Philando Castille shooting

[E4 No More]

37 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

He made a lot of assumptions in this video. No one knows whether or not he was reaching for anything. Do I think he was reaching for his gun? No.. It doesn't make sense that he would politely tell the cop he was armed and then decide to pull it out. The only person that knows the truth is the cop.

I agree we have a problem but I don't think it's as widespread as it seems. It's safe to assume that tens of thousands traffic stops are conducted every day. How many result in something like this? Lumping all cops together is no different than blaming all gun owners.

I'd really like to hear from the jury as to why they felt the officer was innocent. I also didn't like how this video made it all about race. The cop that fired the shots is Mexican. 

He also reached a conclusion that the officer was afraid because Castile was black. Nowhere did the officer state anything racist. Another possibility is that a large portion of the population thinks that only bad guys carry guns, and that carries into the police departments since they draw from that very population. Combine that with them spending 90% of their time dealing with the bad guys and you can have an officer that over-reacts without regard to the person's race. I know I was trained to react to the weapon; not to the color of one's skin.

[Capbyrd]

49 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I also didn't like how this video made it all about race. The cop that fired the shots is Mexican. 

 

If I've learned anything in my life, its that the cop wasn't mexican.  He wasn't brown.  He wasn't white or black or whatever.  He was blue.  And blue protects blue as much as possible. 

[E4 No More]

4 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

If I've learned anything in my life, its that the cop wasn't mexican.  He wasn't brown.  He wasn't white or black or whatever.  He was blue.  And blue protects blue as much as possible. 

And firemen protect firemen, and Marines protect Marines, and soldier protect soldiers. So what? They have to rely on backup to do their job, but where do you see this having ANYTHING to do with Castile? A JURY let him off; not other cops.

[Capbyrd]

17 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

And firemen protect firemen, and Marines protect Marines, and soldier protect soldiers. So what? They have to rely on backup to do their job, but where do you see this having ANYTHING to do with Castile? A JURY let him off; not other cops.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the jury.  I am merely commenting that being a cop may be the only profession where race doesnt matter.  They stop being black or brown or white, and just turn blue.  And blue comes first.  

[bersaguy]

I only have one question about this entire case. If in fact the officer did think he had stopped an armed bank robber as was implied why did he not radio for back up and wait till it arrived before making his approach to the car?

That is what I apprecaite about the police department in my town. On any traffic stop you see there is always 2 or more squad cars on the scene and the officer that made the stop waits on back up every time.   I have noticed that Hendersonville also practices that same approach on their traffic stops. Always at least 2 cars on the scene. I think that is a great practice................jmho

[Links2k]

This may be comparing apples to oranges, but I spent my time in the military and Gulf War as an MP.  

Like our civilian counterparts, many soldiers hated our guts.  On a daily basis we interacted with guys who could thrash us in the blink of an eye. 

There are exceptions to every rule, but I believe that our civilian counterparts could stand to learn better interpersonal and communication skills, and require frequent refreshers on the escalation of force. 

As an MP, knowing that almost everyone that you interact with on a daily basis is as well or better trained to kill forces you to attempt to de-escalate every intervention. 

Daily I see videos where cops escalate a situation because someone bruises their ego. That being said, whether we like it or not, I feel that it's always best to be in total compliance with the officer even if you feel he is wrong.

Fight your battle in the courtroom, not the roadside. 

[DaveTN]

We didn’t mess with the Military Police because we knew we wouldn’t be answering to them; we would be answering to our XO or Captain. That usually doesn’t end well. 

[Erik88]

3 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I didn't say it had anything to do with the jury.  I am merely commenting that being a cop may be the only profession where race doesnt matter.  They stop being black or brown or white, and just turn blue.  And blue comes first.  

This entire case is about race and black folks people targeted by cops.

Had Darren Wilson been black we would have never heard of that case. There would have been no riots.

[Randall53]

10 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I have a question.  I've watched the video a dozen times (with headphones turned all the way up).  The last thing I hear Philando say is "I'm about to pull it out."   Everyone else says that he said "I'm not pulling it out."  What do you hear him say? 

Even if he said "I'm about to pull it out." What was he pulling out? According to the GF he had been instructed to show his ID. He had been instructed to NOT touch his weapon as I understand it. Again, communication can make the difference. "OK sir, I'm going to pull my wallet out of my pocket. Is that what you want me to do?" would be much more clear than "I'm about to pull it out." I don't think he was even talking about his gun. I think he was talking about his ID. The cop was scared and shot him anyway. The guy would have been crazy to tell the officer he was "about to pull out" his gun with a nervous scared cop holding down on him.....IMO that is.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Randall53

[Capbyrd]

5 hours ago, Erik88 said:

This entire case is about race and black folks people targeted by cops.

Had Darren Wilson been black we would have never heard of that case. There would have been no riots.

 

 

The entire case is about a black victim and a blue perp.  That's the point I'm making.  The officer's civilian race is unimportant, he was blue when he murdered Castile.  

[E4 No More]

18 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I didn't say it had anything to do with the jury.  I am merely commenting that being a cop may be the only profession where race doesnt matter.  They stop being black or brown or white, and just turn blue.  And blue comes first.  

Naw, the Marine Corps was the same way in the 80's - at least where I was. Marines weren't white, black, or brown; they were all just shades of green.

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.broken.press/froliberty/politics/this-is-me/

 

This is another excellent article from a woman who is a southern neighbor of ours (Mississippi). This case and the others like have been, and will always be about race until we as a society stop viewing Philandos and Tamirs as inherently more of a threat than Steve and Dave. 

I will admit that this case and its verdict have weighed particularly heavy on my heart. I spent a lot of years working retail in the predominantly black neighborhoods is Memphis  I always encouraged the young men and women I worked with to get their permits and to carry in accordance with the law. Like many of us here I looked at the permit as a "good guy checkbox" and it may be, for me. Not necessarily for them. Instead of helping them better protect themselves and their families did I really just put them even more in the sights of police than they already were? The murder (I refuse to call it anything else, jury verdict be damned) of Philando Castile reminds me that I play under a different set of rules then they do. It isn't my fault, I have no guilt over that fact, but it is my responsibility to be cognizant of those facts. 

If we believe that the rights recognized by the 2A truly are for everyone, we must ensure that everyone gets to exercise them without fear that the agents of the state will murder them with impunity for doing so. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Chucktshoes

[E4 No More]

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

http://www.broken.press/froliberty/politics/this-is-me/

 

This is another excellent article from a woman who is a southern neighbor of ours (Mississippi). This case and the others like have been, and will always be about race until we as a society stop viewing Philandos and Tamirs as inherently more of a threat than Steve and Dave. 

I will admit that this case and its verdict have weighed particularly heavy on my heart. I spent a lot of years working retail in the predominantly black neighborhoods is Memphis  I always encouraged the young men and women I worked with to get their permits and to carry in accordance with the law. Like many of us here I looked at the permit as a "good guy checkbox" and it may be, for me. Not necessarily for them. Instead of helping them better protect themselves and their families did I really just put them even more in the sights of police than they already were? The murder (I refuse to call it anything else, jury verdict be damned) of Philando Castile reminds me that I play under a different set of rules then they do. It isn't my fault, I have no guilt over that fact, but it is my responsibility to be cognizant of those facts. 

If we believe that the rights recognized by the 2A truly are for everyone, we must ensure that everyone gets to exercise them without fear that the agents of the state will murder them with impunity for doing so. 

They'd help their case by not dressing like thugs. I'm not saying that they all do, but a whole hell of a lot of them do. And I feel the same way about whites dressing like Gang'stas,

[Erik88]

There are a lot of great posts in this thread from members I respect and often agree with. There are also a lot of assumptions being made. I don't see how this video is as damning people are saying. It doesn't show us anything from inside the vehicle. None of us know what happened, only what we THINK happened. 

Did the cop screw up? Probably. Should Philando have stuck his hands out the window to be safe? Probably. Do cops sometimes get away with things they shouldn't? Absolutely. Keep in mind they also get accused of things they didn't do. That's why I like body cams. Hell, I've been accused, and eventually fired over something I didn't do. It sucks.  Sometimes the only ones that know the truth are the people involved. 

There are just too many unknowns including what the jury heard and saw. If there is an afterlife, this officer will have to settle his debts. Not that it's any consolation to the family of the victim. 

 

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, SWJewellTN said:

They'd help their case by not dressing like thugs. I'm not saying that they all do, but a whole hell of a lot of them do. And I feel the same way about whites dressing like Gang'stas,

So, rights are only rights if you approve of one's manner of dress or speech then, eh? Got it. 

By the way, could you break down what a "thug" looks like? Is it the clothes in the style popular in urban areas? Is it the hair? What exactly constitutes a "thug" or a "gang'sta"?  I ask this because in the modern parlance, to the people who have it thrown in their direction, "thug" is a six letter word. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Chucktshoes

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

So, rights are only rights if you approve of one's manner of dress or speech then, eh? Got it. 

By the way, could you break down what a "thug" looks like? Is it the clothes in the style popular in urban areas? Is it the hair? What exactly constitutes a "thug" or a "gang'sta"?  I ask this because in the modern parlance, to the people who have it thrown in their direction, "thug" is a six letter word. 

Easy: 

[MacGyver]

This post is likely to make me have to move this to the Swamp.  We'll see if people can separate their rhetoric from their tribe.

A note upfront:  This post is likely to be unpopular (and doesn't necessarily fully capture my personal views) but that's okay - I'm okay expanding the borders of our thought and conversations.

So, I'll preface this post with two thoughts:

1. Quoting Chekhov to start, "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."
2. A person I respect a lot told me early in my career that "the evidence has to tell the story." Notice that's different than the evidence supporting your story - the evidence should tell the story clearly...by itself.  

Our evidence is starting to tell a pretty compelling story...

I posted earlier in this thread about Sir Robert Peel publishing 9 rules for modern policing in 1829. At their core, they describe a group put forward by the citizens they serve that "polices by consent" rather than "polices be force."  This is largely the reason that 90%+ of British police officers don't carry guns.    Weapons or people with weapons are normally close by (the recent attacker at parliament was subdued quickly) but the average officer doesn't carry one as a part of their normal day-to-day duties.

So here's some evidence to consider:

In 2016, the British police fired 7 bullets (killing 5 people).  Compare that to 1,092 killed in the United States during the same period.

In the last 10 year, the British have had 3 officers killed with firearms.  Two, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were murdered in cold blood by Dale Cregan who also employed a grenade.  The third, Ian Dibell was killed off duty while pursuing an armed suspect. Three officers in 10 years.  Two ambushed and one killed off-duty (where a gun may have helped.)

What do we do with this?

How does this evidence match up to the story we train on "that every stop is potentially your last?"

For the sake of discussion, what if we took a time out?  What if our officers had access to weapons, or access to highly trained officers with weapons, but didn't carry them in their interactions with the public(that they serve) on a daily basis?

What if we took the weapons out of the revenue generation engines' hands?

What if we de-escalated the "warrior officer" that uses "opposition force" language?

Certainly some of you will say, "good luck finding officers to serve..."

Maybe that's the case.  But, I would be willing to bet within 10 years we have some cities in the US voluntarily disarm in the vast majority of their patrols and interactions.  Additionally, I'd be willing to bet that not only do they have fewer police shootings, but you also have a lot better officer safety statistics.

We've got a problem that is only going to escalate.  These shootings are seeing more light - and I'd argue that it's a good thing.  What got us here isn't going to get us where we need to go as a nation.  

Just a thought exercise...

[Erik88]

Coincidentally there is a thread on reddit about this. It sheds some light on what they jury was thinking.

 

[E4 No More]

4 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

So, rights are only rights if you approve of one's manner of dress or speech then, eh? Got it. 

By the way, could you break down what a "thug" looks like? Is it the clothes in the style popular in urban areas? Is it the hair? What exactly constitutes a "thug" or a "gang'sta"?  I ask this because in the modern parlance, to the people who have it thrown in their direction, "thug" is a six letter word. 

Who said ANYTHING about their rights? News flash: damn near everyone assesses situations by visual means first and foremost. It's called situational awareness, and only idiots don't use it. But to answer your question, the wearing of excessively baggy clothes originated from criminal activity as in the clothes could be quickly shed after the crime was committed to alter those items that could identify you as the criminal. It's also handy in preventing printing. The wearing of specific colors identifies you as a particular gang member.

Also, I think you should give up your attempt to be a telepathist. You're not very good at it.

[Chucktshoes]

34 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

Who said ANYTHING about their rights? News flash: damn near everyone assesses situations by visual means first and foremost. It's called situational awareness, and only idiots don't use it. But to answer your question, the wearing of excessively baggy clothes originated from criminal activity as in the clothes could be quickly shed after the crime was committed to alter those items that could identify you as the criminal. It's also handy in preventing printing. The wearing of specific colors identifies you as a particular gang member.

Also, I think you should give up your attempt to be a telepathist. You're not very good at it.

I did. I brought up rights. The post of yours that I quoted, quoted a post of mine. That post and the link contained therein were almost entirely centered around the subject of 2A rights and whether or not we as a nation really believe they apply to everyone, and specifically black folks. I made the assumption you were addressing the contents of that post when you quoted it. 

 

As as far as your explanation of style origination, I've heard at least a dozen different explanations for the genesis of that particular portion of urban styling (which is actually fading in popularity pretty quickly). All are irrelevant as it doesn't really matter where it originated, what is pertinent is that it is/was a widely popular style throughout the population. The position you are putting forth is that anyone who dresses in the popular styles of black youth culture is assumed to be of a criminal element. You are actually making the exact case that I am here, and those who are at the forefront of the BLM movement are attempting to make to society at large. Black folks, and black men especially, are viewed as inherently dangerous and criminal by white society. Because of that fact, they are killed at a disproportionate rate by law enforcement. That fact cannot be allowed to stand. It must be changed. Thank you for your assistance, even if it was inadvertent as I suspect it was. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Chucktshoes

[Danger Rane]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

I did. I brought up rights. The post of yours that I quoted, quoted a post of mine. That post and the link contained therein were almost entirely centered around the subject of 2A rights and whether or not we as a nation really believe they apply to everyone, and specifically black folks. I made the assumption you were addressing the contents of that post when you quoted it. 

 

As as far as your explanation of style origination, I've heard at least a dozen different explanations for the genesis of that particular portion of urban styling (which is actually fading in popularity pretty quickly). All are irrelevant as it doesn't really matter where it originated, what is pertinent is that it is/was a widely popular style throughout the population. The position you are putting forth is that anyone who dresses in the popular styles of black youth culture is assumed to be of a criminal element. You are actually making the exact case that I am here, and those who are at the forefront of the BLM movement are attempting to make to society at large. Black folks, and black men especially, are viewed as inherently dangerous and criminal by white society. Because of that fact, they are killed at a disproportionate rate by law enforcement. That fact cannot be allowed to stand. It must be changed. Thank you for your assistance, even if it was inadvertent as I suspect it was. 

I'll begin by saying that I think the particular shooting in question was bad, and that the officer probably never had any business in LEO based upon his reactions. I don't think he shot Castile strictly because he was black. He certainly did not approach the car like he though he was the robber they were supposedly looking for. I think he got scared and he lost control of himself and the situation, but he had no justifiable reason to shoot Castile that we have been made aware of.

But you went on what appears to be a racebaiting tangent chucktshoes so I have to ask, are you stating that it is a "fact" that black men are killed at a disproportionate rate by Law Enforcement due to white society viewing them as inheritently dangerous and criminal? Where do you find the factual numbers to support this disproportionate rate?

By straight numbers there are more white males killed by LEO every year than any other race, also by straight numbers there are more crimes and LEO contacts with white males per year than any other race. When you factor in each race's actual percentage of the population in relation to the number of crime, LEO contacts, and resulting deaths during LEO contacts the numbers shake out to paint a picture.....a picture based on factual numbers that shapes society's views.

If you have some free time check out the NVDRS reports at CDC.GOV

If BLM was truly trying to fix anything, they would be trying to figure out why the 5th leading cause of black men of all ages in America is homicide (which is catagorized by the CDC completely separate from deaths occurring during legal intervention).

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

11 hours ago, Omega said:

Easy: 

I don't see how that looks like a "gangsta". I dress nearly identical everyday with t-shirt, shorts and shoes. And dare I say the vast majority of the members here have also dressed in a t-shirt, shorts and shoes. How he is acting proves he is a thug but how he was dressed just proves he can get dressed in the morning.

 

14 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

They'd help their case by not dressing like thugs. I'm not saying that they all do, but a whole hell of a lot of them do. And I feel the same way about whites dressing like Gang'stas,

Just because someone sags their pants or dressed differently than you doesn't mean they are a thug, gangsta or miscreant. It is what is being worn by those they want to emulate or because everyone within their peer group is wearing the same. That is no different that any one of us wearing "tactical" clothing because it is what is in style within our group of peers or because someone we respect also wears the same.

Everyone would flip their lid if wearing a holstered gun was suddenly treated the same as wearing sagging pants. I mean there are places in this country where the wearing of sagging pants means you are going to get randomly patted down or searced by LE. Imagine if LE started doing the same to ANYONE with a holstered gun, we all would be shouting from the rooftops about how our rights are being violated but it is perfectly fine to limit someone else's right as long they look or dress differently. And make no mistake, being able to wear what you want is a first amendment issue.

The officer lied to dispatch when he said he thought they were involved in a robbery. The officer didn't even believe his own words and you can see this by how he nonchalantly walked up to the car. Perhaps this is the MO for that officer or the officers in that department, link a person to a suspected "violent" crime so that the actions of the officer are justified. If I were on the jury I would have NEVER voted to acquit him based solely on the fact he started the interaction with a lie.

[bersaguy]

I have said it in a prior post and I will say it one more time. This does not past the smell test because if the LEO really thought he was about to make a traffic stop of an armed bank robber his first reaction should have been to radio a request back up and waited for it to arrive before approaching said vehicle.

With that said, I do believe is was a bad shoot and the LEO should not have gotten off and allowed to remain on the force............JMHO 

[KahrMan]

1 hour ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

I don't see how that looks like a "gangsta". I dress nearly identical everyday with t-shirt, shorts and shoes. And dare I say the vast majority of the members here have also dressed in a t-shirt, shorts and shoes. How he is acting proves he is a thug but how he was dressed just proves he can get dressed in the morning.

 

Just because someone sags their pants or dressed differently than you doesn't mean they are a thug, gangsta or miscreant. It is what is being worn by those they want to emulate or because everyone within their peer group is wearing the same. That is no different that any one of us wearing "tactical" clothing because it is what is in style within our group of peers or because someone we respect also wears the same.

Everyone would flip their lid if wearing a holstered gun was suddenly treated the same as wearing sagging pants. I mean there are places in this country where the wearing of sagging pants means you are going to get randomly patted down or searced by LE. Imagine if LE started doing the same to ANYONE with a holstered gun, we all would be shouting from the rooftops about how our rights are being violated but it is perfectly fine to limit someone else's right as long they look or dress differently. And make no mistake, being able to wear what you want is a first amendment issue.

The officer lied to dispatch when he said he thought they were involved in a robbery. The officer didn't even believe his own words and you can see this by how he nonchalantly walked up to the car. Perhaps this is the MO for that officer or the officers in that department, link a person to a suspected "violent" crime so that the actions of the officer are justified. If I were on the jury I would have NEVER voted to acquit him based solely on the fact he started the interaction with a lie.

Well said. 

[Randall53]

15 hours ago, MacGyver said:

This post is likely to make me have to move this to the Swamp.  We'll see if people can separate their rhetoric from their tribe.

A note upfront:  This post is likely to be unpopular (and doesn't necessarily fully capture my personal views) but that's okay - I'm okay expanding the borders of our thought and conversations.

So, I'll preface this post with two thoughts:

1. Quoting Chekhov to start, "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."
2. A person I respect a lot told me early in my career that "the evidence has to tell the story." Notice that's different than the evidence supporting your story - the evidence should tell the story clearly...by itself.  

Our evidence is starting to tell a pretty compelling story...

I posted earlier in this thread about Sir Robert Peel publishing 9 rules for modern policing in 1829. At their core, they describe a group put forward by the citizens they serve that "polices by consent" rather than "polices be force."  This is largely the reason that 90%+ of British police officers don't carry guns.    Weapons or people with weapons are normally close by (the recent attacker at parliament was subdued quickly) but the average officer doesn't carry one as a part of their normal day-to-day duties.

So here's some evidence to consider:

In 2016, the British police fired 7 bullets (killing 5 people).  Compare that to 1,092 killed in the United States during the same period.

In the last 10 year, the British have had 3 officers killed with firearms.  Two, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were murdered in cold blood by Dale Cregan who also employed a grenade.  The third, Ian Dibell was killed off duty while pursuing an armed suspect. Three officers in 10 years.  Two ambushed and one killed off-duty (where a gun may have helped.)

What do we do with this?

How does this evidence match up to the story we train on "that every stop is potentially your last?"

For the sake of discussion, what if we took a time out?  What if our officers had access to weapons, or access to highly trained officers with weapons, but didn't carry them in their interactions with the public(that they serve) on a daily basis?

What if we took the weapons out of the revenue generation engines' hands?

What if we de-escalated the "warrior officer" that uses "opposition force" language?

Certainly some of you will say, "good luck finding officers to serve..."

Maybe that's the case.  But, I would be willing to bet within 10 years we have some cities in the US voluntarily disarm in the vast majority of their patrols and interactions.  Additionally, I'd be willing to bet that not only do they have fewer police shootings, but you also have a lot better officer safety statistics.

We've got a problem that is only going to escalate.  These shootings are seeing more light - and I'd argue that it's a good thing.  What got us here isn't going to get us where we need to go as a nation.  

Just a thought exercise...

I'd like to add that if the justice side of our society wasn't ran with the rotating door philosophy and plea deals, that might some day be possible. Bad people would not be outside and those that thought about doing a crime might think twice. Here in Chattanooga, you can search the criminal court cases for the past 25 years or so at home on your computer. I recently went in and was looking for someone in particular and you would not believe how many people are in there that took 3 pages to cover their crimes. Many were arrested multiple times over these crimes which included drugs, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful carry of a firearm, driving while intoxicated, with suspended licenses 5 or 6 times, robbery and burglary, assaulting an officer, passing bad checks, forgery......and I do mean multiple times by the same person over and over again. Sometimes only weeks or months apart, some had been arrested for the same crimes over a dozen times in 5 years. Why? What happened to the 3 strikes laws? These people are habitual criminals, don't work and know nothing else. Yet there they are, out on the streets. They have no fear of getting caught, because they know they'll be out in no time and ready to go back to the same lifestyle. There's no teeth to the justice systems bite. There has to be a lot of hair pulling by police that go out every day, risk their life, make arrests and know the person has been arrested multiple times and will soon be right back out on the streets.  

My question is, HOW do these people continue to beat the system? If I get caught with a DUI, I'm out $10,000 or so the TV commercials say. How do these people get caught with a DUI 5 or 6 times and stay out of jail? 

I was really shocked and in amazement by what I found searching these records. As long as this condition exists, nothing is going to change in the criminal world. It doesn't have to.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Randall53