If you bothered to read the rest of my posts on this thread, you'd see I believe the cop was in the wrong.
To you're other point though, blacks don't have to walk on eggshells, as your said he's been pulled over 48 times already and all of those went fine.
This is on the cases where it went wrong, it happens to whites too. If anything, incidents like this show that cops need to be retrained when handling situations where they know the driver has a gun.
You don't think there's an issue him being pulled over that many times in this particular case I think he was pulled over due to them looking for a robbery suspect and I'm sure he was pulled over because he was black. I'm sure you would think it's faulty if there's a white culprit and pulling over every white person you see.
I think it takes more than retraining there's got to be stricter conditions on who can be a cop. And these cops need to do positive iniatives so they can get positively acclimated to these communities. So there's isn't heightened fear from both sides.
You don't think there's an issue him being pulled over that many times in this particular case I think he was pulled over due to them looking for a robbery suspect and I'm sure he was pulled over because he was black. I'm sure you would think it's faulty if there's a white culprit and pulling over every white person you see.
I think it takes more than retraining there's got to be stricter conditions on who can be a cop. And these cops need to do positive iniatives so they can get positively acclimated to these communities. So there's isn't heightened fear from both sides.
I don't think all of his pull overs were do to race, probably some were, like I honestly believe this one was. They said it was because he fit the description of a robbery suspect, the whole bases of that was his similar nose shape.
Also, with white people being pulled over for matching a suspect, white people have more diverse features than blacks. So if the cops are looking for say a white male about 200 pounds, 5'10, red hair and a red beard, it's an easier thing to identify.
But if they were just pulled over very white guy simply because he was white and so was the suspect then ya, it's a bit of a problem.
You're right though, their must be stricter conditions and and increased awareness for how to avoid situations like this.
Oh please spare black people of this typical "It's not about racist" BS. White America mourned and wept for Otto Warmbier when they found out he died and blame North Korea. Despite the fact this man broke the law in their country and had to pay the price.
Yet every time a black man is shot down in the streets like a dog it's excuses on top of excuses why their death was justified.
Where is your proof Otto broke the law? There is no excuse why Philando's death was justified. It wasn't. The cop had no right to take his life. However, given the circumstances it's obviously not racially motivated and the cop genuinely believed he was reaching for his gun. His girlfriend even said his gun was there but that's not what he was reaching for. How is the cop meant to know that? Just because he said he's not reaching for it? Like I said earlier had I been in the situation the only thing differently I probably would have done was ask what he was reaching for then. Otherwise, I likely would have reacted the exact same way. I'm a black man and have been profiled and prejudged my entire life. This was obviously not one of those times.
For some reason people think by saying the officer wasn't acting racially means Philando did something wrong. He did absolutely everything correctly besides telling the officer what he was reaching for(Not his gun).
Where is your proof Otto broke the law? There is no excuse why Philando's death was justified. It wasn't. The cop had no right to take his life. However, given the circumstances it's obviously not racially motivated and the cop genuinely believed he was reaching for his gun. His girlfriend even said his gun was there but that's not what he was reaching for. How is the cop meant to know that? Just because he said he's not reaching for it? Like I said earlier had I been in the situation the only thing differently I probably would have done was ask what he was reaching for then. Otherwise, I likely would have reacted the exact same way. I'm a black man and have been profiled and prejudged my entire life. This was obviously not one of those times.
For some reason people think by saying the officer wasn't acting racially means Philando did something wrong. He did absolutely everything correctly besides telling the officer what he was reaching for(Not his gun).
If he was "genuinely heartbroken" as you put it, then the officer would have pleaded guilty. You're confusing remorse with an adrenaline rush.
That's not how the law works. You're giving a cop a free pass for killing someone he shouldn't have.
Again, manslaughter comes in varying degrees. There's a reason for this. Whether it is "accidental" or if the person feels guilty, they still committed manslaughter.
Let's put this into perspective:
Not long ago there was a case of a police officer in a school that shot his gun in an empty classroom at the wall. The bullet pierced the wall and hit a teacher in the neck. The officer never intended this to happen and was genuinely remorseful too. Are you saying he should just get a free pass in this scenario as well?
I mean both of your previous standards apply. It was an accident and the cop felt guilty.
If he was "genuinely heartbroken" as you put it, then the officer would have pleaded guilty. You're confusing remorse with an adrenaline rush.
That's not how the law works. You're giving a cop a free pass for killing someone he shouldn't have.
Again, manslaughter comes in varying degrees. There's a reason for this. Whether it is "accidental" or if the person feels guilty, they still committed manslaughter.
Let's put this into perspective:
Not long ago there was a case of a police officer in a school that shot his gun in an empty classroom at the wall. The bullet pierced the wall and hit a teacher in the neck. The officer never intended this to happen and was genuinely remorseful too. Are you saying he should just get a free pass in this scenario as well?
I mean both of your previous standards apply. It was an accident and the cop felt guilty.
That's literally the worst comparison possible. Was the wall reaching towards a weapon while saying it was not reaching for said weapon?
The reason it's not manslaughter is because whether or not you agree or disagree, the jury understood that the officer misunderstood Castile's motions.
I want you to answer the following questions objectively.
Did Castile tell the officer he wasn't reaching for the weapon?
Was Castile still reaching in the same general area as his weapon?
Was the officer supposed to just take his word for it and not react to someone potentially pulling a gun on him?
How should the officer have reacted to someone saying I have a gun and then proceeding to reach towards it(Not saying he reached for it) despite you repeatedly saying not to?
How would you have reacted in this scenario?
Answer those questions objectively as if you were the officer in the situation. The fact that he's a police officer is even more reason as to why he reacted the way he did. Again, the only thing I would have done differently in this situation honestly would be to ask him what he was reaching for. Otherwise, again, I would have reacted the exact same way. I'm very curious as to how you would have reacted. And please, for the love of 'God', do not pull that, "He's a trained officer, he should have known better" crap. You lose all credibility taking that 'cop' out.
That's literally the worst comparison possible. Was the wall reaching towards a weapon while saying it was not reaching for said weapon?
The reason it's not manslaughter is because whether or not you agree or disagree, the jury understood that the officer misunderstood Castile's motions.
You got your facts so wrong. Let's backtrack to this not being a racially profiled. In the officer's own statement, he pulled over Castile because he mistook him for a suspected robber.
That's racial profiling 101.
"Officer Jeronimo Yanez pulled Castile’s car over in Falcon Heights, a suburb near Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the officer later said he thought Castile matched the description of a suspect in a robbery. The stop quickly escalated."
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Also, the video shows that the officer contradicted his own testimony on trial. Maybe you should rewatch the video, because he literally says that he didn't even see the gun. 8:18
How should the officer have reacted to someone saying I have a gun and then proceeding to reach towards it(Not saying he reached for it) despite you repeatedly saying not to? Why would he say that he has a gun and then reach for it?
It logically makes no sense. Also the officer already grabbed his gun literally as soon as he said this. So, he was ready to shoot him no matter what because he pulled him over as a suspect.
Irrelevant question, as I'm not a police officer nor do I have the necessary training to give you an answer. I'll rephrase your question, how should a police officer have reacted in this scenario? He shouldn't have shot him.
Answer those questions objectively as if you were the officer in the situation. The fact that he's a police officer is even more reason as to why he reacted the way he did. Again, the only thing I would have done differently in this situation honestly would be to ask him what he was reaching for. Otherwise, again, I would have reacted the exact same way. I'm very curious as to how you would have reacted. And please, for the love of 'God', do not pull that, "He's a trained officer, he should have known better" crap. You lose all credibility taking that 'cop' out.
@Bold: Um, wut? That makes absolutely no sense. It's his JOB! He's supposed to be trained. Are you kidding me? The last thing a police officer is supposed to do is kill someone, let alone an innocent!
Again, he pulled over Philando Castile because he matched the description of a suspected robber (being black), and shot him only seconds after he told the officer that he was carrying a gun.
You got your facts so wrong. Let's backtrack to this not being a racially profiled. In the officer's own statement, he pulled over Castile because he mistook him for a suspected robber.
That's racial profiling 101.
"Officer Jeronimo Yanez pulled Castile’s car over in Falcon Heights, a suburb near Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the officer later said he thought Castile matched the description of a suspect in a robbery. The stop quickly escalated."
How is that racial profiling? Did he genuinely look like the robbery suspect? I don't have too much time right now but find that part out.
Also, the video shows that the officer contradicted his own testimony on trial. Maybe you should rewatch the video, because he literally says that he didn't even see the gun. 8:18
It logically makes no sense. Also the officer already grabbed his gun literally as soon as he said this. So, he was ready to shoot him no matter what because he pulled him over as a suspect.
You dodged the question. Having your hand on your weapon is common for cops. He didn't take it out and aim it at him until Castile reached for his ID or whatever.
Irrelevant question, as I'm not a police officer nor do I have the necessary training to give you an answer. I'll rephrase your question, how should a police officer have reacted in this scenario? He shouldn't have shot him.
How is it irrelevant. I'm asking how you personally would have reacted. You don't need training to know you shouldn't let someone get the drop on you in any altercation. Whether it be with fists or with weapons. I believe most other cops would have shot him because as far as the officer could tell, Castile was reaching for a weapon after being repeatedly told not to. This loops back to not letting someone get the drop on you in any altercation.
@Bold: Um, wut? That makes absolutely no sense. It's his JOB! He's supposed to be trained. Are you kidding me? The last thing a police officer is supposed to do is kill someone, let alone an innocent!
And that's just how the situation happened to turn out. Officers are supposed to shoot to kill. Not wound. If that was the case, more officers would be getting shot/killed in shootouts because they wouldn't be firing unless they knew they would only wound. What it seems like you want from cops is them to not fire unless fired upon. That is idiotic.
Again, he pulled over Philando Castile because he matched the description of a suspected robber (being black), and shot him only seconds after he told the officer that he was carrying a gun.
Objectively he's not. He was justified in the shooting. Someone reaches for something you shoot after repeatedly being told not to, they get shot. That's how it happens. Now if Castile would have simply said, "I'm getting out my ID not my weapon" or told him the location of the weapon this wouldn't have happened. If the officer had simply asked, "Where is your firearm", or "What are you reaching for" this could have all been avoided. Unfortunately, none of that happened and a good man was murdered.
Where is your proof Otto broke the law? There is no excuse why Philando's death was justified. It wasn't. The cop had no right to take his life. However, given the circumstances it's obviously not racially motivated and the cop genuinely believed he was reaching for his gun. His girlfriend even said his gun was there but that's not what he was reaching for. How is the cop meant to know that? Just because he said he's not reaching for it? Like I said earlier had I been in the situation the only thing differently I probably would have done was ask what he was reaching for then. Otherwise, I likely would have reacted the exact same way. I'm a black man and have been profiled and prejudged my entire life. This was obviously not one of those times.
For some reason people think by saying the officer wasn't acting racially means Philando did something wrong. He did absolutely everything correctly besides telling the officer what he was reaching for(Not his gun).
just because it's not a motivated death that doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished. Last i checked manslaughter is killing someone by accident. yet dude is walking free. Why is it that even after seeing her boyfriend gunned down in front of her face she has be be the super calm one like she did the killing. Where as the cop is freaking the fck out even though he's "supposedly" trained to handle these situations? Thats not fcuked to you?
How is that racial profiling? Did he genuinely look like the robbery suspect? I don't have too much time right now but find that part out.
Which link.
Where was the weapon located then?
That's ridiculous.
You dodged the question. Having your hand on your weapon is common for cops. He didn't take it out and aim it at him until Castile reached for his ID or whatever.
How is it irrelevant. I'm asking how you personally would have reacted. You don't need training to know you shouldn't let someone get the drop on you in any altercation. Whether it be with fists or with weapons. I believe most other cops would have shot him because as far as the officer could tell, Castile was reaching for a weapon after being repeatedly told not to. This loops back to not letting someone get the drop on you in any altercation.
And that's just how the situation happened to turn out. Officers are supposed to shoot to kill. Not wound. If that was the case, more officers would be getting shot/killed in shootouts because they wouldn't be firing unless they knew they would only wound. What it seems like you want from cops is them to not fire unless fired upon. That is idiotic.
Because he saw him reaching for something and continuously told him to stop.
Objectively he's not. He was justified in the shooting. Someone reaches for something you shoot after repeatedly being told not to, they get shot. That's how it happens. Now if Castile would have simply said, "I'm getting out my ID not my weapon" or told him the location of the weapon this wouldn't have happened. If the officer had simply asked, "Where is your firearm", or "What are you reaching for" this could have all been avoided. Unfortunately, none of that happened and a good man was murdered.
Again, Philando Castile was an innocent, killed by a cop who is supposed to serve and protect, shot him 7 times right in front of his daughter.
He committed manslaughter. There was no clear or visible threat, it was just the officer's paranoia.
Definition of manslaughter:
Manslaughter generally means an illegal killing that falls short of murder. The lowest form of manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter. This means that the perpetrator did not intend to kill anyone, but still killed the victim through behavior that was either criminally negligent or reckless. One common example is a DUI accident which kills someone. Someone driving drunk is behaving in a criminally reckless manner, even if they had no intent to kill anyone.
Voluntary manslaughter usually means that the offender did not have a prior intent to kill such as when the homicide occurs "in the heat of passion" and without forethought. Depending on the state, this crime may fall under a variant of murder charges, instead of manslaughter.
People are found innocent of crimes they were guilty of all of the time. Just look at O.J. Simpson or George Zimmerman. Are you saying they're innocent too?
There is a statistic on how army vets who become police officers are less likely to use their firearms. That's because they know how to stay cool in tense situations.
Can you imagine soldiers being stationed in enemy territory and being trigger happy like this guy? No, that's because they were trained properly. They're soldiers, that's their job and their responsibility. You don't expect a soldier to go around killing innocents.
That same standard applies to cops. Cops sign up for a job that expects them to put their lives on the line to serve and protect the lives of others. They are expected to be trained, to be law-abiding, and to be objective.
This officer just killed an innocent man in cold blood because he was scared. And you're telling me there should be no consequences?
