Dallas

[qazplm]

I think people trying to silo this into one issue are missing the point. I think you pointed it out - cops don't trust black men because there is a notion that black men are violent because there is heavy pockets of black men committing violent crime.

The fact of the matter is there is a whole range of topics within that and you just can't connect those dots so easily. For example, drugs in this country plays a big role in violence in this country. White people do drugs too and the sale of drugs by anyone perpetuates a lot of the violence that continues.

Prior to these specific events, you see many gun advocates, including the NRA stand up for conceal/carry permits and how we need more of those to help curtail mass shootings. Then someone who is a law abiding and what seemed to be "by the books" conceal/carry permitholder gets killed, yet the NRA is silent.

You had many people mocking protests about police shootings and the Black Lives Matter groups. And when these shootings occur, there's silence from these people which doesn't do anything to help things.

And on the other hand, you do have individuals that have made an effort to target police officers with violence in retaliation. You have many African-Americans who may not want anything to do with violence or causes of violence (i.e. drugs) stay silent around crime and do not want to work with police or become an advocate for police.

Overall, if you aren't going to agree there's a violent crime problem in this country, coupled with there are many factors and problems - from white politicians in a very white state that mock Black Lives Matter - to African-Americans living in Chicago that see or know things that do not speak up about it within their community, in their neighborhoods or churchs, or to authorities.

This isn't a problem that's going to get solved staking out these positions and blaming other sides.

the notion that "black men are violent" is a notion that is more or less from slavery days. Black men are violent, virile, superhuman in strength, higher pain tolerance, more animalistic, less intelligent, less able to control their emotions/passionate are all stereotypes that have been there from the start. Those "notions" are part of the "fear" of black men as much as any statistical knowledge of crimes.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Eh, the guy in BR was resisting arrest and known to be armed. To say police could have controlled him better with both their hands after tasing him failed is a huge reach. Look at the end of the day, have a police record, have a gun, wave/threaten people with it, resist arrest-sometimes these people nail their own coffin shut.

I don't disagree outright. That said, the guy was flat on his back with one officer's knee in his chest and another officer free to attempt to control him. That's a knee and four hands to control the guy. Instead, you had officer #1 reaching for his firearm and pointing it at his chest, taking one arm away from control. You have the other officer, the one who actually shot him, with one arm occupied with a firearm and the other on a leg.

My point being that once they had him on the ground, they accessed their own firearms and it didn't appear that they attempted full control. I understand he had a weapon. I understand he could shoot from his pocket. The police pretty clearly (from the videos, anyway) had the upper hand, and it doesn't appear to me at first glance that they made enough of an attempt to leverage that position of strength before firing on the man who was clearly in a defensive position at that point.

As I watch it yet again, as soon as the officer by his legs yells, "he's got a gun" it's as though they default to drawing and essentially firing in a situation where they probably had options to get him under control by other means. Yes, he had a gun, and perhaps the real situation had that gun more accessible at that time than it appeared to be from the videos. In short, it appears that they had other options to prevent him from using his gun besides simply shooting him twice in the chest, and an additional three times after the initial shots.

I understand that there are legal discussions that happen and legally you cannot second-guess officers and are obligated to give them benefit of the doubt in that regard. But this still doesn't strike me as the best course of action, even if it is going to end up being legally justified, and it certainly creates a poor optic, which combined with the Minnesota shooting has created the current unrest.

Again, plenty more will come out about this case and perhaps they truly had no other recourse, but it doesn't appear that way to me on the two videos.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

This isn't a problem that's going to get solved staking out these positions and blaming other sides.

I agree that playing the blame game is only going to perpetuate the problems. Let's work on identifying causes and developing viable solutions.

 

[ecouch]

Well, it is starting to look like Castille was a good shoot as well.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Well, it is starting to look like Castille was a good shoot as well.

When you consistently use phrases like "good shoot" to describe the killing of another human being, it sounds like you are glorying in and celebrating it. There was nothing "good" about the death of Alton Sterling or Philando Castile.

And as to your reason for saying it looks like the Castile shooting was justified, I'm curious as to why you say that. Because of the despicable attempts of certain elements of society to portray Castile as a legitimate suspect in an armed robbery when all the officer who pulled him over said was that he wanted to check Castile's ID because he had a "wide set nose" that was similar to the suspect? Because you just can't bring yourself to think that maybe, just maybe, the police got one wrong and so you have to go to extremes and assassinate the character of a dead man just so you can sleep at night thinking about how awesome the cops are? And you call Christians evil...

Here's what is factually known about Philando Castile:

1. He had no criminal record beyond minor traffic offenses. If minor traffic offenses are enough to warrant the labelling of an individual as a "criminal," then virtually every person I have ever known is a criminal. Heck, I bet you're a criminal by that standard. I certainly am.

2. He had passed a criminal background check to be allowed to work in a school cafeteria.

3. He was a responsible gun owner carrying legally.

4. He was gainfully employed, hard-working, and by all accounts beloved by the people (especially the students) with whom he worked.

5. According to all the reasonable evidence that we have thus far, he attempted to comply with the orders of the officer.

Now, you add that up and tell me how that leads to a "good shoot."

Oh, and even if none of that was true, even if Castile was a violent offender carrying illegally and defying the orders of the officer, that doesn't mean that he deserved to die! Or that his death should be labeled a "good" anything!

 

[buygreekbonds]

I agree that playing the blame game is only going to perpetuate the problems. Let's work on identifying causes and developing viable solutions.

Identifying causes? How about the "Ferguson Effect"?

http://nypost.com/2016/07/09/how-the-ferguson-effect-is-destroying-chicago/

 

[lbodel]

Identifying causes? How about the "Ferguson Effect"?

http://nypost.com/2016/07/09/how-the-ferguson-effect-is-destroying-chicago/

But again, there isn't "a" cause. For example, it's no coincidence that Chicago is one of the main drug arteries in the country - and "El Chapo's" cartel was responsible for most of it. 83% of Chicago men that were arrested a couple years ago - tested positive for drugs. A lot of the violence has to do with drug selling territories.

As for the "Ferguson Effect" - that's part of it too. In DC, they disbanded plain-clothed vice squads. And they had issues prior to that, but it's really gotten worse. These were mostly drug related crimes that these squads took place, as well as worked in the same areas and had relationships with people. Again, drugs is a big part of the problem.

 

[qazplm]

Well, it is starting to look like Castille was a good shoot as well.

Lol how so?

 

[qazplm]

When you consistently use phrases like "good shoot" to describe the killing of another human being, it sounds like you are glorying in and celebrating it. There was nothing "good" about the death of Alton Sterling or Philando Castile.

And as to your reason for saying it looks like the Castile shooting was justified, I'm curious as to why you say that. Because of the despicable attempts of certain elements of society to portray Castile as a legitimate suspect in an armed robbery when all the officer who pulled him over said was that he wanted to check Castile's ID because he had a "wide set nose" that was similar to the suspect? Because you just can't bring yourself to think that maybe, just maybe, the police got one wrong and so you have to go to extremes and assassinate the character of a dead man just so you can sleep at night thinking about how awesome the cops are? And you call Christians evil...

Here's what is factually known about Philando Castile:

1. He had no criminal record beyond minor traffic offenses. If minor traffic offenses are enough to warrant the labelling of an individual as a "criminal," then virtually every person I have ever known is a criminal. Heck, I bet you're a criminal by that standard. I certainly am.

2. He had passed a criminal background check to be allowed to work in a school cafeteria.

3. He was a responsible gun owner carrying legally.

4. He was gainfully employed, hard-working, and by all accounts beloved by the people (especially the students) with whom he worked.

5. According to all the reasonable evidence that we have thus far, he attempted to comply with the orders of the officer.

Now, you add that up and tell me how that leads to a "good shoot."

Oh, and even if none of that was true, even if Castile was a violent offender carrying illegally and defying the orders of the officer, that doesn't mean that he deserved to die! Or that his death should be labeled a "good" anything!

At this point he's just trying to get a rise out of folks.

 

[ecouch]

When you consistently use phrases like "good shoot" to describe the killing of another human being, it sounds like you are glorying in and celebrating it. There was nothing "good" about the death of Alton Sterling or Philando Castile.

And as to your reason for saying it looks like the Castile shooting was justified, I'm curious as to why you say that. Because of the despicable attempts of certain elements of society to portray Castile as a legitimate suspect in an armed robbery when all the officer who pulled him over said was that he wanted to check Castile's ID because he had a "wide set nose" that was similar to the suspect? Because you just can't bring yourself to think that maybe, just maybe, the police got one wrong and so you have to go to extremes and assassinate the character of a dead man just so you can sleep at night thinking about how awesome the cops are? And you call Christians evil...

Here's what is factually known about Philando Castile:

1. He had no criminal record beyond minor traffic offenses. If minor traffic offenses are enough to warrant the labelling of an individual as a "criminal," then virtually every person I have ever known is a criminal. Heck, I bet you're a criminal by that standard. I certainly am.

2. He had passed a criminal background check to be allowed to work in a school cafeteria.

3. He was a responsible gun owner carrying legally.

4. He was gainfully employed, hard-working, and by all accounts beloved by the people (especially the students) with whom he worked.

5. According to all the reasonable evidence that we have thus far, he attempted to comply with the orders of the officer.

Now, you add that up and tell me how that leads to a "good shoot."

Oh, and even if none of that was true, even if Castile was a violent offender carrying illegally and defying the orders of the officer, that doesn't mean that he deserved to die! Or that his death should be labeled a "good" anything!

Good shoot is a phrase used in law enforcement. A by the book application of force. You should educate yourself on the topic before you comment.

The statement released by the attorney of Officer Jeronimo Yanez for starters. Castille had his gun out, "presence and display". He was told to not move or touch the gun. He didn't comply with the verbal orders of the officer. Some sources are claiming the gun was in the lap of Castille after he was shot as evidenced by a still frame from the girlfriends facebook video. I can't really tell, but it would make sense. Officer Yanez didn't want to girlfriend to go near or reach over to Castille. There is no evidence that he attempted to comply as you indicated. It does match up with Officer Yanez saying "I told you not to reach for it."

Add to that the fact this was a pretense stop. That morning video stills of two suspects wanted for an armed robbery were released. The store that was robbed is four blocks away from the stop. Radio disspatch recordings indicate that Officer Yanez thought Castille fit the description and was to make a stop to ID.

This all from having the news on in the background thins morning.

You can't drive around with guns laying around the vehicle in plain sight and then not listen to lawful instructions of LEO during a traffic stop. You have a gun on you and you make a furtive movement, you may get shot. It sounds like Castille didn't know how safely carry a firearm or what to do if you are carrying and encounter LEOs. An afternoon at on his states NRA classes could have cleared that up.

It is shaping up to be two cases of classical not listening to police in high risk, life and death situations.

I could also type out Officer Yanez's perfect career, top of his class, bachelors degree, hand selected to be on a special crime task force and all the rosey shiat his family has said about him, but it doesn't really matter all that much.

Oh, if he had a permit it would be revoked.

You can't do drugs and have a permit. CPS should probably be called as well. Smoking weed in a car with a child seems like a bad idea.

 

[Purdue97]

I don't disagree outright. That said, the guy was flat on his back with one officer's knee in his chest and another officer free to attempt to control him. That's a knee and four hands to control the guy. Instead, you had officer #1 reaching for his firearm and pointing it at his chest, taking one arm away from control. You have the other officer, the one who actually shot him, with one arm occupied with a firearm and the other on a leg.

My point being that once they had him on the ground, they accessed their own firearms and it didn't appear that they attempted full control. I understand he had a weapon. I understand he could shoot from his pocket. The police pretty clearly (from the videos, anyway) had the upper hand, and it doesn't appear to me at first glance that they made enough of an attempt to leverage that position of strength before firing on the man who was clearly in a defensive position at that point.

As I watch it yet again, as soon as the officer by his legs yells, "he's got a gun" it's as though they default to drawing and essentially firing in a situation where they probably had options to get him under control by other means. Yes, he had a gun, and perhaps the real situation had that gun more accessible at that time than it appeared to be from the videos. In short, it appears that they had other options to prevent him from using his gun besides simply shooting him twice in the chest, and an additional three times after the initial shots.

I understand that there are legal discussions that happen and legally you cannot second-guess officers and are obligated to give them benefit of the doubt in that regard. But this still doesn't strike me as the best course of action, even if it is going to end up being legally justified, and it certainly creates a poor optic, which combined with the Minnesota shooting has created the current unrest.

Again, plenty more will come out about this case and perhaps they truly had no other recourse, but it doesn't appear that way to me on the two videos.

That is more than fair. I will also gladly admit that MN looks absolutely horrid right now. And what I stated about BR is my opinion on the matter which will not matter unless I end up on a jury. I just feel at the end of the day, if one is in a struggle with police and armed-that is just a setup for a real bad outcome.

 

[Purdue97]

Hmm...

Hmm what? If one cannot see that inappropriate actions and poor decisions when in a confrontation or just regular encounter with police can negatively impact the outcome not sure what to tell you.

 

[atmafola]

I read some posts here and I shake my head in shame. Tough week. In years past, I would have energetically joined the debate. At this point, I am just weary. Spent and weary. My prayers are with families of all those who needlessly lost their lives. To those attempting to put tthemselves in other people's shoes and genuinely try to understand their concerns, thanks a lot. To those who haven't reached that level of empathy yet, it's okay too. God bless everyone...

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Good shoot is a phrase used in law enforcement. A by the book application of force.

The statement released by the attorney of Officer Jeronimo Yanez for starters. Castille had his gun out, "presence and display". He was told to not move or touch the gun. He didn't comply with the verbal orders of the officer. Some sources are claiming the gun was in the lap of Castille after he was shot as evidenced by a still frame from the girlfriends facebook video. I can't really tell, but it would make sense. Officer Yanez didn't want to girlfriend to go near or reach over to Castille. There is no evidence that he attempted to comply as you indicated. It does match up with Officer Yanez saying "I told you not to reach for it."

Add to that the fact this was a pretense stop. That morning video stills of two suspects wanted for an armed robbery were released. The store that was robbed is four blocks away from the stop. Radio disspatch recordings indicate that Officer Yanez thought Castille fit the description and was to make a stop to ID.

This all from having the news on in the background thins morning.

You can't drive around with guns laying around the vehicle in plain sight and then not listen to lawful instructions of LEO during a traffic stop. You have a gun on you and you make a furtive movement, you may get shot. It sounds like Castille didn't know how safely carry a firearm or what to do if you are carrying and encounter LEOs. An afternoon at on his states NRA classes could have cleared that up.

It is shaping up to be two cases of classical not listening to police in high risk, life and death situations.

I could also type out Officer Yanez's perfect career, top of his class, bachelors degree, hand selected to be on a special crime task force and all the rosey shiat his family has said about him, but it doesn't really matter all that much.

Oh, if he had a permit it would be revoked.

Can't do drugs and have a permit. CPS should probably be called as well. Smoking weed in a car with a child seems like a bad idea.

View embedded media

So, in other words, you have nothing but the (obviously) biased information coming from the officer's attorney. Of course the officer's attorney is going to shape and frame the narrative in such a way as to make it seem that Castile was Tony Montana come to life. You offer no real evidence or facts.

This is little more than an attempt to justify after the fact a shooting where, as GR8 noted above, the officer seemed jumpy and freaked out. The reason people talk about things like white privilege and systemic racism is clearly evidenced in the fact that, presented with two versions of a story, you automatically assume that the black man's story is false and the white cop's story is true.

And before you try the "you're doing the same thing" argument, I'm not. I'm not saying that Officer Yanez set out to kill Castile or that he is explicitly racist. What I am saying is that this is another example of a situation in which a young black man was approached by a cop who clearly had a certain set of assumptions (almost certainly subconscious) that led to shooting before attempting to deescalate.

 

[kescwi]

So, in other words, you have nothing but the (obviously) biased information coming from the officer's attorney. Of course the officer's attorney is going to shape and frame the narrative in such a way as to make it seem that Castile was Tony Montana come to life. You offer no real evidence or facts.

This is little more than an attempt to justify after the fact a shooting where, as GR8 noted above, the officer seemed jumpy and freaked out. The reason people talk about things like white privilege and systemic racism is clearly evidenced in the fact that, presented with two versions of a story, you automatically assume that the black man's story is false and the white cop's story is true.

And before you try the "you're doing the same thing" argument, I'm not. I'm not saying that Officer Yanez set out to kill Castile or that he is explicitly racist. What I am saying is that this is another example of a situation in which a young black man was approached by a cop who clearly had a certain set of assumptions (almost certainly subconscious) that led to shooting before attempting to deescalate.

Yeah you have to shake your head, the officers attorney said was a "good shoot" so it must be, it's not like that attorney has some obligation to his client, he is simply telling the truth.

 

[qazplm]

Good shoot is a phrase used in law enforcement. A by the book application of force.

The statement released by the attorney of Officer Jeronimo Yanez for starters. Castille had his gun out, "presence and display". He was told to not move or touch the gun. He didn't comply with the verbal orders of the officer. Some sources are claiming the gun was in the lap of Castille after he was shot as evidenced by a still frame from the girlfriends facebook video. I can't really tell, but it would make sense. Officer Yanez didn't want to girlfriend to go near or reach over to Castille. There is no evidence that he attempted to comply as you indicated. It does match up with Officer Yanez saying "I told you not to reach for it."

Add to that the fact this was a pretense stop. That morning video stills of two suspects wanted for an armed robbery were released. The store that was robbed is four blocks away from the stop. Radio disspatch recordings indicate that Officer Yanez thought Castille fit the description and was to make a stop to ID.

This all from having the news on in the background thins morning.

You can't drive around with guns laying around the vehicle in plain sight and then not listen to lawful instructions of LEO during a traffic stop. You have a gun on you and you make a furtive movement, you may get shot. It sounds like Castille didn't know how safely carry a firearm or what to do if you are carrying and encounter LEOs. An afternoon at on his states NRA classes could have cleared that up.

It is shaping up to be two cases of classical not listening to police in high risk, life and death situations.

I could also type out Officer Yanez's perfect career, top of his class, bachelors degree, hand selected to be on a special crime task force and all the rosey shiat his family has said about him, but it doesn't really matter all that much.

Oh, if he had a permit it would be revoked.

Can't do drugs and have a permit. CPS should probably be called as well. Smoking weed in a car with a child seems like a bad idea.

View embedded media

Yeah that whole "flat nose" that he saw through a moving car is a real solid ID. He's a real Sherlock . And we all know there's only one black person within any four block radius. And as we all know armed robbers routinely take four year olds with them. You've cracked this case wide open McCloud.

 

[ecouch]

So, in other words, you have nothing but the (obviously) biased information coming from the officer's attorney. Of course the officer's attorney is going to shape and frame the narrative in such a way as to make it seem that Castile was Tony Montana come to life. You offer no real evidence or facts.

This is little more than an attempt to justify after the fact a shooting where, as GR8 noted above, the officer seemed jumpy and freaked out. The reason people talk about things like white privilege and systemic racism is clearly evidenced in the fact that, presented with two versions of a story, you automatically assume that the black man's story is false and the white cop's story is true.

And before you try the "you're doing the same thing" argument, I'm not. I'm not saying that Officer Yanez set out to kill Castile or that he is explicitly racist. What I am saying is that this is another example of a situation in which a young black man was approached by a cop who clearly had a certain set of assumptions (almost certainly subconscious) that led to shooting before attempting to deescalate.

Jeronimo Yanez is a member of the National Latino Police Officers Association. Save everyone the white privilege speech.

Explain to me why you think Officer Yanez didn't attempt to deescalate with verbal commands. Mind you, suspect is in the car and matches the description of a BOLO and there is a visible firearm.

Explain your "desscalation" technique of someone you know is a second away from access to a firearm.

I don't know why, but I am setting myself up for a trip to perfect world here. A land where every suspect is bound by reasonable discourse.

 

[ecouch]

Yeah that whole "flat nose" that he saw through a moving car is a real solid ID. He's a real Sherlock . And we all know there's only one black person within any four block radius. And as we all know armed robbers routinely take four year olds with them. You've cracked this case wide open McCloud.

I never said he was an armed robber. He wasn't the wanted armed robbery suspect. This is known. Simply that he met the description and a pretense stop was valid. I know you agree with that. You really need to stop putting words in folks mouths. The armed robbery occurred 4 days before. It takes a while to gather data and issue a BOLO over a holiday weekend. Please try to keep up. It will help the discussion. And, you will avoid mistakes like you have made above, counsel.

 

[ecouch]

Yeah you have to shake your head, the officers attorney said was a "good shoot" so it must be, it's not like that attorney has some obligation to his client, he is simply telling the truth.

This is why I want video/audio. This case is tailor made for a chest cam/audio recording.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Jeronimo Yanez is a member of the National Latino Police Officers Association. Save everyone the white privilege speech.

Explain to me why you think Officer Yanez didn't attempt to deescalate with verbal commands. Mind you, suspect is in the car and matches the description of a BOLO and there is a visible firearm.

Explain your "desscalation" technique of someone you know is a second away from access to a firearm.

I don't know why, but I am setting myself up for a trip to perfect world here. A land where every suspect is bound by reasonable discourse.

While Yanez is pretty clearly not "white", I think white people in this country are less afraid of brown skin than black skin. JMO, but I certainly think there is something to the subconscious racism and fear of blacks, particularly black men. I know I feel it subconsciously sometimes. I'm not afraid to admit it, ashamed of that though I am. I want to see past skin and stereotypes, but I fail at it sometimes.

 

[Purdue97]

So, in other words, you have nothing but the (obviously) biased information coming from the officer's attorney. Of course the officer's attorney is going to shape and frame the narrative in such a way as to make it seem that Castile was Tony Montana come to life. You offer no real evidence or facts.

This is little more than an attempt to justify after the fact a shooting where, as GR8 noted above, the officer seemed jumpy and freaked out. The reason people talk about things like white privilege and systemic racism is clearly evidenced in the fact that, presented with two versions of a story, you automatically assume that the black man's story is false and the white cop's story is true.

And before you try the "you're doing the same thing" argument, I'm not. I'm not saying that Officer Yanez set out to kill Castile or that he is explicitly racist. What I am saying is that this is another example of a situation in which a young black man was approached by a cop who clearly had a certain set of assumptions (almost certainly subconscious) that led to shooting before attempting to deescalate.

As for your first paragraph, his wife or gf or whatever the case is, will do the same things. As will the witnesses in BR that claim they saw the entire thing but then did not even know 911 was called to due the man having a gun and threatening with it. Just as Obama should have learned when he fired off the cuff remarks in teh past before an entire story got out-should likely wait to see if these officers did anything wrong or right before the investigation/trials are over.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

As for your first paragraph, his wife or gf or whatever the case is, will do the same things. As will the witnesses in BR that claim they saw the entire thing but then did not even know 911 was called to due the man having a gun and threatening with it. Just as Obama should have learned when he fired off the cuff remarks in teh past before an entire story got out-should likely wait to see if these officers did anything wrong or right before the investigation/trials are over.

I think that the best approach is to try not to immediately pronounce a verdict. I have no problem with that. But that approach means also refraining from base and despicable character assassination - of both the officer and the victim.

 

[qazplm]

I never said he was an armed robber. He wasn't the wanted armed robbery suspect. This is known. Simply that he met the description and a pretense stop was valid. I know you agree with that. You really need to stop putting words in folks mouths. The armed robbery occurred 4 days before. It takes a while to gather data and issue a BOLO over a holiday weekend. Please try to keep up. It will help the discussion. And, you will avoid mistakes like you have made above, counsel.

Lol he met the description how exactly

 

[qazplm]

While Yanez is pretty clearly not "white", I think white people in this country are less afraid of brown skin than black skin. JMO, but I certainly think there is something to spine subconscious racism and fear of blacks, particularly black men. I know I feel it subconsciously sometimes. I'm not afraid to admit it, ashamed of that though I am. I want to see past skin and stereotypes, but I fail at it sometimes.

Live in el Paso for two years and you will see there is plenty of racism between black and brown

 

[atmafola]

Lol he met the description how exactly

the same way any and every black male could, by having "wide set nose"

how a police officer can identify the "wideness" of nose at night while driving still confounds me. But hey what do I know?

 

[qazplm]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/10/3796941/alva-braziel/

 

[Purdue97]

I saw that video from TX and it looks pretty bad. Right up there with the gas station in GA and the one in Chicago that was covered up for a few years..

That said, with it being dark out, cannot tell if the person shot had a gun in their hands or not. It appeared he had his hands up-way to dark to tell if he had a gun on him.

 

[qazplm]

I saw that video from TX and it looks pretty bad. Right up there with the gas station in GA and the one in Chicago that was covered up for a few years..

That said, with it being dark out, cannot tell if the person shot had a gun in their hands or not. It appeared he had his hands up-way to dark to tell if he had a gun on him.

1. No, he doesn't have a gun. It's not too dark to see
2. Even if he had a gun, the police lied:

"According to the Houston Police Department, two officers who were on a routine neighborhood patrol found a man at a four-way intersection in South Houston with a gun pointed toward the sky. The officers left their vehicle and approached the man, telling him to lower the gun. A witness also yelled at him to lower the weapon. Police say the man then slowly lowered the weapon and pointed it at the officers. “Since it was a slow, deliberate movement, for their own safety and witnesses’ safety at that point, the officers discharged their weapons more than one time,” said Jodi Silva, a spokeswoman for the Houston police."

That is not remotely what happened. His hands were up the entire time. He didn't lower them. He didn't point the gun at anyone.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Can't go there with you... I don't know how you can tell with any certainty what happened. Once that video started moving around, I couldn't tell. Looked like his arms were lowering to his side before the video went crazy, then all I saw was man down. I watched it three times blown up on a 21" monitor.

 

[SDBoiler1]

When you consistently use phrases like "good shoot" to describe the killing of another human being, it sounds like you are glorying in and celebrating it. There was nothing "good" about the death of Alton Sterling or Philando Castile.

And as to your reason for saying it looks like the Castile shooting was justified, I'm curious as to why you say that. Because of the despicable attempts of certain elements of society to portray Castile as a legitimate suspect in an armed robbery when all the officer who pulled him over said was that he wanted to check Castile's ID because he had a "wide set nose" that was similar to the suspect? Because you just can't bring yourself to think that maybe, just maybe, the police got one wrong and so you have to go to extremes and assassinate the character of a dead man just so you can sleep at night thinking about how awesome the cops are? And you call Christians evil...

Here's what is factually known about Philando Castile:

1. He had no criminal record beyond minor traffic offenses. If minor traffic offenses are enough to warrant the labelling of an individual as a "criminal," then virtually every person I have ever known is a criminal. Heck, I bet you're a criminal by that standard. I certainly am.

2. He had passed a criminal background check to be allowed to work in a school cafeteria.

3. He was a responsible gun owner carrying legally.

4. He was gainfully employed, hard-working, and by all accounts beloved by the people (especially the students) with whom he worked.

5. According to all the reasonable evidence that we have thus far, he attempted to comply with the orders of the officer.

Now, you add that up and tell me how that leads to a "good shoot."

Oh, and even if none of that was true, even if Castile was a violent offender carrying illegally and defying the orders of the officer, that doesn't mean that he deserved to die! Or that his death should be labeled a "good" anything!

Not sure what to make of this, but this article says that Castile was 52 stopped times in 14 years and had a number of misdemeanors for 86 total traffic offenses. He pled guilty, for instance, to driving with a revoked license and failure to have insurance. Does any of this justify a guy being shot and killed for a traffic stop (broken tail light)? Of course not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...pped-cops-52-times-14-years-article-1.2705348

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Looked like his arms were lowering to his side before the video went crazy

I watched several times on a 24" monitor, stopping and starting the video to try to get a frame-by-frame view. I can't see a weapon, but it did look as though Braziel's hands were coming down an instant before he was shot. Now, if the cops body cams were working, we should get a clear picture of what happened. Just hoping they were turned on and didn't "malfunction."

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Not sure what to make of this, but this article says that Castile was 52 stopped times in 14 years and had a number of misdemeanors for 86 total traffic offenses. He pled guilty, for instance, to driving with a revoked license and failure to have insurance. Does any of this justify a guy being shot and killed for a traffic stop (broken tail light)? Of course not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...pped-cops-52-times-14-years-article-1.2705348

I don't think there's any indication that he was stopped with knowledge of prior traffic issues. The broken taillight provided the impetus for the stop given his determination that Castile looked like a suspect in an armed robbery because, apparently, he looked like a black man. In other words, I don't think that cop had the first clue about his arrest/traffic record going in to the situation, at least as the story has been told thus far.

I had a period of roughly 8 traffic stops in five years in my mid-20s, amounting to probably 10 misdemeanor traffic violations and a number of warnings. (It's been almost ten years since my last citation, though I have gotten pulled over once in that time and got a warning).

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I watched several times on a 24" monitor, stopping and starting the video to try to get a frame-by-frame view. I can't see a weapon, but it did look as though Braziel's hands were coming down an instant before he was shot. Now, if the cops body cams were working, we should get a clear picture of what happened. Just hoping they were turned on and didn't "malfunction."

A dash cam would basically be pointing right at him. This one is probably going to become more clear cut in the next couple of days, one way or the other.

WTF was he doing in the street? Looked like he was twirling around before the cops even showed up, and right in the middle of two streets with some light traffic, not like a neighborhood. I know some are speculating he was high based on prior drug charges, and that he was not licensed for a firearm if indeed he did have one.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I don't think there's any indication that he was stopped with knowledge of prior traffic issues. The broken taillight provided the impetus for the stop given his determination that Castile looked like a suspect in an armed robbery because, apparently, he looked like a black man. In other words, I don't think that cop had the first clue about his arrest/traffic record going in to the situation, at least as the story has been told thus far.

I had a period of roughly 8 traffic stops in five years in my mid-20s, amounting to probably 10 misdemeanor traffic violations and a number of warnings. (It's been almost ten years since my last citation, though I have gotten pulled over once in that time and got a warning).

Agreed. I was just pointing out that this guy seemed to be a magnet for police stops. Not sure what this says about Castile or about the local cops in MN.

 

[qazplm]

I watched several times on a 24" monitor, stopping and starting the video to try to get a frame-by-frame view. I can't see a weapon, but it did look as though Braziel's hands were coming down an instant before he was shot. Now, if the cops body cams were working, we should get a clear picture of what happened. Just hoping they were turned on and didn't "malfunction."

Arms coming down an instant before he was shot:

1. That's not "slow, deliberate" movement and it's not aiming at the officers. It does not match what the police described.

2. If you have to break it down to a frame by frame where the arms come down an instant before being shot then the police are highly unlikely to have even been able to register that action before firing.

We have two stories in the last week of white suspects shooting or otherwise being threatening with a gun and taken in without being killed by police. There's nothing on that video that shows any kind of aggressive act towards anyone that required that person to be shot.

 

[qazplm]

Not sure what to make of this, but this article says that Castile was 52 stopped times in 14 years and had a number of misdemeanors for 86 total traffic offenses. He pled guilty, for instance, to driving with a revoked license and failure to have insurance. Does any of this justify a guy being shot and killed for a traffic stop (broken tail light)? Of course not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...pped-cops-52-times-14-years-article-1.2705348

half of those were dismissed.

We know that AAs are stopped more than whites even though the actual offense rate for the things police are stopping folks and searching for (drug possession, etc) are roughly equal, if not slightly lower IIRC for the former).

Being stopped 52 times tells me he was in an area of heavy police patrolling where DWB was an offense. It also reminds that one of the ways cities fund themselves is through fines.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Arms coming down an instant before he was shot:

1. That's not "slow, deliberate" movement and it's not aiming at the officers. It does not match what the police described.

2. If you have to break it down to a frame by frame where the arms come down an instant before being shot then the police are highly unlikely to have even been able to register that action before firing.

We have two stories in the last week of white suspects shooting or otherwise being threatening with a gun and taken in without being killed by police. There's nothing on that video that shows any kind of aggressive act towards anyone that required that person to be shot.

I'm not taking sides here. Just reporting what I saw. Seems to me that if there is body/dash cam footage, the PD might want to get that out ASAP, especially if it supports the officer's actions.

 

[qazplm]

I'm not taking sides here. Just reporting what I saw. Seems to me that if there is body/dash cam footage, the PD might want to get that out ASAP, especially if it supports the officer's actions.

And I'm responding to what you said. I'm pointing out that the police didn't say "he dropped his hands at the last second, we thought he might be pointing the gun at us, so we fired" they said something fairly different, not true, and specifically designed to make their shoot seem as solid as possible.

Did anyone see a "slow, deliberate" lowering of the army/weapon towards the officers? Because I didn't.

At best, the cops exaggerated thinking there wasn't a video that was going to catch what happened. At worst, they lied thinking there wasn't a video that was going to catch what happened.

 

[buygreekbonds]

“Pigs In A Blanket, Fry 'Em Like Bacon!” – Chant at a #Blacklivesmatter protest in Minnesota

“What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” – Chant by "Million Marchers" in New York City

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/1...le-have-die-because-blacklivesmatter-movement

 

[qazplm]

“Pigs In A Blanket, Fry 'Em Like Bacon!” – Chant at a #Blacklivesmatter protest in Minnesota

“What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” – Chant by "Million Marchers" in New York City

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/1...le-have-die-because-blacklivesmatter-movement

just so I'm clear, you want to start going by what two folks say to establish an entire group's beliefs? Because if that's the standard, I can have a ton of fun with that.

Just let me know.