• 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!

Philando Castile found not guilty

Do you agree with verdict?

  • Total voters
    25
Dragonfly said:
Simple question- do you agree with verdict or not?
Click to expand...

That the system doesn't give some people the verdict that they wanted doesn't mean it was the wrong verdict.

The cop was charged with manslaughter. He was vigorously prosecuted. The jury listened to all of the testimony, two weeks worth, and then deliberated for 27 hours before coming up with this verdict.

I see no reason not to conclude that the system worked and that justice was done. I see no good reason why this is a partisan issue.
 
Dragonfly said:
Simple question- do you agree with verdict or not?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with the verdict. Don't reach for anything unless the cop tells you can. Because that cop doesn't know if you are or are not reaching for a weapon.

Cris Rock should do a follow up to his how not to get your ass kicked by the police. Because it seems a lot of these incidences involve idiots reaching for something(Philando Castile,Terence Crutcher ), brandisihing a fake weapon(Tamir Rice),resisting arrest(Eric Gardner), assaulting a police officer(Michael Brown) and branding weapons and refusing to cooperate(Joshua Barre). None of these individuals would be dead if the simply cooperated. Contrary to what anti-cop racists and anti-cop retards think, the cops don't go oh **** he's black open fire bang bang bang bang bang bang.
 
Last edited:
No I don't agree. I think it's an outrage. It just enforces the double standard of reasonable person for police and for us mortals.

The fact is as long as an officer can articulate why he did something and why he thought it was reasonable, it will be defended.

Fact is there is no evidence that Philando reached for his gun other than the testimony of the man who shot him. That should not be enough of a defense. Where is the corroborating evidence? Just an officers word. Ridiculous.

As a civilian I guarantee that in every single State that if you shot someone because you thought they were reaching for what you thought was a gun, you'd be in jail. And I guarantee the very same lawyers who defended this officer, the very same judge, and the very same jury would convict you too.

How is a jury to rule otherwise when an 'expert' witness in the use of deadly force says that as long as the officer believes there IS a gun, he's justified in shooting.

This means that regardless of whatever else is done, any and every time I get pulled over an officer is justified in shooting me. Just for being in my proximity and just for me legally expressing my rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I neither agree nor disagree, I simply accept the verdict.

The defendant was tried by a jury of his peers, and after all the evidence was examined, that jury voted to not guilty.

It is not an "outrage." It is not "racism." It is not a "travesty of Justice." The court of public opinion notwithstanding.

It is exactly how the system of Justice in a free society is supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I neither agree nor disagree, I simply accept the verdict.

The defendant was tried by a jury of his peers, and after all the evidence was examined, that jury voted to not guilty.

It is not an "outrage." It is not "racism." It is not a "travesty of Justice." The court of public opinion notwithstanding.

It is exactly how the system of Justice in a free society is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it's a travesty of justice when you have an expert witness tell the jury that if an officer thinks he sees a gun he is justified in shooting. That is not supported by the law and I think it unfairly biases the jury how now thinks that is so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
I disagree. I think it's a travesty of justice when you have an expert witness tell the jury that if an officer thinks he sees a gun he is justified in shooting. That is not supported by the law and I think it unfairly biases the jury how now thinks that is so.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then you clearly don't understand the criminal trial process.

1. An "expert witness" provides an expert opinion based on their professional expertise.

2. Both the Defense and Prosecution are free to provide evidence in the form of such "expert opinion."

3. The Jury is free to discuss the various merits of each side of the case presented in order to come to a decision.

4. The basic presumption is that the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...note, not ALL doubt, it must be a reasonable doubt.

5. The whole burden of proof resides with the Prosecution.

So arguing that the jury was "tainted" by one expert witness is a bit disingenuous IMO.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
The defendant was tried by a jury of his peers,
Click to expand...

Was he?

1 black man, 1 black woman, all the rest apparently not black.

Don't know, but it seems odd.

Of course the jurors had to be approved by defense too....so....
 
Aberration said:
No I don't agree. I think it's an outrage. It just enforces the double standard of reasonable person for police and for us mortals.

The fact is as long as an officer can articulate why he did something and why he thought it was reasonable, it will be defended.

Fact is there is no evidence that Philando reached for his gun other than the testimony of the man who shot him. That should not be enough of a defense. Where is the corroborating evidence? Just an officers word. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't evidence he was reaching for his gun. What matters if the fact the guy was reaching for something and there is evidence of that in the video the victim's girlfriend streamed. Again the cop doesn't know if the guy is reaching for his license or his gun.Which is why you don't be reaching for stuff unless told to by the police officer.

As a civilian I guarantee that in every single State that if you shot someone because you thought they were reaching for what you thought was a gun, you'd be in jail. And I guarantee the very same lawyers who defended this officer, the very same judge, and the very same jury would convict you too.
Click to expand...
You and I are not pulling over potential criminals so the situation is not the same.
 
Dragonfly said:
Was he?

1 black man, 1 black woman, all the rest apparently not black.

Don't know, but it seems odd.

Of course the jurors had to be approved by defense too....so....
Click to expand...
No it does not seem odd.Jury by your peers means fellow citizens. It does not mean people you hang out with or people in your social group. None black jurors are just as capable as black jurors in deciding a case.The jurors are weeded out by both sides.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases | Nolo.com
 
Dragonfly said:
Was he?

1 black man, 1 black woman, all the rest apparently not black.

Don't know, but it seems odd.

Of course the jurors had to be approved by defense too....so....
Click to expand...

...and the office was Latino. There were no Latino members on the jury at least according to this CBS report Philando Castile case verdict: Jeronimo Yanez not guilty - CBS News

That article goes on to state:

A member of the jury [said]...the jury was split 10-2 early this week in favor of acquittal for Yanez. Ploussard said jurors spent a lot of time dissecting the "culpable negligence" requirement for conviction. He said the last two holdouts eventually agreed on acquittal. Ploussard wouldn't identify the two holdouts, but says they were not the jury's only two black members. The rest were white, and none were Latino.
Click to expand...

It was, according to this juror, two white members who were arguing for guilt.

Moreover, how is complaining that all of the members of a jury were not of the race of the defendant itself not a form of racism? Should White people only be tried by Whites? Blacks by Blacks? etc.?

I think people misunderstand the idea of "jury of one's peers," when all it means is a jury of fellow citizens.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Then you clearly don't understand the criminal trial process.

1. An "expert witness" provides an expert opinion based on their professional expertise.

2. Both the Defense and Prosecution are free to provide evidence in the form of such "expert opinion."

3. The Jury is free to discuss the various merits of each side of the case presented in order to come to a decision.

4. The basic presumption is that the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...note, not ALL doubt, it must be a reasonable doubt.

5. The whole burden of proof resides with the Prosecution.

So arguing that the jury was "tainted" by one expert witness is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Click to expand...

The very problem is that the real defendant is dead. Where was his presumption of innocence? The fact is that we all might not be able to quote them word for word or always in the exactly correct context but we have setup a situation in which an innocent person can be killed by the State for a traffic violation. We got court rulings saying the State can lie to you. Doesn't really have to know the law. Gets a wider latitude in what's reasonable use of the ultimate force. From bottom to top. It's like the Republic and 1984 all in one twisted nightmare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't matter if there is or isn't evidence he was reaching for his gun. What matters if the fact the guy was reaching for something and there is evidence of that in the video the victim's girlfriend streamed. Again the cop doesn't know if the guy is reaching for his license or his gun.Which is why you don't be reaching for stuff unless told to by the police officer.


You and I are not pulling over potential criminals so the situation is not the same.
Click to expand...

That is just unreasonable. It means one has to behave as if any action one takes around a police officer could be viewed as a deadly threat and they could die for it. With little to any indication that the action is being taken that way before death rains down on you. Just because they pull over criminals doesn't meant everyone is a criminal. Presumption of innocence shouldn't only be in a courtroom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
That is just unreasonable. It means one has to behave as if any action one takes around a police officer could be viewed as a deadly threat and they could die for it. With little to any indication that the action is being taken that way before death rains down on you. Just because they pull over criminals doesn't meant everyone is a criminal. Presumption of innocence shouldn't only be in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

It is not unreasonable.The police officer is in a potentially deadly situation.Cops have been assaulted and murdered by people the pulled over for a traffic offense. A court room is not the same thing as on the street. So saying the presumption of innocence shouldn't only be in a courtroom is absurd.
 
I am a white male; I live in Saint Paul not far from the scene of the Castile murder. Yes, I said murder.

The black community, African/American community will make this out to be a race issue, which IMO it is not. However, that is their community's right to argue that point, if they see fit.

IMO this is a policing issue. America is in the midst of a police crisis in which there are way too many assaults & murders committed by LE upon civilian citizens.
THIS **** HAS TO ****ING STOP.

When I was younger this 'public safety threat' was not an issue; officers then would NOT just willie nillie open fire on civilians for the smallest thing, and then claim, "I feared for my life."

Something changed, and IMO it is the fact that LE learned & they now KNOW that they can kill & claim, "I feared for my life," and walk.

Ask yourselves; why was this phenomena not happening 20, 30 years ago?

LE is out of control, period ......................
 
Small thing....

The title of this thread is: Philando Castile found not guilty

Except Philando Castile wasn't on trial - he's dead. The officer, Jeronimo Yanez, was found not guilty.
 
cuban smokes said:
I am a white male; I live in Saint Paul not far from the scene of the Castile murder. Yes, I said murder.

The black community, African/American community will make this out to be a race issue, which IMO it is not. However, that is their community's right to argue that point, if they see fit.

IMO this is a policing issue. America is in the midst of a police crisis in which there are way too many assaults & murders committed by LE upon civilian citizens.
THIS **** HAS TO ****ING STOP.

When I was younger this 'public safety threat' was not an issue; officers then would NOT just willie nillie open fire on civilians for the smallest thing, and then claim, "I feared for my life."

Something changed, and IMO it is the fact that LE learned & they now KNOW that they can kill & claim, "I feared for my life," and walk.

Ask yourselves; why was this phenomena not happening 20, 30 years ago?

LE is out of control, period ......................
Click to expand...

I assure you, sir; questionable shootings of black men were happening 20-30 years ago.


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
 
Hatuey said:
I assure you, sir; questionable shootings of black men were happening 20-30 years ago.


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
Click to expand...

Daniel Webster (white), from Shreveport, Louisiana, my home town, gunned down in Houston by Houston Police, claimed to have had a firearm/weapon = BIG ASS LIE.

Eventual & continuing investigations REVEALED that Houston Police used a 'throw down' weapon to make it look like Danny had brandished a weapon at Houston PD officers.

what do I have to say about the Houston PD murdering Danny? **** THEM ........................
 
cuban smokes said:
Daniel Webster (white), from Shreveport, Louisiana, my home town, gunned down in Houston by Houston Police, claimed to have had a firearm/weapon = BIG ASS LIE.

Eventual & continuing investigations REVEALED that Houston Police used a 'throw down' weapon to make it look like Danny had brandished a weapon at Houston PD officers.

what do I have to say about the Houston PD murdering Danny? **** THEM ........................
Click to expand...

Well, alright. That's a post too.


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
 
I don't believe the man shot down by a poorly trained cop was ever on trial
 
jamesrage said:
It is not unreasonable.The police officer is in a potentially deadly situation.Cops have been assaulted and murdered by people the pulled over for a traffic offense. A court room is not the same thing as on the street. So saying the presumption of innocence shouldn't only be in a courtroom is absurd.
Click to expand...

No the officer was in no such possible danger. People have been assaulted and murdered by officers when they have done nothing wrong. Does that mean us mortals now get to treat all officers as an armed and dangerous threat? They are armed. They have shown themselves to escalate violence with little provocation.

Being presumed innocent is absurd? The idea that it only applies in a court room is absurd. It's how police have been scared ****less and can execute citizens without impunity. Regardless of whatever else happens. Cry you were scared. Cry you thought you saw a gun. Innocent every time. Meanwhile us mortals go to jail for less every day. Makes one wonder why the inner city would target and treat cops the way they do. Just baffles the mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jamesrage said:
Yes I agree with the verdict. Don't reach for anything unless the cop tells you can. Because that cop doesn't know if you are or are not reaching for a weapon.

Cris Rock should do a follow up to his how not to get your ass kicked by the police. Because it seems a lot of these incidences involve idiots reaching for something(Philando Castile,Terence Crutcher ), brandisihing a fake weapon(Tamir Rice),resisting arrest(Eric Gardner), assaulting a police officer(Michael Brown) and branding weapons and refusing to cooperate(Joshua Barre). None of these individuals would be dead if the simply cooperated. Contrary to what anti-cop racists and anti-cop retards think, the cops don't go oh **** he's black open fire bang bang bang bang bang bang.
Click to expand...

the cop told him to get his ID. Doh!
 
Aberration said:
No the officer was in no such possible danger.
Click to expand...

The officer at the time had no way of knowing that.


People have been assaulted and murdered by officers when they have done nothing wrong. Does that mean us mortals now get to treat all officers as an armed and dangerous threat? They are armed. They have shown themselves to escalate violence with little provocation.
Click to expand...
Nothing but anti-cop bigotry.

Being presumed innocent is absurd? The idea that it only applies in a court room is absurd.
Click to expand...
Again the safety of a court room and on the road are two different things. A police officer can't assume everyone he or she pulls over is not carrying weapon or not out to do the cop harm.


It's how police have been scared ****less and can execute citizens without impunity.
Regardless of whatever else happens. Cry you were scared. Cry you thought you saw a gun. Innocent every time. Meanwhile us mortals go to jail for less every day. Makes one wonder why the inner city would target and treat cops the way they do. Just baffles the mind.
Click to expand...


Nothing more than anti-cop bigotry. Cops do not execute citizens without impunity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom