General Police Abuse Thread

[Raw Shark]

Well, I normally hate on the devil, but I had a pretty chill experience yesterday with my fellow eagle, so I'm going to give the pork chops a break this time.

[Gandalf]

Well, I normally hate on the devil, but I had a pretty chill experience yesterday with my fellow eagle, so I'm going to give the pork chops a break this time.

Huh?

[Raw Shark]

Well, I normally hate on the devil, but I had a pretty chill experience yesterday with my fellow eagle, so I'm going to give the pork chops a break this time.

Huh?

The cops and I are not best friends, but today I'm not hostile because one of them and I bonded.

[Gandalf]

And thus you're giving them a break for the shooting of Castile? Your post is needlessly vague.

[Raw Shark]

And thus you're giving them a break for the shooting of Castile? Your post is needlessly vague.

Well, the guy who shot Castille remains culpable. I'm not letting him off the hook. I'm just saying that I don't hate all cops at the moment.

[Flagg]

And thus you're giving them a break for the shooting of Castile? Your post is needlessly vague.

Well, the guy who shot Castille remains culpable. I'm not letting him off the hook. I'm just saying that I don't hate all cops at the moment.

No one cares about your blue bromance.

[Raw Shark]

No one cares about your blue bromance.

Well, I guess I'm no one, then. It's kind of a change of pace for me, considering that the law and I don't usually get along. Also, eat a dick. One or both of you might like it. Or, y'know, just you if you're very flexible.

[Gandalf]

No one cares about your blue bromance.

Well, I guess I'm no one, then. It's kind of a change of pace for me, considering that the law and I don't usually get along. Also, eat a dick. One or both of you might like it. Or, y'know, just you if you're very flexible.

What the fuck are you on about? Are you annoyed that we're not fascinated by your "I met a nice cop" post?

[Raw Shark]

What the fuck are you on about? Are you annoyed that we're not fascinated by your "I met a nice cop" post?

Nah, I just thought it provided a little contrast to the topic and my general opinions. And Flagg and I like to fuck with each other.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The dashcam footage was released today. Nothing in the footage exculpates Yanez, imo, and it supports the victim's family's claim: The officer told him to get his license and registration. The victim gave his registration, told the officer he was armed, and reached for his wallet to comply with the officer's request. The officer shot him for following that order.

This matches pretty much exactly what Jon Stewart said regarding Sean Hannity's statement about telling police he's armed. 4:30ish in the video.

That's not quite accurate, Terralthra.

It was not; Get your ID > Shots fired

It was; Get your ID > I do have a firearm on me. > Don't reach for it, sir. > Philandro says something that I can't make out accurately enough > Don't pull it out > I'm not pulling it out > Don't pull it out - Officer is drawing pistol at this time > Officer reaches in to try and grab something then pulls back and fires.

So, that matches with what the officer said as well and to a jury it it pretty much on the strong side of reasonable doubt.

So the lesson is, don't tell police you're armed if you happen to be black? They'll shoot you and get off scott-free because "It am dangerous job, cops shot all time!"

Maybe. We don't have a view of the inside of the car so the lesson could be what you said. It could also be when the police tell you not to reach for something. Don't.

Cops should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. It is readily apparent that they aren't.

Correct. Police are given a much stronger benefit of the doubt than a normal person. I think a lot of that has to do with some major court cases which separate cops from the reasonable person standard and is called "reasonable officer".

As to the guy who "only" served 17 months... How many cops have served even that for shooting an unarmed civilian? I'd like to hear if there are any statistics comparing this matter.

Not sure why you quoted only I mean do you believe a year and a 5 months is adequate time for attempted murder? I think the CATO institute did a study on this and found that police serve less average time for similar crimes. Though that wasn't my point. My point is that everyone can greatly benefit from a good defense team.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So the lesson is, don't tell police you're armed if you happen to be black? They'll shoot you and get off scott-free because "It am dangerous job, cops shot all time!"

Maybe. We don't have a view of the inside of the car so the lesson could be what you said. It could also be when the police tell you not to reach for something. Don't.

I am personally disinclined to trusting the word of the killer unless there is evidence that they were truly in danger. There is exactly zero evidence that any guns not belonging to the cop were being drawn aside from the word who shows more paranoia than any of the paranoid schizophrenics I have met.

Cops should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. It is readily apparent that they aren't.

Correct. Police are given a much stronger benefit of the doubt than a normal person. I think a lot of that has to do with some major court cases which separate cops from the reasonable person standard and is called "reasonable officer".

And what, precisely, is the definition of a "reasonable officer"? Is "reasonable" the same level of terror and flightiness seen in an untrained horse? Goddamn soldiers in warzones are held to a higher standard before engaging in lethal force than US cops are!

As to the guy who "only" served 17 months... How many cops have served even that for shooting an unarmed civilian? I'd like to hear if there are any statistics comparing this matter.

Not sure why you quoted only I mean do you believe a year and a 5 months is adequate time for attempted murder? I think the CATO institute did a study on this and found that police serve less average time for similar crimes. Though that wasn't my point. My point is that everyone can greatly benefit from a good defense team.

I put quotes around only because he served a longer sentence than I've seen cops get for actual murder. Meaning he even served time.


The really simple lesson here is, a black man was pulled over. When he did what cops everywhere say you should do, the cop who pulled him over immediately concluded that he was going to get gunned down. His panic and terror resulted in, charitably, delusions that a gun was being pulled on him while the civilian was doing as instructed and reaching for ID. In all honesty, I think when a cop shoots someone it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop or someone else was in danger. Police are there to protect and serve, right? At least in theory. At absolute best, the armed thug in this scenario (the cop) is unfit to carry a firearm because he lacks the demeanor to safely and accurately assess when a situation is actually dangerous.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I am personally disinclined to trusting the word of the killer unless there is evidence that they were truly in danger. There is exactly zero evidence that any guns not belonging to the cop were being drawn aside from the word who shows more paranoia than any of the paranoid schizophrenics I have met.

So, the officer engaged in that theater for the benefit of the dash camera so he could murder this stranger?

Your personal distrust is noted. However, there is exactly zero evidence that Philando was complying with the officers instructions at that time. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your moral philosophy for specific situations the state has the burden of proof and must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that what the officers says was taking place was not. This is one of those reasons why body cameras are so important.

And what, precisely, is the definition of a "reasonable officer"? Is "reasonable" the same level of terror and flightiness seen in an untrained horse? Goddamn soldiers in warzones are held to a higher standard before engaging in lethal force than US cops are!

In my experience that depends entirely on the judge or jury. This is a problem with our legal system is things like "reasonable" are not defined clearly enough. Reasonable means different things to many people. It's not like opinions on this case or other controversial police shootings are not widely varied.

I put quotes around only because he served a longer sentence than I've seen cops get for actual murder. Meaning he even served time.

What cop are you referring to that was charged and convicted of murder? Technically, an officer found not guilty hasn't been convicted at all so when you say "than I've seen cops get for actual murder" I think you're just thinking of cops that 1) were never charged with murder. 2)Were found innocent by a jury.

Not a big deal though. The ultimate point you're making is that police most of the time don't do the same amount of time as a citizen and you're absolutely right but that wasn't my point or related to it at all. As a reminder I was pointing out what a skilled defense attorney can pull off even if the victim is a cop. Think of it this way this only means that a skilled defense attorney can probably do more when his defendant is a cop.

The really simple lesson here is, a black man was pulled over. When he did what cops everywhere say you should do, the cop who pulled him over immediately concluded that he was going to get gunned down.

You don't know that though. That's the whole point of why the officer was found not guilty. You have the statement of Philando's girlfriend who says the officer shot him for reaching for his ID. You have the dash cam that shows us the officer told Philando three times to stop reaching. These are two different accounts and the jury can't dismiss either out of hand. A proper jury reacts off the evidence which unfortunately there is very little of either way.

His panic and terror resulted in, charitably, delusions that a gun was being pulled on him while the civilian was doing as instructed and reaching for ID.

Wait. You're saying that Philandro was doing as instructed? So, when the officer told him to stop reaching three times you're saying that Philandro complied? Evidence?

In all honesty, I think when a cop shoots someone it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop or someone else was in danger. Police are there to protect and serve, right? At least in theory. At absolute best, the armed thug in this scenario (the cop) is unfit to carry a firearm because he lacks the demeanor to safely and accurately assess when a situation is actually dangerous.

Guilty before proven innocent? I think someone tried that in the past and it didn't work out well.

Of course, our justice system does need to be reformed so the police are held accountable. Changing the way that prosecutors interact with police, how we select our jurors, and independent (but educated) review boards with actual teeth are some of those things that I would like to see.

Given the wording regarding the elements for manslaughter in MN and the likely doubt that the dash cam video placed on the jury the officer being terminated is probably the best we can hope for.

[Terralthra]

Clearly, the officer panicking and giving unclear instructions (what's "it"? The gun, which Castile and his girlfriend both say he wasn't reaching for, or his ID, which both Castile and his girlfriend say he was reaching for?) is Castile's fault, and the punishment for being present when a policeman is scared is apparently death if you're black. Diamond Reynolds was an accomplice to the crime of being present when a policeman is frightened, given that she was handcuffed. We should be thanking the benevolent police for not shooting her too, I suppose. Paramedics report that officers arriving as backup were also excellent public servants, as they comforted the crying police officer instead of offering medical attention to the man shot.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Clearly, the officer panicking and giving unclear instructions

In what way did he panick before the shooting? The instructions were clear after Castile revealed he was armed. Don't reach for it. Don't pull it out. No contradictory instructions came in between that.

(what's "it"? The gun, which Castile and his girlfriend both say he wasn't reaching for, or his ID, which both Castile and his girlfriend say he was reaching for?) is Castile's fault, and the punishment for being present when a policeman is scared is apparently death if you're black.

What's it? Well, Castile brought up the subject of his gun to which the officer replies after "dont reach for it." It given the context of the conversation that Castile started would be the gun. His statement that he was not reaching for it indicates to me that the subject was still the gun. Officer repeats his instruction twice and does not change the context of it so it is gun. How are you confused by this?

Diamond Reynolds was an accomplice to the crime of being present when a policeman is frightened, given that she was handcuffed. We should be thanking the benevolent police for not shooting her too, I suppose.

The practice of cuffing individuals involved in an incident like this is fairly standard unfortunately and is done for general safety but I don't get why you think she's an accomplice. The police never charged her with a crime. Could you spare me the dramatics? It's pathetic, honestly. Not trying to be rude but I don't want to waste time responding to vomit. Make your responses on point, concise, and relevant. Leave out the theater, please. Pretty please.

Paramedics report that officers arriving as backup were also excellent public servants, as they comforted the crying police officer instead of offering medical attention to the man shot.

They moved the officer aside. One officer went with him the other two pulled Castile out and began CPR.

[Terralthra]

Your assertions regarding the officers having given medical attention to Castile are contrary to the paramedics' description that when they arrived on scene 10 minutes later, no one had so much as checked Castile for a pulse.

Your response to my "theatrics" around yet another black man being executed consequence-free by the police are telling. You're angry at me for pointing it out, instead angry at the legalized murder of an innocent man. He said "don't pull it out". If "it" is the gun, then Castile saying (multiple times) "I'm not" should have been sufficient to assure a calm officer not to fire. The fact that it wasn't and that apparently the smell of marijuana (fucking lol) was enough to convince Yanez that Castile didn't care about Yanez's life is evidence enough.

"Don't pull it out"
"I'm not"
"Okedoke"

That's the version of that dialogue that occurs with a non-panicked officer. Alternatively, after saying "give me your ID", then changing the subject, Yanez could've said something unambiguous like "put your hands on the wheel please". Yanez's testimony and report clearly indicate he was in immediate fear for his own safety, such that he saw preemptively killing someone as "reasonable", based on his "broad nose" (racist dogwhistle) and the smell of marijuana.

If you don't understand why "I just shot your boyfriend, now get on your knees so I can handcuff you 'for safety'" is unacceptable, I don't even know what to say. The only person in the entire situation whose handcuffing would improve the situation was the obviously frightened officer.

[Napoleon the Clown]

How could he have not been shot? Why is he assumed guilty of reaching for a gun? Why would he, if planning to shoot a cop, announce he has a fucking gun? Why is it that the deceased are guilty unless proven innocent? Should people with guns just assume that announcing having a firearm is likely to get them shot, so they'd best not even announce it? Should they ask the cop "Would you like me to step out of the vehicle, hands raised, so you can retrieve my ID and firearm?" What can they do to not be shot to death? Do your Second Amendment rights evaporate when around cops? Or only if you're one of the "scary" minorities? How could Castile have retrieved ID without reaching where the cop couldn't see clearly? Has teleporting ID been invented and I just missed it? The cop assumed he was reaching for a gun. At absolute minimum, the cop in this case should be relegated to desk duty, because obviously he's too paranoid to be trusted with a firearm in a possibly tense situation. I recall the cop that got fired for not murdering a man with an unloaded gun, for ascertaining that the guy had no real intention of shooting anyone.

When a cop is let off the hook for shooting someone and cannot prove that that person was an active threat, then that's the same fucking result as the dead person being declared guilty of whatever crime. Only worse, because you don't automatically get executed for pointing a gun at someone. I'm lucky enough to be a skinny, short white guy. I am among the least threatening people a cop can interact with, so the odds of being the victim of lethal force are pretty low for me. I still wouldn't trust a cop as far as I can throw their cruiser because if the cop just so happens to be a shitty cop and decides to fuck me over, there is probably no recourse because cops so very often get off with armed robbery (fun fact: you can't make them pay your attorney's fees if you sue to get your shit back-assuming it didn't "get lost") and outright murder. It is readily apparent that there are bad cops and that they usually get away with being bad cops. So long as that is the case, no cop can be trusted. You simply cannot know if they're a power-hungry dick that's pretending to be normal until you've been lulled into a false sense of security. And with how often cops aren't so much as indicted, much less convicted, even when blatantly guilty of a criminal act there's no real motivation to not be a corrupt, abusive fuck. Cop killers rarely get off without prison time. Hell, threatening a cop will nab you more prison time than the cop is likely to get for killing you just because (and then lying and saying he thought you were going for a gun). How would you feel if someone were to hold a cop at gun-point and upon being successfully arrested with no lethal force employed successfully said the cop was unlawfully threatening him and he feared for his life? Or if someone killed a cop and got away with it by arguing the cop was attempting to use unlawful, lethal force and nobody could prove otherwise?

At this point, it's entirely understandable why there are those who feel like killing cops is a reasonable course of action. That's not to say I agree with them, or condone their actions in any way. But I fully understand why they might feel that way. After so goddamn many stories of people who posed no discernible threat being killed by the police and the police not suffering any real consequences, it seems like they're a bunch of government-sanctioned assassins.

Horses apparently have steadier nerves than the police are expected to have, and claiming a horse is afraid of its own shadow is only a mild exaggeration. I would think that a public servant, whose job is "protect and serve" would be held to a higher standard. But I guess that's not the case.

[JLTucker]

Demolish the Blue Wall one corpse at a time.

[mr friendly guy]

Can the opposite justification be used to shoot police? For example someone could say I was complying with the officer then I thought he was reaching for a gun and I was afraid given the spate of police shootings, so I shot first. Since he is dead, I could say anything about him like I thought I smelt alcohol on him or some claim like he was most probably corrupt and bang, we have a winner.

This isn't the first time police shoot a black man on the grounds that they thought he was reaching for a gun and got away with it, so could the arguments be used against the police?

[mr friendly guy]

Your assertions regarding the officers having given medical attention to Castile are contrary to the paramedics' description that when they arrived on scene 10 minutes later, no one had so much as checked Castile for a pulse.

They did do CPR on the video. Granted they may have stopped by the time the paramedics have arrived. CPR is tiring, but then I thought cops were supposed to have some level of fitness. They could alternate between themselves to continue CPR by the time the paramedics arrived. Especially since it would be less than 10 minutes assuming the paramedics were called as soon as the shooting occurred and not when the cops arrived.

[Ralin]

Can the opposite justification be used to shoot police? For example someone could say I was complying with the officer then I thought he was reaching for a gun and I was afraid given the spate of police shootings, so I shot first. Since he is dead, I could say anything about him like I thought I smelt alcohol on him or some claim like he was most probably corrupt and bang, we have a winner.

This isn't the first time police shoot a black man on the grounds that they thought he was reaching for a gun and got away with it, so could the arguments be used against the police?

No, because the police are a different order of human being from the rest of the population and are not subject to the same rules.

[Terralthra]

Your assertions regarding the officers having given medical attention to Castile are contrary to the paramedics' description that when they arrived on scene 10 minutes later, no one had so much as checked Castile for a pulse.

They did do CPR on the video. Granted they may have stopped by the time the paramedics have arrived. CPR is tiring, but then I thought cops were supposed to have some level of fitness. They could alternate between themselves to continue CPR by the time the paramedics arrived. Especially since it would be less than 10 minutes assuming the paramedics were called as soon as the shooting occurred and not when the cops arrived.

Fair enough. Mea culpa.

[Highlord Laan]

Can the opposite justification be used to shoot police? For example someone could say I was complying with the officer then I thought he was reaching for a gun and I was afraid given the spate of police shootings, so I shot first. Since he is dead, I could say anything about him like I thought I smelt alcohol on him or some claim like he was most probably corrupt and bang, we have a winner.

This isn't the first time police shoot a black man on the grounds that they thought he was reaching for a gun and got away with it, so could the arguments be used against the police?

Nope. Even if you were minding your own business, doing nothing, and walking down the sidewalk only to get brained by one of the sacred Blue Shields of the [white] People, dragged to the ground and pistol whipped into a vegetative state, you are never allowed under any circumstances to defend yourself from police assault, provoked and justified or not. They however can kill who they want and when they want, and will escape any sort of punishment the vast majority of the time. All they have to do is say they felt their lives were in danger* and they're in the clear most of the time.

*Which is darkly funny, as not even soldiers on a foot patrol in an active urban combat zone get to make that excuse. Because it's accepted that they knew their job was dangerous when they volunteered, and have been trained and equipped to deal with it. All of which add up to me having zero sympathy when a cop gets ambushed or outshot. They don't like the situation? Too bad, they brought it on themselves.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Your assertions regarding the officers having given medical attention to Castile are contrary to the paramedics' description that when they arrived on scene 10 minutes later, no one had so much as checked Castile for a pulse.

If you are actually interested in truth you should be reviewing all evidence is its entirety. To me it's clear that you aren't judging from you're failure to do so and your distortion of events.

Your response to my "theatrics" around yet another black man being executed consequence-free by the police are telling. You're angry at me for pointing it out, instead angry at the legalized murder of an innocent man. He said "don't pull it out". If "it" is the gun, then Castile saying (multiple times) "I'm not" should have been sufficient to assure a calm officer not to fire. The fact that it wasn't and that apparently the smell of marijuana (fucking lol) was enough to convince Yanez that Castile didn't care about Yanez's life is evidence enough.

You're mistaken. I'm not angry at you for pointing out injustice. I'm angry at you for lying about what happened. I can deal with sarcasm and even exaggeration but lies. I just can't. I wouldn't bother convincing me that you weren't lying either. You may not have reviewed all the dash cam footage but you most certainly did review the footage that led up to the shooting so you know damn well the conversation was not; Get ID > Goes to get ID > Gets shot

There is plenty to be angry at Yanez for without distorting the facts.

"If it is the gun". It clearly is the gun for the reason I laid out. I'll do it again since you seem to struggle with this. Castile starts the subject on the gun AFTER Yanez asks for ID. Yanez immediately says don't reach for it, then Castile says he is not reaching for it. Clearly both of them understood what "it" is. Now, I don't think you're a moron but you are certainly behaving like one pretending like you don't understand how a conversation works.

"Don't pull it out"
"I'm not"
"Okedoke"

That's the version of that dialogue that occurs with a non-panicked officer. Alternatively, after saying "give me your ID", then changing the subject, Yanez could've said something unambiguous like "put your hands on the wheel please". Yanez's testimony and report clearly indicate he was in immediate fear for his own safety, such that he saw preemptively killing someone as "reasonable", based on his "broad nose" (racist dogwhistle) and the smell of marijuana.

Sure, Yanez could have been more specific but Castile could have also stopped moving or returned his hands to the wheel after being told a second time. Also remember, it was not Yanez that changed the subject. It was Castile.

This is what I mean by theatrics. Yanez reason for shooting Castile had nothing to do with his nose. Castile nose was the reason he set out on the traffic stop but was not mentioned once when Yanez talked about his reason for shooting Castile. His reasoning for the shooting was mostly based around the gun. The defense attorney later added the whole marijuana hysteria for the trial but that wasn't in Yanez statement right after the fact. The bit about the marijuana is bullshit though but frankly defense attorney's routinely engage in bullshit and police aren't the only ones that benefit. It's kind of amusing to me when some pretend like this is a new thing just because a cop is on trial.

Also, the reasoning for the stop was absolutely ridiculous. Two days ago he investigated a robbery and thought the nose looked familiar? Are you fucking kidding me. That's horseshit. Unfortunately, the language in MN laws isn't enough to put him behind bars. Does he deserve to be there? Yes. Does he deserve to be there with the language of MN laws? No.

If you don't understand why "I just shot your boyfriend, now get on your knees so I can handcuff you 'for safety'" is unacceptable, I don't even know what to say. The only person in the entire situation whose handcuffing would improve the situation was the obviously frightened officer.

Ah. More theatrics. Tell me, Terralthra. How in the world did you get "I don't understand why handcuffing someone is unacceptable right after a horrible incident" from "cuffing individuals involved in an incident like this is fairly standard UNFORTUNATELY but I don't get why you think SHE'S AN ACCOMPLICE."

See, I was addressing your theatrics because it is clear that she was not an accomplice. She was handcuffed as per policy. Is it harsh. Absolutely. Is it outdated. Maybe but there is a history behind that and it involves incidents of police failing to control the situation which results in people getting hurt when they didn't need to be. Handcuffing mostly prevents this. However, back to what you said that it was done because they thought she was an accomplice. No. Absolutely not.

[TheFeniX]

People, dragged to the ground and pistol whipped into a vegetative state, you are never allowed under any circumstances to defend yourself from police assault, provoked and justified or not.

Actually untrue, at least in Texas:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(2) [n]to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);[/b]

:snip:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Irrelevant portions cuts. That said, it's still an unbelievably bad idea because they will try to destroy you. But hey, if you're positive you're about to die anyways, go for broke.

This incident was surprising to me since a Hispanic man shot three cops and was cleared. There are also times a grand jury will refuse to indict. But these are almost always home-invasions where the cops and judges went scorched earth when other numerous options were available.

I can't find the link, but in one particular story, the DA was surprised the Jury didn't indict because "they always do" even if the prosecutors present little evidence other than "dead cop" and "live suspect." They're lazy. I think this is also why they had/have such a hard time dealing with "Stand Your Ground." They were so used to defendants being force to justify the homicide, they have no idea how to actually prosecute these cases when the burden of proof rests solely on them.

End of rant cheap-shot: cuffing the spouse of the guy you just blew away. Stay classy Law Enforcement. Stay classy. Like, when that Carolina cop shot that guy getting out of his truck at a gas station because he reached into the truck. Must be nice to just bleed with your hands tied behind your back while the dude who gunned you down offers zero aid. At least that guy got 20 years.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How could he have not been shot? Why is he assumed guilty of reaching for a gun? Why would he, if planning to shoot a cop, announce he has a fucking gun?

Yeah, Yanez displayed his inexperience here but Castile was still ignoring Yanez instructions. It's important to know that failure to follow an officers instructions will result in force being used against you. That force is limited by the threat that you present. Being armed with a firearm raises your threat level significantly. During plain clothes training for police you're told very specifically that when uniforms show up you do exactly what they say. You don't argue. You don't try and show them your badge. You following their instructions to the letter.

Why is it that the deceased are guilty unless proven innocent?

Because the burden of proof is on the state and that standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can present their own evidence to contradict the prosecution but they could also be completely silent.

Should people with guns just assume that announcing having a firearm is likely to get them shot, so they'd best not even announce it?

Like I have covered several times in this thread. He wasn't shot because he had a gun or because he announced it. He was shot because he had a gun and allegedly failed to follow instructions. So, people should follow instructions in the order they are received. So, in this case if you're ask to go for your ID but then are told to stop reaching for it. You stop reaching for whatever is you're reaching for.

Should they ask the cop "Would you like me to step out of the vehicle, hands raised, so you can retrieve my ID and firearm?"

This is exactly what many CCW classes teach.

What can they do to not be shot to death? Do your Second Amendment rights evaporate when around cops? Or only if you're one of the "scary" minorities? How could Castile have retrieved ID without reaching where the cop couldn't see clearly?

See above. Do you think your second amendment rights give you the right to ignore instructions from a police officer on a traffic stop with said object of rights?

When you're told to stop reaching. He should have stopped and asked how the officer would like him to proceed.

Has teleporting ID been invented and I just missed it?

Are you just ranting or do you actually want me to treat you as a serious participate in this discussion?

The cop assumed he was reaching for a gun. At absolute minimum, the cop in this case should be relegated to desk duty, because obviously he's too paranoid to be trusted with a firearm in a possibly tense situation. I recall the cop that got fired for not murdering a man with an unloaded gun, for ascertaining that the guy had no real intention of shooting anyone.

Yanez said he saw the gun. Whether that is true or not is unknown. At minimum he should be fired because he came up with a poor reason to stop someone. Unfortunately, current laws don't allow for prosecution when an officer fails to follow training or kills someone after an improper stop. I don't like the idea of pretext stops for this reason.

When a cop is let off the hook for shooting someone and cannot prove that that person was an active threat, then that's the same fucking result as the dead person being declared guilty of whatever crime. Only worse, because you don't automatically get executed for pointing a gun at someone.

The state won't execute you for pointing a gun at someone but that is absolutely justification for anyone to use deadly force against you. I think your problem is ultimately with self defense laws and court precedence behind them rather than cops. It's not like cops are the only people that have shot and killed unarmed people and gotten away with it or been acquitted in court.

I'm lucky enough to be a skinny, short white guy. I am among the least threatening people a cop can interact with, so the odds of being the victim of lethal force are pretty low for me. I still wouldn't trust a cop as far as I can throw their cruiser because if the cop just so happens to be a shitty cop and decides to fuck me over, there is probably no recourse because cops so very often get off with armed robbery (fun fact: you can't make them pay your attorney's fees if you sue to get your shit back-assuming it didn't "get lost") and outright murder. It is readily apparent that there are bad cops and that they usually get away with being bad cops. So long as that is the case, no cop can be trusted. You simply cannot know if they're a power-hungry dick that's pretending to be normal until you've been lulled into a false sense of security.

Agreed. You shouldn't trust the police. Really, though. You shouldn't trust anyone is behavior of people within that career field is to be that indicator.

Cop killers rarely get off without prison time. Hell, threatening a cop will nab you more prison time than the cop is likely to get for killing you just because (and then lying and saying he thought you were going for a gun). How would you feel if someone were to hold a cop at gun-point and upon being successfully arrested with no lethal force employed successfully said the cop was unlawfully threatening him and he feared for his life? Or if someone killed a cop and got away with it by arguing the cop was attempting to use unlawful, lethal force and nobody could prove otherwise?

I'm not happy about the current state of things or the outcome of this case so don't assume that. I'm explaining why a jury would have had reasonable doubt in this situation because it seems people are confused as to why. It's actually very simple but also illustrates why we need specific laws that deal with police abuse.

At this point, it's entirely understandable why there are those who feel like killing cops is a reasonable course of action. That's not to say I agree with them, or condone their actions in any way. But I fully understand why they might feel that way. After so goddamn many stories of people who posed no discernible threat being killed by the police and the police not suffering any real consequences, it seems like they're a bunch of government-sanctioned assassins.

Yeah, the narrative produced by the media certainly does paint that picture. Of course, we never hear any stories about how rare it is for a police officer in the US to use a firearm but you seem to be one of the people that are happy to declare that US police are trigger happy. On average there are 44 million police/citizen contacts per year. There are between 1000 and 1200 fatal shootings by police per year. Even if all those were like this incident that would only be .002% of all police encounters.

You're absolutely right regarding accountability though. That is absolutely reflected in the data.

Horses apparently have steadier nerves than the police are expected to have, and claiming a horse is afraid of its own shadow is only a mild exaggeration. I would think that a public servant, whose job is "protect and serve" would be held to a higher standard. But I guess that's not the case.

Well, a gun is not a shadow but overall I agree that Yanez didn't have much nerve. Frankly, the stop shouldn't have happened in the first place but he should also be experienced or educated enough to understand that dangerous criminals don't tell you that they have a gun. Yanez should have taken more control of the situation if he felt uncomfortable instead of repeating the same instruction. Unfortunately, that failure isn't enough for a conviction.