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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

By proven, what exactly do you mean?

The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.

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.

I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.

Mario 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.

I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.

The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.


In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.


Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.

The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I'm not sure what you think goes on daily in combat, but dead kids are rare, and are rarely killed by people on the ground except in the most unusual and extreme of circumstances. Trigger discipline, threat identification, and escalation of force training happens daily before deployments, and constantly while deployed. Cops receive it rarely and have to certify on average yearly, some more. Soldiers qualify on these tasks quarterly and train on them daily. There is a supervisor who's main purpose in life is training them to not do stupid gak in combat. So while your statement about stakes being higher is absolutely correct, we trained to a higher standard for the purpose of only killing people that need to be killed lawfully in combat operations an no one else . now if you refer to bombed schools and hospitals, that is a different subject which I do not see how it can apply to this conversation, since cops do not have bombers circling the sky and AC-130 gun ship running around shooting 105mm howitzers out of the side.

The last major atrocity that took place was Robert Bales and he came from my Brigade while I was in Afghanistan; he will never see freedom again.

 Xenomancers wrote:


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. .

So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Mario 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.

I know it sounds corny but why not make a few videos for cops on how to behave so they don't kill random civilians? Whatever you—as a civilian—do the police can find some excuse. I've already read enough excuses and justification for all kinds of incidents. If you moved in a suspicious way then that's an indicator that they were justified and if you behaved in a 100% exemplary manner and do your very best and follow all the orders then that points at the possibility that you might have been hiding something from them and are trying to deflect attention from that so that justifies their suspicion too. A civilian just can't win when a cops word and actions are worth more and seen as more reasonable than others in front of a jury. The result is that cops are free to behave in that way because they don't have as many consequences to fear even if they feth up rather badly, or even worse: if they do those things intentionally.

The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.


In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement

If people have to learn rules for interacting with law enforcement and treat them the way they do dangerous animals (no sudden movement, remain calm, don't run, etc) to avoid getting killed, that's a problem with law enforcement.

because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.

Or because they may realize that, from a legal perspective, there's really very little reason for the average citizen to want to have any interaction with the police. When the police can lie to you (and in fact do so as a routine part of procedure) but lying to them is a crime, can take your money and stuff even though you've been neither convicted nor even arrested and then put it to their own use/profit, can be ignorant of the law in investigation and enforcement (Heien v NC), and are under no legal duty to actually protect you, it's no wonder many people just don't like police even if they've done nothing wrong.

My experience on a jury a couple of months ago painfully undercut my impression of my local police. This was a Marijuana DUI case in a state where recreational MJ is legal. I was not left feeling confident in my local law enforcement after seeing 3 different officers and the State Toxicologist contradict each other multiple times on several counts (for example, one officer brought in from a nearby other department for a second opinion said they had very definitely noticed a strong green tongue, but a senior DUI specialist officer that had examined the alleged half an hour before had stated they had not seen such and would not have expected to see such given the type of marijuana use in question) and multiple other non-trivial mistakes (such as neither the DA nor any of the officers realized that the initial stop was predicated on what was believed to have been a run red light that was actually an unlighted yield lane...until the defense lawyer pointed that out in court with pictures of the intersection, which was a real awkward moment in court).

As such, when I see local police, I'm not filled with warm fuzzies. That's got nothing to do with "**** da po-leece" or "I pay your salary oinker", that's a "I'm not confident in the work these people do". It's not hard to see how that turns into "**** da po-leece" when that is a widespread perception in many communities.

Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.

The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.

Given that US law enforcement shoots and kills orders of magnitude more people than police in other developed nations, people see a systemic issue arising. German police shot and killed 13 people in 2016. US police shot and killed almost 1100, adjusted for population size differences, police in the US shoot and kill people at ~21x the rate of German law enforcement. You can see similar stats across pretty much all of western europe, japan, singapore, etc. One can make the argument that because the US is inherently a more violent place, police are going to have more violent encounters, but the rate of police shootings dramatically outstrips most differences in violent crime rates by several multiples (e.g. the homicide rate in Germany is 4-5x that of the US, but nowhere near the 21x rate of police killings) and there appears to be no correlation between violent crime rate and number of US police shootings at least within different areas of the US. Add to that major racial disparities in the population subset of people shot and killed by police (no matter how you want to explain them), and it's not hard to see why there are perceptions that there are problems with policing.

Yes, there is grandstanding, exaggerations, lies, hype, spin etc involved in this. Absolutely, the outrage machine plays that hard and certainly exists. It exists on all sides however, and any trivial action or character flaw on the part of those shot and killed by police, no matter how minor, also get seized upon and exaggerated by the other wing as perfect justification for anything the police do. Lets not pretend that such is one-sided.

oldravenman3025 wrote:
The police here don't make a habit of shooting random people, contrary to what you country's media outlets like to claim.

I see those videos via the US media, Here there's really not much attention paid to that situations beside occasionally in a documentary when it fits the topic and the USA somehow come up (or the occasional really big fuckup). It's just me seeing horrible stuff that no police officer would get away with over here (be it the action itself or the excuse afterwards), and the US police killing people at a higher rate than most other developed nations.

In most of the instances of "bad shoots", it was a training issue as far as I'm concerned. In at least one case, that combined with a public that has no desire to learn basic rules for interacting with law enforcement because of the "I PAY YOUR SALARY, OINKER!" or a " DA PO-LEECE" attitude.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article90905442.html

And "no desire to learn the basic rules for interacting with the law". Are you a human or a dog who needs to be trained to behave and not piss off a police officer? People shouldn't need to practice interactions with the police just so they don't get shot. That's some dystopian nightmare material. And even if some donkey-cave were to start with a tacky "I pay your salary" line (or worse) the officer—who is trained for the job—should be able to defuse that situation because that the job they chose and they should be proficient. It's telling that the police gets to the excuse of "I feared for my life" but civilians are supposed to play some emotionless robot just to reduce the chance of getting shot. That's completely backwards.

What's next, garbage collectors who don't want to touch the bin because it's icky?

Police and the public interact thousands of times daily, across the United States. And relatively few of those instances end in trouble on average. People have bought into the OMFGWTFBBQ systemic racist police kill squads murdering innocent people (mostly "aspiring rappers" or those who "started going to church every Sunday") for the least provocation, because the few instances that do happen (both wrongful and justified shootings) gets hyped to the moon. And then spin doctored to death by the media, ambulance chasing lawyers, politicians, and special interest groups, all in the interests of money, ratings, votes, and circulation. And it's the suckers among the public (most of whom have a distrust or dislike for LEOs to begin with, for whatever reason) eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.

The rest of us in the Real World, like to look at it from a sober point of view, wait for a investigation to conclude, and let the courts rule on it without spinning conspiracy theories or knee-jerk claims that "excuses" are being made for the shooter in question (or police in general). Because, apparently, in your mind they're all automatically "innocent" if it was a LEO that drops the hammer on them, and that even the justifiable shootings are a symptom of a law enforcement community that is out of control and can do any goddamned thing they want to. Which is nothing more than a load of complete horse and utter hyperbole.

When I see a video of somebody being shot dead for moving slightly in a way that displeases the officer and then all the devils advocacy starts with the usual "but he moved" or he didn't instantly follow the order (freezing out of fear and panic doesn't count for the civilian?) or because they didn't understand what the officer was saying then yes that's just people having the flimsiest excuses for gakky behaviour by the police (and it's similar reasoning that often leads to really soft penalties for the officer). That just shouldn't be normal behaviour for a police officer (or any other person).

Without going into 2nd amendment issues or politics, yes there are some reasons for why that happens but the US police still kills people at a rate that's unprecedented anywhere else:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

feth that bs. You want Real World: In the US the police does shoot and kill at a rate that is much higher than in any developed country (over an order of magnitude higher and more per capita). You are free to keep living in your dream world and pretending that such a discrepancy in the numbers is totally normal and not something to be worried about.

 Vaktathi wrote:


My experience on a jury a couple of months ago painfully undercut my impression of my local police. This was a Marijuana DUI case in a state where recreational MJ is legal. I was not left feeling confident in my local law enforcement after seeing 3 different officers and the State Toxicologist contradict each other multiple times on several counts (for example, one officer brought in from a nearby other department for a second opinion said they had very definitely noticed a strong green tongue, but a senior DUI specialist officer that had examined the alleged half an hour before had stated they had not seen such and would not have expected to see such given the type of marijuana use in question) and multiple other non-trivial mistakes (such as neither the DA nor any of the officers realized that the initial stop was predicated on what was believed to have been a run red light that was actually an unlighted yield lane...until the defense lawyer pointed that out in court with pictures of the intersection, which was a real awkward moment in court).

As such, when I see local police, I'm not filled with warm fuzzies. That's got nothing to do with "**** da po-leece" or "I pay your salary oinker", that's a "I'm not confident in the work these people do". It's not hard to see how that turns into "**** da po-leece" when that is a widespread perception in many communities.

It doesn't really help either that whenever a shooting case goes to trial the whole thing becomes a glorious smorgasbord of contradiction, bizarre justification, and outright lying. The Castile case itself was a good example. Then there's the other recent case where body camera footage so damning that I think anyone who saw it and defended the officers involved can just be set to ignore permanently with no loss, but because the footage was so damning it got thrown out by a judge? I think if I murdered someone in front of a camera with custom gun slide that read "you're fethed" I'd never be shown such deference. That video would have been shown in court, the gun would have been shown, and I'd be in jail drop of a hat.

I'm less concerned about it now than I used to be. Especially now that incidents involving otherwise law abiding white Americans are starting to hit the public mind people are ignoring the problem less and less (and seriously that's just a whole other fething kettle there but w/e take what you can get I guess) .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:
People shouldn't need to practice interactions with the police just so they don't get shot. That's some dystopian nightmare material. And even if some donkey-cave were to start with a tacky "I pay your salary" line (or worse) the officer—who is trained for the job—should be able to defuse that situation because that the job they chose and they should be proficient. It's telling that the police gets to the excuse of "I feared for my life" but civilians are supposed to play some emotionless robot just to reduce the chance of getting shot. That's completely backwards.

Pretty sure that kind of stuff is in most dystopian fiction as a go to scene for establishing "yes this is a dystopian fiction"

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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. .

So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.

That is the end result.

It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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. .

So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.

That is the end result.

It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.

The supposition is utterly false though, I have explained several times in these forums why its false, but whatever, muh narrative.

 redleger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I'm not sure what you think goes on daily in combat, but dead kids are rare, and are rarely killed by people on the ground except in the most unusual and extreme of circumstances. Trigger discipline, threat identification, and escalation of force training happens daily before deployments, and constantly while deployed. Cops receive it rarely and have to certify on average yearly, some more. Soldiers qualify on these tasks quarterly and train on them daily. There is a supervisor who's main purpose in life is training them to not do stupid gak in combat. So while your statement about stakes being higher is absolutely correct, we trained to a higher standard for the purpose of only killing people that need to be killed lawfully in combat operations an no one else . now if you refer to bombed schools and hospitals, that is a different subject which I do not see how it can apply to this conversation, since cops do not have bombers circling the sky and AC-130 gun ship running around shooting 105mm howitzers out of the side.

The last major atrocity that took place was Robert Bales and he came from my Brigade while I was in Afghanistan; he will never see freedom again.

I agree with everything you just said.
My previous statement was talking of the standard of "how they should be punished if they make a mistake and kill the wrong guy". US soldiers are trained much better than US police - I wasn't arguing against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

By proven, what exactly do you mean?

The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.

They don't align. Because no evidence exist to align to that conclusion. It is impossible to prove where castile's hands were at the time of the shooting without video evidence. The only thing that "shot in the hand/hand was not in pocket" qubit is that - Castile's hand was not in his pocket when he got shot in the hand - over the course of 9 shots. His hand could have never been in the pocket or it could have got shot after the first shot while out of the pocket. It's very likely that his hand would have come out of his pocket if getting shot in the chest on shot 1 too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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. .

So what you're saying is the lives of citizens of countries you're at war with are more valuable than the lives of your own citizens.

That is the end result.

It has to do with consequence. One is international while the other is just national.

The supposition is utterly false though, I have explained several times in these forums why its false, but whatever, muh narrative.

What are you calling untrue? The international bit?

I feel cop apologist get closer and closer to this everyday:


"But he moved his hand!" is not a valid reason to kill someone. If cops are so scared or trigger happy that they shoot a compliant, lawful abiding citizen then they never deserved to be a cop in the first place.

 Xenomancers wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

By proven, what exactly do you mean?

The testimony of Yanez, Reynolds, and then cross-checked with the Forensics that Prestor John showed all align. That is as close to "proven" as anyone is likely to get.

They don't align. Because no evidence exist to align to that conclusion. It is impossible to prove where castile's hands were at the time of the shooting without video evidence. The only thing that "shot in the hand/hand was not in pocket" qubit is that - Castile's hand was not in his pocket when he got shot in the hand - over the course of 9 shots. His hand could have never been in the pocket or it could have got shot after the first shot while out of the pocket. It's very likely that his hand would have come out of his pocket if getting shot in the chest on shot 1 too.

We have the sworn testimony of two eye witnesses. Officer Yanez states that he observed Castil place his right hand between his right leg and the center console and grab an object with his hand. Diamond Reynolds stated that Castile reached down with his right hand to unbuckle his seat belt so he could reach for his wallet. Both witnessing testified that Castile’s hand was outside his pocket which is consistent with the forensic evidence that his hand was outside of his pocket when it was struck by one of Yanez’ bullets. While it is not literally impossible that Castile’s hand wasn’t in his pocket all of the evidence we have makes it highly unlikely.

There was no reason for Castile to put his hand in his pocket in the first place. Why would he reach for his pistol? He had already pulled over with no issue or resistance when Yanez put his lights on, was sitting calmly in the car with the engine off and window down, had already handed over his insurance card and politely told Yanez he had a state issued concealed carry permit and was lawfully armed. His girlfriend and her child were in the car with him, a second officer was already on the scene and Castile’s pistol had an empty chamber. Castile would have had to dig his pistol out of the bottom of his pocket with his seat belt still fastened them bring it up around the steering wheel and rack the slide to chamber a round and start a gunfight with a police officer that was standing 2 feet away from him already pointing a loaded gun at him.

This also highlights the insanity of Yanez pointing a gun at Castile in the first place. Minnesota law requires concealed permit holders who are armed to disclose the fact that they are lawfully armed anytime they interact with law enforcement. Castile calmly told Yanez that he had a permit and was lawfully armed. How did Yanez react? Yanez became scared that Castile was going to try to murder him so he drew his duty pistol and pointed it at Castile. Castile calmly obeying the law triggered a reaction by Yanez to fear for his life and hold Castile at gunpoint. That’s an insane over reaction by Yanez. Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets. It’s indefensible behavior by Yanez. It doesn’t matter what the verdict was in the trial. Simply avoiding a murder conviction doesn’t mean that everything is ok. There is no reason for police to treat citizens with concealed carry permits like enemy combatants.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets.

Objection! Castile smelled of marijuana, and a guy who would expose his child to secondhand smoke clearly would think nothing of murdering a police officer!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry because that was essentially the officer's actual defense.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Castile hadn’t done anything to warrant being “one false move” away from being riddled with bullets.

Objection! Castile smelled of marijuana, and a guy who would expose his child to secondhand smoke clearly would think nothing of murdering a police officer!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry because that was essentially the officer's actual defense.

When I first saw that I laughed but then I realized that AG Jeff Sessions actually believes that line of thinking and cried.

I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

Castile was driving in a safe and lawful manner, not showing any signs of impairment. According to his sworn testimony Yanez told Castile that the only reason he pulled him over was for a nonworking brake light. Since there is no evidence that Castile's ability to operate the vehicle the fact that marijuana DUI laws exist isn't relevant to this incident. Castile had no criminal history of drug offenses, he had never received a marijuana DUI or had any felony convictions of any kind. Castile had maintained a clean criminal record for the entire time he had his carry permit and if he hadn't been shot to death by Officer Yanez then there wouldn't have been a need to do an autopsy that discovered THC in Castile's blood and people wouldn't be attempting to use it as some kind of post facto justification for his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/?utm_term=.afa9660726a6

The first thing he noticed when approaching the car, Yanez told investigators, was the smell of burning marijuana, according to the verbatim transcripts of the interview.
“I told them the reason for the traffic stop and then I wasn’t going to say anything about the marijuana yet because I didn’t want to scare him or have him react in a defensive manner. Um, he didn’t make direct eye contact with me and it was very hard to hear him, Uh he was almost mumbling when he was talking to me. And he was directing his voice away from me as he was speaking and as I was asking questions. Uh he kept his, hands in view and then I uh I believe I asked for, his license and insurance. And then I believe they told me, they asked for the reason for my traffic stop. And I told ’em the reason was the only, I think I told ’em the only rea, the reason I pulled you over is because the only active brake light working was the rear passenger side brake light.”
The traffic stop quickly shifted, Yanez said, when Castile told him he had a gun. Outside the car, Yanez could be seen sliding his hand onto his gun. According to Yanez, at the same time, he saw Castile “reaching down between his right leg, his right thigh area and the center console.”

Later, Yanez was asked again about what he perceived as Castile’s “general disposition.” The officer said Castile’s body language “appeared defensive to me,” and then described the interaction this way:
“As I was giving him direction about what to give me and to keep his hand in view um like I said I felt that he had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He didn’t want to follow what I was saying so he just wanted to do what he wanted to do.”
Yanez was also asked later about his previous experience with drivers who say they have firearms, and he said that drivers “always tell me that when they’re gonna reach for something and where their wallets at or what they’re gonna do.”
In the dash-cam video, moments after he is mortally wounded, Castile can be heard saying: “I wasn’t reaching.” It is the last time he is heard speaking on the dash-cam recording.

At the point when Yanez is reaching to draw his own pistol the only evidence of any kind of criminal activity on the part of Castile is the marijuana odor inside the car. Castile had a cop aim a loaded pistol at his chest because his car smelled like marijuana and he told the officer that he had a valid concealed carry permit after he calmly handed over his insurance card.
If Yanez wanted to know the location of Castile's weapon or the location of Castile's wallet he could have asked but he chose not to do so. If Yanez wanted Castile to keep his hands on the wheel or to hold them up he could have instructed Castile to do so but he chose not to do that. He told Castile not to reach for it.

According to Yanez, before he opened fire, Castile kept moving his hand. From the transcript:
Yanez: “I, believe I continued to tell him don’t do it or don’t reach for it and he still continued to move. And, it appeared to me that be had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He still reached down. … And, at that point I, was scared and I was, in fear for my life and my partner’s life. And for the little girl in the back and the front seat passenger and he dropped his hand down and, can’t remember what I was telling him but I was telling something as his hand went down I think. And, he put his hand around something. And his hand made like a C shape type um type shape and it appeared to me that he was wrapping something around his fingers and almost like if I were to put my uh hand around my gun like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun.”
Investigator: “Okay.”
Yanez: “That’s what it appeared to me.”
Yanez then said he kept seeing Castile moving his hand and “saw something in his hand,” adding that the driver “had no regard for what I was saying. Didn’t follow my direction.”

In the video recordings, Reynolds can be heard disputing this from inside the car, saying that Castile, who had been asked for his license when the stop began, was reaching for his ID, not for a gun.
Yanez, though, said he believed Castile had grabbed a gun:
“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out I, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die. And, I was scared because, I didn’t know if he was gonna, I didn’t know what he was gonna do. He just had somethin’ uh his hands and he, the first words that he said to me were, some of the first words he said is that he had a gun. And I thought he was reaching for the gun. I thought he had the gun in his hand, in his right hand. And I thought he had it enough to where all he had to do is just pull it out, point it at me, move his trigger finger down on the trigger and let off rounds. And I had no other option than, to take out my firearm and, and I shot. Um I shot him.”
Yanez said he did not remember the first two shots, but he remembered the last two. He also said he tried directing his gunfire “down as best I could,” to avoid Reynolds and her daughter. In his interview, Yanez said again moments later that he thought he saw Castile’s gun in his hands, and when asked about this later, Yanez said it looked to him like Yanez’s hand was “wrapped around the butt of a gun.”
“I just knew it was dark and I could barely see and I thought it was a firearm and I thought he was gonna shoot and kill me and I thought he was gonna shoot and kill my partner right after that.”
In describing his decision to fire, Yanez brought up the marijuana again, saying the smell was on his mind when he began shooting:
“As that was happening as he was pulling at, out his hand I thought, I was gonna die and 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. And, I let off the rounds and then after the rounds were off, the little girls was screaming.”
Yanez said he did not remember seeing anything in Castile’s hands after the gunshots. According to court records, officers and paramedics removed a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun from Castile’s pocket once he was taken out of the car; the gun had a loaded magazine but no round chambered.

Yanez stated that he saw Castile's hand gripping an object between his right leg and the center console. Castile's hand couldn't be inside his pants pocket trying to pull out his pistol unless Yanez is lying about seeing Castile's hand grab an object between his leg and the center console. The explanation that Castile was reaching with his right hand to unbuckle his seatbelt is an explanation that fits the testimony of both Yanez and Reynolds and the dying words of Castile himself. It's a better explanation than Castile deciding to pull over directly, listen to Yanez's explanation that he was pulled over for a broken tail light (never mentioning marijuana at all), calmly provide his insurance card, inform Yanez he was lawfully armed and then decide Oh no! I got lit this morning, if this cop finds out I'm doomed, I'm gonna have to kill him now!

It's important to remember that what the jury decided was that it was reasonable for Yanez to perceive that Castile's actions as an imminent threat, not that Castile actually intended to harm Yanez. The prosecution believed that Officer Yanez didn't control the encounter properly which led to a misunderstanding that led to Castile's unnecessary death. The jury decided that the shooting was a reasonable response to how Yanez perceived Castile's actions. Castile could have been acting in good faith the entire time and Yanez could perceive that good faith behavior as a threat, kill Castile and not be guilty of a crime. The amount of leeway given to LEOs to justify a lethal response puts a tremendous responsibility on their shoulders to properly control situations to avoid missteps that lead to a breakdown in communication that causes needless deaths. Those unnecessary deaths should never be excused or dismissed, they should be used as a catalyst for implementing measures to prevent them from ever recurring.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

 Xenomancers wrote:
It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Respectfully, I think this is a pretty hard reach Possession of an ounce and a half of marijuana in Minnesota is a misdemeanor. It's hard to argue with a straight face people are likely to commit what in many states is capital murder to avoid a $200 misdemeanor ticket.

If you want to argue it under DUI instead of possession, it gets even more ludicrous: you'd have to seriously argue every driver who might blow a breathalyzer would gun down the cop and flee instead.

But haven't you heard Ouze? Despite felonious deaths of LEOs being at some of the lowest point they have been since the 60's police are under siege!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But haven't you heard Ouze? Despite felonious deaths of LEOs being at some of the lowest point they have been since the 60's police are under siege!

I end up posting it in every police shooting thread sooner or later, so might as well now. There was a real and alarming spike in police deaths from 1965 to 1975. Deaths more than doubled. Police developed new techniques like special weapons teams, but mostly they shifted in culture. Community policing was replaced by law enforcement, if you get my meaning. And to be honest the changes were justified, because police deaths were increasing at a frightening rate, and were on track to start return to prohibition era levels if the trend continued for another decade.

But then something happened - the number of police deaths started falling as fast as it had risen. By 1985 it was lower than it had ever been, and since then its only gotten lower. But the police culture still hasn't normalised. Police are still acting like they're in a hostile environment, when that hostile environment went away decades ago.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual?

Is any of it not factual? Yeah. All of it is opinion. None of your assertions are "fact".

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.

Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.

Minnesota DUI law:


https://www.dwiminneapolislawyer.com/marijuana-impair-driving/

State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not. 
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.

What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?

Do you find it odd that cops always smell pot at traffic stops? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that most narcotics are out of your system in 24-48 hours and THC remains for up to 30 days. Yeah, I'm sure they are not playing the long odds when they are lying to detain someone.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.

I want you to say, flat out, what you are dancing around: You're asserting that any officer who pulls over a driver and smells marijuana or booze is in imminent mortal danger and should conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint.

sebster wrote:There was a real and alarming spike in police deaths from 1965 to 1975. Deaths more than doubled. Police developed new techniques like special weapons teams, but mostly they shifted in culture. Community policing was replaced by law enforcement, if you get my meaning. And to be honest the changes were justified, because police deaths were increasing at a frightening rate, and were on track to start return to prohibition era levels if the trend continued for another decade.

But then something happened - the number of police deaths started falling as fast as it had risen. By 1985 it was lower than it had ever been, and since then its only gotten lower. But the police culture still hasn't normalised. Police are still acting like they're in a hostile environment, when that hostile environment went away decades ago.

Maybe drastically changing the police culture wasn't justified but just a emotional reaction to something they couldn't control? And now that this culture has established itself as the status quo it's hard to change to something that's less twitchy/murdery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.

Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.

Minnesota DUI law:

Spoiler:

2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .

https://www.dwiminneapolislawyer.com/marijuana-impair-driving/

State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not. 
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.

What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?

Anecdotal to your very last sentence, Im high right now and I don't wanna shoot no one. But would a cop feel the same way if I was smoking in my vehicle, fit the "description" of someone on the BOLO, who failed to follow instructions to reach where he told me there was a weapon? I don't know.

Mario wrote:
Maybe drastically changing the police culture wasn't justified but just a emotional reaction to something they couldn't control? And now that this culture has established itself as the status quo it's hard to change to something that's less twitchy/murdery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It doesn't really matter if the increase in danger was due to anything under police control or not. When a job becomes more dangerous, employers and employees naturally take more precautions. That's just going to happen in any profession.

The issue is that as things became safer, and are now safer than they've ever been, that culture of ultra-awareness of possible danger is still omni-present. Changing that culture is, well, as hard any cultural change is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been attempted and managed long before now. The problem is no real attempt has been made, at either a political or administrative level, largely because people still like to believe that the US is a wild, crime ridden jungle.

 redleger wrote:

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not opposed to Marijuana. In fact I think it would be a better world if everyone could have access to it.

However, it is almost certainly a serious crime (A crime you are going to jail RIGHT NOW for) to:
Operate a vehicle while under the influence.
Handle a handgun while under the influence (even if you have a permit to carry a gun).

It almost certainly establishes that Castile is likely about to be in a lot of trouble and Castile knows it too. So, Yanez being afraid that Castile might try to shoot him to escape going to jail isn't exactly unwarranted.

Regardless - Yanez would still have walked in this case without the MJ. No evidence disproves Yanez story.

This is a bad argument. If a cop smells marijuana during a traffic stop, are they to assume the man is prepared to kill them? That sounds like a lot of executions.....

The argument is who is more likely to try and kill you? A law abiding citizen who is speaking coherently? Or one that is breaking a law and is about to be under arrest (for driving under the influence) and claims to have a gun and has been mumbling and not really paying attention to you for the whole traffic stop?

Obviously the the second guy is more likely to be dangerous. Is anything I'm saying not factual? OFC Yanez could have made up all the mumbling and smelling weed stuff - but the autopsy confirmed THC in his blood stream when he died - so Yanez probably wasn't making that up.

Why do you think Castile was going to be arrested for driving under the influence? Castile hadn't committed a moving violation and he wasn't driving in an unsafe manner. Minnesota law specifically exempts marijuana from the DWI zero tolerance policy for schedule I and schedule II drugs. Detecting a marijuana odor in the car wouldn't be enough to get Castile a DUI if there was no indication that his driving was actually impaired.

Minnesota DUI law:
[spoiler]

2017 Minnesota Statutes
Section 169A.20
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle. It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols .

Spoiler:

https://www.dwiminneapolislawyer.com/marijuana-impair-driving/

State law enforces a zero tolerance policy for individuals found operating a motor vehicle with any amount of controlled substance of Schedule I or Schedule II in their blood. This means that the person driving does not actually need to be impaired in order to be charged with DWI. It is important to note that in Minnesota, along with Virginia and North Carolina, this zero tolerance policy does not apply to marijuana or to marijuana metabolites.
For several decades, advocates of marijuana have debated on the effects of marijuana on a person’s driving ability. Numerous studies have been conducted on the relationship between driving impairment and marijuana use, and many of them are contradictory and inconclusive. Many reports show that drugged driving increases the likelihood of a car crash occurring, but others insinuate that it does not. 
When it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana and other substances not found in Schedules I and II, a law enforcement officer will first have to determine that the drug consumption substantially impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely. It must be proven that the driver was so impaired by marijuana that he or she was unable to exercise the same amount of caution that a sober person, using ordinary care, would have under similar circumstances.

What evidence is there that a person that recreationally uses marijuana is more likely to murder a police officer or anyone else than a person that doesn't recreationally use marijuana?