• 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!

Minnesota Officer Was 'Reacting to Presence of Gun,' Lawyer Says...

I really wish there was video of the shooting. There is no reason to believe one person over the other in this case. The dead guy wasn't some criminal. He was working man with a concealed carry license. Obviously someone who cared enough about the law to do things the right way prior to this.

And no cop is going to admit to a bad shoot if there is no video evidence. Hell, even if there IS video evidence. And of course the girlfriend is going to want to make her boyfriend look good. So, frankly, I don't take either the cop or the girlfriend at their word.

Sucky situation.

The girl friend made a video and live streamed it on FB. That's all I know. I haven't seen the video, and I don't have a link.
 
Come on, hair splitters.

If a cop thinks his or someone else's life is in danger, he can act to neutralize the threat. Of COURSE the presence of a gun alone isnt sufficient. But if you know he HAS a gun and doesnt obey a command to show his hands and, instead, starts digging around in his waistband, he can shoot.

Or he can die.

Ya' know everyone forgets this cop had absolutely NO idea who the driver was. He could have been a murderer. People REALLY need to understand they need to listen to cops. ESPECIALLY those with guns drawn.

Thinking your life is in danger versus your life actually not being in danger is an important distinction to make. That error in judgement suggests a lack in police training. A lot of people have concealed carry permits, but this is the first time I have ever heard of a cop freaking out and killing somebody over one. If there is a gun in the car, the gun should have been apprehended by the cop first to deescalate the threat. Cops are human, cops often given confusing instructions, so simply saying "always listen to the cops" isn't really sufficient either. There is a clear police training issue.
 
Come on, hair splitters.

If a cop thinks his or someone else's life is in danger, he can act to neutralize the threat. Of COURSE the presence of a gun alone isnt sufficient. But if you know he HAS a gun and doesnt obey a command to show his hands and, instead, starts digging around in his waistband, he can shoot.

Or he can die.

Ya' know everyone forgets this cop had absolutely NO idea who the driver was. He could have been a murderer. People REALLY need to understand they need to listen to cops. ESPECIALLY those with guns drawn.

Its not splitting hairs at all. He cant just think his life is in danger. That is not the legal standard. The legal standard is if a reasonable person in the same situation would fear for their life.

No citizen can use deadly force on another simply because they think they might be reaching for a weapon.

If law enforcement is not held to the same standards as citizens then the Republic is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The mere presence of a gun does not warrant suspicion let alone reason to believe ones life is in danger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

when someone says they are a CCW holder (which the cop should know before he even approaches the car) that should put the officer at ease.
 
The issue here Magg is that the cop is often more inclined to perceive a threat based on race and THAT's a problem. THAT'S where the racism comes into play. That's why you can't use the superficial justification of a perceived threat. You have to look at whether or not the threat was real and not just perceived.

That's a pretty broad statement and, frankly, I find it offensive. The idea that all cops are focused on the race of the people they are engaging is where groups like BLM go off the rails. When a cop engages a person they are focused on the circumstances of that engagement. Race, other than the possibility that the individual matches a certain suspect description, is a consideration that comes in much farther down the line if at all.
 
when someone says they are a CCW holder (which the cop should know before he even approaches the car) that should put the officer at ease.

In Illinois, at least, not all jurisdictions sync FOIDs or CC Permits to driver's licenses. Thus my CC class recommendation to let an officer know right up front if you're carrying a weapon.
 
I think we need to put body cams on every police officer in the country. It's the only way to settle these disputes. If the Minneapolis officer had been wearing one, the Dallas incident may never have happened.

If I were a cop, I would insist on it.
 
The mere presence of a gun does not warrant suspicion let alone reason to believe ones life is in danger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I Think people on this thread, myself included, dont know what they're talking about re use of deadly force.
 
Come on, hair splitters.

If a cop thinks his or someone else's life is in danger, he can act to neutralize the threat. Of COURSE the presence of a gun alone isnt sufficient. But if you know he HAS a gun and doesnt obey a command to show his hands and, instead, starts digging around in his waistband, he can shoot.

Or he can die.

Ya' know everyone forgets this cop had absolutely NO idea who the driver was. He could have been a murderer. People REALLY need to understand they need to listen to cops. ESPECIALLY those with guns drawn.

I don't know the details about the particular shooting. Was this guy "digging around in his waistband"?
 
I don't know the details about the particular shooting. Was this guy "digging around in his waistband"?

We have absolutely no idea what he was doing. His girlfriend started video after he was shot. Cameras for all, is my vote. Those who argue it's too expensive need to compared that expense with what's happening across the country now.

The officer was a mess in the video. Shouting emotionallybthat he'd told him not to move. She says he was just reaching for his license and registration after having told the cop he had a CCW and a gun.

My take was a general one based on others saying a cop couldnt shoot until he'd seen a gun. That's just not true.
 
That's a pretty broad statement and, frankly, I find it offensive. The idea that all cops are focused on the race of the people they are engaging is where groups like BLM go off the rails. When a cop engages a person they are focused on the circumstances of that engagement. Race, other than the possibility that the individual matches a certain suspect description, is a consideration that comes in much farther down the line if at all.
Actually that's not entirely true.

Cops practice shooting at blacks via target practice to make it emotionally easier to kill minorities.

There's a psychological effect to things like this that make it easier to shoot Black vs shooting other minorities. People on these very forums dismissed the statements of how this was inappropriate. I highly suggest you study up on some basics of psychology to understand why using images of Blacks and only Blacks is a horrible idea. And also keep in mind this story only got out because the cops were too lazy and sloppy and left their homemade targets up. Things like this are happening all over the country that don't go reported.

Cops literally practice killing Blacks and it's all for fun and glory. This is a systemic problem that needs to change and as long as cops have defenders for this kind of behvavior it never will change.
 
Would those two groups by any chance be Yeshiva students and Mormons in white shirts on bicycles? Notorious troublemakers, both of them.

Men and women


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Come on, hair splitters.

If a cop thinks his or someone else's life is in danger, he can act to neutralize the threat. Of COURSE the presence of a gun alone isnt sufficient. But if you know he HAS a gun and doesnt obey a command to show his hands and, instead, starts digging around in his waistband, he can shoot.

Or he can die.

Ya' know everyone forgets this cop had absolutely NO idea who the driver was. He could have been a murderer. People REALLY need to understand they need to listen to cops. ESPECIALLY those with guns drawn.

Maggie, I'm not so sure, and I'm speaking as a long time legal carrying white guy whjo tends to give LEO the benefit of the doubt, Every traffic stop could be a murderer. Or a citizen with a legal carry permit going out for a cup of coffee. If what is claimed is the story and the whole story, then the cop overreacted. But I doubt that is the whole story.
 
I agree. The sooner all LEO's are wearing body cams the better for both the criminals and the cops.

I agree. Cameras today cost less than a Glock magazine fully loaded.

They certainly cost less than a lawsuit. The LEO I know have no problem with body cams. They work both ways.
 
True, I agree. I didn't make myself very clear. And, I appreciate you pointing this out.

Like I said, on this one, I'm torn. I wish the video had been started before the officer got to the window, so we could see the interaction in its entirety. But, like I said, or meant to say, if what the officer says happened is accurate then he should be fine, but if what the woman says happened is accurate then it appears to me to be a bad shoot. I guess I'm relying more on her description of the events that I find hard to believe that she would have been able to make up right on the spot and put it on video immediately after a police officer had shot her boyfriend right beside her. She just seemed believable to me.

But... again, and this a big BUT, I don't know what happened. I'm just leaning at this point. If the guy was on fact a CCW license holder he would have been trained in how to act and interact with a police officer, and couple that with the lady's story she tells on the video... well, again, I'm torn.

Again, thanks for pointing out how what I said sounded. I reread it myself and thought - that's not what I said, but there it is.

That part is not true. CCW training varies state to state, but interacting with a police officer is only a small part, if any part, of the 4 to 8 hour class.
Still the training would come down to announce your CCW license. (Often that is already known to the officer). Present your credentials, announce the location of the weapon(s). If we are to believe the story as presented, that's what this person did.
 
Oh, I completely disagree. A LEO doesn't have to see a gun to shoot. He has to think his life, or the life of others, is in danger. If a cop shouts, "Let me see your hands! HANDS!!!" with a gun in his hand, and you reach for your waistband, he doesnt have to wait to see what you're going to pull out.

I dont agree. Cops have body armor, and advanced training in dealing with threats. Civilians who think they might be shot if they react the wrong way, are at a disadvantage. Interactions with police make people nervous, whether they did anything or not. Getting a gun pointed at you immediately ramps that up. Im dont know what happened here, but there is a increasing trend of police using excessive force, of resorting to lethal force.
 
A lawyer for the suburban police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop said on Saturday that the race of the driver, Philando Castile, played no role in how his client responded, and that the officer “was reacting to the presence of a gun” when he opened fire.

“The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun,” Mr. Kelly said in an interview, noting that Officer Yanez is Latino.

Mr. Castile “was not following the directions of the police officer,” Mr. Kelly said, but he declined to provide further detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/u...o-the-presence-of-a-gun-lawyer-says.html?_r=0

The (suspected?) presence of a gun appears to limited to the statement of the CCW holder who was doing exactly what the police request - stating in advance that they have a concealed gun and the required CCW permit. If the (freaked out?) officer felt unsafe then he should have taken a defensive position and called for backup - the "emergency" of a vehicle having a defective (broken?) taillight does not require use of deadly force. I have not seen or heard any evidence that the gun was either visible or drawn during the stop.
 
Actually that's not entirely true.

Cops practice shooting at blacks via target practice to make it emotionally easier to kill minorities.

There's a psychological effect to things like this that make it easier to shoot Black vs shooting other minorities. People on these very forums dismissed the statements of how this was inappropriate. I highly suggest you study up on some basics of psychology to understand why using images of Blacks and only Blacks is a horrible idea. And also keep in mind this story only got out because the cops were too lazy and sloppy and left their homemade targets up. Things like this are happening all over the country that don't go reported.

Cops literally practice killing Blacks and it's all for fun and glory. This is a systemic problem that needs to change and as long as cops have defenders for this kind of behvavior it never will change.

That's ridiculous.

The reason targets are often black on white or black on manila is because the contrast makes the target easier to see. It has nothing to do with race.
 
That part is not true. CCW training varies state to state, but interacting with a police officer is only a small part, if any part, of the 4 to 8 hour class.
Still the training would come down to announce your CCW license. (Often that is already known to the officer). Present your credentials, announce the location of the weapon(s). If we are to believe the story as presented, that's what this person did.

I've only brought it up in my classes at the end when students ask.

There are some people, for reasons like the MN shooting, that dont want to disclose they are carrying unless they have to. Oregon does not require notification.

I tell them what I do. But the choice not to is legal, and its theirs. I wonder myself if its smart to tell them you are armed right off the bat.

I can tell you for certain though. If I have a gun pointed at me for some petty **** like a broken tail light, me and the officer are going to have very loud words with each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Actually that's not entirely true.

Cops practice shooting at blacks via target practice to make it emotionally easier to kill minorities.

There's a psychological effect to things like this that make it easier to shoot Black vs shooting other minorities. People on these very forums dismissed the statements of how this was inappropriate. I highly suggest you study up on some basics of psychology to understand why using images of Blacks and only Blacks is a horrible idea. And also keep in mind this story only got out because the cops were too lazy and sloppy and left their homemade targets up. Things like this are happening all over the country that don't go reported.

Cops literally practice killing Blacks and it's all for fun and glory. This is a systemic problem that needs to change and as long as cops have defenders for this kind of behvavior it never will change.

I use white/black targets because they are the cheapest.

Tell me, what target should I use so that I am not conditions myself to kill black people for fun and glory?

****. Who doesnt want glory though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We have absolutely no idea what he was doing. His girlfriend started video after he was shot. Cameras for all, is my vote. Those who argue it's too expensive need to compared that expense with what's happening across the country now.

The officer was a mess in the video. Shouting emotionallybthat he'd told him not to move. She says he was just reaching for his license and registration after having told the cop he had a CCW and a gun.

My take was a general one based on others saying a cop couldnt shoot until he'd seen a gun. That's just not true.

Yes it is. Unless he has reasonable cause to believe where he is reaching is for a weapon. Like a known gang member known to have a pistol on his waist.

Now the standard they are held to by the DA is entirely different than what the law says.

I Think people on this thread, myself included, dont know what they're talking about re use of deadly force.

Thats not surprising. Most people dont have reason to know the use of deadly force standards. But you shouldnt speak with authority. You shouldnt declare things to be true or what the officer can do when you know you dont know.

At least for one reason and thats not knowing the standard, and not knowing in practice how they are held to a different standard, you cant actually know what people are complaining about.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yes it is. Unless he has reasonable cause to believe where he is reaching is for a weapon. Like a known gang member known to have a pistol on his waist.

Now the standard they are held to by the DA is entirely different than what the law says.



Thats not surprising. Most people dont have reason to know the use of deadly force standards. But you shouldnt speak with authority. You shouldnt declare things to be true or what the officer can do when you know you dont know.

At least for one reason and thats not knowing the standard, and not knowing in practice how they are held to a different standard, you cant actually know what people are complaining about.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I spoke with no more authority than those who disagree with me. Funny Im not seeing any links.

Here's the one I referred to...

Https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm

You will note it says nothing about having to see a gun which was my original assertion. It also states that once an officer asserts he believed he or others were in imminent danger, it is then up to the state to disprove it and the jury to disagree with his take on events.

Body and dash cameras. If BLM wants to effect meaningful change, they should be hammering that home.
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous.

The reason targets are often black on white or black on manila is because the contrast makes the target easier to see. It has nothing to do with race.
I'm talking about BLACK PEOPLE! They use targets of BLACK PEOPLE on the targets for target practice.



And this deliberate obtuseness and feigned ignorance is a huge contribution to the problem.

Target Practic.jpg

Target Practice 2.jpgTarget Practice 3.jpg

This is inappropriate. Jesus. TH excuses people make to justify police misconduct is out of this world.
Target Practice 4.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom