Well Ill be damned, the PD has reached a settlement. I guess this is just another case of reaching a settlements for no reason
Resident Cosplay Progressive
What part of my post was confusing for you?
- - - Updated - - -
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.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
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.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
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.
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.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
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.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
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?
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
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.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
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.
Quite clearly the person who is confused, and flailing with a political narrative, is you.
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 - - -
He wasn't reaching for the gun, so he followed that command.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady