So, to summarize, if the gun is resting on top of his pocket then it's in his lap. But if the gun is on the other side of the pocket fabric, less than 1/32" away, it is no longer in his lap.
Is that about right?
Conservatives reveal their incredible hypocrisy via these Minneapolis police stories...
- Thread starter Menace Sockeyes
- Start date
Is that about right?
I read yesterday that a potential witness had been identified on a surveillance camera and that police have talked with that person. It will be interesting to see if that person can shed any light on the situation.
I sure wish their body cams or at least their dash cam had been turned on. We may never know for certain what happened just before he shot her.
He stopped him for having only one (of three) functioning taillight. Yanez believed Castile may be the suspect of a recent robbery based on his physical profile. I don't believe it went beyond that.
Why would you do a felony or high risk stop? Was Yanez going to arrest Castile for the robbery or even question him about it?
Your linked article also says that Castile was reaching for his ID. We know that's not true because Yanez was already holding Castile's ID.
Last edited:
I love that idea, but it's not a solution. People f up too, and the notion that doing so justifies death is asinine.
What exactly are you arguing with me about? Do you think every police shooting is justified? Do you not want fewer citizens killed by police?
Here is the now fired officer's statement to investigators as to why he stopped Castille. There is no mention of non-functioning tail lights.
You ask why should he do a high risk stop? Read your own words in the same post, at least the ones that are consistent with the fired officer's statement - he thought the driver was a robbery suspect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/philando-castile-officer-interview_us_5949bddde4b00cdb99cb2c1c
you're thinking on issues of race only. Even then, It's not a cut and dried issue.
Police handle issues differently based on the areas they are patrolling due to the level of criminal activity, and the information they have on the person they are dealing with on a given issue. If I'm a white police officer and I'm working in a black neighborhood, my stops and apprehensions are going to be almost 100% against African Americans. Does that make me a biased cop? It's WHO I'm interacting with based on WHERE I am assigned.
OF course I'm going to react differently when approaching a person in a car who has an extensive traffic record, or criminal record.........as opposed to someone who is having a psychotic break, or a breakdown that is causing them to act out at a given moment. That's reality. But you want police to act the same in every situation, when that is NOT a reality.
Which id did the officer already have? His DL or concealed permit? Just because the officer had one id does not make the article from the NYT incorrect.
I wasn't arguing with you. I answered your question on what we can do to help make sure everyone goes home safely. Im pretty sure I said that it wasn't an end all solution. But it will help.
Do I think every police shooting is justified? Pretty dumb question. Obviously not.
Do I want less citizens killed by police? Another good one. Yes
Do you think Yanez wanted to take Castile's life as he pulled up behind him?
Since Castile wasn't asked for his permit to carry I don't know why he would reach for it.
The NYT was able to tell what was going on in Castile's head? They knew he was reaching for his ID.
That was a police expert who was quoted by the NYT who said he then needed to put himself in the shoes of a motorist who told an officer that he had a gun.
So pretty much in this entire lengthy post, there was no need for a felony stop.
He says right on dash cam video that he pulled him over for the taillight violation.
So these gun-carrying bar patrons aren't consuming alcohol?
I was right - your stance is that LEOs should enter, confiscate and arrest anyone in the bar they believe is imbibing and carrying a firearm.
Interesting stance that I doubt you actually agree with in reality, and doubt many conservatives would actually agree.
Where did I say that?
I don't believe police make it a practice of going around to bars and making sure those who are intoxicated are not carrying guns. Just as I believe they don't go around arresting people who are intoxicated in a bar. Nor should they make it their practice.
You called this guy a criminal and illegally carrying multiple times.
Which would apply to anybody and everybody drinking in a bar while carrying.
But you seem to admit and acknowledge your hypocrisy, which is a great start.
Do you doubt that? According to a most basic google search there are 14.5+ Million carry permits in US. Are you doubting that roughly ~10% of them aren't drinking in bars while carrying?
Evidently we're going to rehash this for a third time. Here is Minnesota law:
624.7142 CARRYING WHILE UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
Subdivision 1.Acts prohibited.
A person may not carry a pistol on or about the person's clothes or person in a public place:
(1) when the person is under the influence of a controlled substance, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 4;
(2) when the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) and (4);
(3) when the person is knowingly under the influence of any chemical compound or combination of chemical compounds that is listed as a hazardous substance in rules adopted under section 182.655 and that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to impair the person's clearness of intellect or physical control;
(4) when the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(5) when the person's alcohol concentration is 0.10 or more; or
(6) when the person's alcohol concentration is less than 0.10, but more than 0.04.
§
Subd. 2.Arrest.
A peace officer may arrest a person for a violation under subdivision 1 without a warrant upon probable cause, without regard to whether the violation was committed in the officer's presence.
On the radio when making the stop, the officer said robbery suspect was reason for stop. When speaking to the homicide investigators, the reason for the stop (see quote in earlier post) was robbery suspect. Yes he told Castille that he stopped him for a taillight but that was not the reason for the stop.
Last edited:
Here is an exercise for you. Put a piece of candy in your pocket, which by your logic is on your lap. Can you or anyone else eat that piece of candy without reaching into your pocket? No, you can't. The 1/32" of fabric is significant in that it blocks both the use of the candy, or a gun. The person must slightly lift and turn their hip to reach into the pocket and take the item out of the pocket in order to begin use of the item.
I'm trying your exercise. I'm about 7 minutes into it and still trying to retrieve that goddamn candy. I'll update you later today if I'm finally able to get it out.
In the mean time, consider this photo. While I'm not certain that's a gun, I think most reasonable people would agree that it looks enough like a gun that if someone just informed you they have a gun in their possession and you saw that object resting on their lap, you might think to yourself "Whoa, that's a f**king gun!"
I'm trying your exercise. I'm about 7 minutes into it and still trying to retrieve that goddamn candy. I'll update you later today if I'm finally able to get it out.
In the mean time, consider this photo. While I'm not certain that's a gun, I think most reasonable people would agree that it looks enough like a gun that if someone just informed you they have a gun in their possession and you saw that object resting on their lap, you might think to yourself "Whoa, that's a f**king gun!"
Well, that isn't a gun. As I posted earlier in this thread the gun was in his pocket.
http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/0...ice-shooting-yanez-trial-where-gun-was-found/
I'm curious to know what you think that object is. You have the benefit of determining it wasn't a gun by way of perusing court records. Officer Yanez had 0.3 seconds to determine whether that was a gun. Do you agree that it looks enough like a gun that if someone just told you they have a gun you might have reason to believe that's the gun?
Well, it wasn't a gun. We know that from witness testimony from officers and firemen at the scene. The gun on the lap is a diversion.
As to your question about 0.3 seconds, sounds ominous but completely contrived, like the gun on the lap. The officer stated to a supervisor that he did not know where the gun was.
http://www.startribune.com/girlfriend-of-black-man-killed-by-officer-testifies-in-trial/426656601/
It seems like you struggle with answering direct questions, so I'm going to let you in on a little secret - it doesn't matter if that was a gun. It doesn't matter if Castile's gun was in his lap or in his pocket. It doesn't matter if it was under his seat or in the glove compartment or in the trunk. It doesn't matter if he even had a gun at all.
None of that matters. What matters is whether Castile did anything that caused Yanez to reasonably conclude he was reaching for his gun.
If Castile was licensed to carry then it means he completed a safety course. In that course they emphasize the importance of how to handle a traffic stop when you are carrying. Once you notify the officer that you have a gun, you have two sacred responsibilities. First, keep your hands where he can see them. Second, comply with his instructions until he is able to determine the location and status of your gun.
That's just fundamental common sense, and anyone who has been stopped 50+ times and has completed a gun safety course should know it. You don't tell a cop you have a gun and then go rootin' around in your pockets as he's shouting at you to not reach for your gun.
It doesn't matter but several of you repeatedly and desperately claim the gun was on his lap when it wasn't.
The gun matters and the cop never saw it. That is why he was charged.
TC says the gun was in his pocket, so I'm beating him while playing by his rules.
And, again, it doesn't matter where the gun was or even if the gun was. What matters is that he told the cop he had a gun and then ignored the officer's instructions by reaching into his pocket. That's not a solid plan.
And Castile reached into his pocket when he was told not to. That is why Yanez was acquitted.
Do we have any evidence that Castile reached into his pocket? The cop says he did. Castile before he died said he wasn't reaching. One person's word against another. Hardly reason to shoot someone 7 times when the shooter admits he never saw a gun and didn't know where the gun was.
Castile meant that he wasn't reaching for the gun. We know he was reaching for something because his girlfriend said so as she narrated the aftermath on Facebook Live.
Watching the dashcam video again, the cop asked for license and insurance. The driver handed him a large piece of paper which wasn't a license but looks to be the same size as a car registration.
Remember the officer asked for a drivers license so it is reasonable for him to be reaching somewhere for that license. Castile then calmly mentions that he has a gun and the cop then panics and says don't reach for it and then immediately starts shooting without ever seeing a gun.
If we follow the sequence of events, Castile mentions the gun while complying with the policeman's first command. If he is reaching, he is doing so because the cop told him to get his license. That Castile mentions a gun does not justify the cop shooting 7 times especially when the cop never saw a gun.
Here is the dashcam video. This, thankfully now fired, cop is horrendously incompetent, and that is before he started shooting. He radios that he is stopping someone he thinks is a robbery suspect. He then walks up to the car and sticks his face in the window of the car. Incredibly sloppy. It is no wonder this stop went rapidly downhill with a tragic outcome.
Again, it doesn't matter where the gun was or even if the gun was. Yanez knew exactly two things about Castile at that moment - 1) he had a gun and 2) he was reaching into his pocket despite being told not to.
That's a dangerous combination.
How is it even possible that you can't understand everything changes the moment you tell a cop you have a gun?
Watch Yanez's right hand in the video closely. At 1:06 he is holding the piece of paper in his left hand and reading it when Castile informs him that he has a firearm. Yanez immediately slides his right hand onto his pistol, pulls it up about 2 inches and says, "Okay, don't reach for it, then." A moment later he says, "Don't pull it out" and raises his pistol another couple of inches. He then says again, "Don't pull it out" and reaches inside the vehicle with his left hand as if he's trying to stop Castile from reaching for something and then he starts firing.
Whatever command Castile thought he was complying with was superseded by the command to not reach for it. Castile was taught in CCW class to keep his hands where the officer can see them. He was told by the officer not to reach for it. That means don't f**king reach for it. Not for the gun, not for your license, not for your carry permit. Not for anything.
Until the location and the status of the gun are established, you keep your hands where he can see them and you sure as hell don't reach into your pocket as he's telling you not to.
It's an unfortunate tragedy that Castile died. But it's also clear that if he had done what he was taught to do and what he was told to do, he would still be alive today.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
