Fixed for accuracy.
Wrong, and don't F&*K with my words. He didn't pull a GD gun. HE DID NOT PULL A GUN.
Fixed for accuracy.
Yet.....refer to my last post. And calm down.Wrong, and don't F&*K with my words. He didn't pull a GD gun. HE DID NOT PULL A GUN.
OK, in what scenario is disobeying an order the right move then?
Wrong, and don't F&*K with my words. He didn't pull a GD gun. HE DID NOT PULL A GUN.
Apples and orangesMy big issue with this case is potential for strengthening of a double standard. Take this situation and place it in a different setting. Two citizens at a gas station, one guy in the driver seat, window down, another guy standing at the window maybe asking directions or bumming a dollar or something. Without the badge, I'd bet a lot of money that someone is going to jail.
How do you figure?My big issue with this case is potential for strengthening of a double standard. Take this situation and place it in a different setting. Two citizens at a gas station, one guy in the driver seat, window down, another guy standing at the window maybe asking directions or bumming a dollar or something. Without the badge, I'd bet a lot of money that someone is going to jail.
Yet.....refer to my last post. And calm down.
I have to be more clear, a lawful order?"Stop recording me, it's illegal in North Carolina to film a police officer"
https://www.wwaytv3.com/2017/03/08/attorney-speaks-out-after-off/
I have to be more clear, a lawful order?
Look, every one with half a brain knows that the guy was digging for something, the fact that he told the cop he had a gun when he was reaching heavily implies that he was reaching for the gun. The fact that the officer was screaming don't pull it our over and over and the guy still continued to dig implies he was reaching for the gun.Wrong, and don't F&*K with my words. He didn't pull a GD gun. HE DID NOT PULL A GUN.
Look, every one with half a brain knows that the guy was digging for something, the fact that he told the cop he had a gun when he was reaching heavily implies that he was reaching for the gun. The fact that the officer was screaming don't pull it our over and over and the guy still continued to dig implies he was reaching for the gun.
You can try that he just flinched argument with someone else, maybe kindergarteners. They might be naive enough to believe you.
Is this day and age, it ain't that "simple".Then don't do anything that may give someone a reason to shoot you. Pretty simple.
I'm not convinced he had murderous intent, but (unlike many others apparently) I can understand why the cop would believe that. That's the whole premise of my arguments. If someone tells me they have a gun during a confrontation (which I avoid), and then proceeds to reach for "it", then I'm going to operate under the assumption that they intend harm to me or mine.I think that this is the fundamental reason why there will never be "consensus" on this thread (which is perfectly fine with me and helps me understand).
@J R Green and perhaps others are FULLY convinced that Mr. Castile had murderous intent and was reaching for the gun to kill the officer.
Others like myself are not.
If this is your belief I can fully understand why you feel this way.
I'm not convinced he had murderous intent, but (unlike many others apparently) I can understand why the cop would believe that. That's the whole premise of my arguments. If someone tells me they have a gun during a confrontation (which I avoid), and then proceeds to reach for "it", then I'm going to operate under the assumption that they intend harm to me or mine.
Look, every one with half a brain knows that the guy was digging for something, the fact that he told the cop he had a gun when he was reaching heavily implies that he was reaching for the gun. The fact that the officer was screaming don't pull it our over and over and the guy still continued to dig implies he was reaching for the gun.
You can try that he just flinched argument with someone else, maybe kindergarteners. They might be naive enough to believe you.
I think that this is the fundamental reason why there will never be "consensus" on this thread (which is perfectly fine with me and helps me understand).
@J R Green and perhaps others are FULLY convinced that Mr. Castile had murderous intent and was reaching for the gun to kill the officer.
Others like myself are not.
If this is your belief I can fully understand why you feel this way.
I'm not convinced he had murderous intent, but (unlike many others apparently) I can understand why the cop would believe that. That's the whole premise of my arguments. If someone tells me they have a gun during a confrontation (which I avoid), and then proceeds to reach for "it", then I'm going to operate under the assumption that they intend harm to me or mine.
I have a hard time believing that he wasn't. It's been a while since the original story came out, but I seem to recall that being part of the issue.My question of the situation is was the dead guy under the influence of any drugs/alcohol?
I have a hard time believing that he wasn't. It's been a while since the original story came out, but I seem to recall that being part of the issue.
"The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last year told investigators that the smell of "burnt marijuana" in Castile's car made him believe his life was in danger."
"The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last year told investigators that the smell of "burnt marijuana" in Castile's car made him believe his life was in danger."
I'm no expert on drugs and their effects but it's my impression that MJ, unlike alcohol, doesn't typically make people violent. Befuddled maybe, but not violent.
Not to mention he was fired. Had the department deemed it a righteous shooting, he would have kept his job.
A guy was killed, some say wrongly, some say do what the cop says and it won't end this way. The cop was found to be in the right, and He got to keep his freedom.
The rest is speculative BS. Let's all go have beer and peanuts
A guy was killed, some say wrongly, some say do what the cop says and it won't end this way. The cop was found to be in the right, and He got to keep his freedom.
Now you're splitting hairs.The jury did not find the cop 'innocent' and in the right; the verdict was 'not guilty' of being legally wrong.
No weapon was actually drawn. Yanez even admitted that he never saw a gun nor did he know where it wasHow do you figure?
One, there is no double standard. The cop is doing his duty, that we sent him out to do, not a roadside squabble.
Second, If I pull up to you and ask for directions and then proceed to draw a weapon on you, you think you will be arrested for defending yourself?
Right, but the statement, I have a gun and him starting to dig in his gun carrying area gave a specific impression.No weapon was actually drawn. Yanez even admitted that he never saw a gun nor did he know where it was
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
That's still a BS excuse and to believe it is BS. How many crooks and cop killers run around announcing they have a gun that they're gonna draw first.....let's be honest here and not reach for a reason to ride the blue line. By your same logic it should reason that he wasn't reaching for it considering you hear him say he's not in the video.Right, but the statement, I have a gun and him starting to dig in his gun carrying area gave a specific impression.
Again, I'm not saying the officer was 100% in the right and shouldn't have waited another second to be sure.
..let's be honest here and not reach for a reason
I'm no expert on drugs and their effects but it's my impression that MJ, unlike alcohol, doesn't typically make people violent. Befuddled maybe, but not violent.
They're also claiming the officer had already been given the license and registration but in the video you hear him ask for those items.