Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Tubey]

Need to take a look at the current system in place. Juries just cannot bring themselves to convict cops.

Or perhaps it was the right verdict?

 

[abelard]

Or perhaps it was the right verdict?

you don't know the first thing about this case, do you?

 

[Tubey]

you don't know the first thing about this case, do you?

I do, and I think it was the correct verdict. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Ruairi77]

I do, and I think it was the correct verdict. Sorry if that upsets you.

Honestly, what makes you think it was the right verdict?

 

[Tubey]

Honestly, what makes you think it was the right verdict?

Well, it's happened in a country where everyone is armed to the gills mate.

I put myself in the shoes of the officer - if I pull someone over in the US, they say they have a gun, then proceed to ignore instructions and reach for their pocket, I'd shoot them too. Because I'd have the right and compulsion to protect my own life in that situation.

I think it's far more believable that the officer felt his life was endangered than he simply decided to pull a random car over and shoot the driver like a cold blooded psychopath. And when you watch the video, you can clearly see the officer is distressed at what happened. Where's the motive for him to kill a man he's never met, in front of a child and another witness?

Not only that, legally you have the concept of reasonable doubt. At the very least, there's that - and at no stage did I entertain the thought he'd be convicted.

There was a lot of hyperbole about what happened - people saying "the shooting was streamed live" etc. when it wasn't; the aftermath was. What this is is unfortunately yet another example of what happens when you have an armed populace and an armed police. The police are tasked with serving and protecting, but they've got to protect themselves too. If you accept the right to bear arms, you have to accept that events like this will unfortunately happen on occasion.

 

[mezzrow]

Well, it's happened in a country where everyone is armed to the gills mate.

I put myself in the shoes of the officer - if I pull someone over in the US, they say they have a gun, then proceed to ignore instructions and reach for their pocket, I'd shoot them too. Because I'd have the right and compulsion to protect my own life in that situation.

I think it's far more believable that the officer felt his life was endangered than he simply decided to pull a random car over and shoot the driver like a cold blooded psychopath. And when you watch the video, you can clearly see the officer is distressed at what happened. Where's the motive for him to kill a man he's never met, in front of a child and another witness?

Not only that, legally you have the concept of reasonable doubt. At the very least, there's that - and at no stage did I entertain the thought he'd be convicted.

There was a lot of hyperbole about what happened - people saying "the shooting was streamed live" etc. when it wasn't; the aftermath was. What this is is unfortunately yet another example of what happens when you have an armed populace and an armed police. The police are tasked with serving and protecting, but they've got to protect themselves too. If you accept the right to bear arms, you have to accept that events like this will unfortunately happen on occasion.

I accept the right to bear arms, and my belief is that this was a terrible verdict, Tubey. Let me explain. There's a world of difference between this and something like the Michael Brown debacle, which was tragic but likely justified by the circumstances.

I still don’t see any good reason for shooting Castile, much less for firing his gun into a car containing a woman and her child. For that he was also charged, but acquitted.

“Yanez, who is Latino, ‘did what he had to do’ when he shot Castile, a defense attorney argued during the trial. Yanez testified that he feared for his life after Castile refused to not pull out his gun, despite the officer’s commands. Prosecutors argued that Yanez never saw the gun, and that he overreacted to a non-threat. The trial included squad-car video of the traffic stop between the two, but footage did not show what happened in Castile’s car, leaving it up to the jury to believe Yanez’s testimony.”

“Refused to not pull out his gun” is, I think, incorrect. Castile never pulled a gun; according to his girlfriend he was pulling out his ID as ordered.
A conviction in this case would have been a clear signal pour l'encouragement les autres...

Law enforcement must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Yes, having everybody armed up does make life a lot more difficult and dangerous for peace officers. That said, you also find situations where citizens use their own skills and weapons to bring in some of the most dangerous criminals walking around, as in the recapture of the escaped Georgia prison guard killers in Tennessee last week. In rural areas like the part of Tennessee where this happened, you know you don't have time for the law to arrive to deal with your personal life and death situation, which is much as it has been for the past couple hundred years.

 

[abelard]

if I pull someone over in the US, they say they have a gun, then proceed to ignore instructions and reach for their pocket, I'd shoot them too.

That's not what happened. There is a transcript:

9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.
9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.
9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.
9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.
9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.
9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”
9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.
9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!”

Castile was shot for doing exactly what the officer asked him to do.

 

[Ruairi77]

Well, it's happened in a country where everyone is armed to the gills mate.

I put myself in the shoes of the officer - if I pull someone over in the US, they say they have a gun, then proceed to ignore instructions and reach for their pocket, I'd shoot them too. Because I'd have the right and compulsion to protect my own life in that situation.

I think it's far more believable that the officer felt his life was endangered than he simply decided to pull a random car over and shoot the driver like a cold blooded psychopath. And when you watch the video, you can clearly see the officer is distressed at what happened. Where's the motive for him to kill a man he's never met, in front of a child and another witness?

Not only that, legally you have the concept of reasonable doubt. At the very least, there's that - and at no stage did I entertain the thought he'd be convicted.

There was a lot of hyperbole about what happened - people saying "the shooting was streamed live" etc. when it wasn't; the aftermath was. What this is is unfortunately yet another example of what happens when you have an armed populace and an armed police. The police are tasked with serving and protecting, but they've got to protect themselves too. If you accept the right to bear arms, you have to accept that events like this will unfortunately happen on occasion.

The charge was second degree manslaughter, not murder.

 

[Tubey]

That's not what happened. There is a transcript:

9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.
9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.
9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.
9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.
9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.
9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”
9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.
9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!”

Castile was shot for doing exactly what the officer asked him to do.

You're reading something different to me there then, because I read that as the officer saying "don't reach for it" and the guy continuing to reach for something anyway. If Castile removes his hands and stops reaching for something, the officer doesn't shoot - it was non-compliance.

It doesn't matter if Castile was reaching for the gun or not, the officer obviously had a reasonable belief that he was reaching for a concealed weapon. It's not murder; it's not even manslaughter.

 

[Tubey]

I accept the right to bear arms, and my belief is that this was a terrible verdict, Tubey. Let me explain. There's a world of difference between this and something like the Michael Brown debacle, which was tragic but likely justified by the circumstances.

I still don’t see any good reason for shooting Castile, much less for firing his gun into a car containing a woman and her child. For that he was also charged, but acquitted.

“Yanez, who is Latino, ‘did what he had to do’ when he shot Castile, a defense attorney argued during the trial. Yanez testified that he feared for his life after Castile refused to not pull out his gun, despite the officer’s commands. Prosecutors argued that Yanez never saw the gun, and that he overreacted to a non-threat. The trial included squad-car video of the traffic stop between the two, but footage did not show what happened in Castile’s car, leaving it up to the jury to believe Yanez’s testimony.”

“Refused to not pull out his gun” is, I think, incorrect. Castile never pulled a gun; according to his girlfriend he was pulling out his ID as ordered.
A conviction in this case would have been a clear signal pour l'encouragement les autres...

Law enforcement must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Yes, having everybody armed up does make life a lot more difficult and dangerous for peace officers. That said, you also find situations where citizens use their own skills and weapons to bring in some of the most dangerous criminals walking around, as in the recapture of the escaped Georgia prison guard killers in Tennessee last week. In rural areas like the part of Tennessee where this happened, you know you don't have time for the law to arrive to deal with your personal life and death situation, which is much as it has been for the past couple hundred years.

Again, it doesn't matter if he was reaching for a gun - the fact is he reached for something and the officer said don't do it, after disclosing he had a concealed firearm. He continued to reach, so knowing the guy had a weapon, the officer had reason to suspect he could have been reaching for it and has seconds to make a decision and protect himself.

I don't believe people are looking at the facts of what happened logically, and are blinded by the "black guy shot by cop" narrative. Sure, there will be instances where people are shot by police and it is murder or manslaughter, but I can't see any evidence of that here whatsoever.

 

[abelard]

You're reading something different to me there then, because I read that as the officer saying "don't reach for it" and the guy continuing to reach for something anyway. If Castile removes his hands and stops reaching for something, the officer doesn't shoot - it was non-compliance.

It doesn't matter if Castile was reaching for the gun or not, the officer obviously had a reasonable belief that he was reaching for a concealed weapon. It's not murder; it's not even manslaughter.

He was told to reach for his driver's license (he'd only given the insurance card). It isn't even clear that he's reaching for anything at the time that he's shot (he denies reaching for his gun twice, as does his girlfriend, before the shots are fired). The officer only tells him once not to reach for his gun before pulling the trigger, despite at least three clear indications that he is not reaching for the gun.

I take your point that a society awash with guns invites certain challenges, but I think the bar has to be much, much higher before someone gets killed during a traffic stop. Try putting yourself in the victim's shoes, instead of just the police officer.

if you're afraid of black people

 

[wilfjacko]

He was told to reach for his driver's license (he'd only given the insurance card). It isn't even clear that he's reaching for anything at the time that he's shot (he denies reaching for his gun twice, as does his girlfriend, before the shots are fired). The officer only tells him once not to reach for his gun before pulling the trigger, despite at least three clear indications that he is not reaching for the gun.

I take your point that a society awash with guns invites certain challenges, but I think the bar has to be much, much higher before someone gets killed during a traffic stop. Try putting yourself in the victim's shoes, instead of just the police officer.

if you're afraid of black people

I'm afraid of everyone.

 

[abelard]

I'm afraid of everyone.

oops that got cut off.

I meant: "If you're afraid of black people, you shouldn't work in law enforcement"

 

[wilfjacko]

oops that got cut off.

I meant: "If you're afraid of black people, you shouldn't work in law enforcement"

I was just joshing you.

 

[Tubey]

He was told to reach for his driver's license (he'd only given the insurance card). It isn't even clear that he's reaching for anything at the time that he's shot (he denies reaching for his gun twice, as does his girlfriend, before the shots are fired). The officer only tells him once not to reach for his gun before pulling the trigger, despite at least three clear indications that he is not reaching for the gun.

I take your point that a society awash with guns invites certain challenges, but I think the bar has to be much, much higher before someone gets killed during a traffic stop. Try putting yourself in the victim's shoes, instead of just the police officer.

if you're afraid of black people

The bar can be as high as you want, but you can't expect a cop to see a person with a gun reaching for something you can't see and ignoring instructions to stop reaching to put his life at unacceptable risk. All of that happened in the space of seven seconds - or 10 seconds from being notified the guy has a gun. It takes one second for someone to get their hands on a gun, turn and fire.

I have put myself in the victims shoes - as soon as the cop said, "don't reach for it then" and "don't pull it out", my hands are in the air. Complying. That's the thing. It doesn't matter if he says he's not reaching for the gun - in that instance, actions speak louder than words. He could easily have been saying "no, I'm not reaching for the gun sir", then pull it out and shoot.

It's not about being afraid of black people; it's about being afraid of a concealed weapon and not knowing what is going to happen if someone is inexplicably not following instruction. Take the ethnicity out of the equation and look at that transcript logically and my view is that it's obvious why he was acquitted.