Cop in America doing a bad job, again

vi1lain said:
Pretty tired of the argument that the civilian needs to be the one who is acting rationally at all times, otherwise the cop wouldn't have acted the way they did.
Also, black people are seen as criminal or threatening even when they don't do anything irrational.

Philando Castille told the officer he was armed & licensed to carry, and he was reaching for his wallet with his ID, and he still got killed - why?
Where is the common sense in that?

Can we stop generalising and acting like all we have to do is obey what a police officer says, otherwise we're asking for trouble?
There's literally video evidence that disproves this.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're reading his post correctly. The way I see it he is simply advocating that this behaviour (hands on the steering wheel etc.) is decreasing the chances of escalation when dealing with PO's. He didn't state that doing so there will never be any incidents of wrongdoing with cops involved as this is - given human nature - an impossible thing to achieve anyway. Neither did he state that there is only one expectation to act rationally in this two-person encounter.
 
barros said:
I need to be careful because when they stop me I always get my insurance card and registration before they get near me and is not the first time they are by my side and I still looking for the cards.
Click to expand...

Not too sure digging in the glove box (if that's where your papers are) does just offer one interpretation for a cop approaching your car from behind (given they can see you through the rear window).
 
Javi said:
Not too sure digging in the glove box (if that's where your papers are) does just offer one interpretation for a cop approaching your car from behind (given they can see you through the rear window).
Click to expand...

Americans can't have it both ways. If you want guns, and armed police, then you're going to have to be subservient to police at all times.

If a cop pulls you over, stop, put your hands on the wheel. If he asks to roll the window down, do it using one hand. Slowly. Ask if he will let you speak. If he says yes, tell him what you need to. If not, follow his orders.

I would tear the whole system down and start again. But with it the way it is, why take a single chance.

Civilians should be able to say "Officer I am not comfortable reaching for anything in my car. Can your supporting officer please do so. I am happy to leave the vehicle"

Subservience sucks. But if you let the entire country run around with guns you're going to have to concede some ground.
 
barros said:
Damn don't say you have a firearm just give the cop the doc's, they are too nervous and don't even think in touching the gun.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense.

One of the main reasons Police in America act as violently as they do is because they have to assume the suspect is armed right? Therefore any sudden movements or reaches towards pocket is seen as a potential threat.
If you don't tell the officer you have a gun and reach for your pocket you'll get shot.
If you do tell the officer you have a gun, and you're licensed to carry, but you're reaching for your ID you'll still get shot.

So what should you do?

Javi said:
I don't think you're reading his post correctly. The way I see it he is simply advocating that this behaviour (hands on the steering wheel etc.) is decreasing the chances of escalation when dealing with PO's. He didn't state that doing so there will never be any incidents of wrongdoing with cops involved as this is - given human nature - an impossible thing to achieve anyway. Neither did he state that there is only one expectation to act rationally in this two-person encounter.
Click to expand...

I understand what he's saying, I just don't think it's helpful to have sweeping generalisations considering every interaction with police is different. And different members of society will have a different relationship with police officers than others - therefore you can't expect everyone to act in the same way.
Also that generates a culture of victimblaming, because person A didn't put his hands on the steering wheel the cop was okay to shoot him - that's madness.
 
vi1lain said:
I understand what he's saying, I just don't think it's helpful to have sweeping generalisations considering every interaction with police is different. And different members of society will have a different relationship with police officers than others - therefore you can't expect everyone to act in the same way.
Also that generates a culture of victimblaming, because person A didn't put his hands on the steering wheel the cop was okay to shoot him - that's madness.
Click to expand...

That's not victimblaming at all. It's just one factor that might help, practical advice so to speak. An encounter with a cop is to be reviewed by a whole set of angles and this is a small one.

It's evident that every interaction with police is different and that generalisations need to be tested for validity. In casu we are talking about a subset of all interactions civilians vs. police: traffic patrol. So certain circumstances are equal in all interactions, e.g. involvement of something to drive. Regarding these circumstances generalisations can be valid, as is the case with this set of instructions as a starting point for the interaction. If you want to disprove the generalisation, just offer an event where this sort of behaviour is not helpful.
 
Javi said:
That's not victimblaming at all. It's just one factor that might help, practical advice so to speak. An encounter with a cop is to be reviewed by a whole set of angles and this is a small one.

It's evident that every interaction with police is different and that generalisations need to be tested for validity. In casu we are talking about a subset of all interactions civilians vs. police: traffic patrol. So certain circumstances are equal in all interactions, e.g. involvement of something to drive. Regarding these circumstances generalisations can be valid, as is the case with this set of instructions as a starting point for the interaction. If you want to disprove the generalisation, just offer an event where this sort of behaviour is not helpful.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.
In 95% of police interactions with civilians both sides will be courteous & respectful, and that's to be expected.
The small subset of interactions though have to be held to a higher standard, the onus shouldn't be on the civilian to be the only person in control of their emotions at every occasion otherwise 'they should have known better' or 'they were asking for it'.
No, not at all. Too often we hear that the police officer was 'in fear of their life' which made them make a split second decision, and too often we question why the civilian did this, or didn't do that, or said this without thinking about whether they were in fear of their life. Instead we blame them because of it.
The police officer is the one who would have been in this situation before, or at the very least would have had many hours training and preparing for such situations, or should have a partner with them who is also experienced too.
They should be the ones who are prepared for almost any situation to turn bad, and therefore they are ready to deescalate the situation if need be.

Generalisations aren't helpful because they don't take into account the psychological impact that decades of police authority will have had on generations, communities, kids etc that spread fear and can illustrate the police as their abuser - but that's a separate conversation.
 
vi1lain said:
Doesn't make sense.

One of the main reasons Police in America act as violently as they do is because they have to assume the suspect is armed right? Therefore any sudden movements or reaches towards pocket is seen as a potential threat.
If you don't tell the officer you have a gun and reach for your pocket you'll get shot.
If you do tell the officer you have a gun, and you're licensed to carry, but you're reaching for your ID you'll still get shot.

So what should you do?.
Click to expand...

Tell him you have a gun and ask him what he wants you to do next. Keep your hands on the wheel and then do exactly what he tells you and nothing else. That would be the rational thing to do.

As per a previous post I made in this thread, the problem here is that terrified people don't think/behave rationally. Which (partially) explains the irrational actions of both men.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Tell him you have a gun. Keep your hands on the wheel and then do exactly what he tells you and nothing else. That would be the rational thing to do.

As per a previous post I made in this thread, the problem here is that terrified people don't think/behave rationally. Which (partially) explains the irrational actions of both men.
Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory, and like I said above, 95% of the time when someone does that, things go smoothly.
In the instances where the civ does that, and the situation still goes wrong like in Philando Castille's case (he told him he was armed, and did as the officer told him) - what should happen then if the police officer isn't held responsible?
Are we to just sit idle as people still get killed for following orders, and the cops can justify it by saying they were the ones who were scared?

Nobody is here to suggest that the police don't do a good job, or they aren't appreciated for their service.

What I'm simply saying is when if ever are they held accountable for situations that do go wrong? Or are they beyond reproach and everyone should accept that.
 
vi1lain said:
Sounds good in theory, and like I said above, 95% of the time when someone does that, things go smoothly.
In the instances where the civ does that, and the situation still goes wrong like in Philando Castille's case (he told him he was armed, and did as the officer told him) - what should happen then if the police officer isn't held responsible?
Are we to just sit idle as people still get killed for following orders, and the cops can justify it by saying they were the ones who were scared?

Nobody is here to suggest that the police don't do a good job, or they aren't appreciated for their service.

What I'm simply saying is when if ever are they held accountable for situations that do go wrong? Or are they beyond reproach and everyone should accept that.
Click to expand...

i don't think he did do what the officer told him in this instance.

In the video you can hear the cop say "ok... don't reach for it then... don't pull it out!" right before he got his own gun out. It does seem as though the guy in the car either went to get his gun to show it to the cop, or continued to get his license/wallet as per the previous request and that scared the cop and escalated the situation. Obviously, the cop should have de-escalated the situation and managed the scenario really badly. But I do think the tragic outcome could have been avoided if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked. Which would have been the rational thing to do. Like I said, though, he was obviously scared shitless and, hence, behaved irrationally. As did the cop. With terrible consequences.

I just can't accept that this cop cynically decided to execute someone in full view of his partner and dash cam. It's much more likely to be incompetence than malice. Where I do think we can talk about racist motivations is his decision to pull over a black guy based on an extremely vague description he may or may not have fit. Definitely possible he wanted a chance to bully someone, which could have been racially motivated. I think that is plausible.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
i don't think he did do what the officer told him in this instance.

In the video you can hear the cop say "ok... don't reach for it then... don't pull it out!" right before he got his own gun out. It does seem as though the guy in the car either went to get his gun to show it to the cop, or continued to get his license/wallet as per the previous request and that scared the cop and escalated the situation. Obviously, the cop should have de-escalated the situation and managed the scenario really badly. But I do think the tragic outcome could have been avoided if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked. Which would have been the rational thing to do. Like I said, though, he was obviously scared shitless and, hence, behaved irrationally. As did the cop. With terrible consequences.

I just can't accept that this cop cynically decided to execute someone in full view of his partner and dash cam. It's much more likely to be incompetence than malice. Where I do think we can talk about racist motivations is his decision to pull over a black guy based on an extremely vague description he may or may not have fit. Definitely possible he wanted a chance to bully someone, which could have been racially motivated. I think that is plausible.
Click to expand...

On the video you can also hear Philando and his girlfriend tell the officer that he's not reaching for the weapon. If he told the guy he's armed and licensed to carry, what sense does it then make to reach for a weapon with a cop less than 2 feet away from him?
Throughout the entire interaction Philando spoke calmly, didn't overreact, nobody spoke out of turn or without respect, and he told the officer that he's armed - which is what you're supposed to do.

There's literally 20 seconds between the officer asking him for his license & registration, to him dying - at what point was he meant to have his hands on the steering wheel?
He was probably looking for his registration (it looked like the cop was looking at his license) and didn't want the officer to see his gun without notifying him first that he was armed.
So what should he have done differently? Ignored the request? Not told the cop he was armed?

I don't care whether this cop was racist or intentionally tried to kill someone - I just want to understand exactly when they can be held accountable, and why the civilian is the only person who is expected to do things perfectly.
 
vi1lain said:
On the video you can also hear Philando and his girlfriend tell the officer that he's not reaching for the weapon. If he told the guy he's armed and licensed to carry, what sense does it then make to reach for a weapon with a cop less than 2 feet away from him?
Throughout the entire interaction Philando spoke calmly, didn't overreact, nobody spoke out of turn or without respect, and he told the officer that he's armed - which is what you're supposed to do.

There's literally 20 seconds between the officer asking him for his license & registration, to him dying - at what point was he meant to have his hands on the steering wheel?
He was probably looking for his registration (it looked like the cop was looking at his license) and didn't want the officer to see his gun without notifying him first that he was armed.
So what should he have done differently? Ignored the request? Not told the cop he was armed?

I don't care whether this cop was racist or intentionally tried to kill someone - I just want to understand exactly when they can be held accountable, and why the civilian is the only person who is expected to do things perfectly.
Click to expand...

I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

I already said the cop handled the situation badly. I think he should be accountable for his actions. I find it incredible that he could be let back out on the street with a gun when there's such clear evidence he should not be given that responsibility.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's possible there could have been a different outcome if the guy in the car had done exactly what was asked of him. Ideally, when the cop said "don't reach for the gun" he would have kept absolutely still, hands on the wheel, and asked what he should do next. I'm repeating myself again but I don't blame him for not doing that. Scared people don't always act rationally.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

I already said the cop handled the situation badly. I think he should be accountable for his actions. I find it incredible that he could be let back out on the street with a gun when there's such clear evidence he should not be given that responsibility.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's possible there could have been a different outcome if the guy in the car had done exactly what was asked of him. Ideally, when the cop said "don't reach for the gun" he would have kept absolutely still, hands on the wheel, and asked what he should do next. I'm repeating myself again but I don't blame him for not doing that. Scared people don't always act rationally.
Click to expand...

After he told the cop he had a firearm, it's only within 5 seconds that's he's been shot. In that time he's also told the officer that's he's not reaching - interestingly at no point does the other cop react as if Philando was reaching for his weapon.

With the evidence we've been given I struggle to see where any of the blame can be put on Philando, except this 5 second gap which doesn't even prove that he was reaching for his weapon, he was doing what was asked of him, and acting a lot calmer than the person who was supposed to be in charge. I just don't understand why we keep pushing the idea that 'he should have done this' because it becomes far too easy to victim blame.
 
barros said:
Media invented the idea of racism when a black man/woman is killed but this link is a good reading about the idea of race when a cop shoots a black person.

http://time.com/4404987/police-violence/
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with this - the police kill too many people, of any race in America. Period. It's not just a race thing.
Black people started a movement because it has been happening to their communities for over 100 years, and nothing changes. Also Black Lives Matter isn't strictly about when police kill unarmed black people, but it manifests in cases like Trayvon Martin also, plus the long history of sexual assault in black communities by police officers, unfair jail sentencing, over policing etc.

I personally don't understand why white people, asians, hispanics etc aren't just as outraged either by the statistics of police killings for their particular race either, maybe then more would be done quicker - but that's not my battle to fight nor do I speak for any other race except my own.
 
vi1lain said:
After he told the cop he had a firearm, it's only within 5 seconds that's he's been shot. In that time he's also told the officer that's he's not reaching - interestingly at no point does the other cop react as if Philando was reaching for his weapon.

With the evidence we've been given I struggle to see where any of the blame can be put on Philando, except this 5 second gap which doesn't even prove that he was reaching for his weapon, he was doing what was asked of him, and acting a lot calmer than the person who was supposed to be in charge. I just don't understand why we keep pushing the idea that 'he should have done this' because it becomes far too easy to victim blame.
Click to expand...

Good point. Didn't hear that the first time I watched it. Makes the cop's actions even harder to understand. I do think he was reaching for something, though. Because the cop went from 0 to 100 in an instant. To be clear, I'm not putting blame on him. I specifically said that at the end of my previous post.
 
vi1lain said:
After he told the cop he had a firearm, it's only within 5 seconds that's he's been shot. In that time he's also told the officer that's he's not reaching - interestingly at no point does the other cop react as if Philando was reaching for his weapon.

With the evidence we've been given I struggle to see where any of the blame can be put on Philando, except this 5 second gap which doesn't even prove that he was reaching for his weapon, he was doing what was asked of him, and acting a lot calmer than the person who was supposed to be in charge. I just don't understand why we keep pushing the idea that 'he should have done this' because it becomes far too easy to victim blame.
Click to expand...


I agree with the second half.

It's disingenuous to say he was doing what was asked of him.

Yes he states he has a firearm but the officer then says don't reach for it though, and again don't reach for it.

We can all speculate about what happens next, whether he's reaching for a registration or otherwise, but he reaches for something I think and that's key, which is all Pogue is saying really. He is clearly told don't reach for it [the firearm] and I guess the point people are trying to make is it's perhaps unwise to reach for anything in that circumstance, and he clearly then doesn't comply with the officers frantic demands on a very short second by second time window.

Though I think it's a pointless discussion really, you're spot on in that the onus has got to be on the officer and not the civilian to act 'perfectly'. Reaching for an unidentified object still isn't grounds to shoot, given he could walk half a foot to th side and backwards and be relatively out of danger behind the door panel.

Philando was calm and compliant but none of these other factors were considered.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
i don't think he did do what the officer told him in this instance.

In the video you can hear the cop say "ok... don't reach for it then... don't pull it out!" right before he got his own gun out. It does seem as though the guy in the car either went to get his gun to show it to the cop, or continued to get his license/wallet as per the previous request and that scared the cop and escalated the situation. Obviously, the cop should have de-escalated the situation and managed the scenario really badly. But I do think the tragic outcome could have been avoided if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked. Which would have been the rational thing to do. Like I said, though, he was obviously scared shitless and, hence, behaved irrationally. As did the cop. With terrible consequences.

I just can't accept that this cop cynically decided to execute someone in full view of his partner and dash cam. It's much more likely to be incompetence than malice. Where I do think we can talk about racist motivations is his decision to pull over a black guy based on an extremely vague description he may or may not have fit. Definitely possible he wanted a chance to bully someone, which could have been racially motivated. I think that is plausible.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree here, the cop is 100% at fault for this death, absolutely not a single shred of it should be attached to Castille. Yanez fecked the entire thing up from start to finish. I don't know how it works over there in America but I know they base a lot of their training off of what UK Police do, as an officer myself seeing that, everything the cop did, I would have done the complete opposite.
Let's start with his ridiculous reasoning for pulling the guy over, some comically vague description apparently matching a robbery suspect. Of course when he goes up to the car he tells Castille he was pulled over for a brake light. So we've established he's a liar. Let's say he did think it was a robbery suspect, where is his officer safety? Why hasn't he informed other units? Why did he walk straight up to the car? Why didn't he ask Castille to immediately step out of the car?

The cop should be in control of this situation and maximising safety for both him and Castille, he doesn't do this. I noticed you said "if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked". At no point did the Cop tell Castille to keep his hands on the wheel. Now Castille was obviously shitting himself (and it turns out for good reason) He has his partner and four year old daughter in the car. He tells the officer he's not reaching for the gun. As a Cop in this situation, you know what, as a fecking human being in this situation, you'd be thinking, what is the likely hood this man in the car is gonna get himself into a wild west shooting match with his child in the back, partner in the front with two officers present? very little chance. Not to Yanez though, no.

It's clear Yanez basically wasn't using any sort of cop or human being instincts in this situation, what's clear is he was doing a piss poor job at being a copper, a piss poor job at being a logical thinking human being and the result of it was shooting a man dead for no reason. Now I don't think he set out to 'kill a black guy' but what enraged me was the aftermath, the excuses and bollocks that seem to be coming from him and his defence team. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have confessed to completely fecking up and taken a manslaughter charge but no no no.
He makes up some shit about smelling cannabis, about how smelling cannabis put him in fear, I mean what the feck. He also said he thought Castille could be a drug dealer, who had armed himself, due to the smell of marijuana, again, what the feck. Over here we give out cannabis warnings for people smoking weed, apparently according to Yanez it indicates someone is a drug lord ready to shoot anyone in sight. Yanez is a disgusting human being, the successful arse covering exercise that he undertook to get away with what is blatantly murder is again disgusting.

I agree with the bit in italics, I don't think he made a decision to just execute someone, you can tell that by him basically shitting his pants after unloading the the gun. Judging by his initial reference to 'matching robbery suspect' and his repeated playing of the weed/drug dealer card I'd say he undoubtedly has/had a prejudice or something of the sort against black people. Like you said, he saw a chance to bully someone, but as we know with bullies when the going gets tough they shit their pants and that's exactly what he did here.
Rather then at least show some remorse and accept responsibility, and realise that he shot a man dead in front of his 4 year old daughter (who btw thank feck didn't get a stray bullet) he goes into arse covering and tries to blame Castille, disgusting, revolting, deplorable piece of shit of a man. I genuinely hope he lives the rest of his life in constant pain, guilt and sleepless nights.
 
Also - and again, not blaming - probably didn't help that he was stoned. That won't have helped him think clearly. These are all factors in how the situation could have escalated like it did. Ultimately, the responsibility for managing the situation was the sobre, trained professional who initiated it in the first place. And he should be responsible for the outcome too.

EDIT: Assuming he really was stoned. As @Leroy The Red said, this could have been an excuse made up by the cop to cover his arse.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Strongly disagree here, the cop is 100% at fault for this death, absolutely not a single shred of it should be attached to Castille. Yanez fecked the entire thing up from start to finish. I don't know how it works over there in America but I know they base a lot of their training off of what UK Police do, as an officer myself seeing that, everything the cop did, I would have done the complete opposite.
Let's start with his ridiculous reasoning for pulling the guy over, some comically vague description apparently matching a robbery suspect. Of course when he goes up to the car he tells Castille he was pulled over for a brake light. So we've established he's a liar. Let's say he did think it was a robbery suspect, where is his officer safety? Why hasn't he informed other units? Why did he walk straight up to the car? Why didn't he ask Castille to immediately step out of the car?

The cop should be in control of this situation and maximising safety for both him and Castille, he doesn't do this. I noticed you said "if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked". At no point did the Cop tell Castille to keep his hands on the wheel. Now Castille was obviously shitting himself (and it turns out for good reason) He has his partner and four year old daughter in the car. He tells the officer he's not reaching for the gun. As a Cop in this situation, you know what, as a fecking human being in this situation, you'd be thinking, what is the likely hood this man in the car is gonna get himself into a wild west shooting match with his child in the back, partner in the front with two officers present? very little chance. Not to Yanez though, no.

It's clear Yanez basically wasn't using any sort of cop or human being instincts in this situation, what's clear is he was doing a piss poor job at being a copper, a piss poor job at being a logical thinking human being and the result of it was shooting a man dead for no reason. Now I don't think he set out to 'kill a black guy' but what enraged me was the aftermath, the excuses and bollocks that seem to be coming from him and his defence team. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have confessed to completely fecking up and taken a manslaughter charge but no no no.
He makes up some shit about smelling cannabis, about how smelling cannabis put him in fear, I mean what the feck. He also said he thought Castille could be a drug dealer, who had armed himself, due to the smell of marijuana, again, what the feck. Over here we give out cannabis warnings for people smoking weed, apparently according to Yanez it indicates someone is a drug lord ready to shoot anyone in sight. Yanez is a disgusting human being, the successful arse covering exercise that he undertook to get away with what is blatantly murder is again disgusting.

I agree with the bit in italics, I don't think he made a decision to just execute someone, you can tell that by him basically shitting his pants after unloading the the gun. Judging by his initial reference to 'matching robbery suspect' and his repeated playing of the weed/drug dealer card I'd say he undoubtedly has/had a prejudice or something of the sort against black people. Like you said, he saw a chance to bully someone, but as we know with bullies when the going gets tough they shit their pants and that's exactly what he did here.
Rather then at least show some remorse and accept responsibility, and realise that he shot a man dead in front of his 4 year old daughter (who btw thank feck didn't get a stray bullet) he goes into arse covering and tries to blame Castille, disgusting, revolting, deplorable piece of shit of a man. I genuinely hope he lives the rest of his life in constant pain, guilt and sleepless nights.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Pretty good summary of events.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Strongly disagree here, the cop is 100% at fault for this death, absolutely not a single shred of it should be attached to Castille. Yanez fecked the entire thing up from start to finish. I don't know how it works over there in America but I know they base a lot of their training off of what UK Police do, as an officer myself seeing that, everything the cop did, I would have done the complete opposite.
Let's start with his ridiculous reasoning for pulling the guy over, some comically vague description apparently matching a robbery suspect. Of course when he goes up to the car he tells Castille he was pulled over for a brake light. So we've established he's a liar. Let's say he did think it was a robbery suspect, where is his officer safety? Why hasn't he informed other units? Why did he walk straight up to the car? Why didn't he ask Castille to immediately step out of the car?

The cop should be in control of this situation and maximising safety for both him and Castille, he doesn't do this. I noticed you said "if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked". At no point did the Cop tell Castille to keep his hands on the wheel. Now Castille was obviously shitting himself (and it turns out for good reason) He has his partner and four year old daughter in the car. He tells the officer he's not reaching for the gun. As a Cop in this situation, you know what, as a fecking human being in this situation, you'd be thinking, what is the likely hood this man in the car is gonna get himself into a wild west shooting match with his child in the back, partner in the front with two officers present? very little chance. Not to Yanez though, no.

It's clear Yanez basically wasn't using any sort of cop or human being instincts in this situation, what's clear is he was doing a piss poor job at being a copper, a piss poor job at being a logical thinking human being and the result of it was shooting a man dead for no reason. Now I don't think he set out to 'kill a black guy' but what enraged me was the aftermath, the excuses and bollocks that seem to be coming from him and his defence team. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have confessed to completely fecking up and taken a manslaughter charge but no no no.
He makes up some shit about smelling cannabis, about how smelling cannabis put him in fear, I mean what the feck. He also said he thought Castille could be a drug dealer, who had armed himself, due to the smell of marijuana, again, what the feck. Over here we give out cannabis warnings for people smoking weed, apparently according to Yanez it indicates someone is a drug lord ready to shoot anyone in sight. Yanez is a disgusting human being, the successful arse covering exercise that he undertook to get away with what is blatantly murder is again disgusting.

I agree with the bit in italics, I don't think he made a decision to just execute someone, you can tell that by him basically shitting his pants after unloading the the gun. Judging by his initial reference to 'matching robbery suspect' and his repeated playing of the weed/drug dealer card I'd say he undoubtedly has/had a prejudice or something of the sort against black people. Like you said, he saw a chance to bully someone, but as we know with bullies when the going gets tough they shit their pants and that's exactly what he did here.
Rather then at least show some remorse and accept responsibility, and realise that he shot a man dead in front of his 4 year old daughter (who btw thank feck didn't get a stray bullet) he goes into arse covering and tries to blame Castille, disgusting, revolting, deplorable piece of shit of a man. I genuinely hope he lives the rest of his life in constant pain, guilt and sleepless nights.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this, and providing a thorough perspective.

@Pogue Mahone @Duafc
This topic makes me emotional, but you're both right we're essentially saying the same things.
I'm at a point where all I have left is frustration because I don't see a fair or just justice system, especially if you fit a description.
 
I think what also shocks is that there seems to have been a breakdown of trust between the police and sections of the civilian population, that it's this that leads to these killings and that they just seem to be assumed as part of life's risks. What's happening here, does there have to be compulsory education at school with regards to how to behave when stopped by the police ?

I live in a country where all the police carry weapons openly but when I am stopped by them I do not feel terrified, I don't expect them to shoot me for moving suddenly and that's because they don't fear me.
 
Last edited:
utdalltheway said:
Do civilians normally carry guns in your country?
Click to expand...
No, which is what I meant when I said they don't fear me. There's clearly a relation. But also it's cultural, even when there was a terroist threat nobody carried guns not even the people most in danger although eventually some politicians were accompanied by bodyguards
 
Leroy The Red said:
Strongly disagree here, the cop is 100% at fault for this death, absolutely not a single shred of it should be attached to Castille. Yanez fecked the entire thing up from start to finish. I don't know how it works over there in America but I know they base a lot of their training off of what UK Police do, as an officer myself seeing that, everything the cop did, I would have done the complete opposite.
Let's start with his ridiculous reasoning for pulling the guy over, some comically vague description apparently matching a robbery suspect. Of course when he goes up to the car he tells Castille he was pulled over for a brake light. So we've established he's a liar. Let's say he did think it was a robbery suspect, where is his officer safety? Why hasn't he informed other units? Why did he walk straight up to the car? Why didn't he ask Castille to immediately step out of the car?

The cop should be in control of this situation and maximising safety for both him and Castille, he doesn't do this. I noticed you said "if your man had kept his hands on the wheel and done exactly what he was asked". At no point did the Cop tell Castille to keep his hands on the wheel. Now Castille was obviously shitting himself (and it turns out for good reason) He has his partner and four year old daughter in the car. He tells the officer he's not reaching for the gun. As a Cop in this situation, you know what, as a fecking human being in this situation, you'd be thinking, what is the likely hood this man in the car is gonna get himself into a wild west shooting match with his child in the back, partner in the front with two officers present? very little chance. Not to Yanez though, no.

It's clear Yanez basically wasn't using any sort of cop or human being instincts in this situation, what's clear is he was doing a piss poor job at being a copper, a piss poor job at being a logical thinking human being and the result of it was shooting a man dead for no reason. Now I don't think he set out to 'kill a black guy' but what enraged me was the aftermath, the excuses and bollocks that seem to be coming from him and his defence team. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have confessed to completely fecking up and taken a manslaughter charge but no no no.
He makes up some shit about smelling cannabis, about how smelling cannabis put him in fear, I mean what the feck. He also said he thought Castille could be a drug dealer, who had armed himself, due to the smell of marijuana, again, what the feck. Over here we give out cannabis warnings for people smoking weed, apparently according to Yanez it indicates someone is a drug lord ready to shoot anyone in sight. Yanez is a disgusting human being, the successful arse covering exercise that he undertook to get away with what is blatantly murder is again disgusting.

I agree with the bit in italics, I don't think he made a decision to just execute someone, you can tell that by him basically shitting his pants after unloading the the gun. Judging by his initial reference to 'matching robbery suspect' and his repeated playing of the weed/drug dealer card I'd say he undoubtedly has/had a prejudice or something of the sort against black people. Like you said, he saw a chance to bully someone, but as we know with bullies when the going gets tough they shit their pants and that's exactly what he did here.
Rather then at least show some remorse and accept responsibility, and realise that he shot a man dead in front of his 4 year old daughter (who btw thank feck didn't get a stray bullet) he goes into arse covering and tries to blame Castille, disgusting, revolting, deplorable piece of shit of a man. I genuinely hope he lives the rest of his life in constant pain, guilt and sleepless nights.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of this bar the bold.
 
vi1lain said:
After he told the cop he had a firearm, it's only within 5 seconds that's he's been shot. In that time he's also told the officer that's he's not reaching - interestingly at no point does the other cop react as if Philando was reaching for his weapon.

With the evidence we've been given I struggle to see where any of the blame can be put on Philando, except this 5 second gap which doesn't even prove that he was reaching for his weapon, he was doing what was asked of him, and acting a lot calmer than the person who was supposed to be in charge. I just don't understand why we keep pushing the idea that 'he should have done this' because it becomes far too easy to victim blame.
Click to expand...

Because the other cop's job is watching the other occupants in the car and not the driver.
 
vi1lain said:
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with this - the police kill too many people, of any race in America. Period. It's not just a race thing.
Black people started a movement because it has been happening to their communities for over 100 years, and nothing changes. Also Black Lives Matter isn't strictly about when police kill unarmed black people, but it manifests in cases like Trayvon Martin also, plus the long history of sexual assault in black communities by police officers, unfair jail sentencing, over policing etc.

I personally don't understand why white people, asians, hispanics etc aren't just as outraged either by the statistics of police killings for their particular race either, maybe then more would be done quicker - but that's not my battle to fight nor do I speak for any other race except my own.
Click to expand...
They started a movement because the media only shows when a black is killed and not a white, thats the main reason and if they really care they should create a movement to stop blacks in killing blacks.
 
barros said:
They started a movement because the media only shows when a black is killed and not a white, thats the main reason and if they really care they should create a movement to stop blacks in killing blacks.
Click to expand...
You're like a fecking right wing soundbite machine you.
 
Rado_N said:
You're like a fecking right wing soundbite machine you.
Click to expand...
and you are obviously a fecking left wing with the superior mind above anything thats not your opinion, you guys won't accept any opinion if is not near as yours, in this case the cop was wrong and the driver was wrong as well if he reached for his weapon.
 
barros said:
and you are obviously a fecking left wing with the superior mind above anything thats not your opinion, you guys won't accept any opinion if is not near as yours, in this case the cop was wrong and the driver was wrong as well if he reached for his weapon.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about this case, I'm talking about your black on black crime bollocks and crying that the media only report police shooting black people.
 
Rado_N said:
I'm not talking about this case, I'm talking about your black on black crime bollocks and crying that the media only report police shooting black people.
Click to expand...
It always puzzles me how white people know so much about black on black crime if the media never reports it.
 
Carolina Red said:
It also always puzzles me how right wingers don't consider Breitbart and Drudge to be "media".
Click to expand...
That's where the "mainstream" qualifier comes in I guess. Not sure how they get around Fox News being the second biggest news channel in the US (I think?).
 
Rado_N said:
That's where the "mainstream" qualifier comes in I guess. Not sure how they get around Fox News being the second biggest news channel in the US (I think?).
Click to expand...
Yeah that one always cracks me up. They're "the most watched" cable news network. They're the epitome of "mainstream".
 
barros said:
They started a movement because the media only shows when a black is killed and not a white, thats the main reason and if they really care they should create a movement to stop blacks in killing blacks.
Click to expand...

Black on black crime doesn't exist.
And that's not why they started the movement.
 
vi1lain said:
Black on black crime doesn't exist.
And that's not why they started the movement.
Click to expand...

Yes it is just crime, not a special kind of crime that deserves it's own label, just like we don't need to call things white on white crime. Now if a crime is racially motivated then you can get into labeling it a racially motivated crime.
 
JustAFan said:
Yes it is just crime, not a special kind of crime that deserves it's own label, just like we don't need to call things white on white crime. Now if a crime is racially motivated then you can get into labeling it a racially motivated crime.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
This idea that black people partake in some 'other' crime that intentionally targets their community was part of the war on crime under Nixon-Reagan-Clinton and was used as a tactic to not only destroy black civil rights movements, but also encourage black community leaders to accept radicalised and racially motivated justice reforms that crippled the black community.

The idea that in 2017, with google readily available people still think it exists is baffling. But ignorance is bliss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.