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 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.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 11:41:20
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
You are right, but without ESP there is no way for a cop to know that, and people in that situation push the boundaries occasionally so the assumption is one that can get you killed. Not likely but still possible.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
And... if he was such a pot addled lunatic that would try to gun down a cop for a possible misdemeanor or minor traffic violation, why did he not do it the other 55 times he was pulled over or 22 times he was arrested? Yeah, it wasn't the person who never should of had a badge it was REEFER MADNESS.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
I think an american cop is way more likely to shoot dead someone for no reason than a man that is probably breaking the law but he's just sitting in his car with kids and family, and also knows that gunning down a cop is a death sentence anyway. If that man is also black or belongs to a minority it is even more likely.
You are right, but without ESP there is no way for a cop to know that, and people in that situation push the boundaries occasionally so the assumption is one that can get you killed. Not likely but still possible.
You don't need ESP to know that when an individual is cooperating with you and has been acting in a cooperative manner the whole time during your interaction that (spoiler alert) you're not likely in any danger.
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.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
And no, smelling like something is not enough to warrant an arrest, they have to prove you were breaking the law (ergo, use of the SFST which is weighted towards the cop, or a blood/breathalyzer test).
However that's all for alcohol, I'm not sure what rules they put in place for marijuana yet, so they very well might need more (or a warrant) to actually to do anything.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/10 18:16:44
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 18:28:31
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
The "description of a robbery suspect" that Castile fit was having a "wide nose." That is extremely tenuous at best.
Traffic violations that didn't pose a public safety risk or cause any accidents but did rack up fines he couldn't pay doesn't make Castile a dangerous criminal. Castile also managed to eventually pay off all his fines and resolve all of his cases. He had paid off his remaining balance and had resolved all his cases months prior to the final traffic stop.
How do you figure that it was "inevitable" that a citizen that was repeatedly fined for driving without insurance or on a suspended license and got a few parking tickets would be killed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop?
The threshold for justifying the behavior of Officer Yanez that you're establishing is so low that by its standard we should expect the vast majority of routine traffic stops to be conducted at gunpoint.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
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 .
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?
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
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 .
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?
This is directly from your quote-
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.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
In my response to Prestor Jon's post I outline the paragraph that specifically states MJ is omit from the 0 tolerance policy (AKA if you have had any amount in your system) It functions just like alcohol where you have to prove significant impairment. It is not omitted from DUI. Did you honestly think a state would legal sanction driving while stoned?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-jurors-hear-audio-from-after-deadly-shooting/ "Reynolds acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Earl Gray that she and Castile smoked regularly. She also acknowledged marijuana was in the car at the time."
"Gray cited a Facebook video Reynolds posted showing her and Castile smoking pot in a car with her daughter in the back seat the day before the shooting, but Castile's use of marijuana the day of the shooting wasn't addressed."
This establishes that he was likely high at the time of the stop - because they smoke in the car.
You are correct it never got that far. It was however the next logical step they were going to take. Arresting a person for a crime they are currently committing is standard procedure to check them for other crimes they are suspected off . For example - if they arrested him for DUI they would have him in jail to do lineups to see if the store owner that was robbed could identify him, ect.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 19:32:36
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
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 .
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?
This is directly from your quote-
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.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
They basically use the same test for alcohol and weed in the field. Mariunja decreases reaction time significantly. It's pretty easy for them to tell.
Again, no. I was contesting your claim about not taking a SFST meaning an auto arrest when a blood test (I.e.) can be opted for instead since the SFST IS admissible in court as evidence and no further testing is required. As for the actual impairment he seems to be totally jnimpaired judging by the way he was driving and the way he reacted to the cop, which was totally clam and polite up until he was murdered.
What's irrelevant is this discussion about DUIs because it never got to that point.
(And as Prestor Jon pointed out, the statue exempts marijuana from DUIs.)
In my response to Prestor Jon's post I outline the paragraph that specifically states MJ is omit from the 0 tolerance policy (AKA if you have had any amount in your system) It functions just like alcohol where you have to prove significant impairment. It is not omitted from DUI. Did you honestly think a state would legal sanction driving while stoned?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-jurors-hear-audio-from-after-deadly-shooting/ "Reynolds acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Earl Gray that she and Castile smoked regularly. She also acknowledged marijuana was in the car at the time."
"Gray cited a Facebook video Reynolds posted showing her and Castile smoking pot in a car with her daughter in the back seat the day before the shooting, but Castile's use of marijuana the day of the shooting wasn't addressed."
This establishes that he was likely high at the time of the stop - because they smoke in the car.
You are correct it never got that far. It was however the next logical step they were going to take. Arresting a person for a crime they are currently committing is standard procedure to check them for other crimes they are suspected off . For example - if they arrested him for DUI they would have him in jail to do lineups to see if the store owner that was robbed could identify him, ect.
You ARE allowed to drink and drive, so long as you're under whatever the limit is (i.e. Minnesota is 0.08% BAC), so yes some usage is permitted, and again, from the way he drove and acted it's clear he wasn't stoned out of his mind like you're making him out to be.
And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 20:00:15
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/10 20:39:27
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Wolfblade wrote: By field sobriety test, do you mean walking in a straight line heel-to-toe, touching your nose, etc? Because that's not true, you can always decline it (and should, because the test is purely subjective as a minor wobble is a fail if the officer deems it so) as you can always ask for a breathalyzer or blood test instead.
The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant. It is the standard procedure. Plus refusal or failure makes you subject to arrest and a charge of DUI. The subjective part is taken away once you arrive at the police station and they verify the field test with a blood test (which you can't refuse). So what is your point? DUI laws are bad?
Minnesota law exempts marijuana from DUIs. I already posted the relevant statute.
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:
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 .
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?
This is directly from your quote-
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.
Omit from 0 tolerance policy is not omit from charge of DUI.
I'll be more clear. Your assertion that Castile would get busted for DUI because he had THC in his bloodstream is false. Simply having THC in his bloodstream does not mean that Castile would be guilty of a DUI if there wasn't evidence of his ability to drive being impaired. Castile was not driving erratically, he had not committed a moving violation, he was driving in a safe and lawful manner. He was only pulled over because he "had a wide nose" and a broken tail light.
If you pull somebody over for having a broken tail light and find THC in their blood stream that is not grounds for a DUI charge because Minnesota exempted marijuana from their zero tolerance DUI law. If Yanez had pulled Castile over for driving dangerously or because he committed a moving violation and then found that Castile had THC in his system then Castile could get charged with a DUI. In this incident Castile could not have been charged with a DUI, at worst he could get charged with possession if Yanez found marijuana on his person or in the car.
Driving a car that smells like marijuana =\= a DUI in Minnesota. Safely and lawfully operating a vehicle in Minnesota with THC in your system =\= a DUI in Minnesota. So why do you think Castile was going to get charged with a DUI?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. What you should or shouldn't do to avoid making a cop nervous is dependent on the cop that pulls you over.
And again, Yanez testified in court that he shot Castile because he saw Castile's bare hand grasping an object between his right leg and the center console so I don't know why you keep stating that Castile had his hand in his pocket unless you think Yanez lied under oath.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/10 20:54:46
Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 21:19:08
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
There is no zero tolerance policy in Minnesota for driving with THC in your system. Castile can drive all over Minnesota with THC in his bloodstream it's not illegal. It would only be illegal if the amount of THC in his system was great enough to impair his driving ability to the extent that he was driving in an erratic/unsafe/unlawful manner. Since there is literally zero evidence from the dash cam of Yanez's car, the radio call from Yanez or the testimony of Yanez that Castile's driving ability was impaired there's no way to charge Castile with a DUI.
2017 Minnesota Statutes
169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION.
Subd. 4.Requirement of urine or blood test. A blood or urine test may be required pursuant to a search warrant under sections 626.04 to 626.18 even after a breath test has been administered if there is probable cause to believe that:
(1) there is impairment by a controlled substance or a hazardous substance that is not subject to testing by a breath test;
(2) a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(3) the person is unconscious or incapacitated to the point that the peace officer providing a breath test advisory, administering a breath test, or serving the search warrant has a good-faith belief that the person is mentally or physically unable to comprehend the breath test advisory or otherwise voluntarily submit to chemical tests.
Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test under this subdivision only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered. This limitation does not apply to an unconscious person under the circumstances described in clause (3).
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 21:23:58
"And again, Yanez testified in court that he shot Castile because he saw Castile's bare hand grasping an object between his right leg and the center console so I don't know why you keep stating that Castile had his hand in his pocket unless you think Yanez lied under oath."
Given the proximity of the the two places and the fact that it was dark and said he couldn't see really good it could hardly be considered a lie if that were the case. However - everything I am reading from his actual sworn testimony says he reached for his pocket.
Xenomancers wrote: Prestor...Dude. When you get stopped for an out tail light - it's not like the infraction can't escalate from there...if you smell like weed - you probably just smoked - that is cause for a sobriety test. He might have passed the test he might not - we will never know. Plus - they were just fishing to get an ID on him anyways because he might have just robbed some place (he fit the description whether you like it or not).
Smells like weed
There's weed in the car even
We even have video evidence reviewed in court that the day previous they were smoking in the car. So we know they have a history of smoking in the car together (with a kid in the back seat)
You aren't exempt from taking a field sobriety test because they stopped you for a tail light...
Anyways - smoking weed doesn't make you drive eradicly anyways...it makes you drive slow - because your reaction time is slowed drivers so you slow down to compensate - your ability to quickly react to a pedestrian in the road or something else unanticipated is reduced.
There is no zero tolerance policy in Minnesota for driving with THC in your system. Castile can drive all over Minnesota with THC in his bloodstream it's not illegal. It would only be illegal if the amount of THC in his system was great enough to impair his driving ability to the extent that he was driving in an erratic/unsafe/unlawful manner. Since there is literally zero evidence from the dash cam of Yanez's car, the radio call from Yanez or the testimony of Yanez that Castile's driving ability was impaired there's no way to charge Castile with a DUI.
2017 Minnesota Statutes
169A.51 CHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTOXICATION.
Subd. 4.Requirement of urine or blood test. A blood or urine test may be required pursuant to a search warrant under sections 626.04 to 626.18 even after a breath test has been administered if there is probable cause to believe that:
(1) there is impairment by a controlled substance or a hazardous substance that is not subject to testing by a breath test;
(2) a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(3) the person is unconscious or incapacitated to the point that the peace officer providing a breath test advisory, administering a breath test, or serving the search warrant has a good-faith belief that the person is mentally or physically unable to comprehend the breath test advisory or otherwise voluntarily submit to chemical tests.
Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test under this subdivision only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered. This limitation does not apply to an unconscious person under the circumstances described in clause (3).
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: If his reaction time is reduced, how would he have reacted quick enough to shoot yanez, with yanez already pointing a gun at him?
Reaction time would be better tested by conducting a field sobriety test - not letting him draw on you first to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
How hard is it to have both hands on the wheel and have your licence and CCW in your hand at the same time? It's not contradicting at all. You should do both of these things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor - what part of that legal code specifies that in order to get DUI for MJ - you have to be seen driving eradicly? What part specifies that a feild test couldn't be used to determine intoxication?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/10 21:36:05
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
@ Prestor Jon
"'I've had cops tell me that it's best to have both hands on the wheel after you pull over because reaching around in your car to get stuff like your license and registration can make them nervous, they don't know what you're reaching for. I've also been told by other cops that I should have my license and registration ready when they walk up to the car window so I don't have to reach for anything when they're next to the car. "
Those cops are giving you fantastic advice.
No they're giving conflicting advice. One told me to wait until a cop was next to me before I reach around for anything in my car. Another told me to reach around me car and get stuff after I pull over so I have it in hand when the cop walks up to my car. Following the advice of cop A would make cop B nervous and following the advice of cop B would make cop A nervous. Which is the correct advice? It depends on the cop and if I choose the wrong behavior then when I disclose to the cop that I'm lawfully armed the result can be a nervous cop holding my at gunpoint.
How hard is it to have both hands on the wheel and have your licence and CCW in your hand at the same time? It's not contradicting at all. You should do both of these things.
How hard is it to recognize that I, like most (probably all) people don't drive with my license, registration, insurance and CCW in my hands while I grip the wheel. When you get pulled over by the police they are behind your car watching you while they run your plate and then watching you as they walk up to your car. Do you want to be reaching into your glove box for your registration and insurance and digging your DL and CCW out of your wallet while the cop that pulled you over is walking up to your car and can't see what you're reaching for? Or do you wait until the cop is next to you to reach for anything in your car so the cop can see your hands and know what you're grabbing?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Prestor - what part of that legal code specifies that in order to get DUI for MJ - you have to be seen driving eradicly? What part specifies that a feild test couldn't be used to determine intoxication?
The statute I already posted explains that a police officer can get a search warrant to get a blood or urine sample for drug testing following a traffic stop provided there is probable cause that the person is suffering from impairment from a controlled substance that won't be detected by a breathalyzer, a schedule I or II drug other than marijuana or the person is unconscious or incapacitated.
There is no magic number for THC like there is for alcohol. It's not a crime to get pulled over and be found to have X amount of THC in your system. If you're exhibited impaired driving behavior and then you're found with marijuana in your system you can get a DUI charge because you were driving impaired. If you driving ability isn't impaired then the amount of THC in your system is irrelevant. Simply being high on marijuana isn't a crime in Minnesota, whether you're driving or 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.
This can be difficult to prove in many instances, however, because marijuana has a relatively short high. It can also stay in a user’s system for up to 30 days, which means that a person may test positive for marijuana even if he or she did not smoke it prior to or while driving a vehicle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 21:59:43
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
"And way to move the goal posts from "he'd be arrested for DUI" to "He'd be arrested so they could do a line up."
These aren't mutually exclusive things. Both were going to happen if he didn't get shot and killed.
He wasn't going to be arrested most likely (for an out tail light, really? Or was it the weed that was perfectly legal? or the unimpaired driving? Which of those are arrest worthy?), and if he was it probably would have been bad for the PD. And again, try doing a SFST yourself, it's not easy OR reliable. Stumble? Put your arms out for balance during the walking portion? Can't recite the alphabet backwards without hesitation? Congrats! the officer could say you seem impaired and failed the test! The SFST is entirely subjective and hard enough when done without any pressure, and somewhere around of 1/3 of sober drivers fail the SFST. Refusing the SFST is perfectly legal (and not subject to being arrested on the spot...) so long as you then take a blood test or breathalyzer. So, considering he wasn't driving erratically, wasn't obviously impaired, and was compliant with the officer it's highly unlikely he'd be arrested over an out tail light!
Easy E wrote: Basically, if this guy had broken the law and not disclosed he had a CCW he would probably be alive today.
The moral of the story is.... don't follow the law?
He would be alive if he didn't disclose he had a firearm and then reach for something in his pocket. I agree with that.
He'd be alive today if he just had prepared his licence/CWP immediately when the cop came to the window. He probably would have been arrested for DUI though.
Actually, he'd be alive if the cop wasn't a wuss and didn't shoot a man who was compliant. If a cop is scared of basic traffic stops with compliant citizens, they shouldn't be a cop as they clearly don't have the right mindset/temperament for the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/10 22:04:01
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
So you are saying the police officer is lying? To protect himself? The man was actually being compliant? He shot a man for no reason?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: So you are saying the police officer is lying? To protect himself? The man was actually being compliant? He shot a man for no reason?
If this has all been an elaborate bamboozle on your part until this point, then you sir, have played me for a fool. Congratulations.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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.
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)
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.
Why won't you respond to this, Xenomancers? Yes or not: every officer who smells marijuana or a whiff alcohol is in imminent, mortal danger and would be prudent to conduct the rest of the interaction at gunpoint. Yes or not?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Xenomancers wrote: So you are saying the police officer is lying? To protect himself? The man was actually being compliant? He shot a man for no reason?
Lying? About some parts, yes. He admitted to the shooting, and he was obviously lying about being in imminent and mortal danger because he smelled marijuana and there was a kid in the car! He got twitchy because the compliant and law abiding citizen legally owned a gun (The horror! The imminent danger to everything around them! Especially the cops!). Castile was complying with the order to get his ID and concealed carry permit, which caused his hand to go out of sight, which led to the shooting. His record however has nothing in it about any sort of violent crime or anything beyond minor violations like speeding, or not wearing a seat belt. There's nothing to warrant him being shot beyond "his hands went out of sight", which again, was to grab his ID and permit and that should never be enough to shoot a citizen who is being compliant. If the officer was so worried, he should have had Castile step out of the car.
The alternative is Castile, against all logical and rational thought, previous and current behavior, and current situation (i.e. girlfriend and kid in the car) decided that today he wasn't getting a minor fine or he'd dying trying to avoid it! And, instead of having his pistol ready when he was pulled over, he'd only go for it AFTER the cops walked up and started talking to him.
I think Occam's Razor can narrow this one down.
(and you have yet to reply to Ouze's excellent posts)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 08:34:12
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
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.
Well, he most definitely would not have been arrested. They might have been able to prove he had weed on him but they would need a warrant to properly see if he had thc in his system. He can refuse a test. He probably knew how much he had on him(Im not sure if they found any on him or not) so he would know how much his fine was going to be. Was he mumbling? I understood what he was saying in the video. If Yanez couldn't that is his own problem. He was clearly paying attention to Yanez because he was coherent enough to know exactly what he needed to tell the police for his CC Permit.
Is anything you are saying factual? I mean, why would a guy open fire on a police officer with his kid in the car for a minor fine? Why would a law abiding citizen like Castile do that?
Let me educate you on something. When you refuse a field sobriety test - you are put under arrest immediately. Driving under the influence is a serious crime even in the most liberal cities like Denver. You lose your licence for a time - it costs you a lot a money (apparently money he didn't have - as hes racked up a lot of fines over the years) - and if you have other offenses you get serious jail time. This is pretty standard all over the US. I'm pretty sure just smelling like MJ is enough for them to arrest you anyways.
This is a demonstrable ill contempt for the law. Things that already put cops on high alert...Kind of like when you stop somebody that meets the description of a robbery suspect. A guy like this driving around under the influence while armed? This was inevitable. You'd really think a guy that was stopped 46 times in traffic stops in a 10 year period would understand the protocol of having your credentials in order to give to the cop immediately.
lol no, that is not how that works. Especially in Minnesota, where marijuana is exempt from DUI laws. Which has been stated before your post in this thread and then again after your post.
So, you attempted to educate me on something and it turns out, you didn't know what you were talking about.
Xenomancers wrote: We have no indication of how stoned he was...he never took a field sobriety test.
I would like to know what a field sobriety test is for a stoned person. Honestly, the only way a cop is going to know I am stoned is if he mouth swabs me at the scene and even then, those are not highly accurate and I believe illegal for a cop to do in a lot of states.
How much have you been around marijuana? It seems you think that anybody smoking is going to be incoherently stoned no matter how much they consume.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 05:33:09
Everyone keep saying he is being compliant. If you are compliant then you don't reach somewhere when you are told to stop. If you are compliant the LEO doesn't have a reason to suspect you of trying to reach for a weapon. No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard. There is proof that he was told to quit reaching for something several times, and did not comply, as there was ample time to comply. around 2-4 seconds of being told stop reaching before he was shot. If he was high then he still would have had time to react. So no, no where can I take anyone seriously that insists he was complying. The real question is does non compliance warrant death. Absolutely not. However when you are non-compliant and reaching towards where there is likely to be a weapon, told to stop, and keep reaching you are going to get shot. I can not 100% blame the police. I have said it before but unfortunately the training and muscle memory on target discrimination and discipline under fire are not there for them, because they are not meant to operate like that.
Officer Yanez did not walk up to that car wanting to murder someone. Castille did have numerous run ins for the law and that show a lack of responsibility and respect for social laws. Although I think he was quick on the trigger, only byabout 1 second. 1 second is the difference between life and death in a fire fight. Unless he shows similar behavior, has complaints of brutality or numerous shootings, then I 100% believe this LEO was not murderous, and followed procedure. Tragic, but this was not a bad shoot. Diamond Reynolds settled for a small amount of money because she knew that was all she could get. She was caught lying, she made false statements, and she very well could have perjured herself. So lets just let this one go. There are far more brutal and horrific police shootings with almost zero doubt it was a straight up murder, and yet people seem to be holding on to this one. Its almost like a faith, a religion, hating the cops seems to be what people live for. Distrust them, be critical of what they are doing, fight injustice, but this is not the battle to pick for that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/11 13:16:49
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
8000pts.
7000pts.
5000pts.
on the way. 
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.
