Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Summary: Cop pulled over Philando for a broken taillight. Philando was in the car with his 3 year old daughter and his girlfriend. The result was Philando ended up getting shot multiple times and he died.

The Police Officer who shot Philando was prosecuted and found not guilty by a jury, recently. Many people are enraged and upset by this. Another white cop shooting a black man to death scenario.


But unlike other scenarios where this situation has come up and there was outrage, we ACTUALLY have video and audio footage.

Dashcam footage finally released.

The video is disturbing. It is violent and the audio of a man gasping and saying his last words can be haunting for some. Do not watch this if you are new to this type of stuff.

http://www.startribune.com/case-file-in-philando-castile-shooting-to-be-made-public-today/429659263/



Was the police officer justified or was the not guilty verdict correct in your opinion? Please read the entire article, which I feel has enough of the case details to come to a conclusion, before coming to a conclusion.

From the evidence I've seen he is absolutely guilty and a shitbag.

that is such shit reasoning "If he's a stoner in front of his daughter, then obviously he's willing to try and shoot a cop!"

The narrative that this should be used to judge law enforcement as a whole as being some racist white supremacist power structure is ridiculous however.

I discussed this on here when it happened. Surt's response was "that sucks, but he smoked weed in front of a kid, so hey...."

that's a really weird stance for a pothead to take.

Sounds like the officer racially profiled him when looking for a suspect 'black man with wide nose and dreadlocks', but even if we ignore tha, the officer asked Philando for his paperwork and then shot him when he reached for it. This is even after Philando had told the officer he had a gun in the car, which you're supposed to do if you're pulled over so police know what to expect.

The officer fired seven rounds into the car, this was while there were two other people; one a child. This guy has no business being a cop. IMO, he should have at least faced some form of causing death or at least endangering others charges.

This likely all goes back to the police culture and the stigma that black males have, 'they're violent and dangerous'.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I discussed this on here when it happened. Surt's response was "that sucks, but he smoked weed in front of a kid, so hey...."

TIL: Smoking weed in front of a child is worse than firing seven bullets into a car that has a child in it

This was just horrible. Horrible. And the shooter got off free of charges right? There's something disgustingly wrong in that justice system.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I discussed this on here when it happened. Surt's response was "that sucks, but he smoked weed in front of a kid, so hey...."


If Surt really said that then he's clearly a sicko himself.

LOL I might have said he smoked weed in front of a kid and shouldn't, or that he was a shitty parent for doing so. I never said it justified shooting him.

But again: see how sad Lestov is? The first thing on his mind is to try to call me out. Not any opinion on the shooting or verdict. *That* was his concern.

Which will now create a back and forth that will get way off topic.

I gave my opinion on the shooting long ago. When I stated how unjust it was, you started bringing up his legal history and calling him a shitty father

Originally posted by Emperordmb
From the evidence I've seen he is absolutely guilty and a shitbag.

that is such shit reasoning "If he's a stoner in front of his daughter, then obviously he's willing to try and shoot a cop!"

The narrative that this should be used to judge law enforcement as a whole as being some racist white supremacist power structure is ridiculous however.

Especially since the cop, at the time of the shooting, wouldn't have known what drugs were in his system.

With that said I am curious to hear the rationale from the jury as to why. Originally it was 10-2 in favor of not guilty. There were only 2 blacks on the jury and I was surprised to find out they were not the holdouts for a guilty verdict. So the knee jerk response some will have about this being due to racism kinda wouldn't completely hold up.

surt never actually said "he deserved to be shot for it". he just implied it. and since surt doen't understand words like "implication" and "inference", it means he wins again.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I gave my opinion on the shooting long ago. When I stated how unjust it was, you started bringing up his legal history and calling him a shitty father

Yes, I did bring up his legal history and yes I did bring up him being a shitty father.

But I never said he deserved to die because he was a shitty parent. Which seemed to kinda be what you were suggesting.

I also stand by it: you aren't a good parent if you're cruising around smoking weed with your kids in the back. Doesn't mean you deserve to get shot, but hey you brought up the parenting skills part.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, I did bring up his legal history and yes I did bring up him being a shitty father.

But I never said he deserved to die because he was a shitty parent. Which seemed to kinda be what you were suggesting.

HA! #CalledIt

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
HA! #CalledIt

Yes, good job at thinking that since I never said he deserved it I would say I never said he deserved it. Nor did I imply it. So good job at anticipating I would point out I never did by posting about implications before I answered so you could weasel out of trying to say I did without needing to give direct evidence.

But hey, pretend victories. You need them today, so I'll allow it.

The footage of this was another example of how US cops really REALLY need training on how not to panic react in situations.

So did everyone watch the dashcam footage? The footage is supposedly new public information.

After you watch it, does your opinion remain the same or change?

Originally posted by Surtur
Especially since the cop, at the time of the shooting, wouldn't have known what drugs were in his system.

With that said I am curious to hear the rationale from the jury as to why. Originally it was 10-2 in favor of not guilty. There were only 2 blacks on the jury and I was surprised to find out they were not the holdouts for a guilty verdict. So the knee jerk response some will have about this being due to racism kinda wouldn't completely hold up.

Um, the cop suspected marijuana, because that's what he claimed to have smelled. Marijuana does not give you super-strength nor does it make you violent like PCP, the cop would know this.

Of note, Philando was killed for following the officer's orders, which you have in the past said something like 'if they only complied with the orders, they would be alive' as a means to blame yet another black victim of police idiocy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So did everyone watch the dashcam footage? The footage is supposedly new public information.

After you watch it, does your opinion remain the same or change?

I don't think he deserved to be shot. But I also don't think racism played any role in this. Seems like a cop who was far too jumpy to be a cop.

Police need to be held to a higher standard, not lowering the bar because they are "trained."

This almost reminds me of the oklahoma policewoman who shot the guy down in the street after he left his vehicle.......and ta da off scott free.

What a disturbing culture.

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, the cop suspected marijuana, because that's what he claimed to have smelled. Marijuana does not give you super-strength nor does it make you violent like PCP, the cop would know this.

Fair enough.



Lol here is what is not going to happen: we aren't going to pretend like there were not cases where complying with orders indeed would have made it so these situations didn't escalate into a shooting, period.

With that said, I have already said I don't feel the cop was right to shoot him. So there goes the "you said you don't always agree with law enforcement but you lied!" narrative your pal was trying to push in another thread. Knowing you, you will say it doesn't get rid of said narrative though.

Originally posted by Surtur

With that said, I have already said I don't feel the cop was right to shoot him. So there goes the "you said you don't always agree with law enforcement but you lied!" narrative your pal was trying to push in another thread. Knowing you, you will say it doesn't get rid of said narrative though.

nope. you tried to assert a police report as irrefutable fact, a week after trying to smear and dismiss an fbi investigation (with no more evidence than your feelz).

if you want to continue that discussion- (as well as the other one where i corrected your misinformation and you acted like a baby and never accepted fault) -then you can address me in the proper thread instead of this passive-aggresive coward routine you're doing. ...or don't. whichever. it's not like you have any credibility to lose.

Originally posted by Surtur
Fair enough.



Lol here is what is not going to happen: we aren't going to pretend like there were not cases where complying with orders indeed would have made it so these situations didn't escalate into a shooting, period.

With that said, I have already said I don't feel the cop was right to shoot him. So there goes the "you said you don't always agree with law enforcement but you lied!" narrative your pal was trying to push in another thread. Knowing you, you will say it doesn't get rid of said narrative though. Well, you're singing a far different tune than you did back in August or so when you discussed this with Lestov, as back then you were pretty much convinced he was a pile of shit who likely was the armed robber the cops were looking for anyways.

edit: babysteps

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. you tried to assert a police report as irrefutable fact, a week after trying to smear and dismiss an fbi investigation (with no more evidence than your feelz).

if you want to continue that discussion- (as well as the other one where i corrected your misinformation and you acted like a baby and never accepted fault) -then you can address me in the proper thread instead of this passive-aggresive coward routine you're doing. ...or don't. whichever. it's not like you have any credibility to lose.

But nobody said a police report was irrefutable and you didn't quote me from months ago talking about reports. You quoted me saying I do not always agree with law enforcement.

I just disagreed. There is 100% no need to continue it elsewhere, because the discussion is over lol. Just to nip this in the butt, my quote:

I have never said law enforcement is always right. Before you come back and complain: nor have I implied it.

Just said the cop was wrong, in more than one post. Discussion over.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, you're singing a far different tune than you did back in August or so when you discussed this with Lestov, as back then you were pretty much convinced he was a pile of shit who likely was the armed robber the cops were looking for anyways.

There were reports he was the armed robber true, but after they turned out to be false I admitted it.

So again: never said he deserved to be shot for what he did.

Sooooo


Did ANYONE watch the dashcam footage?


Here it is, again:


http://www.startribune.com/case-file-in-philando-castile-shooting-to-be-made-public-today/429659263/


Watch it carefully. Then decide if your opinion is the same or has changed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sooooo


Did ANYONE watch the dashcam footage?


Here it is, again:


http://www.startribune.com/case-file-in-philando-castile-shooting-to-be-made-public-today/429659263/


Watch it carefully. Then decide if your opinion is the same or has changed.

Yes I watched it but I never had a prior opinion so....

Originally posted by Surtur


if you can't summon the testicular fortitude to address my posts in their proper threads, then just let it go. "end of discussion", indeed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sooooo


Did ANYONE watch the dashcam footage?


Here it is, again:


http://www.startribune.com/case-file-in-philando-castile-shooting-to-be-made-public-today/429659263/


Watch it carefully. Then decide if your opinion is the same or has changed.

Before I go any further:

kcwTnQP2kDU

Sorry, the link you gave was taking a long time to load, so I posted that in case anyone else had similar issues.

Well shit, I'm almost hesitant to give an opinion. For some reason I thought you'd posted a different clip of the shooting which is why I didn't watch. It's going to get said I'm victim blaming(not from you though, at least I doubt it).

I had known the cop told the guy not to pull out the gun, but I had thought he had began to fire pretty much the split second he finished saying "don't pull it out". But no, he is told he has a gun. He says "don't pull it out then". He repeats it a 2nd time, then a third time, before he fires.

The defense I see say that the guy was reaching for his wallet and claimed "I'm not pulling it out". I'm on the fence though, cuz even if you tell a cop you aren't pulling a gun out yet your hand continues to reach for something...I mean I know the cop had also previously asked for a license and stuff, but that was before he knew about the gun, and he said several times do not pull it out.

I was reading some of the youtube comments. One said the cop should have given better commands and told him to just put his hands on the steering wheel. I agree with that at least, but I'm not saying this absolves the cop. But because of the multiple warnings given I am assuming THAT is why the jury voted not guilty. But either way the cop f*cked up.

What about your assessment?

Furthermore, does anyone here think this cop did what he did just for the fun of it or out of racism? Note I am not saying if this wasn't a racist act it makes it okay.

I watched it and have actually been through the training, don't touch your gun in front of a cop if you don't want to be shot.

It was a clean shooting, he gave multiple verbal warnings. Sorry if that offends

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/21/trevor-noah-philando-castile-nra-daily-show/amp/

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I watched it and have actually been through the training, don't touch your gun in front of a cop if you don't want to be shot.

It was a clean shooting, he gave multiple verbal warnings. Sorry if that offends



Except the guy never threatened the cop. There was absolutely no reason to start firing. And I think we all know the victim's colour had a lot to do with it.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I watched it and have actually been through the training, don't touch your gun in front of a cop if you don't want to be shot.

It was a clean shooting, he gave multiple verbal warnings. Sorry if that offends No, you haven't so shut up. Sorry if that offends

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except the guy never threatened the cop. There was absolutely no reason to start firing. And I think we all know the victim's colour had a lot to do with it. That doesn't matter.Originally posted by Adam Grimes
No, you haven't so shut up. Sorry if that offends Wow, maybe throw on the wiggles, adults are talking.

#Triggered

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
That doesn't matter. Wow, maybe throw on the wiggles, adults are talking.

#Triggered Sorry, looks like I offended you

If a cop tells you not to reach for your gun, you don't keep on reaching for it. Still, I think the guy has no business being a police officer.

Originally posted by Surtur
Before I go any further:

kcwTnQP2kDU

Sorry, the link you gave was taking a long time to load, so I posted that in case anyone else had similar issues.

Well shit, I'm almost hesitant to give an opinion. For some reason I thought you'd posted a different clip of the shooting which is why I didn't watch. It's going to get said I'm victim blaming(not from you though, at least I doubt it).

I had known the cop told the guy not to pull out the gun, but I had thought he had began to fire pretty much the split second he finished saying "don't pull it out". But no, he is told he has a gun. He says "don't pull it out then". He repeats it a 2nd time, then a third time, before he fires.

The defense I see say that the guy was reaching for his wallet and claimed "I'm not pulling it out". I'm on the fence though, cuz even if you tell a cop you aren't pulling a gun out yet your hand continues to reach for something...I mean I know the cop had also previously asked for a license and stuff, but that was before he knew about the gun, and he said several times do not pull it out.

I was reading some of the youtube comments. One said the cop should have given better commands and told him to just put his hands on the steering wheel. I agree with that at least, but I'm not saying this absolves the cop. But because of the multiple warnings given I am assuming THAT is why the jury voted not guilty. But either way the cop f*cked up.

What about your assessment?

Furthermore, does anyone here think this cop did what he did just for the fun of it or out of racism? Note I am not saying if this wasn't a racist act it makes it okay.

Nope, you are correct. I held Robtard's opinion, previously, before this dashcam footage was released. In fact, if you want to know what my opinion was before today (when the dashcam footage was released), just go back and read Robtard's first post about the topic: that is almost verbatim what my opinion was.


However...he violated the basics of conceal and carry rules. Like...the exact basics. The very first thing you're supposed to do is inform the LEO that he had a conceal and carry and was currently carrying. Guess where your hands are supposed to be? Visible and on the steering wheel. Even if the police officer asks for your license and registration, you first inform of the CC and that you're currently packing and THEN wait for further instructions from the LEO.

If the LEO says to stop reaching for your gun, 3 times...and you still do not stop, then you run the risk of the situation escalating into violence up to and including lethal violence which is exactly what happened in the video.


I see nothing in the video that suggests he was reaching for anything else but his gun. Even if he wasn't, there is no indication that he is reaching for anything else but the gun he just mentioned to Yanez. He did not say that he was going to get his wallet after just having mentioned his concealed gun.


Phil: "Sir, I do have to tell you..."

Yanez:------------------------------"Mkay."

Phil: "That I do have a firearm on me."

Yanez:-------------------------------------"Okay."

Phil: "Don't reach for it, sir."

Yanez: "I'm-I'm"

Phil:--------------"Don't pull it out."

Yanez: "I'm not pulling it out...."

Phil:------------------------------"Don't pull it out!"



And then the shit happens.




I will tell you this: Yanez reacted the way they are trained. If they reach for their pocket and you suspect or know that the suspect is armed, then you're supposed to quickly pull out your gun and meet lethal force with lethal force BEFORE the suspect shoots you. Yanez reacted exactly how he is supposed to in that situation.

Also, Phil partially matched the description of a wide-nosed, shoulder-length dreadlock having armed robber. He (Yanez) approached the situation under the pretense that this man is a potential suspect matching the description of the armed robber.



I have seen another video where the police officer says immediately, "I will shoot you if you reach for that gun again...you better not reach for it..." That person did not end up dead. So I do believe there was an alternative outcome for this situation.

Also, the cop was EXTREMELY emotionally beat up and destroyed after this event. He was completely hysterical. I personally do not think he had the emotional stability to be working that kind of job. Sure, he just killed somebody and it is absurdly traumatic. But it does not seem like Law Enforcement is the type of work he should be in.



FYI, the probable cause to pull that guy over was the broken taillight. But they pulled him over to see if he matched the armed robber suspect. Pretty routine stuff. Drive safely, keep your car legal, and get a dashcam. Oh, and don't be black, sadly.



Here is my conclusion: Yanez did nothing illegal. Yanez could have handled the situation better but he did nothing wrong even from a proper procedure perspective. Even had his partner watching the other side (which is there to protect the confronting officer and possibly stop "runners" from escaping...because they thought they found their armed robbers).


Before this dashcam footage, I thought Yanez told Phil to get his wallet AFTER Phil said he had a conceal and carry. Which means Yanez was a dumbass making an excuse to shoot Phil. That narrative is not true since I saw this video. THIS is why we need bodycams and video footage. It wasn't until today that I knew exactly what happened. Yanez is not guilty of murder. Phil is guilty of being a dumbass who could not even follow the very basics of conceal and carry practices and he lost his life for it...wish it didn't happen. I don't want anyone to die violent deaths unless they are truly evil people.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
If a cop tells you not to reach for your gun, you don't keep on reaching for it. Still, I think the guy has no business being a police officer.

Oh please, the guy gave no indication whatsoever that he was threatening the cop. There's no way that cop would have murdered (and yes it was a plain unprovoked killing i.e. A murder) Philando if he wasn't black.


Originally posted by Henry_Pym
That doesn't matter.



And that's part of the Problem.

The other is how it's mainly black people who get shot completely unprovoked.

Reaching for your gun after being told repeatedly to not do that is quite threatening and provoking.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Reaching for your gun after being told repeatedly to not do that is quite threatening and provoking.


You honestly think he was reaching for his gun to shoot the cop? Was there any indication of that at all?

The cop already had his gun pointed at the guy ready to fire. Then straight 6 bullets to the guy, because that's how many were needed to make the white cop feel safe from the black guy.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You honestly think he was reaching for his gun to shoot the cop? Was there any indication of that at all?

The cop already had his gun pointed at the guy ready to fire. Then straight 6 bullets to the guy, because that's how many were needed to make the white cop feel safe from the black guy.
I don't know that and neither did the cop, but they're trained to assume the worst. This is why you listen to what an officer tells you.

Yeah, the cop had his gun pointed at Phil because he kept reaching for something(after admitting to being armed) even though he was explicitly told not to do that. The cop had his gun holstered before that. As to why he shot him 6 times: that was his training kicking in as cops are taught to always fire multiple times.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't know that and neither did the cop, but they're trained to assume the worst. This is why you listen to what an officer tells you.

Yeah, the cop had his gun pointed at Phil because he kept reaching for something(after admitting to being armed) even though he was explicitly told not to do that. The cop had his gun holstered before that. As to why he shot him 6 times: that was his training kicking in as cops are taught to always fire multiple times.

The cop asked Castile for his license and registration and then Castile informed the cop that he had a weapon on him. The problem was that the officer never retracted his previous instruction of producing license and reg. What the officer should have done was tell Castile to put his hands on the wheels. He didn't do that. Instead it's more likely that Castile was just reaching for his ID like he was instructed to do at the beginning. And it makes no sense to tell a police officer that you have a gun on you if your intention is to shoot the officer.

At the very least this is obvious manslaughter. But it's very difficult to convict a cop and there's good reason for that. Cops do have an almost impossible job and the threat of conviction at any mistake/error would make the job far more of threat to than necessary and no one in their right mind would want to become a cop if that were to happen. Even obvious cases of gross neglect on the side of the cop where this is footage of the cop shooting someone in the back (like with Walter Scott) is still difficult to convict the cop.

Still, this is obvious manslaughter. Castile informed the officer he was armed and the officer never recanted his order for Castile to hand over a license and registration.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
The cop asked Castile for his license and registration and then Castile informed the cop that he had a weapon on him. The problem was that the officer never retracted his previous instruction of producing license and reg. What the officer should have done was tell Castile to put his hands on the wheels. He didn't do that. Instead it's more likely that Castile was just reaching for his ID like he was instructed to do at the beginning. And it makes no sense to tell a police officer that you have a gun on you if your intention is to shoot the officer.

At the very least this is obvious manslaughter. But it's very difficult to convict a cop and there's good reason for that. Cops do have an almost impossible job and the threat of conviction at any mistake/error would make the job far more of threat to than necessary and no one in their right mind would want to become a cop if that were to happen. Even obvious cases of gross neglect on the side of the cop where this is footage of the cop shooting someone in the back (like with Walter Scott) is still difficult to convict the cop.

Still, this is obvious manslaughter. Castile informed the officer he was armed and the officer never recanted his order for Castile to hand over a license and registration.
Actually, Phil hands over his license and registration at the very start so I think he was reaching for something else at that point. I pretty much agree with the rest of your post though.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Actually, Phil hands over his license and registration at the very start so I think he was reaching for something else at that point. I pretty much agree with the rest of your post though.

It's hard to see what he handed him. It could have been just the registration. A lot of people do give the items one at a time. I know. I was a cop in the military and people tend to hand over one or the other and then give you the second one.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
It's hard to see what he handed him. It could have been just the registration. A lot of people do give the items one at a time. I know. I was a cop in the military and people tend to hand over one or the other and then give you the second one.
Yeah, the cop did not do a good job communicating with Phil.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, the cop did not do a good job communicating with Phil.

From everything I can find, Castile only produced registration and had yet to provide his license. Unless something else comes out, this is just manslaughter on the part of the cop.

Seems to me that the "shoot first ask questions later" mentality that police in the U.S. seem to instilled with is the central issue here. With these cases the excuse always appears to be that the officer felt his life was in danger, so responded with lethal force, and it's almost always the officer instigating the situation, where it becomes the responsibility of the civilian to do everything in their power to make the officer not feel threatened, on pain of death - the life of the officer is put before the life of the civilian. That's simply untenable with the duties of policeman, to protect the public, and protect their lives.

Simply put, if you have a society in which as a carrying civilian (or even not) being approached by an officer gives you legitimate reason to fear for your life, you have a serious policing problem.

Naturally though, incidents like these would never occur if neither parties had guns in the first place.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Seems to me that the "shoot first ask questions later" mentality that police in the U.S. seem to instilled with is the central issue here. With these cases the excuse always appears to be that the officer felt his life was in danger, so responded with lethal force, and it's almost always the officer instigating the situation, where it becomes the responsibility of the civilian to do everything in their power to make the officer not feel threatened, on pain of death - the life of the officer is put before the life of the civilian. That's simply untenable with the duties of policeman, to protect the public, and protect their lives.

Simply put, if you have a society in which as a carrying civilian (or even not) being approached by an officer gives you legitimate reason to fear for your life, you have a serious policing problem.

Naturally though, incidents like these would never occur if neither parties had guns in the first place.
Yeah, it's a shitty situation all around. Of course, there's a reason why cops in the US are so paranoid because they know just how fast things can go wrong when guns are involved.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
The cop asked Castile for his license and registration and then Castile informed the cop that he had a weapon on him. The problem was that the officer never retracted his previous instruction of producing license and reg. What the officer should have done was tell Castile to put his hands on the wheels. He didn't do that. Instead it's more likely that Castile was just reaching for his ID like he was instructed to do at the beginning. And it makes no sense to tell a police officer that you have a gun on you if your intention is to shoot the officer.

At the very least this is obvious manslaughter. But it's very difficult to convict a cop and there's good reason for that. Cops do have an almost impossible job and the threat of conviction at any mistake/error would make the job far more of threat to than necessary and no one in their right mind would want to become a cop if that were to happen. Even obvious cases of gross neglect on the side of the cop where this is footage of the cop shooting someone in the back (like with Walter Scott) is still difficult to convict the cop.

Still, this is obvious manslaughter. Castile informed the officer he was armed and the officer never recanted his order for Castile to hand over a license and registration. Nice observations.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Seems to me that the "shoot first ask questions later" mentality that police in the U.S. seem to instilled with is the central issue here. With these cases the excuse always appears to be that the officer felt his life was in danger, so responded with lethal force, and it's almost always the officer instigating the situation, where it becomes the responsibility of the civilian to do everything in their power to make the officer not feel threatened, on pain of death - the life of the officer is put before the life of the civilian. That's simply untenable with the duties of policeman, to protect the public, and protect their lives.

Simply put, if you have a society in which as a carrying civilian (or even not) being approached by an officer gives you legitimate reason to fear for your life, you have a serious policing problem.

Naturally though, incidents like these would never occur if neither parties had guns in the first place.

That's the major issue. One, police in the US are not taught to de-escalate situations. They are taught to be firm and in control at all times, to assert their authority in the situation, to pacify any civilians. Have you heard police knock on a door anywhere? Even when it's a peaceful call it is loud and meant to assert authority. Whenever the approach a situation they're squared up and ready to draw a weapon immediately.

Look at how long it took for tasers to become the norm, and heck, we still have cops tasering teenagers to death. Cops in the US need to undergo fundamental retraining. This was very clearly a case of the person in the vehicle doing what he was ordered to do. So if he'd stopped moving and the officer shot him for not complying because he didn't continue providing his license?

It's very, very clear that the officer put his own life ahead of anyone else in the situation. Nothing shows that he was concerned about the other occupants of the car, or about any bystanders. If this had happened in the military and a soldier had shot up a civilian reaching for ID at the very least it would be a dishonorable discharge. There's no way a soldier who killed a civilian that way would be allowed to continue to serve. This cop should not ever be on patrol again.

He got away with an unjustified killing. That he gets to keep his job is ridiculous. Is there anyone here who would feel safe being pulled over by him?

Police need to be taught to use guns as a last resort, not a first resort.

However it seems the man has been discharged as a police officer regardless:

http://www.startribune.com/city-of-st-anthony-fires-yanez/428935523/

So at least that is something.

Well at least there's that. Some of these garbage bags are allowed to continue carrying their weapons after mess like this. That F.B.I. neanderthal who pulled a gun on a 14 year old and slammed him to the ground is still walking around with his badge.

Law Enforcement in the US needs a major overhaul at all levels. I'm sorry, but if you sign up for that career you agree to put the lives of others before your own. The real cops are those who will run directly into harms way, and who sometimes die doing so, to help others, not pieces of crap who shoot unarmed citizens.

After this someone sent out a post noting that in the overwhelming majority of these cases in which an unarmed person of color--and I say person because some of them have been women, and some children--has been killed the officer faces zero repercussions, let alone an actual conviction. Our president has an advisor who created one of the most well-known alt-right, neo nazi news organizations there is, though, and has worked with his appointees to roll BACK Justice Department oversight of law enforcement in the US, so I'm not surprised that driving, or walking, or playing while black is enough to get you killed.

Again, even with all the underlying racial issues, the fact is that if police were taught that shooting someone is an absolute last resort and didn't approach broken taillight stops with guns drawn, things like this wouldn't happen. The morph from a taillight out to him suddenly being the robbery suspect is ridiculous.

Hilarious how people who have never been shot at can pretend to be like, "you shouldn't shoot unless you are shot at first."

Take some personal responsibility, if a cop says don't go into your glove box or center console or whatever just freeze. He wasn't a child, this isn't a crazy thought

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Hilarious how people who have never been shot at can pretend to be like, "you shouldn't shoot unless you are shot at first."

Take some personal responsibility, if a cop says don't go into your glove box or center console or whatever just freeze. He wasn't a child, this isn't a crazy thought


And use some common sense. A guy whose being open about carrying a firearm and is with his family and is only being pulled over for a broken break light, is highly unlikely to be a threat.


But hey he was black, so best not to take any risks however tiny they might seem.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Hilarious how people who have never been shot at can pretend to be like, "you shouldn't shoot unless you are shot at first." Nice straw man attempt there my brother, but the point made was that you should use your gun as a last resort, not shoot at the first inkling of trouble.

And yet he wasn't doing either of those things, he was reaching for his ID as the cop had instructed.

But yes, officers need to take more responsibility for the powers invested in them. Incidents like these are untenable.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Seems to me that the "shoot first ask questions later" mentality that police in the U.S. seem to instilled with is the central issue here. With these cases the excuse always appears to be that the officer felt his life was in danger, so responded with lethal force, and it's almost always the officer instigating the situation, where it becomes the responsibility of the civilian to do everything in their power to make the officer not feel threatened, on pain of death - the life of the officer is put before the life of the civilian. That's simply untenable with the duties of policeman, to protect the public, and protect their lives.

Simply put, if you have a society in which as a carrying civilian (or even not) being approached by an officer gives you legitimate reason to fear for your life, you have a serious policing problem.

Naturally though, incidents like these would never occur if neither parties had guns in the first place.

Yup, I think a taser was a much better option than pulling his gun. Also, better instructions.

Also, Phil sounded high. His judgement was probably impaired.


So it looks like pretty much all of us agree (in a general sense) on this case.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nice straw man attempt there my brother, but the point made was that you should use your gun as a last resort, not shoot at the first inkling of trouble.

And yet he wasn't doing either of those things, he was reaching for his ID as the cop had instructed.

But yes, officers need to take more responsibility for the powers invested in them. Incidents like these are untenable. Not a Strawman... And you literally doubled down in response

Bullsh*t. The Officer was repeatedly saying not to go for it... Just, I don't know don't go for it.