the pocket where his pistol was located. The officer who fired the shots never saw a weapon, needlessly escalated a situation that was entirely created by the police themselves, and issued conflicting instructions. Castile is required to hand over his license, registration and carry permit but as soon as he informs the officers that he is legally armed, which is legally required and not indicative in any way of any intent to harm the officers or anyone else, any movement by Castile can be interpreted by the officers as a threat that results in Castile being shot to death. What did Castile do to justify having police officers point guns at him in the first place? Telling officers that you're legally armed isn't a threat and doesn't warrant having guns pointed at you and being screamed at by police officers who clearly can't handle the stress of the situation. The assumptions made by the officer who shot Castile would never pass the "reasonable fear of imminent harm" that is required to justify the use of deadly force by a lawfully armed citizen.

Dude...forensic evidence can't prove where your hand was during a shooting in which almost 10 rounds were fired. It's just not possible - even his he was shot in the hand. Whatever source claimed that is 100% gak.

It sucks but there just isn't enough evidence in this case. What we need is Body cameras on every officer - body cameras that never turn off.

The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol. Neither eyewitness testimony, from both officers and Diamond Reynolds, or video evidence from the squad car and the livestream provide any evidence of Castile's hand being in his pocket where is pistol was located. All the evidence points to Castile not reaching for his pistol which means he wasn't being noncompliant and didn't pose a threat and didn't need to be shot to death.

Here is Officer Yanez' testimony:

Yanez said Castile told him he had a gun at the same time he reached down between his right leg and the center console of the vehicle, the complaint said.
"And he put his hand around something," Yanez was quoted as saying. He said Castile's hand took a C-shape, "like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun."
Yanez said he then lost view of Castile's hand.
"I know he had an object and it was dark," he said. "And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die."
Yanez said he thought Castile had the gun in his right hand and he had "no option" but to shoot, the complaint said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/us/officer-charged-philando-castile-killing/index.html

Accepting this testimony as truthful on face value then we know Castile's hand was between his leg and the center console. Where was his pistol? In the bottom of his shorts pocket where it was found by the EMTs who responded to the scene.

He [Castile] volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm, beyond what the law requires," Choi said. "He emphatically stated he was not pulling it out. He was restricted by his seat belt. He was accompanied by a woman and a young child."
Emergency medical personnel found a .40-caliber pistol in the right front pocket of Castile's shorts, Choi said. The gun was loaded but didn't have a round in the chamber, he said. Also found in Castile's clothing was his wallet, which contained his driver's license and a concealed carry permit, Choi said.
"We believe Philando Castile never tried to remove the gun from his right front pocket that was a foot deep," Choi said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/us/officer-charged-philando-castile-killing/index.html

We also know that the bullet that hit Castile's trigger finger didn't damage his pistol or his pocket.

Prosecutor Jeff Paulsen highlighted autopsy evidence in his closing argument, reminding the jury of a bullet wound to what would have been Castile’s trigger finger — and that there was no corresponding bullet damage nor wounds in the area of Castile’s right shorts pocket, where he carried his gun. He also cited testimony from first responders who saw Castile’s gun in his pocket as he was loaded onto a backboard.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/06/13/deliberations-continue-yanez-trial/

We also know that Officer Yanez never saw the gun because he says as much in the video of the incident:

“I don’t know where the gun was. He didn’t tell me where the (expletive) gun was. … I was (expletive) nervous. … I know I told him to get his hand off his (expletive) gun,” Yanez said in the dashcam recording.

https://www.twincities.com/2017/06/06/diamond-reynolds-testimony-resumes-in-yanez-manslaughter-trial/

During the trail Reynolds stated that Castile's hand was between his leg and the center console because Castile needed to unbuckle his seatbelt in order to get to his wallet so he could provide his DL and carry permit to Yanez.

“You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license,” Reynolds said to Yanez in the video. “Please don’t tell me he’s dead. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.”
Defense attorney Earl Gray pointed out inconsistencies in Reynolds’ version of what happened during his cross-examination. He focused on her statement that Castile had been reaching for his seat belt.
“Never … did you ever mention that he was trying to unlock his seat belt,” Gray told Reynolds of what she told police during her initial interviews about the incident. “You never said seat belt in the live-stream, did you?”
“No,” Reynolds responded.
“All the way through you said he was going for his wallet, correct,” Gray asked.
“That is correct,” Reynolds said.
She later clarified that while she said in her Facebook video and in later statements about the incident that Castile was reaching for his wallet, she implied that he needed to get his seat belt unbuckled first because it was preventing him from accessing it.

https://www.twincities.com/2017/06/06/diamond-reynolds-testimony-resumes-in-yanez-manslaughter-trial/

The only "evidence" there is of Castile being non compliant is Officer Yanez' interpretation of an ambiguous hand movement and there is ample evidence that Castile was in fact being compliant and not reaching for his pistol. Informing an LEO that you are lawfully armed isn't justification for having a gun pointed at you. Being lawfully armed doesn't make you an imminent threat to the officer or imply that you intend to do harm to the officer.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.

For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.

A better idea would be training LEOs not to draw on citizens simply because they are lawfully armed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.

For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.

Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.

If they are reaching for a weapon is an actual reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Prestorjon

"The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol."

That would only be valid if only a single bullet was fired and even then it wouldn't be enough evidence. Because we don't know how exactly the man was sitting. However - I believe 9 shots were fired. There is no way to know which shot went through his hand. When you are getting shot at 9 times...you move around a little bit - it shouldn't really require explanation.

If cops are jumpy enough that people genuinely think citizens need to have a 'how not to get shot by the police at a traffic stop' video as part of driver's ed, then we need different cops.

 Spinner wrote:
If cops are jumpy enough that people genuinely think citizens need to have a 'how not to get shot by the police at a traffic stop' video as part of driver's ed, then we need different cops.

^

If we have to teach people to treat police officers like dangerous animals (no sudden movements, remain calm, dont run, etc), then that says a whole lot more about the police than it does anything else.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I know it sounds corny but...what efforts could be made to educate the public about how they should act if they are in a situation with law enforcement to protect themselves? Maybe some progress could be made on that front.

For example - a required free video to get your vehicle registration. Explaining what is required of you in a traffic stop...what not to do with your hands - ect. Maybe it would have no effect but its worth a shot - at least it shows effort to protect peoples lives.

Won't make a difference.A better effort to protect peoples lives would be to train your police to not shoot people without an actual reason.

If they are reaching for a weapon is an actual reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Prestorjon

"The forensic evidence tells us the location of Castile's hand at the moment it was shot and that location was nowhere near is pistol."

That would only be valid if only a single bullet was fired and even then it wouldn't be enough evidence. Because we don't know how exactly the man was sitting. However - I believe 9 shots were fired. There is no way to know which shot went through his hand. When you are getting shot at 9 times...you move around a little bit - it shouldn't really require explanation.

There's no evidence of any kind that shows that Castille ever put his hand on his pistol and there is ample evidence that the pistol never left his pocket. Therefore you claim that he was shot for being non compliant and reaching for his gun has no supporting evidence. There is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony from the officer who shot him that Castile's hand was outside his pocket so it's illogical to believe that he was reaching for the pistol that was in his pocket.

Your claim that getting shot 9 times makes the fact that his hand was shot while outside of his pocket away from his gun irrelevant is ludicrous. Do you think that Castille reached into his pocket grabbed his gun, was then shot multiple times by Yanez and while being shot Castille released his grip on his pistol, which somehow slid back into the bottom of his shorts pocket while Castille was in a seated position behind the steering wheel with his seat belt fastened, then Castille withdrew has hand from his pocket where it was shot in his trigger finger with one of the later rounds discharged by Yanez? That all of that happened within the few seconds that Yanez fired his shots into Castille and that Castille's body and the pistol behaved in such a fashion? Taking a few shots of 9mm to the torso while in a restrained seated position isn't going to make your body rag doll to the extent that you hand will simultaneously let go of the pistol your gripping and come flying out of your pocket to be hit with subsequent shots. You're going through a lot of mental gymnastics to try to justify the shootings which boils down to Yanez being scared and shooting Castile based on his interpretation of an ambiguous movement that wasn't overtly threatening at all.

I'm just saying nothing can be proven ether way. Being shot in the hand means nothing - he could have had his hand in the pocket and it came out somewhere within the 9 shots fired and got hit then.