SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A woman named Lavish Reynolds has posted a dramatic Facebook Live video showing a bleeding man, Philando Castile, next to her in a car as a police officer who just shot him points a gun at him through a car window. Philando Castile, 32, died at the hospital a short time later, WCCO confirmed through his family. "Police shot him for no apparent reason, no reason at all," she says at one point.
The police shooting occurred in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. Falcon Heights, which is located 10 minutes from Minneapolis/St. Paul, is the home of the Minnesota State Fair and dubs itself a "village within the city." A child (she was 4-years-old, said the St. Paul Pioneer Press) was in the car when the police officer, who has not been identified, shot Philando Castile. The child could be heard crying in the background as the emotional-sounding officer continues to point his gun through the car window as Castile bleeds through his white T-shirt and an upset Reynolds talks live on Facebook, imploring God to save him. Facebook Live allows people to stream live video directly from their cell phone onto their Facebook page.
In the video, Lavish Reynolds says to Philando Castile, "Stay with me... We got pulled over for a busted taillight in the back." She also said in the video that police asked Castile, the driver, for his license and registration and, as he reached for it, he told officers that he had a firearm and a concealed carry permit. The officer then shot him, she said (Castile had been stopped for traffic issues before; he was booked for driving after revocation in the past. However, a check with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's criminal record database showed only an entry for failing to provide proof of insurance; the Minneapolis Star-Tribune said his record consisted of "misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors" only.)
Philando Castile, 32, worked in a school cafeteria in St. Paul, the Star-Tribune said. A parent of a child in the school posted a tribute to him on Facebook, saying "This was a GOOD MAN" who pushed extra food on children and gave a borderline autistic child constant hugs.
There are a number of links with this story - I chose the first one with a working link to the video. (Working for me, anyway. [Javascript required, but see below. -Ed.])
[This seems to be a direct link to the 10m30s, 36MB video: http://videos.videopress.com/zis1YJRV/minnesota-video_dvd.mp4
The video is also available on YouTube. -Ed.]
Update #2: According to a story on Ars Technica , the Governor of Minnesota is asking for an independent federal investigation:
Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota on Thursday asked the Department of Justice to investigate the killing of a black motorist shot by a white police officer. Philando Castile's dying moments were live-streamed on Facebook, and the incident prompted a comment from President Barack Obama.
Dayton said he wanted an "immediate independent federal investigation into this matter." The governor suggested that racism was to blame for the killing of Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria manager, who was shot at least four times by a police officer after being pulled over for a broken taillight in Falcon Heights.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Entropy on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:21PM
- So he has a criminal record (Misdemeanors, like stealing stuff, are crimes.)
- He had a gun
- He was pulled over in a traffic stop
- He was somehow out of his car, and far from it
...And he got shot by the police. Probably because he did something guess what! criminal. Big deal. No idea what race he is..but if he's black they'll probably start whining about racism nonsense too. Ask yourself--When you've been pulled over by the police how often did you run away from your car? I'm guessing 0 times.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:28PM
Did you even read the article? Check a couple of your points and come back with a better comment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:29PM
You might want to check your facts. He was sitting in the driver's seat the whole time. Even had his seatbelt on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:40PM
You seem to be confused.
By definition, facts don't matter to racists.
Well, that's not true. Cherry-picked facts that are convenient to the racist narrative are hugely important. But other facts, not so much.
The guy had been cited for driving a hooptie without a muffler and not wearing a seat-belt. He was obviously a bad seed and needed to be put down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:16AM
But he was black, which is all that matters.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:38PM
Only two of your points have any value. 1. He had a gun which he disclosed and had a permit for 2. He was pulled over in a traffic stop.
Not seeing anything about criminal background, which is likely untrue if he was able to get a concealed carry permit. Sounds more like a scared cop who thinks anyone not dressed like an "upright citizen" is a gang banger who would like nothing more than to shoot him. Even if there was any criminal activity going on there was still no reason to shoot the guy four times! Maybe when I see a rash of stories where police are the ones being gunned down, then I will have a little more sympathy for the dangers of their job. Also, racism and profiling are different yet related things. The cop doesn't have to be a racist to profile the victim, but that doesn't make it ok.
No racism bro, but don't go wearing tank tops or having dark skin, supposedly those two things mean you are a criminal and its ok for the police to treat you as one. How about higher standards for police officers? Right now they generally have the sensibilities of a scared suburban mom.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:06PM
It was apparently a Black cop who shot him and an Asian cop who was his backup.
So this is minority Blue on Black crime. Not even a cracka this time, cuz even the minorities in Blue are actually Yellow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:11PM
That's completely unsurprising.
Being a minority cop does not make you immune to cop culture.
And that's the main problem - a pervasive mindset among the police that black males are ultra dangerous.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:32PM
Because cops know the truth, they see it every day. Young black urban males ARE dangerous. Don't believe me, go look up the FBI stats for yourself. All that politically correct bullcrap means nothing whan it is your own ass on the line, which for a cop it is every time they pull a car over. Even black cops know that pulling over a young black inner city male is, by far, the most dangerous demographic to encounter and they react accordingly.
We could, and should, debate the WHY of it until we all are carted off to a retirement home but if you can't even admit that it IS the current reality there is no point to a conversation so just go bother somebody else, K? Any solution has to begin with accepting that the world is what it is, and deal with changing it from that point to a desired goal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:05AM
"I am not a racist, but:
Young black urban males ARE dangerous.
"
This will get old real fast. Concealed carry rights are at stake! This is no time to "not be a racist, but"!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Friday July 08 2016, @12:36AM
Sadly, I'm guessing statistics will back his statement up. Here in Canada, I here news from Ottawa and Toronto, and it's actually very rare to hear of a crime involving a handgun involving someone who is *not* black. Note that this is *relatively* more dangerous, but the fear gets blown out of proportion like all other fears these days.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:48AM
Bigotry is inherently innumerate.
Yes there are disproportionately more black males convicted for violent crimes than any other group. But when encountering a random black male the statistic that matters is how likely any individual black male is to be dangerous.
So if 1 out of every 1000 white guys are dangerous and 10 out of every 1000 black guys are dangerous it would be factual to say that black men are TEN TIMES more likely to be dangerous. But the chance that any random guy you run into will NOT be dangerous is 99.9% for white guys and 99.0% That is a negligible difference.
Imagine if your doctor gave you a medical test that had a 99% false positive rate for cancer. Would you start treatment based on a positive test result?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Friday July 08 2016, @03:26AM
That's what I meant by the fear being blown out of proportion. It's the same with "Terrorism".
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday July 08 2016, @05:26AM
Here in the west of Canada, it is usually Eastern Europeans or East Indians or like yesterday, a white American. Though there was also some problems with Somalians who I guess are black.
It's almost always drug gangs fighting over turf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:52AM
"I'm not a racists, because I am Canadian."
Louis Riel wants a word with you, you hoser.
(Score: 2, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @01:49AM
Wasn't sure if I wanted to post this (The Root can be inflammatory at times but how the hell could I blame them today), so here you go. The 2nd Amendment Is So White: What the Past 24 Hours Have Taught Me About Black People’s Right to Bear Arms [theroot.com].
Many studies have shown that police officers’ overtly racist attitudes and implicit bias toward black people increase the likelihood they they will shoot unarmed black suspects (pdf). But we’ve also witnessed many instances in which unlawfully armed white people have escaped police violence in ways that even unarmed (or lawfully armed) black people have not. In 2014, 18-year-old Steve Lohner carried a loaded shotgun as he walked down an Aurora, Colo., street and refused to show police identification. He walked away with a citation. That same year, John Crawford III, a 22-year-old man living in Dayton, Ohio, was gunned down by police in a Wal-Mart as he carried a BB gun that he’d picked up off a shelf. Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy living in Cleveland, was killed over a BB gun. Ohio is also an open-carry state. These are not isolated incidents.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:36AM
Alright, I've pulled some stats that are relevant:
Basically, cops have less of a chance of getting murdered than the average US male and most of the murder victims from black males are other young black males.
Murder rate of men in the US in 2008: 8.5 homicides per 100,000
Murder rate of cops in Minnesota in 2008: 0 per 100,000 (average from 2008 to 2012 is 3.3)
Castile's age group (30-34) represents 10% of black homicide offenders (peak is 28% by 20-24) and the vast majority (83.3%) of victims of black offenders are also black.
Other data and references:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf [bjs.gov]
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/law-enforcement-fatality-rates-by-state.html [governing.com]
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2012.xls [fbi.gov]
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2012.xls [fbi.gov]
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2012.xls [fbi.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:16AM
> Basically, cops have less of a chance of getting murdered than the average US male
When you get to shoot first then of course you are less likely to die.
Don't you know anything?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by art guerrilla on Friday July 08 2016, @11:23AM
@ jmorris-
so, ultra-big-brained super-nerd only interested in facts and rational thinking...
HOW did you get so fucking stupid ?
(i know WHY you got so cruel (*cough*authoritarian*cough*), you insensitive clod, but the how has me wondering)
soooo, HOW MANY kops are killed EVERY DAY by these thousands of interactions going on with the 100% black certified gangbanger kop killers ?
these super-predator inhuman monsters are mowing down dozens of kops a day, are they ? ? ?
no ?
you must have better facts than i do that state a cabbie is about 5-6 times more likely to be killed on the job than a donut eater...
huh, i guess you go to cabbie funerals and cry, doncha ? ? ?
minute mart clerks are about 2-3 times more likely to be killed on the job as precious state goons with a badge and a gun...
damn, these facts are pesky...
how about this, TRUE public servants in the form of firefighters are killed (NOT accidentally die) about twice the rate as po'po' piggies...
knew that didn't you ? ? ?
why don't firefighters kill everyone in their path like big ole, brave, tough steroid-juiced kops do ? ? ?
you inhumane POS, kops are NOT your friend: they are the thugs of the 1% and are there to enforce the will of the 1% upon you, NOT PROTECT US 99%, you stupid fucktard...
(wait, let me correct that: kops are YOUR friend AS LONG AS YOU SUCK THEM OFF; but let even a cop-sucker like you get crosswise with them, and you will feel their hobnail boots on your neck too, you dingleberry on the butt of life...)
geez, i bet you think Empire's mercenaries are killing brown people the world over to protect your pwecious (fake) democracy, doncha propaganda vessel ? ? ?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @01:02AM
In the video, Lavish can be heard to state that an Asian cop shot her boyfreind.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:14AM
Asians are honorary whites.
At least as long as they don't try to hook up with white women.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @04:00AM
So what does that make my girlfriend? Has she lost her "honorary white" status because of our relationship? ...you're either a poor troll, or duller than a sack of wet ducks.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Entropy on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:03PM
Or he was actually reaching for a gun, did you ever consider that? It's undisputed that he had a gun, and he had a criminal record(though not a felony). They told him to keep his hands where they could see them, and he went reaching places..it doesn't take long to pull out a gun and shoot someone. The rest is what the angry girlfriend said.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:29PM
Or he was actually reaching for a gun
Possible, but it would not be very smart to announce that you have a gun before pulling it out on a cop.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 08 2016, @05:43AM
it would not be very smart to announce that you have a gun before pulling it out on a cop.
It all depends on how the situation develops. You may comfortably welcome an officer who you consider level-headed and sane, but then at some point he becomes a maniac, for one reason or another. (Say, someone told him that you are his wife's secret lover, and he is one of those who see red at that.) Wouldn't you be afraid? What will you do?
Fortunately, I never found myself in such a situation - but, as we see, something like that does happen sometimes. I have no inner knowledge of this case, but my guess is simple: misunderstanding due to mutual fear, distrust and ingrained bias. The very first exchange of words sets the stage, and the rest plays out in real time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:02AM
I am not a racist, but:
Or he was actually reaching for a gun, did you ever consider that?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @01:05AM
Traffic citations are not "criminal".
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:04PM
speeding is a criminal offense in some areas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @03:12PM
Let me check that out - - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/misdemeanor-traffic-offenses.html [legalmatch.com]
Depending on your exact definition of "criminal offense", then, yeah, maybe. Speeds in excess of 100 mph, especially when evading police, are likely to be charged as criminal offenses. The typical 10 to 20 mph over the speed limit offenses are not even misdemeanor offenses.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @05:42AM
I guess we'll find out whether he had a concealed carry permit, and it is pretty common for police to ask for id, and it is pretty common for the id to be in a pants pocket for a guy. Since there was no felony on his record, which I'm sure the cops looked at before walking up to his car, there was no reason for him to be so scared.
What really gets me is that this is a consideration you and others make. Somehow a criminal record makes it OK for a cop to murder someone. Make no mistake, that is what these things are. Until the cop's life is actually in danger, meaning a gun or other weapon gets pulled on them, they're choice to shoot someone out of fear is murder. Apparently there has been some major fallout over this, and I am not shocked because no one thinks murder is OK, and it is just a matter of time before communities reach their limit of abuse.
Even for times when there is a crime involved, how does that make it ok? If police are so afraid for their safety they should be wearing bullet proof vests (oh wait many do...) and they should be trained to avoid murdering someone. Currently it seems they are trained to kill, with all too many examples of mistakes happening and innocent people losing their lives. I would rather have the trained and protected officers take a slightly greater risk than to continue allowing innocent people to be gunned down and abused. The fact that many of those people are criminals does not make it ok, that is what we have a justice system for.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday July 08 2016, @11:18AM
Or he was actually reaching for a gun
Or he wasn't. It's one or the other, I guess. Do you know which?
Yesterday you didn't even know if he was in or out of the car, so...
it doesn't take long to pull out a gun and shoot someone.
Yes, demonstrably proven, though not by the dead guy.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 08 2016, @06:26AM
Care what you wish for. Fatal shooting of police officers at Texas rally streamed live on Facebook [cnet.com]
Not only the incident resulted in 4 dead traffic cops and 7 others wounded, but... by Jove... it was streamed live on FB.
Those police officers have my unreserved sympathy.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @07:39AM
Yeah I was feeling bad when I heard about those :( They have my sympathy, more innocents hurt by this problem. I do hope it wakes up the law enforcement community that they have to take these things seriously and be more diplomatic when trying to solve these problems. Most communities are pretty open to trying to solve the problems, but the power dynamic is lopsided and punishment for wrongdoings are likewise lopsided. Once those balance out, with cops going to jail for murder / manslaughter, then justice will be balanced again and these problems will go away. I feel confident saying that communities will be able to cope with the occasional tragedy when justice is served equally.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Disagree) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:41PM
stupid fucking pigs, YET AGAIN.
are we finally tired of this shit yet? how much more bootlicking is needed before we all grow a pair and demand equal justice - EVEN DOUBLE - for those who screw people under COVER of law?
this shit boils my blood. I can't watch news anymore since this is a near daily event.
god dammit so much.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:02PM
this shit boils my blood. I can't watch news anymore since this is a near daily event.
You should consider moving to a country with a lower population.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:12PM
what has that got to do with the number of people? there are other countries much more tensely populated, yet police there do not have a "shoot first, ask later" mentality.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:25AM
If you're worried about being tensely populated, you should move to Australia. We don't give a shit, cos no worries, she'll be right mate. Crack a tinnie and we'll call you Bruce. And avagoodweekend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @10:54AM
You should consider moving to a country with a lower population.
Like China?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries [theguardian.com]
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/ [thefreethoughtproject.com]
China, whose population is 4 and 1/2 times the size of the United States, recorded 12 killings by law enforcement officers in 2014.
Let that sink in. Law enforcement in the US killed 92 times more people than a country with nearly 1.4 billion people.
You have police force that is detached from and scared of the population. They do not interact with the community except to "lay down the law". They seem to view everyone else as a criminal - the "us vs. them" mentality. The "thin blue line" crap. And then add do that armed population, so what do you expect?
30,000+ dead because of gun violence in US, which is more dead than US armed forces had casualties in Iraq during *war time*. It was safer to live in Baghdad during uprising than in some US neighborhoods (simply going by deaths per 100,000 inhabitants)! But most Americans see nothing wrong with US gun laws?
Keep your guns and keep your deaths.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:09PM
Meanwhile, the Republican Governor of Massachusetts supports a bill that treats enforcers as a specially protected class against assaults [sentinelandenterprise.com]. So much for equal protection under the law.
Representative Timothy Whelan, R-Brewster, a retired state trooper, noted that police officers "serve as that thin blue line between order and chaos."
Knee-jerk laws in response to one-off situations are never good for Liberty. Odds are the criminal in this case was going to shoot and kill a policeman anyway, at some point, because that was his evil nature.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:07AM
The "blue lives matter" laws are disgusting public proclamations of racism.
When I lived in mass it was not uncommon to see cop family vehicles with "thin blue line" bumper stickers. Its literally the display of gang colors.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @02:11AM
Post the LA riots, someone reported that a brick wall in an alley had been tagged: "LAPD Rules!", proving that the police thought of themselves as the baddest, best armed gang in the City of Angels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:12AM
You overreact, cops are murdered now in Dallas by someone just like you, you fucking god damn loon. Statistics aren't being equally represented in the media. The media highlights only when blacks are killed and ignore everything else. You take one side of the issue that the MSM pushes, and what a surprise, you've got garbage and rage in your mind. Fuck you for for being just another idiot in this world, fuck you for not digging any deeper.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:55PM
You might be mixing up this up with the enforcer-murdered black man in Louisiana [thedailybeast.com]. He was in his early adult years when he had presumably consensual though illegal sex with a minor-aged woman and that started him on a lifelong path outside of respectable, mainstream work. He was also later imprisoned for years for selling cannabis. Selling CDs was probably the extent of work available to him.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:30PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:41PM
Yea, that kind of typo is a Freudian slip isn't it. Journalism does not exist, only the Narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:58AM
And now we know why you are never swayed by facts that conflict with your own personal Narrative.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @04:02AM
Fry in Hell, Morris. I hope you're reincarnated poor, black, and for preference disabled.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:27PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by r1348 on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:58PM
You just made yourself an egregious idiot.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 08 2016, @12:26AM
You just made yourself an egregious idiot.
Not really, he was just responding to jmorris. You may not know, but jmorris kind of has a rep here.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:38AM
You may not know it, but so do you.
And not in a good way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:55AM
Assuming what you say is true
With all that the cops failed to record the event ahead of time (they either failed to record it or they are failing to quickly release the footage before they have time to doctor it)? To me that's unacceptable.
If this guy was known to be so dangerous (he's not really dangerous but the way you make him out to be) the cops should have been all over the situation with video and audio footage ahead of time. They failed and I am rightfully upset.
(Score: 1) by blaze on Friday July 08 2016, @06:30AM
Was Ian Murdock a criminal? But he was threatened, tortured and killed by police and still no one cares.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:34PM
I haven't seen the Facebook video, but from the description it looks like the video takes place after the shooting. The cop car should have a dash cam, with at least audio of the actual event.
I don't think Lavish is lying, but I want the most unbiased reporting of the event possible - a video of the event.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:38PM
If the evidence is damning it will be stonewalled so as to not inflame the situation. If it is exculpatory or useless it is more likely to be quickly released.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:39PM
I doubt a dash cam would catch if Castile reached for a gun or pick up any audio. Unfortunately, this will likely be a situation of conflicting testimony where people project their assumptions and decide who to believe based on something other than evidence.
My bias is against the cop, but I hope there will be clear evidence one way or the other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:53PM
Yea, seen enough of the dindu nuffins turn out exactly the opposite. Put a two week delay on forming any opinion on this case, it is pretty obvious the media are trying for another long hot summer of rage storyline to run through the political conventions and will be grasping at every case that might possibly be fit into that Narrative. The fact that most will fall apart won't matter, that will happen long after they get the riots and they will bury the correction. Bottom line is we don't know jack about this particular case and it will be days or weeks until we do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:23PM
I'm curious if your "dundu nuffins" phrase would have been used if the guy was white. Even if he did do something, unless he pulled his gun out there was no reason to shoot him. "Shoot first, let god sort it out" seems more like something a mafia guy would say, but it seems to common for police to use that mentality. What a burden it is having about how pissed off people are over years of systemic abuse! Next time someone unfairly calls you a racist we can just use the same logic: "Well, it was jmorris so he probably was saying something racist. I'll wait a few weeks to decide if the anonymous SWAT call was justified" /s.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:21AM
Dindu nuffin is the new bix nood.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:55AM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dindu+nuffin [urbandictionary.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:25PM
> I haven't seen the Facebook video
I watched it. The black guy shot himself four times with the cops gun, and then reached for his own wallet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:34PM
If this man had not told the enforcer that he had a gun, which is not [concealednation.org] a statewide requirement [mn.gov], it is unlikely that any weapons would have been drawn by either side. It seems like the enforcer heard a black man utter the word "gun" and assumed it was instantly a threat.
Thanks to our incestuous prosecution system, which local prosecutors need generally friendly police to be successful, no DA is ever going to make a significant push against police abuses. So "I was scared so I emptied my gun into him" has all the legal standing in the world provided one has the extra powers bestowed on the enforcers. The rest of us are unlikely to ever get away with that answer, nor are we going to be given hours or days to "collect our thoughts" in such a scenario while we're on paid leave. It is these extra privileges that ensure that police will escalate situations because there is no risk for going overboard.
It is incredible that the governor admits the man likely would have been alive if he had been white, meaning that he believes the police are too quick to assume the worst out of black citizens. From what we have seen in recent years, his enforcer-heretical views are likely correct. The Louisiana case is getting Federal involvement, and I believe this one should as well. The only way these abuses are going to stop is if prosecutors, insulated from local and even state enforcer interference, can prosecute these blatant abuses of power.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:47PM
I bet the NRA (aka black lives don't matter central) won't have one thing to say about this either.
They loved zimerman, but said nothing [theroot.com] to defend a black woman in florida who fired a warning shot in self-defense.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:14PM
That's because her actions were indefensible. She fired a warning shot. Any firearms class will teach you that you never fire a warning shot. If you draw your weapon, be prepared to use it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:36AM
Zimmerman disobeyed his neighborhood watch training and a direct order from the 911 operator not to pursue Martin
But Alexander choosing not to kill her husband if she didn't absolutely have to is indefensible?
How damaged is your moral compass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @02:51AM
The 911 operator did not order Zimmerman to do anything, and anyway didn't have any legal authority over him. She merely told Zimmerman that she didn't need him to follow Martin. There is a difference. You could rightly say that Zimmerman took a foolish risk, but that isn't a crime.
You are allowed to stop a person with deadly force if your life is in danger. You are not otherwise allowed to discharge firearms in randomish directions in a normal city. Either you need to stop somebody, or you don't. The harshness in the Alexander case is partly due to the presence of children in the house. Bullets pass through walls and bounce when they hit metal things. Really, it was a "think of the children" case. That said, it probably shouldn't have been prosecuted.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 08 2016, @04:07AM
No, he didn't. If you aren't going to bother learning what actually happened, then keep your mouth shut about matters of life and death. Accusing someone of murder when he claims self defense, and when you know that you haven't bothered to learn the public facts about the case, is tantamount to you committing murder yourself. Freedom of speech doesn't excuse you from negligent homicide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:48AM
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Seems like the dispatcher clearly said not to do it.
Zimmerman even agreed.
Sorry to burst your righteous bubble of racism.
> when you know that you haven't bothered to learn the public facts about the case, is tantamount to you committing murder yourself.
Clearly you are not playing with a full deck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:05AM
If you think "the dispatcher clearly said not to do it", then you need to learn English.
The dispatcher made it clear that following was not needed. Nothing was said about it being helpful, harmful, prohibited, or anything else. It just wasn't needed. The point is that the dispatcher doesn't want to get in trouble for encouraging Zimmerman to do something unneeded that could become dangerous. It's up to Zimmerman if he wants to do that.
You seem to interpret the dispatcher's words more like "Ok, I prohibit you from doing that". This is not correct. Even if it were correct, it wouldn't have the force of law. Zimmerman is in no way required to obey the dispatcher. The dispatcher does not have authority over Zimmerman.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jiro on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:23PM
Five minutes Google shows me this: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/three-weird-myths-about-marissa-alexander-that-people-think-are-true/ [legalinsurrection.com]
He had a domestic violence conviction four years before.
She had a domestic violence conviction five months after she shot her husband, while waiting for the trial for the shooting itself. Furthermore, she was under a no-contact order at the time.
Furthermore, it wasn't a warning shot. It missed him and hit the ceiling of the next room. She didn't fire it upwards. (And the idea of firing a warning shot comes from people who have seen too many movies.)
And even furthermore, she went outside, got a gun, came back, and shot her husband. That is not legal, and certainly not self-defense. “[Alexander] intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life."
Of course the NRA didn't defend her in this. What would you expect?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jcross on Friday July 08 2016, @12:15AM
If the case turns out to be as described so far, it would be quite a bit more clear-cut. It could easily be interpreted as: "the government wants to shoot you for legally carrying a weapon", but I wonder whether the NRA will choose to see it that way. The outcome will be especially interesting because, unlike Zimmerman, this guy presumably didn't even fire his gun, so there are no complications about "stand your ground" or even self defense. If the NRA doesn't spin this as "guy gets shot for carrying", I would call bullshit on all their 2nd amendment arguments, since that would mean they favored applying the constitution inconsistently. So far it seems they haven't said anything but my guess is they'll come out in favor of the victim, because it's a double win: they get to champion gun rights and refute charges of racism at the same time.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday July 08 2016, @12:27AM
And what if she felt she was defending the lives of her children?
Just being a Devil's advocate here. I have no information on this case, like whether the children were in the room, or know any details of the laws in Florida so you can ignore me as you choose.
But If a parent fears for the safety of their children they would get a weapon and return to where the children were to protect them.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:31AM
Wait what?
So her husband having already been convicted of domestic violence multiple times is a point against her?
And her actions five months after the shooting invalidate her defense? Is this some kind of time-machine legal theory?
So she missed the guy? The NRA would have been happier if she had hit him?
As for the garage door not working, her husband, in a sworn deposition said he knew she could not leave that way because the doors were locked.
Your response is a perfect example of how these situations play out, the minority gets zero benefit of the doubt instead even the most bizarre and unrelated facts get tossed in to rationalize their persecution. If you are black you must be a 100% angel, else you deserved everything you got.
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Friday July 08 2016, @10:50AM
The point is that *she* was convicted of domestic violence a lot closer to the time of the incident than he was.
What that means is that it wasn't a "warning shot". People see "shot the ceiling" and think she pointed the gun up at the ceiling. She pointed the gun at him and the ceiling it hit was the one in the next room, not the one above her.
(Score: 3, Informative) by julian on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:23PM
What I would do if I had a permit and a gun in my car is say nothing and hand over the permit along with my driver's license and insurance.
I'm white but this is how I interact with police; move slowly and only after calmly announcing what you need to do. Don't suddenly reach into the glove compartment or your bag. Do whatever you're told. If your civil rights are violated, remain silent and compliant and sue the police department later. You can always file charges after the fact, but only if you're still alive.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday July 08 2016, @03:49PM
My coworker in Michigan (you need to declare) uses this procedure:
1. Roll down window before stopping
2. Keep both hands on steering wheel during conversation with officer
3. State you have a concealed permit and where the gun is (or you don't have it currently)
4. State where your license and insurance are located (glove box and pocket)
5. Ask officer what he would like next
The officer asked him to step out of the car and he was frisked (not carrying that day), then they proceeded with the citation.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday July 08 2016, @12:07AM
Well if the summery is correct, he stated he had a gun, while reaching into his pocket. Which seems like it undeniably would of sounded like an imminent and serious threat to an officer.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 08 2016, @02:56AM
Shouldn't the police officer wait until he sees the gun before shooting? I can understand readying his service weapon and aiming it at the suspect, but shooting without seeing a weapon is the very sort of going overboard I was describing.
There have been cases of people shooting "home invaders" who haven't made it inside yet, and they are often charged because they shot too early, or didn't identify their targets. In some cases they are family members coming home late. We don't give those scared shooters the same level of doubt the law gives scared enforcers, even in states with the Castle Doctrine. That is not equality.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:47AM
Standard instruction for CC permit here is to hand the permit along with your other information to the cop, let him grok the information, and allow him to direct the conversation from there.
Not justifying police action, but it would behoove EVERYONE to make the cop feel as comfortable as possible during these encounters so no one ends up dead.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @01:14AM
"the enforcer heard a black man utter the word "gun"
You've nailed it. But, to be more accurate, you need to paraphrase slightly.
"Nigger with a gun! BANG BANG BANG BANG"
We should probably blame Minnesota lawmakers for this death. There should obviously have been a box on the CC application for race. "Black" and "African American" should be automatic disqualifiers. Everyone knows the protocol for "Nigger with a gun!" Lawmakers set this man up to be killed.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:36PM
The ever reliable NY Times has the video here [nytimes.com]. It seems that the revolution will be televised, at least in this case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:46PM
Actually, that video is not quite so good.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:51PM
Its back up on facebook.
Facebook says it was taken down because of a "technical glitch."
Reading between the lines it sounds more like a "process glitch" - enough people complained about it that it was automatically taken offline for review. Once reviewed, they put it back up. That's the problem with algorithms that favor "better safe than sorry" and depend on human input. Something this big will always draw haters and a computer can't tell the difference between a hater and a legit complaint.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Thursday July 07 2016, @09:53PM
If this cop did indeed jump the gun (bad pun) and shoot this guy improperly, as seems to be the case at first glance, he can share a cell with Michael Slager [wikipedia.org], who is almost likely to spend the rest of his life in prison for shooting a black man without cause.
This shooting has triggered an interesting thought. If gun control eventually makes it nearly impossible for people to have guns, only the police will have them. That thought does not give me much comfort! Being a black man in the United States seems to be a prima facie death warrant, at least as far as the cops are concerned.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:08PM
The main rationalization for cops being so trigger happy is that they have to be in order to protect their lives (somewhere along the line "to protect and serve" became "to protect and serve themselves first").
If civilian ownership of guns is ever effectively eliminated that justification will go out the window. In the UK, regular cops are famously unarmed, that role being dedicated to specialized firearms officers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Thursday July 07 2016, @11:22PM
Yes. In Scotland when the police began to routinely carry firearms, the public opposed it and now armed officers are to be sent only to "firearms incidents, or where there is a threat to life."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11133802/Police-Scotland-in-about-turn-on-the-arming-of-officers-on-routine-patrol.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:12AM
That justification is already ridiculous, as you noted. Their job is not to shoot everyone because there's a slight possibility of there being danger, but to "protect and serve". Whether lots of ordinary people have guns or not is irrelevant; they're not doing their job.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday July 08 2016, @12:32AM
"This shooting has triggered an interesting thought. If gun control eventually makes it nearly impossible for people to have guns, only the police will have them."
You're only just realizing this now? This is almost the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment; to make sure the people are on equal footing with the government so as not to be ridden over rough shod.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday July 08 2016, @12:38AM
Well, someone of us still trusted the government, even a little bit. That trust is nearly gone now. Having said that, I have not trusted the police in many years.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Friday July 08 2016, @12:58AM
Welcome to the dark side. Here's your tinfoil hat.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday July 08 2016, @03:53AM
What makes you think I'm not wearing one already? My neighbors have WiFi. ;-)
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:08PM
Cops are scared of black men. They see a black man and assume he is armed and immediatly go into full assault mode. Heightened adrenaline and fear take over and any movement that could be threatening like reaching for a wallet is immediatly interpreted as a threat and they shoot. They don't go in calm and assertive to access or take control of a situation. They just go into "this nigger probably has a gun and hates cops" mode. They then shoot first and answer questions later.
As a result, black men are now terrified of the cops and panic when being arrested. This results in them panicking when confronted by police and they wind up not complying quickly enough, inadvertently making rapid movements, try to run, or resist arrest. And of course the edgy cops don't expect or want that behavior, panic and shoot.
The problem exists on both sides of the fence. On the side of the black man, years of racial oppression has resulted in ignorance and poverty. Women having children they don't want with men who have the maturity and emotional capacity of a child. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. Children grow up without parents who discipline and push them to succeed. The mothers just cut them loose on the streets. These kids are angry and frustrated; living in a world where they feel trapped and helpless. They then turn to gangs, crime and drugs to fill in voids left by society. They then threaten and intimidate their fellow neighbors, creating the glorified thug culture which includes "no snitching". This is what gave them their reputation of being violent, armed, cop hating thugs. Of course this isn't all of them, most are normal people just trying to get by. But they are so isolated form the rest of society, they appear to all be this way.
On the cops side you have a fraternity which like the street gangs they swore to protect us from, also don't like snitches. Dysfunction, machismo, ego, all come together and result in a very toxic environment. Promotion relies on sucking up, back stabbing ensues leaving a trail of bruised, angry egos. You can imagine how they must haze the rookies. They love sending them to the worst parts of town, often starting them in dangerous housing projects and neighborhoods. Remember the asian rookie who shot an unarmed black man in the pink houses [nbcnewyork.com]? From cops and ex cops I know, they must have told that poor rookie things like "Those niggers are going to eat your little asian ass alive in there!" "Watch out for the stairwell spooks rookie!" "they're gonna get you rookie!" and so on. That guy was so tightly wound he needed to walk around with his weapon drawn and the unexpected sight of a person was enough to make him shoot in a moment of fear.
On both sides you have a culture problem that needs to be addressed. One is harder to solve than the other. And I don't think I have to explain which one either.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:20PM
Well, they might be right there. And they might be right for a reason.
I saw a prank-gone-wrong video a few days ago, some guys persuaded a black mate to wear orange overalls. He didn't get strange looks, he got the entire local police force in full riot-control mode to flatten him (i.e. a physical assault before any words were exchanged) before he could complete the abolutely nothing that he was doing. Guilty wearing orange whilst black - a federal offence.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:30PM
I saw a prank-gone-wrong video a few days ago, some guys persuaded a black mate to wear orange overalls. He didn't get strange looks, he got the entire local police force in full riot-control mode to flatten him
If only he had followed these [youtube.com] simple rules (specially #2) he could have avoided that beating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:51PM
> Women having children they don't want with men who have the maturity and emotional capacity of a child.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. For one thing the children are wanted. In a world where systemic racism has taken away so much of their personal agency, the one thing that has not been taken from them is the ability to have a child. Sure there are some who do not want to have children, but that's a tiny minority. They may not have the economic means to care for their children, but the children are most definitely wanted. Furthermore the idea that black men are immature and uncaring fathers is also false. The majority of black fathers are involved with their children [theroot.com] despite overwhelming obstacles placed in their path.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Friday July 08 2016, @03:41AM
That's just factually incorrect.
Across the board in the USA, pooling everyone from all backgrounds, less than half of pregnancies are desired.
That's the real, sad truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:51AM
> Across the board in the USA, pooling everyone from all backgrounds, less than half of pregnancies are desired.
Where in the world are you getting those numbers from?
Unplanned and not desired are two completely different things.
Even unwanted pregnancies do not necessarily produce unwanted children.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday July 08 2016, @12:15AM
Oh give me a break. People are perfectly capable of adapting to a jumpy, overbearing, and shooty police force. The problem is the 99% of people who get shot by police were so calm around them they were as willing to wrestle with them, or pull a gun as if they were simple gang bangers jumping them in an alley.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @02:31AM
"I am not a racist, but. . . ":
The problem exists on both sides of the fence.
Yeah, sure it does. Have you met jmorris?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:38AM
I think it's highly relevant that the cultural problems of black America are very much in the process of being fixed, mostly due to the efforts of black Americans. Some of the changes in black America that have been measured statistically over the last 25 years:
- Crime has been dropping like a rock. Murder rates today are lowest they've been since the 1950's.
- Out-of-wedlock births have also been dropping like a rock. Yes, the proportion of births where mom is unmarried has gone up, but that's because birth rates among married women have dropped even faster than unmarried women.
- Black children spend more of their time on homework than white children do. Black parents spend more time working with their kids on their homework than white parents do.
- Black fathers who are not incarcerated spend more time raising their kids than fathers of any other race.
- Drug use overall is down across all demographics, but especially among black Americans.
- High school graduation rates are somewhat up. College enrollment is also up.
From what I've seen, the black residents of my fair city have been working their butts off to give their kids a better life than they had, and part of doing that has been community efforts to clean up the streets. For example, there are elderly residents who make a point to be outside doing yard work when the kids are going to and from school to keep an eye on them and keep them safe. Parents are willing to go through just about any effort to get their kids into educational programs. There are people taking time out of their busy lives to run after-school programs that help keep kids out of trouble. And as a result of all of this, a significant portion of black America looks more like this [google.com] than like this [google.com].
So the culture heading in the wrong direction is the one in blue uniforms, not the one with darker skin tones.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:54PM
Yeah, the culture problem is also exacerbated by idiots who paint all cops with the same, "they're all fascists scared of and waiting to shoot the black man!" brush, and that all blacks are traumatized by the stigma of racial oppression and therefore bear no responsibility for doing something stupid like moving hands quickly out of the sight of the officer.
I'm not saying this isn't the case here, or that the cop is innocent. Quite frankly, NOBODY can possibly know the objective truth yet aside from the people who were right there and then (who may or may not lie their asses off, on either side.)
But neither can systemic problems like these be adequately summarized, nor solved, by 1,000 words of internet comment.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:27PM
To take a step back from the racial aspects of this, can we talk about what justifies a traffic stop?
The expansion of policing power in this area has crept up in recent decades, where even not wearing your seat belt can be considered a legal cause for a traffic stop. An omission that by itself harms no one and is more likely to harm the offender than anyone else should never be an acceptable reason for the State to intervene, detain, or fine. If Liberty is to mean anything at all, it is the choice to do things that do not harm others even at the risk to one's self.
I would go so far as to roll back the legality of stops for single front or rear lights out. That's why there are two or three lights. With modern vehicles now detecting these minor issues, the drivers should be aware of them on their own. Speed limits should be raised to where real danger would be, not because the government wants more revenue or NIMBYs want quiet on their main road.
Driving is so fraught with rules and stoppable offenses that police routinely stop people based on other evidence, such as informants, with the parallel construction of some petty turn signal violation. Just watch any police reality show, like Alaska State Troopers, and see how abused these "offenses" are. This is all the more damning as police routinely ignore every law they enforce, like cell phone use and speeding.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by coolgopher on Friday July 08 2016, @01:54AM
If a police officer is noticing a broken light, can't they just note the plate number, take a photo as evidence, and send a fine in the mail? I mean, traffic wardens manage almost that same procedure...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:57PM
Only if the objective is to punish or fine - I've had a policeman stop me to discuss a tail light I hadn't realized was broken. He didn't fine me, he just brought it to my attention, asked where I was headed. I told him, and he suggested an alternate route to get around some road work a few blocks down. He did look at my license and registration and let me do most of the talking, so I was careful not to say anything strange.
But. I was a white guy, stopped by a white policeman, in a mostly black neighborhood. It's unfortunate I feel mentioning this may be relevant to your perception...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:08PM
Yes this is relevant, because cops will often pull over white people in cars in black neighborhoods and interrogate them to no avail. The reason being that they want to make sure white people do not come into the neighborhoods to buy drugs.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:36AM
You have struck the root of the problem. In the USA, the law is our "king" [soylentnews.org], not the office-holder sitting in an office created by law. Law is the USA was created by humans who in numbers have no more authority over other people than they do as lone individuals. In other words: if I as a private person do not have the authority to compel someone else to stop their vehicle under threat of deadly force, neither can I then delegate such authority to anyone else, including a government agent.
Policing should be a difficult, gruelling job, where the presumption of innocence that goes hand-in-hand with treating people as self-owners of the body they inhabit instead of slaves practically leads to, as the Founders echoed, "better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". This prompts fear in many people who would then immediately object and say "but the police need to be able to protect me!" To those people I would say that, sorry, police cannot teleport, and as such, cannot be responsible for any given person's safety... and the Supreme Court of the USA agrees with me in Warren vs D.C. [firearmsandliberty.com] and Castle Rock vs Gonzales [wikipedia.org]. As a self-owning human individual, the safety of your personal property, to specifically include your life and the body it depends on, is your own responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:21PM
if I as a private person do not have the authority to compel someone else to stop their vehicle under threat of deadly force, neither can I then delegate such authority to anyone else, including a government agent.
Please stop reposting this sophomoric line of reasoning. It just makes any bigger point you were trying to make look stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:13AM
Feel free to explain the error(s) with it from your point of view, as a flippant comment doesn't negate history or definitions of words. If you're an advocate of "might makes right", just come out and say so openly, so I and everyone else know that you prefer the use of a gun over use of the mind.
The big problem with ignoring the rule of law is that once it becomes common knowledge that the law no longer protects the common person from government, those in government are no longer protected from the common person... and as much as I despise murder, we've had some clear [soylentnews.org] examples [usatoday.com] in the recent past of what happens when the common person feels that they have no recourse left under the rule of law.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday July 08 2016, @03:16PM
While I agree with you, it must be pointed out that seatbelt use does affect everyone else because it is a public health issue. Not using seatbelts increases the severity of accidents, raising healthcare costs that must be picked up by either government or insurance carriers, and probably burdening auto insurance and life insurance as well. Not wearing a seatbelt, therefore, is a cost to the rest of society in the form of either raised taxes, reduced public services, or more expensive insurance premiums.
Of course none of these laws are really about themselves. There are so many reasons for a traffic stop because the reasons the cops really care about - DUI, drug possession, escaping a theft - can't be determined before stopping the vehicle. So the cops identify things that people might be doing at the same time, target areas and times of day where and when such offenses are likely, and look for drunk people with broken tail lights. If you want to fix the corruption problem that us civilians care about, you also have to better solve the enforcement problem that the cops care about.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:22AM
By that standard, we are mere wards of the state, cajoled into or out of activities by fiat. That would go as far as arresting people for smoking or drinking too much in their own homes because they may get cancer or otherwise get sick. The cost justification is but a cover for limiting Liberty.
The vast majority of traffic stops yield neither impaired drivers nor fleeing criminals. We will never fix the corruption problem by working with self-interested government employees, but only by stripping them of laws to intimidate and harass us with.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:31PM
I dont see a problem here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2016, @10:57PM
I'll translate the parent post:
"One less black guy on the streets. I don't see a problem here. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Trumpf!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:02AM
could not care less what color a criminal is. One less is always a good thing.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:30AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:19AM
Not only did he pass a background check to carry a gun, he passed a background check to work at a school.
So obviously he was a criminal...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @01:30AM
One of the news agencies jumped on that aspect. They searched for Castile's criminal record. There was none. He had a traffic ticket, and a failure to pay. Administrative bullshit for a misdemeanor. No criminal record.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @06:05AM
I'm starting to become mildly hopeful that most of the worst shit posted on here is done for the express purpose of trolling, possibly to elicit responses and find out who thinks what. If that is not the case, then the AC here and actual users who have echoed the same sentiments should be ashamed and doing some serious self-reflection. Of course since they are saying such things they are likely the opposite of ashamed, and all their crying when people call them racist would be humorous if the topic wasn't so serious.
If you're so worried about criminals spare some of your neurons on the fact that the worst criminals causing the most actual harm and death are those you probably applaud because they claim to be fighting the good fight or some bullshit.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:38AM
" I am not a racist, but. . ." Oh, wait, he is a racist! Good translation. Carry on.
(Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Friday July 08 2016, @12:44AM
I see this and think "if only he was armed there wouldn't be a problem. In a situation like this the only sensible thing is to arm everyone. An armed society is a polite society"
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Friday July 08 2016, @02:25AM
I can't tell whether you're serious. The victim had a gun with him, but didn't use it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @02:32AM
Either he is so stupid that he doesn't care about facts.
Or he's joking.
Either way the correct response is the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @09:00AM
"The only thing that can stop a bad cop with a gun is a bad guy with a gun." Wayine Peerie, NRA
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:51AM
The actual quote seems to be:
-- Wayne LaPierre
Here the "bad guy with a gun" was a police officer. I suppose Castile had the option of shooting the police officer in self-defence, but how would that have gone for him, ultimately? I would assume that he didn't apprehend how much danger he was in. It's deplorable that a stop over a burned-out lamp should put one's life in jeopardy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:50AM
At least one of two things didn't happen
A: The cops lacked the video and audio footage required to show the public exactly what happened
B: The cops aren't releasing this evidence (they should release all of it, very quickly).
and that's not acceptable. Apparently the cops knew ahead of time that he had a licensed gun so it's safe to say they probably approached the situation with this knowledge considering the possibility they may have to draw their guns and so that's even more reason to ensure that they are properly set up to video and audio tape the entire confrontation ahead of time (and be required to quickly release it if any non-cops get hurt) yet they failed to do so. That's unacceptable. That the beginning of this confrontation is all hearsay is something I blame on the cops/system and there should be disciplinary action for that alone. That alone is reason to protest. I want to know what happened and I can't because the system failed me.
(Score: 3, Funny) by chewbacon on Friday July 08 2016, @01:28AM
It's public record. It will be obtained if it is not voluntarily released.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @03:29AM
You're assuming that pigs are professionals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:47AM
One more example of why licensing (e.g. forbidding without completion of a begging procedure) of natural rights, to include the acquisition and carrying of means of self-defense, must be abolished. Cops can't be responsible for your safety [firearmsandliberty.com], only you can be.
"Constitutional Carry" is close enough to the proper way of carving out space for the natural human right of self-defense that it is encouraging to see its rapid, recent spread from the one or two States it had been isolated in for generations. No permits, no blinky "he's got a gun license!" lights on the car's cop-puter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:05PM
They shouldn't release everything immediately to sate peoples' curiosity. Doing that could lead to a massive public outcry that isn't necessarily justified. The public often leaps to a conclusion and literally buries people.
The police guy may have made a massive mistake, but harassing him and possibly murdering him isn't proportionate justice, it's a cycle of revenge. We need to break such cycles.
Sadly politicians get more for making a show of it than actually taking steps to fix it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @01:37PM
Please detail the multiple, regularly-occurring events where people are literally buried in response to a release of evidence after questionable conduct by those given police powers.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 08 2016, @07:31PM
Yes, but the government officials aren't even going to begin to think they need to change anything about what they do until it is their own, literal heads in the crosshairs and their families that are being shattered by murder. We have all had front-row seats to the reality that an infinite number of black people murdered by cops results in exactly no changes on the part of the cops or government.
What will happen, though, is the stupid thing that always happens: the get-tough-on-crime crowd will howl for even more killings of black people and repugnant boot-licking of authority figures. So the authority figures will feel even more latitude to brutalize the American people and erase even more of our freedoms than they already have. It's the cycle of escalation that always leads to suffering for everyone.
It's so predictable that I despair of humanity as a species with all the foresight and self-control of gerbils.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @09:36PM
Everything should absolutely be released immediately. The more time they have to doctor the footage the greater the chances they will be able to successfully doctor the footage. Sooner release results in less time needed to successfully doctor the footage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @12:54AM
Thanks for posting links to the video. I hope the servers won't ALL be hunted down and snuffed out like a FB livestream...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 08 2016, @01:35PM
Does anyone believe the triangulated attack on the police in Dallas wasn't direct blowback from both these two enforcer murders this week? The deeply felt distrust of the police in the black community is certainly a problem, as is badge immunity. No doubt many proclamations will be made about "justice" and "fairness" but nothing structurally will change.
Even by the crudest of math, five dead police officers against three dead black men and three others going to jail for life still doesn't add up.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:44PM
Does anyone believe the triangulated attack on the police in Dallas wasn't direct blowback....
Yes. Because there is no way in hell I can know that, and neither can you. Yet.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday July 08 2016, @03:19PM
I'm sure the cross section of pro-gun and anti-racism politics is very small, but come on. If this was a white guy the NRA would be way, way out in front of this. The guy was shot down because the cop interpreted an armed black guy as a threat. There are two components to that, and I think that our 2nd amendment rights are way more threatened by this turn of events than by universal background checks or bans on assault weapons.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?