I mean... "The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just because of the wide-set nose. I couldn't get a good look at the passenger." That's his word. He saw wide nostrils on a black man and didn't see the passenger. That's what prompted him to pull them over.
Why do you constantly refuse to have an honest conversation? Do you not realize you're just making things up?
lol at you having an honest conversation on this subject. A cop could kill 20 random people in an oce cream parlor and you'd defend them. It's comical the lengths that you and a few others will go to defend cops. Congrats on taking Farva's place.
How would you like to hold him accountable? Do you bend the rules for a murder conviction just to hold him responsible? Firing him from his job and the city being held financial responsible for his actions seems reasonable.
It sure looks bad, Did he say that because the suspect was black and had a wide set of nostril? Maybe he really looked like the suspect?
He passed by Castille in a car at 9pm at night. He later claimed it was dark so he couldn't see the guy's hands from 3 feet away but he wants you to think he got a good enough look at him while riding past him in another car with no interior lights on to know he looked like the robbery suspect? Bullshit. It can't go both ways. He pulled him over bc he was black and the robbery suspect was black.
Agreed. And sometimes innocent people get killed when cops aren't careful during interactions with the general public. They need to be prepared to deal with a threat but to also handle a routine stop without potentially escalating the situation as well. Without getting spooked and reacting as if they're being threatened when they aren't actually being threatened. As I've said a dozen times in here, people need to start treating police with more respect and to understand the difficult nature of their job. But police also need to change the way so many seem to be trained to operate because it's beyond evident it isn't working for everyone in this country. It's a two way street but it's hard to picture progress being made when people don't feel like police are being held accountable across the country and half the country doesn't even understand or acknowledge the problem.
Yea when I say "on his side" I don't mean people are saying good job, I just mean I don't see how anyone can say he deserves no legal punishment of any kind. He has to get something for that. If you read the interviews and accounts given the day of the shooting and shortly after, it's fairly obvious he never actually saw a gun of any kind at the time. He said "a dark shape", "looked like something larger than a wallet" and "his hand was starting to make like a C shape as if he were holding a gun". You have to think about the precedent this sets. This guy getting off means the legal department is saying if a police officer sees a dark shape thats larger than a wallet, it's reasonable for them to then fire 6-7 shots directly over or in front of another person (driver) and into a car with a child 3 feet away. That doesn't seem like a response we should label as appropriate.
I don't know about you, but living in a country where the court system goal is to "convict you of something" doesn't sound that pleasant to me. Shouldn't the court system determine whether or not a crime was committed? Instead of saying "well you committed a crime so let's figure out which crime you're guilty of today."
Firing him is definitely the right first step, but he really has to serve at least some time. I don't know what charge is most appropriate. Perhaps negligent manslaughter? What are the charges in those cases where somebody kills someone claiming self defense and it turns out they were the one escalating the situation?
Absolutely, but I'd look at it the other way. Somebody shot and killed a guy in extremely close proximity to another adult and a child with their reasoning being that they were scared and they thought they saw something. If that isn't a crime, the problem is with the law. Right now, it's basically let go because it fits within a grey area where it's not quite this and not quite that so let's just call it nothing. Serious question, and I don't know the answer, are there stipulations or applications of laws that are different for police than regular citizens? I don't just mean jury discretion, I mean actual applications if things are done while they're on the clock and performing their duties?
I mean let's say instead of the police officer, a veteran with a concealed carry permit asking for a donation for a charity comes up to the window at a red light or in a parking lot. Castille goes to reach for his wallet, and the guy thinks he's reaching for a gun and shoots him, claiming self defense. From a legal standpoint, how would that trial differ from the one that actually happened?
Of course the law treats police officers different than your average joe citizen. As it should be. If you wanted the laws to apply equally cops would get charged with kidnapping when they arrested someone.
I totally agree they should be treated differently, but I'm asking how. Is it just up to the discretion of the jury or are there actual written rules about it? I'm a "back the blue" guy typically and think it's an impossible job and that we should give them a significantly longer leash than others and as much benefit of a doubt as possible. They're underpaid and under trained. All that said, if they do something that would put a regular citizen in jail 100% of the time and their only justification is "i was scared and thought maybe I saw something", the fact that they're a police officer shouldn't be enough to wipe it all away. A badge should not be a get out of jail free card. In this case, I'm not sure there is anything else there besides that. In other national cases there were almost always physical altercations, knives, threatening moves etc, even if most would say the actions didn't warrant a lethal response, there was usually something there that at least one triggered it. In this case, the guy reached for his wallet after openly telling the cop he had a gun on him, and the cop himself admitted immediately after that he never even saw a gun.
I mean I get what you're trying to argue but you're missing a very important distinction. A regular citizen would never be in a position that the officer was in that day. So how do you even begin to compare the two? If a cop just decided to go shoot and kill a random black guy his badge wouldn't protect him. But that's not what happened in this case. It was a traffic stop that went wrong. You and I as regular citizens will never conduct a traffic stop.
Of course, and that's why I'm asking how much differently should the law be applied. The reason for the interaction was entirely different than any citizen to citizen interaction would be, but once that cop thought he was reaching for a gun, his reaction for self preservation isn't much different than any other citizen's reaction. If the cause of that reaction isn't justified, it shouldn't really matter if the person is an officer or not. In this particular case, him being an officer seems to me to be the only thing keeping him out of jail.
Yes, stand outside your car where you can always take cover. I get that federal agents (he was with DEA) operate completely different than local departments, but it makes sense to instruct drivers on where their hands should be and to do things like turn on your interior lights.
http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/21/philando-castile-fiancee-daughter-crying-police-custody/ In this video authorities just released ... Reynolds is still screaming in anger in the back of the police cruiser -- and the little girl cries, "Mom, please don't scream 'cause I don't want you to get shooted!" - See more at: http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/21/phila...r-crying-police-custody/#sthash.bNeqOjsY.dpuf
Ok, I assumed that was something misunderstood. The standard for a felony stop, which is what this essentially was, is gun at the ready, specific verbal commands starting with the driver, and so on. The standard for LE officers is in Graham v. Conner. Basically, was the level of force used objectively reasonable based on the circumstances as the officer perceived them to be. A whole of lot of things play into that, such as the type of encounter, were other levels of force insufficient, suspect's conduct, officer experience, number of officers on scene, and so on. It's not supposed to be some 20/20 hindsight analysis. Civilians is just usually some version of the reasonable person standard.
Thanks, I had always wondered this and have never seen that case referenced. Makes sense. I still don't think it should get him off here, but seeing the list of criteria at least makes it more objective at least. I haven't seen all the details of the trial, but did the defense focus on being a stop for armed robbery suspects as opposed to just for a tail light or whatever? I did see that the prosecutors tried to use statements he and others made right afterward to make the point that he never saw a gun, but they introduced it too late and the judge didn't allow it. Plus, on the stand I think the guy did claim he actually saw a gun, which his and others' statements on the day of conflict with.
What? So if the officer isn't getting compliance they should retreat..give ground..and start talking on a PA system? Does that even make sense when you say it out loud? The last thing you want to do is give ground if you can avoid it if the situation is deteriorating. This is taught at the most basic LEO level when it comes to car stops.
Well I now see you're a buffed up officer, if the officer does not get compliance then he knows that he's dealing with someone who is not compliant. It's not a case of things go bad you run to your car it's a way to avoid shooting someone who does not pose a threat.
Yes, specifically in this case. The SCOTUS has ruled traffic stops are enherintly extremely dangerous and thusly granted officers the ability to control all occupants of a motor vehicle within a "reasonableness" standard.
Im not tracking here. I get that in a world of make believe you would get on your PA and gave people turn on dome lights, put hands up, etc. But for basic self preservation it's much more effective to not give the 1 in 1,000,000 people you pull over a chance to game plan their shoot out. Statistics show the time between the car stopping and the officer getting to the window IS the most critical and dangerous time of the stop. You wouldn't want to extend that time anymore than you have to. Now, I'll step aside. I have some more squats to do right? Bro out!
It being taught at every level of LEO doesn't make it right. I'd much rather an officer retreat and try to end the situation by any means other than shooting the citizen.
Right, and that is your opinion based on your life experience. It's not wrong to think that. Luckily the reasonableness standard, as far as the court system is concerned, isn't judging a cop to a citizen with no experience. That would be like me judging a surgeon on his operation and me knowing what he/she should've done.
Basic preservation dictates that you rush to the window of someone who may have a gun? Well excuse me officer Rambo, have fun patrolling your war zone.
The court system has basically given you guys cart blanche to shoot anyone you want as long as you say "I was in fear of my life" after the shooting so excuse me for not really caring what the court system has to say to this point.
It's simply not practical to adopt that practice. As another poster said, white federal officers are great at certain things they often times have no idea how to survive as a patrol officer. You see the same struggles when a highway patrol officer gets into a patrol officer call. They are different worlds and there is no blanket practice to apply here except to go home.
This is one of the biggest issues. Many cops view their zone as enemy territory so they go offense rather than defense and innocent people die bc of it.
No, you again aren't operating in the real world. You don't know if the occupant(s) are armed. If you did you'd conduct a felony/high risk stop.
Exactly you don't know if they are armed so I would imagine telling them to place their hands where they are visible would be a big help.
Nope. You're better off rushing up as quickly as possible, catch them off guard, and if they don't follow your instructions in 2 seconds, shoot them.
Sure, but the stats say you increase the chances of being killed or hurt by delaying your response to the car. Every car stop is different but the practice you are suggesting would only be applicable in ideal circumstances.
So how do you know that a traffic stop is ideal? According to you an officer must get the drop on someone they stopped, doesn't leave much chance to assess the situation.
Seriously though EdNigma, you seem like a good guy. I realize there are far more good cops than bad cops. It's still frustrating as a citizen to see people killed when they did nothing wrong. Sorry, I don't see not responding within 2 seconds to a yelling cop as doing something wrong. Certainly not worth dying over. This shit has to stop. Sticking to the same practices we've had for years that got us to where we are isn't the answer. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert with all of the answers but something has to change.