(06-16-2017 05:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: Sadly the officer was fired after being acquitted. Totally disgusting.
It's easy to blame the officer. But once again, it is training/policy/procedure that failed.
They charged him because they said "no reasonable officer would" but the jury did not buy that and probably rightly so. Because nearly any officer would have drawn down on the guy in that situation and they are trained to do so.
But the passenger also did nothing wrong other than reach innocently for his wallet.
The officer thought he was pulling out a gun....the passenger thought the officer was telling him not to pull out a gun...which he wasn't. Miscommunication = death = bad procedures....not bad officer.
And they let him swing in the wind and terminated him rather than deal with that. Because training/procedures/policies cannot be questioned.
You forgot your badge.
Your act is getting stale.
You have nothing real to say because I challenge your religion. Policy and procedure are a religious dogma and can't be questioned. They are even more important than cops freedom, reputation, or career.
So is yours. Just because you have relatives who are LEO's doesn't make you an expert on all things law enforcement. Especially when you hold LEO's with such disdain.
(06-16-2017 05:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: Sadly the officer was fired after being acquitted. Totally disgusting.
It's easy to blame the officer. But once again, it is training/policy/procedure that failed.
They charged him because they said "no reasonable officer would" but the jury did not buy that and probably rightly so. Because nearly any officer would have drawn down on the guy in that situation and they are trained to do so.
But the passenger also did nothing wrong other than reach innocently for his wallet.
The officer thought he was pulling out a gun....the passenger thought the officer was telling him not to pull out a gun...which he wasn't. Miscommunication = death = bad procedures....not bad officer.
And they let him swing in the wind and terminated him rather than deal with that. Because training/procedures/policies cannot be questioned.
You forgot your badge.
Your act is getting stale.
You have nothing real to say because I challenge your religion. Policy and procedure are a religious dogma and can't be questioned. They are even more important than cops freedom, reputation, or career.
So is yours. Just because you have relatives who are LEO's doesn't make you an expert on all things law enforcement. Especially when you hold LEO's with such disdain.
Yeah right. I've been standing up for the LEO's who are getting jailed, abandoned by leadership, and terminated simply for following bad policies, bad philosophy, and bad training they didn't create.
That's real "disdain".
I am also a citizen of the United States. I can speak about any damn subject I want to speak on. I am not prohibited from speaking on The Senate because I am not a Senator. I am not prohibited from speaking on the FAA because I am not an aeronautical engineer. So I'll damn well speak about any element of the government that MY TAXES PAY FOR.
So you might as well get off your kick of telling people that there are elements of government policy they are not qualified to speak about....because I fully intend on continuing to speak even if you don't like it one little bit. Get used to it or stomp your little foot....I don't care which.
(06-18-2017 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote: I do think Castile made one, literally fatal, mistake. I think when Yanez had his firearm out and pointed, Castile's mindset was something like "Yeah F you cop, I've had guns pointed at me before, I ain't scared, you ain't gonna do S". If he had actually been afraid of being shot, I don't think he would've been shot.
Maybe, I mean he could have also been panicked and was just trying to get his ID out. A cop pulling you over makes you nervous, hell I've gotten pulled over for a california roll and I was a bit anxious.
At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this...
If he said "lets see some ID" the Castile had every right to reach. If he said don't reach and Castile did then he was not criminally negligent.
Either way there are some serious training issues which Saint Anthony needs to address.
(06-16-2017 05:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: Sadly the officer was fired after being acquitted. Totally disgusting.
It's easy to blame the officer. But once again, it is training/policy/procedure that failed.
They charged him because they said "no reasonable officer would" but the jury did not buy that and probably rightly so. Because nearly any officer would have drawn down on the guy in that situation and they are trained to do so.
But the passenger also did nothing wrong other than reach innocently for his wallet.
The officer thought he was pulling out a gun....the passenger thought the officer was telling him not to pull out a gun...which he wasn't. Miscommunication = death = bad procedures....not bad officer.
And they let him swing in the wind and terminated him rather than deal with that. Because training/procedures/policies cannot be questioned.
You forgot your badge.
Your act is getting stale.
You have nothing real to say because I challenge your religion. Policy and procedure are a religious dogma and can't be questioned. They are even more important than cops freedom, reputation, or career.
So is yours. Just because you have relatives who are LEO's doesn't make you an expert on all things law enforcement. Especially when you hold LEO's with such disdain.
A cop shot a guy who not only legally had a gun but told the cop... Either the officer went against sound training and tactics or the training and tactics need to be addressed.
(06-16-2017 06:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote: It's easy to blame the officer. But once again, it is training/policy/procedure that failed.
They charged him because they said "no reasonable officer would" but the jury did not buy that and probably rightly so. Because nearly any officer would have drawn down on the guy in that situation and they are trained to do so.
But the passenger also did nothing wrong other than reach innocently for his wallet.
The officer thought he was pulling out a gun....the passenger thought the officer was telling him not to pull out a gun...which he wasn't. Miscommunication = death = bad procedures....not bad officer.
And they let him swing in the wind and terminated him rather than deal with that. Because training/procedures/policies cannot be questioned.
You forgot your badge.
Your act is getting stale.
You have nothing real to say because I challenge your religion. Policy and procedure are a religious dogma and can't be questioned. They are even more important than cops freedom, reputation, or career.
So is yours. Just because you have relatives who are LEO's doesn't make you an expert on all things law enforcement. Especially when you hold LEO's with such disdain.
Yeah right. I've been standing up for the LEO's who are getting jailed, abandoned by leadership, and terminated simply for following bad policies, bad philosophy, and bad training they didn't create.
That's real "disdain".
I am also a citizen of the United States. I can speak about any damn subject I want to speak on. I am not prohibited from speaking on The Senate because I am not a Senator. I am not prohibited from speaking on the FAA because I am not an aeronautical engineer. So I'll damn well speak about any element of the government that MY TAXES PAY FOR.
So you might as well get off your kick of telling people that there are elements of government policy they are not qualified to speak about....because I fully intend on continuing to speak even if you don't like it one little bit. Get used to it or stomp your little foot....I don't care which.
That's a great story you just told, Morton. Too bad your posting history says you're a damn liar. So you can stomp your little foot anytime Kaplony, or I call, you out for your hateful and disdainful attitude towards LEO's, or you can get used to it. I'd say its your choice, but it looks like you've chosen stomping your little foot.
(06-16-2017 06:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote: You forgot your badge.
Your act is getting stale.
You have nothing real to say because I challenge your religion. Policy and procedure are a religious dogma and can't be questioned. They are even more important than cops freedom, reputation, or career.
So is yours. Just because you have relatives who are LEO's doesn't make you an expert on all things law enforcement. Especially when you hold LEO's with such disdain.
Yeah right. I've been standing up for the LEO's who are getting jailed, abandoned by leadership, and terminated simply for following bad policies, bad philosophy, and bad training they didn't create.
That's real "disdain".
I am also a citizen of the United States. I can speak about any damn subject I want to speak on. I am not prohibited from speaking on The Senate because I am not a Senator. I am not prohibited from speaking on the FAA because I am not an aeronautical engineer. So I'll damn well speak about any element of the government that MY TAXES PAY FOR.
So you might as well get off your kick of telling people that there are elements of government policy they are not qualified to speak about....because I fully intend on continuing to speak even if you don't like it one little bit. Get used to it or stomp your little foot....I don't care which.
That's a great story you just told, Morton. Too bad your posting history says you're a damn liar. So you can stomp your little foot anytime Kaplony, or I call, you out for your hateful and disdainful attitude towards LEO's, or you can get used to it. I'd say its your choice, but it looks like you've chosen stomping your little foot.
You can call me any name you want. It just doesn't substitute for logical points.
The most unsafe thing for police is for the public to not trust them, be afraid of them, and think of them as "other"...and vice versa.
(06-20-2017 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: Dashcam video released. Its disturbing. But it also shows why jurors did not believe prosecution when they said the officer could not see the weapon.
What exactly were their stated reasons for firing him?
Frankly, I am having a very difficult time comprehending what I am seeing on the video over timestamps 5:59 - 6:04 (roughly).
He went from a perfectly calm, regular person ... to being possessed by Satan himself .... back to a regular person, in the span of five seconds or so. How can a person be so calm and rational, and instantaneously turn so irrationally violent?
All I know is that this video is going to unleash hell ... as if it wasn't already.
(06-18-2017 01:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: Maybe, I mean he could have also been panicked and was just trying to get his ID out. A cop pulling you over makes you nervous, hell I've gotten pulled over for a california roll and I was a bit anxious.
At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this...
If he said "lets see some ID" the Castile had every right to reach. If he said don't reach and Castile did then he was not criminally negligent.
Either way there are some serious training issues which Saint Anthony needs to address.
Well, I'm no psychic, and I'm no expert, but from the very limited extent that a non-expert such as myself could tell from the video released today ... I didn't detect even a smidge of disrespect, nonchalance, or "yeah, whatever pig" in Philando's voice.
I'm baffled how Yanez snapped like that.
So the question, at least that I would've had if I was on the jury is this: even if we assume that Yanez thought he saw a gun (regardless if it was there to be seen or not), and even if we then assume that Yanez thought he was about to die at that point in time ... can we still judge his actions as criminally negligent?
(06-18-2017 01:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: Maybe, I mean he could have also been panicked and was just trying to get his ID out. A cop pulling you over makes you nervous, hell I've gotten pulled over for a california roll and I was a bit anxious.
At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this...
If he said "lets see some ID" the Castile had every right to reach. If he said don't reach and Castile did then he was not criminally negligent.
Either way there are some serious training issues which Saint Anthony needs to address.
Well, I'm no psychic, and I'm no expert, but from the very limited extent that a non-expert such as myself could tell from the video released today ... I didn't detect even a smidge of disrespect, nonchalance, or "yeah, whatever pig" in Philando's voice.
I'm baffled how Yanez snapped like that.
So the question, at least that I would've had if I was on the jury is this: even if we assume that Yanez thought he saw a gun (regardless if it was there to be seen or not), and even if we then assume that Yanez thought he was about to die at that point in time ... can we still judge his actions as criminally negligent?
Show me the MN law on criminally negligent, then point out in the video where it occurred. And if it did occur, then the state of Minnesota were derelict in their duties by overcharging on a crime that the video proves did not take place, and faild to charge on a crime that did.
(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 ... 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.
So then it's simply a question of: at what point do we say that you claiming something caused you to fear for your life is invalid, irrational, and/or unreasonable, based on hard evidence of what actually happened?
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2017 05:11 PM by MplsBison.)
(06-20-2017 05:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: Show me the MN law on criminally negligent, then point out in the video where it occurred. And if it did occur, then the state of Minnesota were derelict in their duties by overcharging on a crime that the video proves did not take place, and faild to charge on a crime that did.
I don't know the law and I don't know if Yanez was criminally negligent, but the point in the video where something happened would be when he shot the guy.
(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.
I know lots of people who don't fear for their lives just because they see a gun, which isn't pointed at them.
But anyway, the only two avenues I can see, logically/philosophically, to discredit the verdict are:
1) just because you claim to fear for your life, does not mean we must automatically accept the claim as reasonable
2) just because you fear for your life, does not permit you to act negligently
(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'
(06-20-2017 04:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote: Frankly, I am having a very difficult time comprehending what I am seeing on the video over timestamps 5:59 - 6:04 (roughly).
He went from a perfectly calm, regular person ... to being possessed by Satan himself .... back to a regular person, in the span of five seconds or so. How can a person be so calm and rational, and instantaneously turn so irrationally violent?
All I know is that this video is going to unleash hell ... as if it wasn't already.
How exactly did he turn violent? He just went through an extremely intense situation where for a few seconds he was in fear for his life. He also just shot another human being. He's just had an adrenaline dump greater than anything you'll likely experience and the time frame in question he's likely starting to come down from it.
(06-20-2017 05:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote: I know lots of people who don't fear for their lives just because they see a gun, which isn't pointed at them.
But anyway, the only two avenues I can see, logically/philosophically, to discredit the verdict are:
1) just because you claim to fear for your life, does not mean we must automatically accept the claim as reasonable
2) just because you fear for your life, does not permit you to act negligently
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.
![[Image: GT7DF2i.png]](http://i.imgur.com/GT7DF2i.png)
