Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Philando Castile's case is self explanatory. Its not even up for debate. Statistically, the protocol for making a situation safe between a cop and a concealed carry citizen will on occasion fail. That chance likely rises significantly in a car where there are all sorts of hiding and blind spots. Castile should have kept absolutely still.
Also, there was a trial and Yanez was acquitted. That is literally the definition of the justice process. Justice is not sating the mob's quest for blood. It's the process itself, and its result whatever that is.
Those seeking "justice" for Castile are racially motivated, not justice motivated.
" Statistically, the protocol for making a situation safe between a cop and a concealed carry citizen will on occasion fail."
In some states, I don't know how many, the protocol when stopped is to put both hands on the steering wheel and when the office walks up to the car, THE FIRST THING YOU DO, is tell the office that you have CCP and HAVE a weapon IN THE CAR and where it is.
Your link says, "Attorney Earl Gray asked Reynolds several questions related to her marijuana use and Castile’s, and Reynolds acknowledged smoking regularly. She also acknowledged marijuana was in the car at the time Castile was pulled over for a broken taillight."
Maybe you should actually READ your OWN link BEFORE making a bigger fool of yourself!
Personally, I don't care if he was smoking pot and blowing the smoke in the cops face - that has nothing to do with anything other than it would lead to his arrest. People who point to what he was allegedly doing wrong when he was stopped are making excuses for bad policing. Cops don't get to be judge and jury.
I posted the exchange earlier in the thread that the cop and Castile had and Castile was complying. The cop overreacted. He got off anyway because the laws on the books favor police. All they have to do is say they feared for their life. The law is written that way.
I don't know why your focus is on Castile instead of where it should be - on bad, untrained officers. They do, after all, impact us all.
" who point to what he was allegedly doing"
Isn't THAT waht YOU are doing? Alleging what he WASN'T doing.
I'll wait for the trial to be over BEFORE making ANY claims ether way.
Why not quote the numbers so we citizens can determine what the situation is? We are all human...and, c'mon, what are the chances that virtually ALL police shooting are justified?
Here are the quickies I can find. Over a 12+ year period about 12,000 Police Shootings....
80 were brought up on charges. Less than 35% of those, or 25+- were convicted.
So, you are really going to claim that only 25 out of 12,000 Police shootings involve
Putting it another way, in a year and 1,000 Americans shot by cops, 2 Cops are convicted.
So, either Cops are the Lord God and attain a level of perfection unknown on the face of the earth...or, they are protected by "the system". I vote for the later.
"Figures don't lie but figure's do!"
The title alone shows strong anti police bias to me.
I freely admit to not following the case. I was the reports when it happened, followed it in passing until the media decided it wasn't priority number one, and went on with life.
My own opinion on marijuana is that it shouldn't even be on the list of controlled substances, but my opinion isn't the law. The law states that you can't carry a firearm while being intoxicated or possessing a controlled substance.
The only reason I posted about it is because DD keeps trying to use the Castile case as proof that the NRA is racist because they didn't throw a fit over a "law-abiding" black gun owner being shot by the police - but Castile wasn't law-abiding.
"My own opinion on marijuana is that it shouldn't even be on the list of controlled substances,"
Even it it is legalized it is STILL a mind altering substance and should be treated just like alcohol.
Driving with an open alcohol container CAN get you a ticket or arrested.
Pot has VERY STRONG ODOR which can be detected even with the windows closed in a car.
They will have to come up with some way to determine how much pot you have smoked just like driving under the influence of alcohol.
They will have to determine at what point over a certain limit does it affect your driving.
That's a good point, and I've mostly been bringing this up in response to those who object that the guy who shot up the Waffle House is still alive, but the underlying reason for the encounter with police has NOTHING to do with whether or not a police officer is justified in using deadly force. I don't know enough about this case to comment intelligently, but it doesn't really matter WHY the policeman stopped Castile; all that matters is whether or not Castile was a threat to the officer. If not, no shooting is justified, even if Castile had just finished murdering 20 people and raping 20 children - no threat, no shooting.
"all that matters is whether or not Castile was a threat to the officer. If not, no shooting is justified, even if Castile had just finished murdering 20 people and raping 20 children - no threat, no shooting."
You make it sound like you KNOW there was NO THREAT.
It COLD be just as possible that he WAS REACHING for his gun.
We do NOT KNOW. So I wish everybody would chill out and WAIT for trial.
Just like LOT of stories where people take sides based on their biases only to find out what they believed turns out to be NOT TRUE.
Okay, what about Mark Hughes who was shot in TX? TEXAS, no less, and the NRA didn't come out with any statement for him either. And if there was ever a case where they should have - this was it.
The things the NRA has done involving black folks, seem to be quietly done behind the scenes. Why is that?
"Okay, what about Mark Hughes who was shot in TX? TEXAS, no less, and the NRA didn't come out with any statement for him either. And if there was ever a case where they should have - this was it."
Sorry, don't know anything about the Hughes case, so why don't you bring us up to speed.
P.S. The NRA does NOT make statements on EVERY GUN RELATED case.
According to the FBI a gun is use between 1 MILLION and 2.5 MILLION times a year to defend oneself etc., and they do NOT make statements EVERY TIME.
So...ignoring your lie that the NRA has never put forward cases on behalf of black or minority gun owners...ignoring your lie that the NRA wasn't deeply divided by this....
I have a question for you:
Are you legally carrying a concealed weapon if you are smoking marijuana?
The NRA claims to support legal and responsible gun ownership as well as support law enforcement.
I have a second question for you:
Using facts, no lies, and no assumptions, how can you be certain that Yanez Geronimo's version wasn't correct, which is why he was found not guilty?
" Statistically, the protocol for making a situation safe between a cop and a concealed carry citizen will on occasion fail."
In some states, I don't know how many, the protocol when stopped is to put both hands on the steering wheel and when the office walks up to the car, THE FIRST THING YOU DO, is tell the office that you have CCP and HAVE a weapon IN THE CAR and where it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
" who point to what he was allegedly doing"
Isn't THAT waht YOU are doing? Alleging what he WASN'T doing.
I'll wait for the trial to be over BEFORE making ANY claims ether way.
Bloviating about a trial you know zip about should be embarrassing to you. With these two posts alone you prove why you have zero credibility as a poster. You don't know ANY of the facts - you don't even know the trial ended long ago.
Do some real research into the case before opining instead of reading, 'black man shot by white cop' and kneerjerking it over to the forum to castigate both posters like myself and the dead you say didn't comply.
As to you not getting all worked up about it, please. LMAO...you’re not talking to a fool. Let’s not even start saying ridiculous things.
I gave you my honest opinion on it. I was really honest about that.
Apparently, I may be talking to a fool (as you say) who seems to believe that his mode of logic and emotional operation is equivalent to everyone else's, adjusting for race. No offense.
And who therefore refuses to accept frank answers to the questions that he poses.
If you have convinced yourself of an answer to a question, then why ask it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.