(06-20-2017 05:16 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a particularly tragic incident given the fact that the man was trying to do the right thing, even if the officer was telling him not to.

Ultimately, it looks like the jury made the right decision.

** pure hypothetical, devil's advocate ... for the sake of a philosophical discussion **

If the officer issued a command to "stop breathing!", but the person did not stop breathing, and because of that it caused the officer to fear for his life and shoot the person.

We would say that the events that the officer claims led to him fearing for his life are absurd, even though we acknowledge that, generally, if an officer fears for his life he should be able to use deadly force.


So then it's simply a question of: at what point does something causing you to fear for your life become invalid, irrational, and/or unreasonable?

At what point would a reasonable person reach the point of fearing for his life.

The standard is objective not subjective.

Objectively, a reasonable person fears for their life when a gun becomes involved. Objectively, a reasonable person does not fear for their life when another person breathes.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have answered mpls with a simple: 'good lord'

Maybe...

But, speaking just for myself, I'm happy to engage with anybody being genuine on here.

(06-20-2017 05:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a particularly tragic incident given the fact that the man was trying to do the right thing, even if the officer was telling him not to.

Ultimately, it looks like the jury made the right decision.

** pure hypothetical, devil's advocate ... for the sake of a philosophical discussion **

If the officer issued a command to "stop breathing!", but the person did not stop breathing, and because of that the officer claims to have feared for his life and then shot the person ...

Unless he was able to huff and puff and blow the officer away then no, this is not even close to the same thing.

Quote:we would just say that the officer claiming to have feared for his life is absurd, even though we acknowledge that, generally, if an officer fears for his life he should be able to use deadly force.

There is a word you're leaving out... He did not get off because he feared for his life, he got off because the jury found he has a *REASONABLE* fear. A cop cant shoot you with no reasonable reason to fear you, they go to jail for that if convicted.

But if they have a reason and they were not negligent in creating the situation then it's not a crime.

(06-20-2017 05:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a particularly tragic incident given the fact that the man was trying to do the right thing, even if the officer was telling him not to.

Ultimately, it looks like the jury made the right decision.

Yes, very sad. Castile made a mistake and the officer appears to be overreacting.

So what's the over-under on a bunch of opportunistic savages rioting over the video?

(06-20-2017 05:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So what's the over-under on a bunch of opportunistic savages rioting over the video?

Already happened. Then they dispersed to go the cabin like all good Minnesotans.

(06-20-2017 05:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  1) just because you claim to fear for your life, does not mean we must automatically accept the claim as reasonable

Hence the trial

Quote:2) just because you fear for your life, does not permit you to act negligently

Hence the trial

(06-20-2017 05:42 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So what's the over-under on a bunch of opportunistic savages rioting over the video?

Already happened. Then they dispersed to go the cabin like all good Minnesotans.

I've been pleasantly surprised with how the community has dealt with this.

you really can't tell what happened from this video.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-17-2017 08:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 02:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Because, in several recent cases, police officers have been shot and killed when they stopped a car. Guns are no big joke to police officers these days. The officer told the guy not to reach for the gun, but the guy continued to reached for his wallet. That was a big mistake from the dead person. You need to listen to the cops, and stop reaching for your wallet because of the gun.

Reasonable comments..and I agree. Even if legally permitted... If you have a firearm in your vehicle you keep your hands on the steering wheel and you tell the officer where the weapon is. You do not make sudden movements that could be misinterpreted.

^this. THE very first thing you should say: Officer, I need to inform you that I am legally armed. Assuming that you are legally armed of course...

Man oh man, that was hard to watch. It's easy to second guess but damn that looks like an over-reaction to me. I can't say I would have acted any differently but damn. He has to live with his actions every waking moment for the rest of his life. If he never saw a gun I have to question his actions, but again, I wasn't there.

Apparently Castile told him about the firearm which was correct. He then started reaching for his wallet. The officer warned him not to get it out which was correct. Castile was not reaching for the gun so he didn't think he was disobeying the officer...an honest communication failure. The officer saw that his command was not being obeyed, thought the mentioned gun was being drawn, and in fear for his life correctly (according to training) fired. Immediately afterwards he stated that he warned him not to pull the weapon out which is further proof that he thought it was the weapon and was legitimately in fear for his life.

The prosecutor charged him (iffy), the jury exonerated him (correctly), and his department cut him lose as a sacrificial lamb (so wrong).

Thats my take. Your mileage may differ.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(06-20-2017 05:16 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  Wouldn't it have been easier to have answered mpls with a simple: 'good lord'

The hypothetical example proved that we can't automatically take the officer's word that he was afraid for his life, if the details of the situation don't support that claim.

Therefore, we can't automatically take Yanez's word for it that he was afraid for his life, if the details of the situation don't support that claim.

It might have been a reasonable claim, per the situation. But it's not automatic.

(06-20-2017 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  How exactly did he turn violent?

When he shot the guy

(06-20-2017 05:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can consider all of the circumstances, including the fact you are in a high crime area etc. The introduction of the gun is just one of a series of things which may have led the officer to the position he ended up in.

1) No we do not, but they did and when looking at the totality of the circumstances it is reasonably from an objective standpoint.
2) I don't understand your use of the term. You can behave negligently and not be guilty of a crime.

1 - I'm not sure I agree that it was reasonable or rational, but I do believe he was afraid for his life in that moment.

2 - Are you saying that in the sense that you don't believe negligence is a crime or you mean that the jury can acquit you?

(06-20-2017 05:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Unless he was able to huff and puff and blow the officer away then no, this is not even close to the same thing.

It just sets the floor for the discussion, that you can't automatically accept the officer's claim as valid or reasonable.

(06-20-2017 05:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  There is a word you're leaving out... He did not get off because he feared for his life, he got off because the jury found he has a *REASONABLE* fear. A cop cant shoot you with no reasonable reason to fear you, they go to jail for that if convicted.

But if they have a reason and they were not negligent in creating the situation then it's not a crime.

Agreed

(06-20-2017 05:44 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Hence the trial

In the post you replied to, I was talking about challenging the verdict.

(06-20-2017 06:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Castile was not reaching for the gun so he didn't think he was disobeying the officer...an honest communication failure. The officer saw that his command was not being obeyed, thought the mentioned gun was being drawn, and in fear for his life

I believe that is what the jury ultimately agreed to.

(06-20-2017 09:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  How exactly did he turn violent?

When he shot the guy

He thought Castille was pulling his gun. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and get shot?

And the question was based on how you framed the question, after questioning the audio AFTER the shooting.

(06-20-2017 10:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  He thought Castille was pulling his gun. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and get shot?

And the question was based on how you framed the question, after questioning the audio AFTER the shooting.

The question stands: How can a person be so calm and rational, and instantaneously turn so irrationally violent?

It's the instantaneous nature of the transition, I think is what's getting me.

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 10:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  He thought Castille was pulling his gun. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and get shot?

And the question was based on how you framed the question, after questioning the audio AFTER the shooting.

The question stands: How can a person be so calm and rational, and instantaneously turn so irrationally violent?

It's the instantaneous nature of the transition, I think is what's getting me.

That's what you do when you work in profession where you go instantly from routine to fighting for your life.

I suppose. Just tough to watch ...

(06-20-2017 10:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The question stands: How can a person be so calm and rational, and instantaneously turn so irrationally violent?

Remember that officer in Mendota heights.... Let his guard down for a second and was killed.

Quote:It's the instantaneous nature of the transition, I think is what's getting me.

It's a razors edge. You are "calm" because you make a lot of uneventful stops but the minute he said I have a gun you saw the officer changed his disposition, put his hand on his service rifle and went from a "how ya doin'" mentality to a "don't do that".

It look instantiations to us because we were not there. Probably felt like forever to him. Kinda like witnessing a car crash.

(06-20-2017 09:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 05:16 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  Wouldn't it have been easier to have answered mpls with a simple: 'good lord'

The hypothetical example proved that we can't automatically take the officer's word that he was afraid for his life, if the details of the situation don't support that claim.

Therefore, we can't automatically take Yanez's word for it that he was afraid for his life, if the details of the situation don't support that claim.

It might have been a reasonable claim, per the situation. But it's not automatic.

(06-20-2017 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  How exactly did he turn violent?

When he shot the guy

(06-20-2017 05:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can consider all of the circumstances, including the fact you are in a high crime area etc. The introduction of the gun is just one of a series of things which may have led the officer to the position he ended up in.

1) No we do not, but they did and when looking at the totality of the circumstances it is reasonably from an objective standpoint.
2) I don't understand your use of the term. You can behave negligently and not be guilty of a crime.

1 - I'm not sure I agree that it was reasonable or rational, but I do believe he was afraid for his life in that moment.

2 - Are you saying that in the sense that you don't believe negligence is a crime or you mean that the jury can acquit you?

(06-20-2017 05:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Unless he was able to huff and puff and blow the officer away then no, this is not even close to the same thing.

It just sets the floor for the discussion, that you can't automatically accept the officer's claim as valid or reasonable.

(06-20-2017 05:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  There is a word you're leaving out... He did not get off because he feared for his life, he got off because the jury found he has a *REASONABLE* fear. A cop cant shoot you with no reasonable reason to fear you, they go to jail for that if convicted.

But if they have a reason and they were not negligent in creating the situation then it's not a crime.

Agreed

(06-20-2017 05:44 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Hence the trial

In the post you replied to, I was talking about challenging the verdict.

(06-20-2017 06:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Castile was not reaching for the gun so he didn't think he was disobeying the officer...an honest communication failure. The officer saw that his command was not being obeyed, thought the mentioned gun was being drawn, and in fear for his life

I believe that is what the jury ultimately agreed to.

I pity you and your outlook on Life.

(06-17-2017 10:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 05:27 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 04:36 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Wow. Not expected. This will probably not end well. I thought the evidence pointed towards conviction but I know that the judge basically says "This is what you are judging, and and only this" so I am of no position to think other than this is an appropriate ruling.

Good thing I am west from the city now to commute home.

From the article, I don't see how he could be convicted of any crime. Bad judgement definitely, but not a crime.

You have bad judgement and kill someone, you go to jail.

The police have bad judgement and kill someone, meh.

BS. Zimmerman had really bad judgement. He didn't go to jail. Murder is different than a mistake. The bigger mistake was Castile's.

For following Yaniz's orders? I don't understand your logic.

Where is the NRA? They've been really quiet about this.