• 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!

Tacoma police officers acquitted

Philando Castile did not present a credible threat.
That is incorrect. Philando Castile disobeyed repeated instructions, delivered with increasing urgency, to stop reaching for whatever he was reaching for.


He was a law abiding citizen, a legal concealed carry holder, informed the officer that he was and gave the officer no reason to fear for his life.
That is incorrect. Reaching for an unknown object, in defiance of repeated urgent commands to not do so, gives an officer a clear reason to fear for their life.


I'm very pro law enforcement, but being pro law enforcement does NOT mean we should absolve law enforcement of their responsibilities. Yanez killed a man not for the mans action but his own fears.
That is incorrect. "Disregarding the officer's commands and continuing to reach for an object" was an action that Philando Castile carried out, and was the reason for the shooting.
 
This is a case I’ve been following, and I’m thankful to say justice was served, these honorable policemen were trying to arrest a non cooperative suspect who unfortunately died in custody. Initially the use of force was considered ok, but when George Floyd had an overdose activists worked to reopen this case and railroad these officers.

Of course the left wing regime attempted to railroad them like Chauvin, but fortunately these officers had a good defense and were acquitted on all charges.

Apparently, you and the jury didn't know about the officers' backgrounds even tho' the judge allowed the jury, and you, to hear about Ellis' prior arrests. Here it is for your convenience from yesterday's Seattle Times:


"That’s because throughout the proceeding, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Bryan Chushcoff allowed days of testimony about Ellis’ prior arrests, though the police who were charged in Ellis’ killing did not know Ellis and had no prior knowledge of the arrests. The judge also at least twice “lightheartedly reminisced” about his brother sitting on his back as a child during the trial, in an apparent reference to factors involved in Ellis’ death, according to reporting by Patrick Malone.

"Ellis died after being punched, hit with a Taser, thrown to the ground, handcuffed, hogtied, hobbled and experiencing multiple officers taking turns pressing their weight on his back as he lay prone. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide caused by oxygen deprivation from physical restraint, though the defense argued Ellis died due to a heart condition and high levels of methamphetamine in his system.

"Meanwhile, the judge ruled that allowing jurors to hear details about the officers’ backgrounds would prejudice the jury against them. He excluded testimony about one of the charged officers, Timothy Rankine, that described Rankine as having a “mental break” during an online simulation test where he unnecessarily shot a virtual suspect.

"Chushcoff also excluded a lawsuit accusing Rankine of using excessive force on a different man who said he couldn’t breathe under Rankine’s weight.

'The judge also excluded the background of accused officer Christopher Burbank, which included 15 use-of-force investigations, a racial profiling allegation and an admission of punching a Black man, Malone reported."

 
1-Someone should send out a memo to all the people resisting arrest during arrests...
"Screaming multiple times "I CANT BREATHE" is a dead giveaway that you can in fact breathe"
Nope. Not true.
2-IF you are convinced you 'cant breathe' then stop fighting, flailing, kicking, and spitting at the arresting officers and you will feel much better.
Nonsense.
3-Why is it that all the news reports only show the parts after the conflict and not the buildup?
 
Apparently, you and the jury didn't know about the officers' backgrounds even tho' the judge allowed the jury, and you, to hear about Ellis' prior arrests. Here it is for your convenience from yesterday's Seattle Times:


"That’s because throughout the proceeding, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Bryan Chushcoff allowed days of testimony about Ellis’ prior arrests, though the police who were charged in Ellis’ killing did not know Ellis and had no prior knowledge of the arrests. The judge also at least twice “lightheartedly reminisced” about his brother sitting on his back as a child during the trial, in an apparent reference to factors involved in Ellis’ death, according to reporting by Patrick Malone.

"Ellis died after being punched, hit with a Taser, thrown to the ground, handcuffed, hogtied, hobbled and experiencing multiple officers taking turns pressing their weight on his back as he lay prone. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide caused by oxygen deprivation from physical restraint, though the defense argued Ellis died due to a heart condition and high levels of methamphetamine in his system.

"Meanwhile, the judge ruled that allowing jurors to hear details about the officers’ backgrounds would prejudice the jury against them. He excluded testimony about one of the charged officers, Timothy Rankine, that described Rankine as having a “mental break” during an online simulation test where he unnecessarily shot a virtual suspect.

"Chushcoff also excluded a lawsuit accusing Rankine of using excessive force on a different man who said he couldn’t breathe under Rankine’s weight.

'The judge also excluded the background of accused officer Christopher Burbank, which included 15 use-of-force investigations, a racial profiling allegation and an admission of punching a Black man, Malone reported."

Good. The jury should know the criminal was a criminal so they don’t make an emotional decision thinking Ellis was some kind of good person.

Unsustained complaints against officers are unduly prejudicial and have no place in the court room, and the results of a simulation where an officer used a gun are wholly irrelevant because Ellis wasn’t shot.
 
Good. The jury should know the criminal was a criminal so they don’t make an emotional decision thinking Ellis was some kind of good person.

Unsustained complaints against officers are unduly prejudicial and have no place in the court room, and the results of a simulation where an officer used a gun are wholly irrelevant because Ellis wasn’t shot.
You show that you know absolutely nothing about the law and trial practice rules. The judge erred in allowing that information in. But, since he did, the jury also needed to know that the police officers had negative records of using violence so that the jury wouldn't make an emotional decision thinking the police officers were some kind of good persons.
 
This is a case I’ve been following, and I’m thankful to say justice was served, these honorable policemen were trying to arrest a non cooperative suspect who unfortunately died in custody. Initially the use of force was considered ok, but when George Floyd had an overdose activists worked to reopen this case and railroad these officers.

Of course the left wing regime attempted to railroad them like Chauvin, but fortunately these officers had a good defense and were acquitted on all charges.

This guy was railroaded? Bull shite.
1704833401470.png
 
You show that you know absolutely nothing about the law and trial practice rules. The judge erred in allowing that information in.
No, he didn’t. Ellis’s criminal behavior was relevant to the trial
But, since he did, the jury also needed to know that the police officers had negative records of using violence
No they didn’t. To that extent however you haven’t shown that they had a negative record
so that the jury wouldn't make an emotional decision thinking the police officers were some kind of good persons.
They are obviously the good guys in this case
 
Back
Top Bottom