• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty[W:456]

Gaius46 said:
Yes the jury acquitted under what's sometimes called the "reasonable cop" standard. That is the jury found that he was reasonably fearful for his life despite the fact that the evidence indicated there was no real threat.
Click to expand...
The standard is reasonableness.
Reasonableness applies to any similar person being similarly situated.
For LEO's is supposed to be from the point of view of another LEO.
For a civilian it supposed to be from the point of view of another civilian.

You including the "despite the fact that the evidence indicated there was no real threat" is irrelevant as that is not the part of the standard of review.


Gaius46 said:
That standard does not apply to you and me. Under the same set of circumstances if you or I were the shooter we'd most likely have been convicted. Police use of force follows a much more lenient standard that civilian, which is arguable backwards given that cops are supposed to be trained to much higher level than the rest of us.
Click to expand...
The standard is "reasonableness" and it does apply to the situation that any person may find their self in.

If you were to find a trespasser on your property and he went for his gun when being confronted you likely are going to be able to legally shoot him first as he made himself out to be threat.


Gaius46 said:
Castile had to feel the same fear and given conflicting orders "don't move" "license and registration please" is it really surprising that he didn't completely freeze?
Click to expand...
Given the circumstances there were no conflicting orders.
There was a request to provide information. Then a gun came into play and there was an order to not reach for it which he did and and then an order to not pull it out.
There should have been no confusion on Castile's part the moment the first order to not reach for it was given. He should have know to stop moving immediately and nopt put his hand on it.


Gaius46 said:
Third point - it wasn't proven that he smoked pot while driving. There was THC in his blood and the ME thought he smoked in the previous few hours but he also admitted under oath that he'd never used the test he used on a corpse and wasn't sure of the accuracy of the result. Upshot is we really have no idea when he smoked.
Click to expand...
A dead body isn't likely to metabolize THC, is it?


Gaius46 said:
Final point - he resembled the suspect in the most superficial way possible. Young, black and with dread locks. How many people do you suppose fit that description in St Paul?
Click to expand...
Superficial? iLOL
1. Your choice of wording is strange as "looks" are always superficial. :mrgreen:
2. So, superficially or not, he did indeed look like the suspect.
Castilcompar.jpg
 
Excon said:
Deflection noted.
An argument was made
Click to expand...

Pointless arguments don't deserve replies.

Excon said:
~ Wrong.

1. A voluntary separation does not mean "fired".
2. The "public best being served" can in-part mean, his life would be in jeopardy if he remained employed by that department.
Click to expand...

How stupid is it to quote a story with a headline that he was fired, you quoted that story two or three times in your posts and then pretend he wasn't fired. He's never working as a police officer again whether for that department or another, If you think he will, let's see in a couple years time when, like with Michael Slager, you are proven wrong. :lamo

Excon said:
~ Why would you even bring this into the discussion?
~
2. It opens up irrelevant discussion about her which is nothing more than purposeful distraction/deflection from the issue at hand. Besides the fact that a person can certainly say what you see as "finally realises emotionally" is just her faking it.
Click to expand...

Ah, when you start telling posters who agree with you he should have been murdered that also call her a ho, POS or any other denigration, I'll take note and desist. Till then, don't waste my time with dishonest requests.

Excon said:
Doh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretending he wasn't fired is a real "doh."

Excon said:
Whether he tells him or not is actually irrelevant to his not following the Officer's commands and then grabbing the gun ~
Click to expand...

Cept he was murdered without his hands on his gun.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Pointless arguments don't deserve replies.
Click to expand...
You are again deflecting with an invalid argument.


Infinite Chaos said:
How stupid is it to quote a story with a headline that he was fired, you quoted that story two or three times in your posts and then pretend he wasn't fired. He's never working as a police officer again whether for that department or another, If you think he will, let's see in a couple years time when, like with Michael Slager, you are proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Oh look, another pointless wrong headed argument.
Go figure.

:lamo
How stupid is it to accept the author's characterization when what is reported is different than the way they characterize it? Huh?

As for Slager.
Again, since you didn't pay attention the first time.

1. Stop baiting.
This topic, nor that one, is about me, but about the arguments made.

2. Everything I argued in the Slager topics is true and you certainly have not been able to refute it. His trial for that charge ended with a hung jury. The fact that the corrupt Obama/Lynch justice system came along and wrongly charged him with different crimes does not negate any of those arguments.
Slager pleading guilty to the "federal charge of deprivation of rights under the color of law" was so all other charges, federal and state, would be dismissed. That doesn't negate what I argued either.
Now if you would like to start a thread to argue those federal charges and whether he should have plead or not, please do so as I can clearly make better legal arguments based on the actual evidence than you can.​

Your argument fails. I have not been proven wrong in what I argued, nor could you ever show it to be wrong.

It is sad that you can not accept the reality of that.


Infinite Chaos said:
Ah, when you start telling posters who agree with you he should have been murdered that also call her a ho, POS or any other denigration, I'll take note and desist. Till then, don't waste my time with dishonest requests.
Click to expand...
Your reply is irrational.
He wasn't murdered. FFS, he wasn't even charged with murder. Duh!

Nor do I have to make any argument with anyone other than I please.
This argument is with you and your absurdity of bringing irrelevant deflective nonsense into the discussion.

Again.
Why would you even bring this into the discussion?
1. It is irrelevant to his use of force.
2. It opens up irrelevant discussion about her which is nothing more than purposeful distraction/deflection from the issue at hand. Besides the fact that a person can certainly say what you see as "finally realises emotionally" is just her faking it.

It's not even rational to introduce it, yet you did.​
Double doh!


Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah, pretending he wasn't fired is a real "doh."
Click to expand...
Another irrational reply. Figures.
Voluntary separation by agreement, is not being fired.


Infinite Chaos said:
Cept he was murdered without his hands on his gun.
Click to expand...
Look at that, another irrational reply.
No one argued his hands were on it. Duh!
That would be because the evidence shows his hand (singular) was on it.
And even though you have taken a contrary stance on this, it is flawed, as there is no evince that disputes the defense's evidence.

All you have done again is show you can not accept the reality of the evidence. So sad.
 
Excon said:
The standard is reasonableness.
Reasonableness applies to any similar person being similarly situated.
For LEO's is supposed to be from the point of view of another LEO.
For a civilian it supposed to be from the point of view of another civilian.

You including the "despite the fact that the evidence indicated there was no real threat" is irrelevant as that is not the part of the standard of review.


The standard is "reasonableness" and it does apply to the situation that any person may find their self in.

If you were to find a trespasser on your property and he went for his gun when being confronted you likely are going to be able to legally shoot him first as he made himself out to be threat.


Given the circumstances there were no conflicting orders.
There was a request to provide information. Then a gun came into play and there was an order to not reach for it which he did and and then an order to not pull it out.
There should have been no confusion on Castile's part the moment the first order to not reach for it was given. He should have know to stop moving immediately and nopt put his hand on it.


A dead body isn't likely to metabolize THC, is it?


Superficial? iLOL
1. Your choice of wording is strange as "looks" are always superficial. :mrgreen:
2. So, superficially or not, he did indeed look like the suspect.
Castilcompar.jpg
Click to expand...
Those two guys do not look alike at all.
 
Excon said:
You are again deflecting with an invalid argument.
Click to expand...

He said she said etc. Just make your points

Excon said:
~ Oh look, another pointless wrong headed argument.
Go figure.
Click to expand...

That your way of accepting he was fired and you quoted a story headlined "officer fired" but were unable to make sense of the words?

Excon said:
:lamo
How stupid is it to accept the author's characterization when what is reported is different than the way they characterize it? Huh?
Click to expand...

Ceptin he was fired, never to work as a policeman again.

Excon said:
As for Slager.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not fired but "pleaded guilty." Now, are those two more words you have problems understanding?

Excon said:
Again, since you didn't pay attention the first time.
Click to expand...

"pleaded guilty." As simple as it gets but you struggle to understand and accept.

Excon said:
~ Your argument fails. I have not been proven wrong in what I argued, nor could you ever show it to be wrong.

It is sad that you can not accept the reality of that.
Click to expand...

I don't need to prove anything, he pleaded guilty. End of.

Excon said:
~ Double doh!
Click to expand...

Yup, pleaded guilty - how come you don't understand those words?

Excon said:
~ No one argued his hands were on it. Duh!
That would be because the evidence shows his hand (singular) was on it.
Click to expand...

No there wasn't, you're making s**t up. We have the evidence of a fired police officer who will never again work as a policeman. there are pictures of the gun afterwards but it's not in the video nor in Yanez' immediate statements after killing an innocent. All he says is "I told him not to reach for it."
 
Yanez can prolly get a job at McDonalds, WalMart, or maybe he can be an advocate for the homeless; you know, his wife, his kids, and himself of course ..............
 
Excon said:
The standard is reasonableness.
Reasonableness applies to any similar person being similarly situated.
For LEO's is supposed to be from the point of view of another LEO.
For a civilian it supposed to be from the point of view of another civilian.

You including the "despite the fact that the evidence indicated there was no real threat" is irrelevant as that is not the part of the standard of review.


The standard is "reasonableness" and it does apply to the situation that any person may find their self in.

If you were to find a trespasser on your property and he went for his gun when being confronted you likely are going to be able to legally shoot him first as he made himself out to be threat.


Given the circumstances there were no conflicting orders.
There was a request to provide information. Then a gun came into play and there was an order to not reach for it which he did and and then an order to not pull it out.
There should have been no confusion on Castile's part the moment the first order to not reach for it was given. He should have know to stop moving immediately and nopt put his hand on it.


A dead body isn't likely to metabolize THC, is it?


Superficial? iLOL
1. Your choice of wording is strange as "looks" are always superficial. :mrgreen:
2. So, superficially or not, he did indeed look like the suspect.
Castilcompar.jpg
Click to expand...


1. I know the standard is reasonableness. I said as much. The reasonable standard - via the pertinent supreme court precedents - applies to police only. For civilians it's the applicable state self defense law, which generally is much stricter. A civilian situated in similar circumstances in MN would have likely been convicted.

There were conflicting orders. "License" followed by "don't move." As has been pointed out by myself and others in the situation the civilian is likely to be nervous and prone to confusion. It's understandable that he would continue to go for his wallet.

The THC issue isn't me speculating. The ME stated under oath that he had never used the test on a dead body and could be be sure of the result.

Nothing strange about my use of superficial. How many young black men with dreadlocks do you suppose live in that general area. 10s? 100s?
 
Excon said:
iLOL
You can disagree all you want. It is not going to change the facts or reality of this case.
Your reply was illogical given reality and those facts.
Click to expand...

You claiming my arguments are illogical doesn't make them so, that's your opinion, not a fact.

Excon said:
Of those who interact with police in such a manner, whites are shot more often.

Which is why your take and everything else you said is absurd.


​
Click to expand...

I was merely asking the question, rather then making a statement.

Again, I think this case is part of a larger problem, a problem that goes beyond racism to something that affects most citizens, militarized police which lead to more police shootings.

Again why does the US have more police shootings then other Western nations?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

It seems like conservatives almost always support more government power to satisfy their supposed "law and order" agenda.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
He said she said etc. Just make your points
Click to expand...
I did. You failed to reply and instead deflected with nonsense.


Infinite Chaos said:
That your way of accepting he was fired and you quoted a story headlined "officer fired" but were unable to make sense of the words?
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not understand the reply. Let me repeat it in hope you will finally grasp it or at least a make a reply the is applicable.

Again.
How stupid is it to accept the author's characterization when what is reported is different than the way they characterize it? Huh?​


Infinite Chaos said:
Ceptin he was fired, never to work as a policeman again.
Click to expand...
1. No. A voluntary separation agreement is just that, an agreement. That is not being fired no matter how much you want it to be.
2. Never to be a policeman again? Why are you making up more bs? :lamo


Infinite Chaos said:
No there wasn't, you're making s**t up.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
The evidence showed his hand was on it.

You should spend some time learning the evidence before spouting off about things you know nothing about.
Not only did we know before the trial he saw his hand on the gun, he testified to it as well.
The State's BCA investigators even believe the Officer's actions were justified and an expert witness testifying pointed out that his claim of seeing the gun is supported by his being able to accurately describe it.


Infinite Chaos said:
We have the evidence of a fired police officer who will never again work as a policeman.
Click to expand...
This is your made up bs that you can not support.

Infinite Chaos said:
... there are pictures of the gun afterwards but it's not in the video nor in Yanez' immediate statements after killing an innocent. All he says is "I told him not to reach for it."
Click to expand...
Like I said; Maybe you should spend some time learning the evidence before spouting off about things you know nothing in about.
His statements immediately after have been clarified. He told us what he meant. Not only did we know before the trial he saw his hand on the gun, he testified to it as well.
Again; Not only only did the State's BCA investigators believe the Officer's actions were justified, an expert witness testifying pointed out that his claim of seeing the gun is supported by his being able to accurately describe the gun he saw.




So now we are onto your irrelevant, wrong headed, off topic deflective nonsense in regards to Officer Slager.


Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah, not fired but "pleaded guilty." Now, are those two more words you have problems understanding?

"pleaded guilty." As simple as it gets but you struggle to understand and accept.

I don't need to prove anything, he pleaded guilty. End of.
Click to expand...
You again show you can't remain on topic and are unable to distinguish between two different things.
Figures. :2rofll:

It is your failure to understand that is the problem here. He did not plead guilty to the other crime of murder/manslaughter. That is your failure in not understanding that.

He did not plead guilty to the original charges that were argued in that thread.
Your failure to understand that had invalidated any argument you have thus far made.


Infinite Chaos said:
Yup, pleaded guilty - how come you don't understand those words?
Click to expand...
You are arguing nonsense as he did not plea to the original crime of "murder or voluntary manslaughter" he was charged with. Duh!
Matter of fact his jury was hung on those charges.

Again.
Everything I argued in the Slager topics is true and you certainly have not been able to refute it. His trial for that charge ended with a hung jury. The fact that the corrupt Obama/Lynch justice system came along and wrongly charged him with different crimes does not negate any of those arguments.
Slager pleading guilty to the "federal charge of deprivation of rights under the color of law" was so all other charges, federal and state, would be dismissed. That doesn't negate what I argued either.
Now if you would like to start a thread to argue those federal charges and whether he should have plead or not, please do so as I can clearly make better legal arguments based on the actual evidence than you can.​


Infinite Chaos said:
I don't need to prove anything, he pleaded guilty. End of.
Click to expand...
Your arguments fails. I have not been proven wrong in what I argued, nor could you ever show it to be wrong.

It is sad that you can not accept the reality of that.


And if you are arguing I am wrong, yes you do need to prove that, otherwise all you have is your wrong headed invalid assertion.
 
Gaius46 said:
1. I know the standard is reasonableness. I said as much. The reasonable standard - via the pertinent supreme court precedents - applies to police only.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point.
The standard is reasonableness and it is applied to all.

Of course reasonableness as it applies to an Officer needs to be from an Officers point of view. Arguing against that is nonsensical.


Gaius46 said:
For civilians it's the applicable state self defense law, which generally is much stricter.
Click to expand...
No it is not.
The standard is still the same, reasonableness.
The situations a civilian and a Officer may find themselves in may be different, but the standard to use self defense is still the same, reasonableness.


Gaius46 said:
A civilian situated in similar circumstances in MN would have likely been convicted.
Click to expand...
No. You do not know that.
1. A civilian is not likely to be pulling over someone and asking for identification. A civilian is not charged with such duties as an Officer is.
2. But we could theorize a similar situation.
You own a thousand acres in Minnesota. You happen to see a trespasser driving on your property, so you wave him down.
You go up to find out what he is doing on your property and you see his hand on a gun pulling it out.
Now you do not have the authority to command that person to do anything but you certainly could reasonable think your life was in danger from this unknown trespassing individual pulling out his weapon on you on your own property.​


Gaius46 said:
There were conflicting orders. "License" followed by "don't move."
Click to expand...
No. To claim that is conflicting is asinine.
You always follow the last order given. Not continue with the first, especially as the last one you have given here is more restrictive.
When you are told "don't move" you stop moving.
No one would logically think when they are told not to move they are to continue with the first order.


Gaius46 said:
As has been pointed out by myself and others in the situation the civilian is likely to be nervous and prone to confusion. It's understandable that he would continue to go for his wallet.
Click to expand...
1. While a civilian may be, it in no way negates the Officer's perception based on his actions.
2. He did not continue for his wallet. His wallet was in his back pocket and his hand was on the gun in his front. So making such an argument is nonsensical in light of the evidence.


Gaius46 said:
The THC issue isn't me speculating. The ME stated under oath that he had never used the test on a dead body and could be be sure of the result.
Click to expand...
1. I know what was reported.
2. I did not say you were speculating.
3. I asked you a question; "A dead body isn't likely to metabolize THC, is it?"


Gaius46 said:
Nothing strange about my use of superficial.
Click to expand...
Yes it is strange for the very reason I said it was. "Looks" is always superficial.


Gaius46 said:
How many young black men with dreadlocks do you suppose live in that general area. 10s? 100s?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter how many have dreadlocks.
What matter here to the argument is if those two look alike, which they certainly do.
Nor does it matter to the events that followed (he legitimately had lights out), or to the actions perceived by the Officer.
Even if he didn't look one bit like the the wanted person it would not negate the Officer's actions, predicated on Castile's movements, in any way shape or form.
 
Yes_Minister said:
You claiming my arguments are illogical doesn't make them so, that's your opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...
iLOL
No, in this case it is fact.
This was not a dubious shooting or contradictory logic. This is a straight forward case. His failure to follow the Officer's commands made him a threat.



Yes_Minister said:
I was merely asking the question, rather then making a statement.
Click to expand...
Ah hello? You asked a question and I provided you with an answer. :shrug:


Yes_Minister said:
Again, I think this case is part of a larger problem, a problem that goes beyond racism to something that affects most citizens, militarized police which lead to more police shootings.
Click to expand...
Well if that is what you think, you should not have made your question about race.
And if that is what you think I find that thinking to be somewhat wrong headed as well.

Most of these type of cases are justified. The way to eliminate many of them is to teach the idiots interacting with the police to stop arguing with the officer (do your arguing in court), and follow commands to a T. This would eliminate most issues.


Yes_Minister said:
Again why does the US have more police shootings then other Western nations?
Click to expand...
In regards to what we have exchanged, this is not an "again".
And such a discussion is not relevant to the specifics of this incident.


Yes_Minister said:
It seems like conservatives almost always support more government power to satisfy their supposed "law and order" agenda.
Click to expand...
Maybe you just do not understand the conservative position?

While I do not speak for all Conservatives, my understanding is that Government is needed to govern. Governing includes law enforcement. Which of course is different from expanding a Government to provide individuals with handouts.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
No, in this case it is fact.
This was not a dubious shooting or contradictory logic. This is a straight forward case. His failure to follow the Officer's commands made him a threat.
Click to expand...

So not acting perfectly in front a police officer instantly makes you threat and thus it is okay for the cop kill that person?

You are confusing your opinions with facts.




Excon said:
Well if that is what you think, you should not have made your question about race.
And if that is what you think I find that thinking to be somewhat wrong headed as well.

Most of these type of cases are justified. The way to eliminate many of them is to teach the idiots interacting with the police to stop arguing with the officer (do your arguing in court), and follow commands to a T. This would eliminate most issues.


In regards to what we have exchanged, this is not an "again".
And such a discussion is not relevant to the specifics of this incident.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge there, you are not answering why there are fewer police shootings in other Western countries?

You put on all the onus on the public to obey police at all times, but none of the onus on the police to defuse a situation and the whole "the cop was afraid for his life" justification is hollow, when conservatives demand anyone who wants a gun, should have a gun. At that point, cops should to expect suspects have a gun and take into their training and mindset.

Here's how the racial element comes back in, how often do conservative pundits defend the Second Amendment rights of African Americans in the face of these police shootings? Did the NRA say anything meaningful about Mr. Castile's Second Amendment rights?

It seems like there is a double standard on who's second Admenment rights actually get defended:

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to African Americans? - LA Times


Excon said:
Maybe you just do not understand the conservative position?

While I do not speak for all Conservatives, my understanding is that Government is needed to govern. Governing includes law enforcement. Which of course is different from expanding a Government to provide individuals with handouts.
Click to expand...

Except are you saying the police are public servants who serve public or public masters who must never be questioned and obeyed at all times or your life is forfeit?

Because if you are saying anyone who doesn't act perfectly in front the police can have their lives forfeited, you are arguing for a police state.

Frankly I find the conservative role of government in society totally hypocritical, the government shouldn't help poor people, but hey big government is okay if its in the service of the military industrial police complex or if its for Supply Side Jesus.

I don't agree with Libertarians, but at least their ideology is consistent.
 
Excon said:
You are missing the point.
The standard is reasonableness and it is applied to all.

Of course reasonableness as it applies to an Officer needs to be from an Officers point of view. Arguing against that is nonsensical.


No it is not.
The standard is still the same, reasonableness.
The situations a civilian and a Officer may find themselves in may be different, but the standard to use self defense is still the same, reasonableness.


No. You do not know that.
1. A civilian is not likely to be pulling over someone and asking for identification. A civilian is not charged with such duties as an Officer is.
2. But we could theorize a similar situation.
You own a thousand acres in Minnesota. You happen to see a trespasser driving on your property, so you wave him down.
You go up to find out what he is doing on your property and you see his hand on a gun pulling it out.
Now you do not have the authority to command that person to do anything but you certainly could reasonable think your life was in danger from this unknown trespassing individual pulling out his weapon on you on your own property.​


No. To claim that is conflicting is asinine.
You always follow the last order given. Not continue with the first, especially as the last one you have given here is more restrictive.
When you are told "don't move" you stop moving.
No one would logically think when they are told not to move they are to continue with the first order.


1. While a civilian may be, it in no way negates the Officer's perception based on his actions.
2. He did not continue for his wallet. His wallet was in his back pocket and his hand was on the gun in his front. So making such an argument is nonsensical in light of the evidence.


1. I know what was reported.
2. I did not say you were speculating.
3. I asked you a question; "A dead body isn't likely to metabolize THC, is it?"


Yes it is strange for the very reason I said it was. "Looks" is always superficial.



Doesn't matter how many have dreadlocks.
What matter here to the argument is if those two look alike, which they certainly do.
Nor does it matter to the events that followed (he legitimately had lights out), or to the actions perceived by the Officer.
Even if he didn't look one bit like the the wanted person it would not negate the Officer's actions, predicated on Castile's movements, in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...


As a matter of law you are not correct with respect to reasonableness standard. Officers are held to a reasonableness standard under the 4th amendment to the Constitution - see Graham v Conner the controlling SC case - while civilian use of deadly force is governed by state law. And while state law may put forth a reasonableness standard for civilians it is not the same standard and is likely a much more stringent standard.

Your scenario about my Montana ranch is flawed. Castilo, based on the physical evidence and testimony, did not reach for the gun. The officer believed he was reaching for the gun (his testimony that he saw a gun directly conflicts with the statements he made to investigators right after the shooting. At best you can say he believed he saw Castilo holding a gun when in fact, given the evidence, he wasn't. Under those circumstances I'd bet a civilians is convicted of criminally neglient homicide.

And to answer your last question - I'm not a doctor or a biologist, but I'd assume metabolism goes on for a short while - minutes? - after death as all bodily functions don't stop immediately at the point of death. But I wouldn't know that for sure. Certainly an hour later he's not metabolizing anything.
What point are you trying to make.
 
Last edited:
Yes_Minister said:
So not acting perfectly in front a police officer instantly makes you threat and thus it is okay for the cop kill that person?

You are confusing your opinions with facts.
Click to expand...
You are projecting and your argument is nonsensical.

This is about actual threatening actions as seen by the Officer, not about not acting perfectly.


Yes_Minister said:
Nice dodge there, you are not answering why there are fewer police shootings in other Western countries?
Click to expand...
:lamo
Dodge? Dodging, deflections and avoidance may be relevant when it is deflection, dodging and avoidance from relevant discussion of the topic.
Your question is irrelevant and will thus not be answered.


Yes_Minister said:
You put on all the onus on the public to obey police at all times, but none of the onus on the police to defuse a situation and the whole "the cop was afraid for his life" justification is hollow, when conservatives demand anyone who wants a gun, should have a gun. At that point, cops should to expect suspects have a gun and take into their training and mindset.
Click to expand...
No. I deal with the specifics of the issue, not the wider nonsense.
This person did not follow the Officer's commands. That is what brought us to this point. If you want to discuss other irrelevancies, start the topic.


Yes_Minister said:
Here's how the racial element comes back in, how often do conservative pundits defend the Second Amendment rights of African Americans in the face of these police shootings? Did the NRA say anything meaningful about Mr. Castile's Second Amendment rights?


It seems like there is a double standard on who's second Admenment rights actually get defended:

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to African Americans? - LA Times
Click to expand...
iLOL No.
Again; If you want to discuss other irrelevancies, start the topic.


Yes_Minister said:
Except are you saying the police are public servants who serve public or public masters who must never be questioned and obeyed at all times or your life is forfeit?
Click to expand...
iLOL
No. My arguments I will make, don't attempt to make them for me.
Again; If you want to discuss other irrelevancies, start the topic.


Yes_Minister said:
Because if you are saying anyone who doesn't act perfectly in front the police can have their lives forfeited, you are arguing for a police state.
Click to expand...
You are arguing nonsense.
This is about the threat the Castile presented. Not about not acting perfectly.


Yes_Minister said:
Frankly I find the conservative role of government in society totally hypocritical,

the government shouldn't help poor people, but hey big government is okay if its in the service of the military industrial police complex or if its for Supply Side Jesus.
Click to expand...
Don't care about your irrelevant opinions.
If you want to discuss that nonsense start a topic, but it is irrelevant here.
 
Gaius46 said:
As a matter of law you are not correct with respect to reasonableness standard. Officers are held to a reasonableness standard under the 4th amendment to the Constitution - see Graham v Conner the controlling SC case - while civilian use of deadly force is governed by state law. And while state law may put forth a reasonableness standard for civilians it is not the same standard and is likely a much more stringent standard.
Click to expand...
No, you are not correct.
The standard is reasonableness, it is not more stringent for one than it is for anther. Again, the only thing that may different is the view point from which it must be judged by. For LE it is from a similarly situated Officer, and for a civilian it is from a similarly situated civilian.


But since you think so, please point out where reasonableness is not the standard in any state and how it is stricter for civilians. I am sure you can't, but give it a try.


Gaius46 said:
Your scenario about my Montana ranch is flawed. Castilo, based on the physical evidence and testimony, did not reach for the gun.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

The evidence is that he did indeed reach for and grab his gun. So the scenario is not flawed.
(and you are fooling yourself if you do not think that is what the Jury accepted as reflected by their acquittal.)


Gaius46 said:
The officer believed he was reaching for the gun (his testimony that he saw a gun directly conflicts with the statements he made to investigators right after the shooting.
Click to expand...
No.
1. He is the only one who knows what he meant by what he said and he explained exactly what was meant. Once explained as it was, there is no longer any conflict.

2. Had he not seen the gun he would not have been able to accurately describe it as he did. The fact that he did accurately describe it to investigators, supports the claim that he actually saw it.

3. Even if we just went with your incorrect version, we still know that shortly after the incident, he relayed, and at trial testified, that he saw the gun. So the scenario is still not flawed.


Gaius46 said:
At best you can say he believed he saw Castilo holding a gun when in fact, given the evidence, he wasn't. Under those circumstances I'd bet a civilians is convicted of criminally neglient homicide.
Click to expand...
1. To the first sentence. Wrong. It is evidence that he saw it and is supported by the fact that he was able to accurately describe it.

2. To the second sentence. Totally depends if the jury believes it was reasonable. Which is the standard, which is not a stricter standard.


Gaius46 said:
And to answer your last question - I'm not a doctor or a biologist, but I'd assume metabolism goes on for a short while - minutes? - after death as all bodily functions don't stop immediately at the point of death. But I wouldn't know that for sure. Certainly an hour later he's not metabolizing anything.
Click to expand...
With blood circulation stopped, just how do you figure it would still metabolize? And even if taken from the organ that metabolizes it, and it somehow had continued to metabolize what was in the organ after he died, it would indicate a lessor reading than it did when he was killed. Would it not?
 
poweRob said:
Ain't it just amazing how everytime we turn around, trump nation is either in meetings with or being controlled by russians?


What a remarkable coinkidink.
Click to expand...
Did you actually bother watching the video link and article you posted? You couldnt have...because no one could have watched that video, seen what was posted,and thought for even a second that the Russian trolling was targeted at 'Trump Nation'. Fomenting racial tension is a trademark of the American leftists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom