Officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty

[Tinykong]

Actually, that isn't how they are trained. When stopping someone for potentially being a felon, you are supposed to order them to exit the vehicle from afar. You are not supposed to approach the window like it's a normal traffic stop. That's really the root of why this happened. He panicked because he put himself in a situation that he was NOT supposed to be in.

Cops aren't supposed to be conducting routine police work?

[PACOX]

Well Ill be damned, the PD has reached a settlement. I guess this is just another case of reaching a settlements for no reason

[NineSpine]

Cops aren't supposed to be conducting routine police work?

What part of my post was confusing for you?

- - - Updated - - -

Well Ill be damned, the PD has reached a settlement. I guess this is just another case of reaching a settlements for no reason

The police department would have lost. Just because the prosecution was unable to secure a conviction on criminal grounds does not mean that a lawsuit for negligence would fail. Given how incredibly negligent the cop was, it would be an easy win for the plaintiffs.

[vhatever]

Wow, the prosecutor claimed something it must be true. getting back to my point there was no expert testimony regarding this. The question is why? cause the prosecutor couldn't get any expert to give this information because it's BS.

[NineSpine]

Wow, the prosecutor claimed something it must be true. getting back to my point there was no expert testimony regarding this. The question is why? cause the prosecutor couldn't get any expert to give this information because it's BS.

The defense never disputed that information. The defense never claimed he was actually going for his gun. They just claimed that the officer had a reason to believe he was. I find that ludicrous, but now you are just plain denying reality and pretending the evidence doesn't exist because it causes problems for your narrative.

[zenkai]

Maybe its geolocked... Fine from here.

Google the definition "per capita". Are you really that stupid?

465 whites
233 african-american
262 other/unknow

The US census show 45m as of 2013... which isn't 1/4 of the 350m+ US pop.

Enjoy your white privilege.

If you're going to do the per cappa argument then include race crime per cappa.


Second none these state that this was done on race. Judging by the officers actions and the facts, the guy was armed, was reaching for something, he had no idea if it was a gun or wallet. Told him not to reach and the guy kept reaching. Then the cop ended up freaking out and crying, very distraught in the video. Did this sound like an officer who was looking to shoot him a black man?


The argument can be made that the office acted irresponsibly, I can agree there is an argument there, but I cannot agree it was based on racism when there is 0 indication any racism was involved. Those who saw racism from an absence of evidence of racism are the ones being racist. You may not be aware of this but every negative thing done to a person that isn't white isn't always based on racism.

[vhatever]

The defense never disputed that information. The defense never claimed he was actually going for his gun. They just claimed that the officer had a reason to believe he was. I find that ludicrous, but now you are just plain denying reality and pretending the evidence doesn't exist because it causes problems for your narrative.

There was no information to dispute, duh. Again, your imagination counts for diddly squat. Why was there no ballistics expert to testify to this affect? That's what would have happened if the prosecutor actually had made a point worth addressing. Simply saying something doesn't make it true.

[NineSpine]

There was no information to dispute, duh. Again, your imagination counts for diddly squat. Why was there no ballistics expert to testify to this affect? That's what would have happened if the prosecutor actually had made a point worth addressing. Simply saying something doesn't make it true.

The autopsy shows that his hand was on his left side when he was shot. I'm sorry that you don't like the facts. I'm sorry that it is contrary to your previous narrative. Thankfully, reality does not confirm to your delusions. Your continued reality denial will only serve to further prove your childishness and irrationality. Have fun.

[Katchii]

That's why I said that evaluating the situation after the fact is not the same thing as evaluating it as it happened.

A lot of things could have occurred differently, but, they didn't. All that matters is whether or not the cop's actions were reasonable, and it seems pretty clear they were. He had just a second or two to assess the situation and react, and that's how cops are trained.

Reasonable is a very loose term here. It's really hard for me to consider something reasonable when there are several MORE reasonable alternatives that could have resulted in this situation never happening...making it a normal routine traffic stop.

Obviously it's reasonable enough for the cop to be considered not guilty, doesn't make it right though.

[Tinykong]

What part of my post was confusing for you?

You're the one who seems confused. Pulling over Castile was routine policing, in no way did the cop "put himself in a situation that he was NOT supposed to be in."

[NineSpine]

You're the one who seems confused. Pulling over Castile was routine policing, in no way did the cop "put himself in a situation that he was NOT supposed to be in."

I explained it, so are you saying I need to repeat myself, or was something in particular confusing for you?

[vhatever]

The autopsy shows that his hand was on his left side when he was shot. I'm sorry that you don't like the facts. I'm sorry that it is contrary to your previous narrative. Thankfully, reality does not confirm to your delusions. Your continued reality denial will only serve to further prove your childishness and irrationality. Have fun.

prosecutor's comments are not expert testimony, nor can they be cross examined by a defense attorney. Your imagination accounts for nothing, much likes your legal knowledge. You should quit while you are ahead. In fact, you should have never started.

[Tinykong]

Reasonable is a very loose term here. It's really hard for me to consider something reasonable when there are several MORE reasonable alternatives that could have resulted in this situation never happening...making it a normal routine traffic stop.

Obviously it's reasonable enough for the cop to be considered not guilty, doesn't make it right though.

I don't think it was "right" either, and looking at the situation after the fact there are a lot of things both parties could have done to prevent the shooting. But, that didn't happen.

[PACOX]

The police department would have lost. Just because the prosecution was unable to secure a conviction on criminal grounds does not mean that a lawsuit for negligence would fail. Given how incredibly negligent the cop was, it would be an easy win for the plaintiffs.

That I understand, laws are written in certain ways, circumstantial evidence, etc, etc. What I don't like is the rhetoric that has been going on in this thread that attempts to absolve the officer of wrong doing because of the courts verdict.

[Tinykong]

I explained it, so are you saying I need to repeat myself, or was something in particular confusing for you?

No, you didn't. You posted some nonsense about a felony stop and tried to assert some arm chair legal knowledge.

Is that what you want us to consider? Because if so, I can just laugh and move on.

[NineSpine]

No, you didn't. You posted some nonsense about a felony stop and tried to assert some arm chair legal knowledge.

Is that what you want us to consider? Because if so, I can just laugh and move on.

A traffic stop and a felony traffic stop are not the same thing. The police officer is supposed to approach the car in a normal traffic stop. If the officer believes that someone in the car is suspected of a violent crime, the police are supposed to order the person to exit the car from afar. Yanez approached the car, putting himself in a situation where things had a high chance of going awry in either direction, in violation of normal expected protocol.

Again, what part of this is very confusing for you, or are you just upset that the situation is more complicated than your political narrative?

[PACOX]

prosecutor's comments are not expert testimony, nor can they be cross examined by a defense attorney. Your imagination accounts for nothing, much likes your legal knowledge. You should quit while you are ahead. In fact, you should have never started.

Do you know what your actual argument is or are you just taking up an opposing opinion for whatever reason is in your head? There is a clearly a video in which you see the officer ask Castile to handover his information, Castile declares his gun (as is standard to not get shot), and then the cops shoots him as Castile is getting the rest of his information. Autopsy reports show that Castile was not reaching for the gun. The second officer perceived no threat from Castile. The officer was promptly fired for his recklessness.

You can argue that the officer is innocent as per the charges against him but to sit here and trying to say no wrongdoing took place is headscrathingly ridiculous.

[Tinykong]

A traffic stop and a felony traffic stop are not the same thing. The police officer is supposed to approach the car in a normal traffic stop. If the officer believes that someone in the car is suspected of a violent crime, the police are supposed to order the person to exit the car from afar. Yanez approached the car, putting himself in a situation where things had a high chance of going awry in either direction, in violation of normal expected protocol.

It was a normal traffic stop. His partner is just hanging out by the side of the vehicle, and Yanez is talking with them casually.

This whole case surrounds Castile's actions during the stop and how Yanez reacted. Feel free to disagree with the jury, don't but start making shit up.

Again, what part of this is very confusing for you, or are you just upset that the situation is more complicated than your political narrative?

Quite clearly the person who is confused, and flailing with a political narrative, is you.

[vhatever]

Do you know what your actual argument is or are you just taking up an opposing opinion for whatever reason is in your head? There is a clearly a video in which you see the officer ask Castile to handover his information, Castile declares his gun (as is standard to not get shot), and then the cops shoots him as Castile is getting the rest of his information. Autopsy reports show that Castile was not reaching for the gun. The second officer perceived no threat from Castile. The officer was promptly fired for his recklessness.

You can argue that the officer is innocent as per the charges against him but to sit here and trying to say no wrongdoing took place is headscrathingly ridiculous.

You forget the part where the cop told him repeatedly to stop reaching for it. How convenient. And the second officer was watching the passenger, not the driver.

[NineSpine]

It was a normal traffic stop. His partner is just hanging out by the side of the vehicle, and Yanez is talking with them casually.

This whole case surrounds Castile's actions during the stop and how Yanez reacted. Feel free to disagree with the jury, don't but start making shit up.

Yeah I'm not making shit up. I'm repeating the argument of a lawyer involved in the case. I'm sorry that you've done such a poor job of educating yourself on this case that you don't know that.

It was not a normal traffic stop. He says as they pull him over that he looks like the robbery suspect. That immediately escalates it to a felony traffic stop, which has different procedures.

- - - Updated - - -

You forget the part where the cop told him repeatedly to stop reaching for it. How convenient. And the second officer was watching the passenger, not the driver.

He wasn't reaching for the gun, so he followed that command.