Again. Shot Dead While (apparently) Reaching For License as Instructed

Roxxsmom said:

I understand this too, and when working with guns, the chances of deadly errors are always present. But guns aren't the only thing that can result in death due to a brain fart. People who have jobs that require driving vehicles or operating heavy machinery can make mistakes that result in deaths. So can food and drug inspectors. Pilot error is sometimes a factor in plane crashes.

When people in other professions make mistakes that cost lives, they're held responsible for them, even if it was due to one of those stupid, split-second things. The question I have is whether police should get more consideration and slack than people in other situations that can result in wrongful deaths.



I know you're not, and I tend to agree with most of what you post here on AW, and respect your opinions, even when we disagree. But I don't see why egregious stupidity for a police officer should be more forgivable in a legal sense than it is for someone who is (say) working in an air traffic control tower and falls asleep, or than it is for someone who blanks out for a moment while driving, runs a red light, and kills someone.

Click to expand...

A pilot who makes an error and crashes a plane does not usually end up with criminal charges.

An air traffic controller falls asleep on the job will be fired and sued, but not usually criminally prosecuted.

A person who claims that he used deadly force because he mistakenly feared for his life usually gets prosecuted. Because, usually, that fear is unfounded and unreasonable. A cop who fears for his life has an intrinsic rationale – he's not imagining that people are trying to kill him; that is the reality of the job. His perception of danger in a specific incident may be incorrect, but it can also be understandable

If you're chasing an armed robbery suspect down a dark alley, and the suspect turns and has a gun in his hand and you shoot, that would seem reasonable. But then it turns out that the suspect is actually a 14-year-old boy and the gun is a BB gun. The community at-large will cry out for your blood.

There are situations where an officer's actions are so stupid as to defy belief, and it is true that sometimes juries refuse to convict even so. I agree that when that happens, it is tremendously harmful not only in terms of justice, but in terms of how the public views and trusts or does not trust police officers.

Hypotheticals are one thing. When looking at a specific incident, we may well disagree on whether or not the cop was justified, and if not, whether he should be held criminally liable. Other cases, we may well end up being in complete agreement.

ETA:

A cop who is drunk on duty and runs over and kills a pedestrian will not be given any slack by any jury. He will be prosecuted and sent to jail. The difference between civilians and cops is that the use of force is sometimes part of the job and a requirement of the job. Mistakes stemming from that requirement I think put it in a slightly different category.

I myself am only functioning at 100% mental capacity part of the time. The rest of the time I'm kinda unfocused, thinking of other things, perfectly capable of mishearing stuff or opening the wrong drawer or even placing a sock into the fridge while thinking about something else. That's not counting headaches; sugar drops; bad moods; the occasional painkiller, cough med, or beer wooziness, and so on.

In theory, every time I'm not a 100% alert and super duper functioning, yet within reach of armed policemen (or different types of armed security), I am entering a zone of higher death risk, just because my reaction would be a split second too late or I'd misunderstand something the first time it's said.

The point of civilization, if we're not Wagnerian social Darwinist and our prophet is not Zaratustra, the point of civilization is to supplant the law of the jungle. The old and sick are not to be left to die, the young and vulnerable are not to be preyed upon, and one mistake in human interaction is not enough to kill you.

The law of the jungle is alive in street gangs and prisons. Complex bronze age codes of behavior where one infraction means you're abused or killed. The point of a police force, is to keep the "law of the jungle" to restricted bubbles, and make sure that outside those bubbles, within "civilization proper", you can afford to have a headache or be remembering a film, and not pay with your life for it.

Subconsciously, however, many people are social Darwinists. They pretend they see horrendous bullying as "harmless horseplay", while deep down knowing quite well it drives the more sensitive victims to suicide or madness, but that's OK because it "keeps the gene pool healthy" so to say.

Likewise, while the establishment in any more or less civilized place will vehemently deny any hint of racism or xenophobia in the conduct of its agents and enforcers, deep down society is always split along safe/dangerous, clean/dirty, strong/weak, lines, and those who are in the "dangerous", and/or "dirty", and/or "weak" categories, get the other type of treatment.

While part of this follows the hidden logic of "keeping the gene pool healthy", the other part is about "keeping them in their place". Creating a border of rough handling, beyond which real violence starts, so that the dangerous and the dirty do not try to overstep those implied boundaries. Thus the Roma in eastern Europe* are also encircled by a border of (officially denied) contempt and rough treatment, because otherwise why, they would just do anything they want to and where would honest decent folks be if that was to happen...

In this sense the people of color in the US appear to belong to such a "dangerous and dirty" group, which needs to be contained through constant institutional hints of violence and also regular eruption of actual such, in order for them to "know their place" and instead of "giving in to their base instincts" and thus all erupting in an overwhelming spree of robbery, murder, and rape; to keep "forcing themselves" to "pretend to be civilized" as it were.

But again, to me a very important difference is that a "damn darkie" in many parts of Europe may also face a worse attitude from most, if not all institutions, including law enforcement, but this worse attitude is likely to lead at most to bribes, or humiliating barked orders instead of normal talking, or unfairly inflated fines and sentences, or to a police baton to the ribs--not to getting riddled with bullets while sinisterly reaching to scratch an ear.
Very different unspoken context of how far it's acceptable to go while "containing the danger to the world as we know it".

___
*Or people from the former colonies, or simply migrants and refugees, in the western half of Europe.

JCornelius said:

*Or people from the former colonies, or simply migrants and refugees, in the western half of Europe.

Click to expand...

The eastern half of Europe comprises such bulwarks-of-tolerance nations as Hungary, Belarus, Serbia and Russia.

caw

blacbird said:

The eastern half of Europe comprises such bulwarks-of-tolerance nations as Hungary, Belarus, Serbia and Russia.

caw

Click to expand...

Repent, Harlequin, and read post again or something

rugcat said:

The case as shown on the tape is egregious and stupid beyond the ordinary. I'm not defending this particular officer in any way. I'm just trying to explain why in general juries tend give police officers the benefit of the doubt that perhaps civilians would not receive.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced it's the jury giving the officer "benefit of the doubt" (and in this case, if that's so, the jurors should have their adult-rights revoked because their reasoning abilities are juvenile at best). I think the issue is by law, the legal bar for conviction of a police officer on duty is very very very high. Too high, in many cases. Police unions have fought hard to make sure a cop can't get arrested for on-duty incidents. I get that in a lot of cases, because simple negligence shouldn't mean jail, and if that was the standard, cop-fear (or loathing) might make convicting cops easy-peasy. So there's a balance, but clearly, in this case, that standard for conviction is unjust. The fact that an entire jury agreed this cop was not guilty is unjust.

cornflake said:

It'd be murder if I did it -- he should be held to a *higher* standard, not lower. Most cops go their whole careers without ever discharging their weapon while on duty. The idea that every cop is so on edge that it's understandable he just shot the shit out of a perfectly polite, cooperative citizen he'd pulled over for no reason but DWB, is demeaning to law enforcement I know, who seem to think Yanez is a loony, racist pos who should not have been walking around armed, nevermind with a badge.

Click to expand...

IMO, Yanez went into the encounter thinking "I've got the burglar." I mean, come on. Wide nose! (Utter BS). He was already on edge, as proven by his inconsistent behavior. I doubt he went in thinking he was gonna kill a guy, but he certainly wasn't in the correct mindset for this stop.

I'm always struck in these situations (the recent Seattle case, as well) by the fact that our soldiers are walking around Iraq and Afghanistan with real threats everywhere, seen and unseen, and they seem to demonstrate more restraint than the cops we've seen during the most recent egregious cases. Which is not to say soldiers haven't erred. And we don't hear about the civilian deaths in those war zones, and I'm comparing apples to oranges to an extent because these are the egregious cases and most cops aren't gunning down anyone, I get that. But I've heard a large number of interviews with soldiers faced with situations where it would be easy to shoot first, ask questions later, who didn't shoot. That it doesn't happen more indicates something about training that could be applied here at home. The military is all for giving us their leftover machinery. How about the psych evals, threat assessment, and de-escalation training they employ, too?

rugcat said:

Yanez' actions were incomprehensible. The idea that the man in the car would inform him that he has a legal gun and then somehow with grab for it to shoot the officer is ridiculous in the first place. Perhaps Yanez saw a black male as an intrinsic threat to his safety, but " I thought he was going for the gun" is not a valid excuse. I can think of numerous ways this could have been avoided simply by any officer using common sense.

The problem is, is sending the officer to prison the right thing to do? He clearly did not wish to kill Castile; it was not an act of malice. He believed his life was in danger. That belief was nonsensical. But still, is a tragic accident resulting from incompetence and stupidity reason enough to imprison someone? The officer should lose his job (which he did) and the department should be liable for a multimillion dollar settlement. (Which they will be.) But is a prison sentence the proper response for stupidity that ends up in tragedy? What good does that do?

Click to expand...

Let's start with justice. Sending Jeronimo Yanez to prison gets a cop off the street who never should have been there and it also sends a message: your actions have consequences.

There's a line from Better Call Saul/Breaking Bad character Mike Ehrmantraut, a former Philly cop who breaks bad by becoming the go-to security consultant for drug dealers. He explains, "You know what a cop fears most? More than getting shot, more than anything? Prison. Getting locked up with everybody you put away. You threaten a cop with that, you make him dangerous."

Most civilians don't want to put cops in prison. Prosecutors definitely don't. Who wants to run for higher office on a platform where your claim to fame is you convicted more bad cops than your opponent. That's not a winning message that sells to Joe Six-pack, but it is a message to the police and it's not a good one.

Peter Liang shot and killed Akai Gurley as he was coming down the steps of a dark apartment hallway. Liang was indicted and charged with second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of official misconduct and was convicted of manslaughter and official misconduct. He faced a sentence of anywhere from no jail to a maximum of 15 years of prison.

Liang got five months probation and 800 hrs of community service. He got off easy. Akai Gurley got a death sentence.

Liang killed a Black person and got a slap on the wrist. So did Randall Kerrick (Jonathan Ferrell), Betty Shelby (Terrence Crutcher), Timothy Loehmann (Tamir Rice), Dante Servin (Rekia Boyd), and Darren Wilson (Michael Brown), and the two cops who killed John Crawford II, the four cops who shot Sean Bell and the three cops who killed Jonny Gammage and the four cops who killed Amadou Diallo and Joseph Weekly faced trial twice for shooting 7-year-old Ailyana Stanley-Jones in the head and beat the rap twice.

Police officers are given an awesome degree of authority to take the life of a human being and that is a terrible burden for them to bear. I have no doubt many of the officers involved in these shootings are true, trained pros who take their job seriously and bear no racial animus toward any group.

But when an incompetent fuck-up like Tim Loehmann fucks up as a small-top cop and moves on to a big town cop and fucks up all over again by blowing away Tamir Rice right out of his shoes, that's a system failure and goddammit, he should go to fucking jail for it and so should Jeronimo Yanez. These guys NEVER should have been given a badge.

Bad cops make the job harder for good cops and if the good cops can't see it, they are enabling bad cops in getting away with murder. They should pay for their crimes and do their time. Same as everybody else.

NYR94 said:

If he would have announced he had a firearm to the cop (which he did) and then place his hands on the steering wheel in front of him at ten and two instead of ignoring the officer's commands to "not reach for it", this driver would still be alive today.

Click to expand...

Would he still be Black? Then he would be still be dead, and armed with facts, not nonsensical hot air, I call "bullshit" on your entire absurd assertion.

An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox’s Dara Lind shows that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: They accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population. Although the data is incomplete, since it’s based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.


Black teens were 21 times as likely as white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012, according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica’s Ryan Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica’s analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one per week."


There have been several high-profile police killings since 2014 involving black suspects. In Baltimore, six police officers were indicted for the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody. In North Charleston, South Carolina, Michael Slager was charged with murder and fired from the police department after shooting Walter Scott, who was fleeing and unarmed at the time. In Ferguson, Darren Wilson killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown. In New York City, NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo killed Eric Garner by putting the unarmed 43-year-old black man in a chokehold.


One possible explanation for the racial disparities: Police tend to patrol high-crime neighborhoods, which are disproportionately black. That means they're going to be generally more likely to initiate a policing action, from traffic stops to more serious arrests, against a black person who lives in these areas. And all of these policing actions carry a chance, however small, to escalate into a violent confrontation.


That's not to say that higher crime rates in black communities explain the entire racial disparity in police shootings. A 2015 study by researcher Cody Ross found, "There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates." That suggests something else — such as, potentially, racial bias — is going on.


One reason to believe racial bias is a factor: Studies show that officers are quicker to shoot black suspects in video game simulations. Josh Correll, a University of Colorado Boulder psychology professor who conducted the research, said it’s possible the bias could lead to even more skewed outcomes in the field. "In the very situation in which [officers] most need their training," he said, "we have some reason to believe that their training will be most likely to fail them."

Click to expand...

Here's what I told my two kids when they started driving how to handle being stopped by the cops:

Shut off the engine. Take the key out of the ignition. Put down the windows. If it's night, turn on the interior lights. Don't make any sudden movements. Make eye contact. Say "sir" or "ma'am." Identify yourself. Don't raise your voice. Don't start asking "why did you stop me?" Keep your hands on the wheel. When the officer asks for ID, ask for their permission before you go to your wallet, purse or glovebox.

Don't give the cop any reason to stop your clock. But there's a provision: You can be a Black motorist and do EVERYTHING right and still you can get shot.

Put your hands at 10-and-2 all you like. You'll still die with your hands gripping the steering wheel if a cop gets jumpy or has an irrational fear of Black folks and he puts bullets in your head. All the odds are heavily weighted in favor in the cop's favor and extraordinarily good he will never spend a day behind bars for killing the Black motorist who followed his orders to the letter.

NYR94 said:

If he would have announced he had a firearm to the cop (which he did) and then place his hands on the steering wheel in front of him at ten and two instead of ignoring the officer's commands to "not reach for it", this driver would still be alive today.

Click to expand...

He had already been commanded to hand over his license, which he was doing. How is he supposed to know which commands to ignore and which ones to comply with?

nighttimer said:

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.

Click to expand...

And here is a guy who turns cops into hammers.

A few months ago, I posted a review of the harrowing documentary “Do Not Resist.” It includes a scene from a class with Dave Grossman, whose classes on policing and the use of force have become hugely popular in the law enforcement community.

Fittingly, the most chilling scene in the movie doesn’t take place on a city street, or at a protest, or during a drug raid. It takes place in a conference room. It’s from a police training conference with Dave Grossman, one of the most prolific police trainers in the country. Grossman’s classes teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a warrior. Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in July, had attended one of Grossman’s classes called “The Bulletproof Warrior” (though that particular class was taught by Grossman’s business partner, Jim Glennon).

In the class recorded for “Do Not Resist,” Grossman at one point tells his students that the sex they have after they kill another human being will be the best sex of their lives. The room chuckles. But he’s clearly serious. “Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex,” he says. “There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax and enjoy it.”

Grossman closes the class with a (literal) chest-pounding motivational speech that climaxes with Grossman telling the officers to find an overpass overlooking the city they serve. He urges them to look down on their city and know that they’ve made the world a better place. He then urges them to grip the overpass railing, lean forward and “let your cape blow in the wind.” The room gives him a standing ovation.


​

Grossman and Glennon teach the most popular of these classes, but they have competitors. When it comes to teaching cops how to escalate, how to see the world as their enemy and how to find the courage to kill more people, more often, there’s no shortage of options. (The syllabus for one of these courses includes a page of Bible verses relating to when it’s moral and just to kill.) It’s part and parcel with the pseudoscience churned out by William Lewinski at the Force Science Institute in Minnesota, who also preaches that cops should learn to become more lethal (and will testify in court for any cop who takes his advice). I’ve spoken to more than a few sheriffs and police chiefs who want no part of this philosophy, but who also say they can’t really control what their officers do on their own time.

[Grossman] views the world as almost unrecognizably dangerous: a place where gang members seek to set records for killing cops, where a kid “in every school” is thinking about racking up “a body count.” His latest book, Assassination Generation, insists that violent video games are turning the nation’s youth into mass murderers. The recent wave of “massacres” is just the beginning. (“Please stop calling them mass shootings!”) He smacks the easels: “These [thump] crimes [thump] are [thump] everywhere!” He foresees attacks on school buses and day care centers. “Kindergartners run about point-five miles an hour and get a burst of about 20 yards and then they’re done.” It won’t just happen with guns, but with hammers, axes, hatchets, knives, and swords. His voice jumps an octave: “Hacking and stabbing little kids! You don’t think they’ll attack day cares? It’s already happening in China. When you hear about a day care massacre,” he shouts, “tell them Grossman said it was coming!”


​

This is the guy who has trained more U.S. police officers than anyone else. The guy who, more than anyone else, has instructed cops on what mind-set they should bring to their jobs.

Click to expand...

Peace officer or warrior cop? They can't be both.

Yeah, Nighttimer, I can't tell you how much I hate it, but you're right--someone can put their hands on ten and two and quote the Bible and do the Dance of the Seven Veils and still...wind up dead.

I was lucky (really) enough to grow up more or less believing we are a country of fair laws, if you are good and follow the rules, good things happen, etc. I got those ideas shattered when I was stopped (TWICE!) in Miami while driving with my boyfriend, to "see if things were okay" (or some variation) huh? Boyfriend was pulled out of a restaurant, thrown up against a wall and interrogated because he "looked like a robber from Miami Beach" (we were south of Kendall) I guess by "looked like" they meant "black," maybe "dreadlocked"

The only thing in my experience which is (not really, but vaguely) similar was in Kenya, where when one is stopped by the police, anything can happen. Anything. One can hope and pray that "chai" works, but really, it's very scary, no matter what "right" things one does.

I am married to a former cop. I very much get the "must make life or death decisions" in split seconds. I get the "one of us is going home to his wife and kids and I'm going to make sure it's me" thinking. I also get that it's hard to judge the training if one hasn't been there. A little like all the folks who'd never been higher than ther second story talking about what Krakauer et al should have done or not done at 29k feet.

But this...

I just got nothing. As Cornflake pointed out, this was not an "accident." The training law enforcement (with which I'm familiar anyway) get is if you pull your gun, it's to kill. No warning shots. No hitting someone to wound. It's shooting for largest mass and to put someone down. It means everything else has failed. Last resort. "Everything else" may fail very quickly, but still, it's a judgement that you are out of options.

Hey, I'm NOT law enforcement but I don't see that here. I see someone who responded very, very poorly. Never should have been a cop (would be interested in his MMPI profile)

To me this is just horrifically, astoundingly wrong. And whatever <no words here> Grossman was talking about, many cops who have to use lethal force are devastated, second guess themselves (did I really...? what if I'd...?) carry that with them the rest of their lives. Interested in the best sex of their lives? Wow.

I makes me wonder, seeing how the military has the UCMJ, if police don't need something like that? Maybe there is?

I have no idea but something just seems appallingly wrong.

nighttimer said:

Put your hands at 10-and-2 all you like. You'll still die with your hands gripping the steering wheel if a cop gets jumpy or has an irrational fear of Black folks and he puts bullets in your head. All the odds are heavily weighted in favor in the cop's favor and extraordinarily good he will never spend a day behind bars for killing the Black motorist who followed his orders to the letter.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter.

bombergirl69 said:

I just got nothing. As Cornflake pointed out, this was not an "accident." The training law enforcement (with which I'm familiar anyway) get is if you pull your gun, it's to kill. No warning shots. No hitting someone to wound. It's shooting for largest mass and to put someone down. It means everything else has failed. Last resort. "Everything else" may fail very quickly, but still, it's a judgement that you are out of options.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is quite accurate. You never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it, not necessarily because you intend to use it. If you are searching a warehouse type building for a burglary suspect you think is hiding inside, you'd better have your gun out of your holster because if the suspect pops out with a weapon or you won't have time to draw your own before you are shot. But that doesn't mean you start firing the moment you see them.

To me this is just horrifically, astoundingly wrong. And whatever <no words here> Grossman was talking about, many cops who have to use lethal force are devastated, second guess themselves (did I really...? what if I'd...?) carry that with them the rest of their lives. Interested in the best sex of their lives? Wow.

Click to expand...

I had never heard of Grossman. He is one sick puppy. Sadly, it is not surprising he is so popular with police -- I know quite a few cops who I can see as being enamored of his message.

But I know even more who who would consider his views wrong-headed and dangerous. It's worth noting that he never worked in law enforcement himself. His entire life and focus has been in the military and war, and he's translated that into a guide for a civilian operation.

But yes, the fact that rather than being a marginal figure he's apparently respected and influential is deeply disturbing.

rugcat said:

I don't think that is quite accurate. You never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it, not necessarily because you intend to use it. If you are searching a warehouse type building for a burglary suspect you think is hiding inside, you'd better have your gun out of your holster because if the suspect pops out with a weapon or you won't have time to draw your own before you are shot. But that doesn't mean you start firing the moment you see them.

Click to expand...

good point.

Black cop not in uniform rushes to help white colleagues, but was far too black for his own good, gets ordered to the ground, then recognized, then shot by the next cop to arrive (luckily in the arm).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/black-st-louis-police-officer-shot-white-colleague

To reinterate: You CAN'T Convict a Cop in America for shooting a Black person. You simply can not.


A mistrial was declared on Friday for the second time in the murder trial of a white University of Cincinnati police officer, after the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked on charges in the fatal traffic stop shooting of an unarmed black motorist.

The Hamilton County jury had deliberated some 30 hours over five days after getting the case on Monday. The jurors had told the judge, Leslie Ghiz, earlier Friday that they were unable to reach a verdict in the trial of Officer Ray Tensing, but Ghiz sent them back to try again.

The jury on Friday afternoon told the judge they were almost evenly split in their votes and did not anticipate coming to a decision. Ghiz then declared a mistrial.

The first trial against the 27-year-old Tensing also ended in a mistrial after the jury deliberated 25 hours over four days in November without reaching a verdict. It was not immediately clear if prosecutors intend to try the case for a third time.

Don't bother. What fucking difference does it make? It's not as though a third jury will do what two other didn't.

For those keeping score, that's 0-for-3 in recent weeks of law enforcement officers facing sanction for killing a Black motorist and EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WALKED. It's really hard to believe there's any justice when there never seems to be any.

It's an N.H.I. situation. Nobody cares about another dead nigger. Not in this racist country.

nighttimer said:

It's really hard to believe there's any justice when there never seems to be any.

Click to expand...

The horrid, awful, aching truth of this sentence leaves me heartbroken. For those killed, their families, and the community at large. I'm sick and sorry.

JCornelius said:

Black cop not in uniform rushes to help white colleagues, but was far too black for his own good, gets ordered to the ground, then recognized, then shot by the next cop to arrive (luckily in the arm).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/black-st-louis-police-officer-shot-white-colleague

Click to expand...

Yes, I just read the story this morning on CBS. The cop who shot the off-duty officer said he was "fearing for his safety". Uh huh.

Even off-duty cops are not safe, if they are black. I don't know why this insanity is not being addressed in a meaningful way.

Elsewhere...


[h=1]Chicago Grand Jury Indicts Three Officers for Alleged Cover-Up of Laquan McDonald Shooting[/h]

The indictment, which is written in a way that suggests more officers could still be charged for participating in the cover-up, accuses David March, Joseph Walsh, and Thomas Gaffney of allegedly coordinating with Van Dyke—who has been charged with murder—to provide false accounts of the shooting “in order to shield their fellow officer from criminal investigation and prosecution.”

Click to expand...

[h=1][/h]

cornflake said:

I cannot see my way to equating what Yanez did with an "error" or an accident, of any kind.

He didn't make a mistake. He walked up, in daylight. He looked into the car. He spoke to Castile, who had pulled over without incident, and did nothing untoward.

Click to expand...

How do you know this? You weren't there, and it's impossible to see, in the dash cam video the cops released to see anything that the occupants are doing.

He asked for a license and registration. Castille was complying with the request.

Castile then said he had a gun. That's when Yanez backs up and puts his hand on his own weapon. That's a decision.

Click to expand...

And that decision is a result of training. Cops are trained to prepare to draw if a weapon is present. Why? Go watch some videos at the Force Science Institute. It is literally impossible to recover in time to prevent being shot if you are not already prepared to draw based on the assesssed level of danger. Unfortunately, far too many citizens are ignorant regarding assessing danger. For example, if a person with a knife is closer than 21 feet, it is impossible for you to draw your weapon and fire before the assailant reaches you and stabs you. This is a scientific assessment, not guesswork. The time to react has been repeatedly measured. With gun in holster, even with your hand on it, it's impossible to draw and fire before an assailant can reach from from inside the 21 foot circle. If an assailant has their hand on a gun, and yours is in the holster, it's too late. You can't react rapidly enough to avoid being shot.

It's not an accident. He's in a state in which it's possible to obtain a carry permit, nevermind it's always possible to pull over someone carrying illegally, or someone in law enforcement.

Click to expand...

And those of us who have permits know that rule number one is to put your hands on the steering wheel at 11 and 1 and not remove them in the presence of an officer. If the officer asks to see the weapon, you describe its location and then request permission to exit the vehicle and have the officer remove the weapon for you.

He didn't trip and discharge a weapon. He heard a black man say, politely, that he had a weapon and he decided that was scary enough that he needed to back up and get his gun ready. That's his personal problem, not an accident, or an error. It's racism.

Click to expand...

No, it's training. The color of the occupant was immaterial. And you're calling a Hispanic a racist without even knowing anything about him except that he's a cop and he shot Philandro Castile.

He then shot him seven times. That's not an accident. Maybe, maybe, if he was negligent enough to be holding a weapon he was not immediately intending to fire with his finger on the trigger and the safety off, and pulled the trigger, maybe that falls under error for some people. I'd still call it manslaughter, negligent homicide, whatever, because if you're carrying a weapon, you have a serious responsibility to not make errors. However, he shot seven times into a car -- into a man seated, in a car. That's not an error. That's seven decisions. Over and over.

Click to expand...

You apparently don't know anything about high stress sitations or how long it takes to fire seven shots, nor whether the shooter would even know how many times they shot.

That's murder.

Click to expand...

No. At the most, it's manslaughter, and that's only if you can prove intent.

It'd be murder if I did it

Click to expand...

You don't have the right to pull someone over to begin with. You're comparing apples to oranges.

-- he should be held to a *higher* standard, not lower. Most cops go their whole careers without ever discharging their weapon while on duty. The idea that every cop is so on edge that it's understandable he just shot the shit out of a perfectly polite, cooperative citizen he'd pulled over for no reason but DWB, is demeaning to law enforcement I know, who seem to think Yanez is a loony, racist pos who should not have been walking around armed, nevermind with a badge.

Click to expand...

Again, you can't possibly know that. In the video, you can clearly hear Officer Yanez respond calmly, when Castile tells him he has a firearm, "OK, don't reach for it then." Then, he yells twice, "Don't pull it out!" before firing. The first time is fairly calm. He reaches for his weapon, partially removes it from his holster, then reinserts it. The second time he's clearly under stress. It is only then that he draws his weapon and points it at Castile. Either Yanez was lying, or Castile did something that any licensed carrier would know was profoundly stupid and incredibly dangerous.

You know what I would do if an officer pulled me over and insisted on seeing my weapon? I would refuse to comply. I would keep my hands on the wheel, point out to him that my hands were on the wheel and were not going anywhere near my weapon, and tell him that if he wanted to remove my weapon, he was going to have to do it himself, outside the vehicle. I would then ask to exit the vehicle. If he said no, my hands aren't moving from the steering wheel.

Also, you go far enough into reckless disregard for human life and yes, people will charge you.

Click to expand...

And the same is true of police officers. That's why we have DAs making decisions to prosecute and juries trying the facts—which you don't have, and neither do I.

One last comment. Just in case you didn't notice, I never defended the officer's actions or made any judgments about whether or not those actions were justified. Nor did I make any judgments about Castile, except for the actions he apparently took which led to the shooting.

pschmehl said:

How do you know this? You weren't there, and it's impossible to see, in the dash cam video the cops released to see anything that the occupants are doing.

Click to expand...

Look at the post again. cornflake was talking about Yanez's actions, what he was doing. Not the people in the car.

pschmehl said:

And that decision is a result of training. Cops are trained to prepare to draw if a weapon is present. Why? Go watch some videos at the Force Science Institute. It is literally impossible to recover in time to prevent being shot if you are not already prepared to draw based on the assesssed level of danger. Unfortunately, far too many citizens are ignorant regarding assessing danger. For example, if a person with a knife is closer than 21 feet, it is impossible for you to draw your weapon and fire before the assailant reaches you and stabs you. This is a scientific assessment, not guesswork. The time to react has been repeatedly measured. With gun in holster, even with your hand on it, it's impossible to draw and fire before an assailant can reach from from inside the 21 foot circle. If an assailant has their hand on a gun, and yours is in the holster, it's too late. You can't react rapidly enough to avoid being shot.

Click to expand...

So any time someone with a carry permit tells an officer they have a gun, as they are supposed to do, the officer is trained to reach for their own gun? Bullshit. Cite, please.

pschmehl said:

And those of us who have permits know that rule number one is to put your hands on the steering wheel at 11 and 1 and not remove them in the presence of an officer. If the officer asks to see the weapon, you describe its location and then request permission to exit the vehicle and have the officer remove the weapon for you.

Click to expand...

Why is a citizen is expected to hold to a higher standard of conduct than the police? And if a citizen doesn't do all of this perfectly, do they deserve to be shot SEVEN TIMES?

No, it's training. The color of the occupant was immaterial. And you're calling a Hispanic a racist without even knowing anything about him except that he's a cop and he shot Philandro Castile.

Click to expand...

You think it's not possible for a Hispanic man to be racist? And you assume in spite of the situation that there is no possibility that he might be racist?

You apparently don't know anything about high stress sitations or how long it takes to fire seven shots, nor whether the shooter would even know how many times they shot.

Click to expand...

What about all that training officers are supposed to have? You don't think they're trained to deal with stress or fire their weapon in a controlled manner?

You don't have the right to pull someone over to begin with. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Click to expand...

I believe the point was that a "trained" officer should meet a higher standard than an average citizen. If an average person did this, the odds of conviction would be far higher. Average people could be in fear of their lives, too, but somehow they're held to the higher standard than police.

You know what I would do if an officer pulled me over and insisted on seeing my weapon? I would refuse to comply. I would keep my hands on the wheel, point out to him that my hands were on the wheel and were not going anywhere near my weapon, and tell him that if he wanted to remove my weapon, he was going to have to do it himself, outside the vehicle. I would then ask to exit the vehicle. If he said no, my hands aren't moving from the steering wheel.

Click to expand...

You truly have no idea how you would react in any given situation unless you've been there. No one does. The high-stress situations you mentioned above? It's shockingly easy to forget what you should do or what you meant to do.

Which is why police are supposed to be trained well enough that they can meet the higher standard, instead of blaming average people for police shortcomings.

pschmehl said:

Again, you can't possibly know that. In the video, you can clearly hear Officer Yanez respond calmly, when Castile tells him he has a firearm, "OK, don't reach for it then." Then, he yells twice, "Don't pull it out!" before firing. The first time is fairly calm. He reaches for his weapon, partially removes it from his holster, then reinserts it. The second time he's clearly under stress. It is only then that he draws his weapon and points it at Castile. Either Yanez was lying, or Castile did something that any licensed carrier would know was profoundly stupid and incredibly dangerous.

Click to expand...

Which was? He did everything he was being asked to do.

You know what I thought was profoundly stupid? A cop being afraid of getting shot by a man who was upfront an honest about having a weapon. If he can't handle that, he shouldn't be a cop in Minnesota, where we have conceal and carry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpTXeY6Bq7U#action=share

Here's how you react when armed and pulled over by the police. Behave and act smartly, you live; act stupidly and reckless, you die.

nighttimer said:

Nobody cares about another dead nigger.

Click to expand...

I do...

NYR94 said:

Behave and act smartly, you live; act stupidly and reckless, you die.

Click to expand...

Mr Castile did not act stupid and reckless. And people who do still don't deserve to die.