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.
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 [b]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. [/B]
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.
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.
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. 🙁
Originally posted by ESB -1138Nice observations. 👆
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 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.
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_PymNice 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.
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 thoughtAnd 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 BeniboyblingNot a Strawman... And you literally doubled down in response
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.
Bullsh*t. The Officer was repeatedly saying not to go for it... Just, I don't know don't go for it.