[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well that was fast. Still not holding out much hope for an actual conviction though.

Texas officer who killed black teenager leaving party is charged with murder | WashingtonPost.com

OAW

The speed is heartening. Seems like this is a no-nonsense situation.

Still can't believe he lied about the car charging him when he had a bodycam on.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The speed is heartening. Seems like this is a no-nonsense situation.

Still can't believe he lied about the car charging him when he had a bodycam on.

Perhaps he was hoping the footage would disappear.

[The Final Dakar]

This may be a repost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000051

Mader said he concluded that Williams was attempting to commit suicide by cop. “I’m not gonna shoot you, brother,” the Afghanistan war veteran recalled saying. “Just put down the gun.”

“Nah man. Seriously ― just shoot me,” Williams repeated, according to Mader.

The two went back and forth, Mader said, with the officer trying to coax Williams into putting his gun down. Soon, they saw another cruiser driving up the street toward them.

That’s when Mader says Williams turned his attention toward the approaching officers, randomly waving the gun between Mader and the others.

“Within seconds, shots were fired and the last shot fatally wounded Mr. Williams to the head,” Mader said.

A month after the incident, on June 7, 2016, Mader received a termination notice that said he “failed to eliminate a threat” when he didn’t shoot Williams.

[OAW]

^^^

Yeah I saw that f*ckery the other day. Another "officer" obliged the man. And this guy was fired for trying to save the man's life.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

It's galling that an officer smart enough to recognize suicide by cop is punished for it. Police priorities are ****ed up.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's galling that an officer smart enough to recognize suicide by cop is punished for it. Police priorities are ****ed up.

Yep.

[Waragainstsleep]

Salt Lake City doing it right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03b485cae1129

[The Final Dakar]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...gainst-blacks/

The study from Stanford University researchers analyzed the transcribed text from 981 traffic stops caught on body cams by 245 Oakland Police Department officers in 2014. White people pulled over were more likely to be called "ma'am" or "sir," and they were more likely to hear the words "please" and "thank you" from police officers. Black people, however, didn't get as much respect, and they were more likely to be called by their first names and even "my man."

"Indeed, we find that white community members are 57 percent more likely to hear an officer say one of the most respectful utterances in our dataset, whereas black community members are 61 percent more likely to hear an officer say one of the least respectful utterances in our dataset," according to the study. (PDF) The results held constant no matter the race of the officer, the study said.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I can believe that, and it has multiple reasons.

[The Final Dakar]

https://apnews.com/3d9fad885d744f18b...to-Castile-car

“Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me,” Castile said.

Before Castile finished that sentence, Yanez began pulling his weapon out of the holster. Yanez said, “OK. Don’t reach for it then.” He told the driver twice more not to pull out the weapon and then started firing into the car. After the firing ends, he screamed, “Don’t pull it out!”

Seeing consensus from both sides on twitter that this guy should be behind bars. But that the law makes it impossible.

[subego]

I'm surprised the reaction is unequivocal.

I can't tell you what happened from watching that video.

[subego]

Also, perhaps someone more hot shit than myself could pull it off, but I couldn't win this case.

As long as the cop keeps his story consistent with the forensic evidence, he can claim any number of reasonable doubt inducing scenarios occurred, and I have no counter for any of them.


While we're at it, let's make the thread more uncomfortable. I wish I could confidently say my morals are resolute enough if I were this cop I wouldn't lie my way out of it.

I can't really do that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm surprised the reaction is unequivocal.

I can't tell you what happened from watching that video.

The video is the last piece of evidence.

Anyway: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/21/ph...ws-a-cop-who-p

Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer who shot Castile, initially said he thought Castile was reaching for a gun. Later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found in a pocket of his shorts. Notwithstanding the gap in the video record, which the jurors who acquitted Yanez of second-degree manslaughter last week evidently thought was enough to create reasonable doubt, his story is utterly implausible.

Far more likely is that Yanez told the truth in his initial account of the shooting: He believed Castile was reaching for a gun, but he never saw the weapon. Beginning immediately after the shooting (as you can hear in the dashcam video), Reynolds has consistently said Castile was actually reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, which Yanez had requested along with his insurance card. If you believe Reynolds (and Castile), Yanez made a mistake. Whether that mistake was excusable depends on whether Yanez reasonably believed that shooting Castile was the only way to avoid death or serious injury.

Yanez may indeed have believed that, but his belief was not reasonable. The officer's only basis for fearing Castile was the latter's purported resemblance to a robbery suspect (which was the real reason for the traffic stop). But that resemblance consisted entirely of commonly conjoined features: dark skin, a wide nose, dreadlocks, and glasses. Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified during Yanez's trial that the officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a criminal suspect. That initial misconception evidently colored everything that followed, even though Castile was polite, cooperative, and forthcoming in letting Yanez know about the gun.

Even if Yanez had good reason to fear Castile, Noble said, he could have addressed the threat he perceived by instructing the driver to put his hands on the dashboard, which he never did. Yanez also could haver stepped back from the car window to the area between the front and back seats, which would have given him more space and time to react. Yanez did not take those precautions because he was not thinking clearly. Watching the dashcam video, which shows a calm exchange escalating into gunfire in just a few seconds, you see a man in full-blown panic.

If in retrospect Castile did not actually pose a threat (although Yanez insisted that he did), why punish the officer for making the wrong split-second decision in what he thought was a life-or-death situation?

That is the sort of reasoning that often gets cops off the hook even in the rare cases where their use of force leads to criminal charges. It is mistaken in this case because Yanez, like the cops who killed Tamir Rice and Zachary Hammond, created the perceived emergency that supposedly justified the use of deadly force. By making erroneous assumptions and failing to take obvious precautions, he put himself in a position where he thought he had no choice but to kill an innocent man who was guilty of nothing but exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Also: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3260127

Two days after Philando Castile’s July 6 slaying, the group issued a cautious statement that did not name Castile and declined further comment “while the investigation is ongoing.”

“As the nation’s largest and oldest civil rights organization, the NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation,” the NRA said. “The reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated.”

The organization added, “Rest assured, the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known.”

The NRA did not respond to a Daily News request for comment on Castile, nor does it appear to have returned inquiries from multiple other outlets.

[subego]

I know this risks a venture into victim blaming territory, but I'm not sure how else to approach it.

If I say I have a gun, and my next move is an attempt to take something else out of my pocket, I have set up a scenario likely to cause confusion.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ Indeed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know this risks a venture into victim blaming territory, but I'm not sure how else to approach it.

If I say I have a gun, and my next move is an attempt to take something else out of my pocket, I have set up a scenario likely to cause confusion.

One of these is a professional and one of these is not. Why do we blame the one that is not?

[andi*pandi]

A person with a legal gun should inform police so police are forewarned. If he had not warned police, and they spotted the gun as he reached into his jacket for his license, he would have been in trouble also.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

A person with a legal gun should inform police so police are forewarned. If he had not warned police, and they spotted the gun as he reached into his jacket for his license, he would have been in trouble also.

"He's got a gun!" BLAMBLAMBLAM

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

One of these is a professional and one of these is not. Why do we blame the one that is not?

Is the calculus as simple as if the cop is not found guilty, then the victim has been blamed?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

A person with a legal gun should inform police so police are forewarned. If he had not warned police, and they spotted the gun as he reached into his jacket for his license, he would have been in trouble also.

If I'm armed, I absolutely warn the police.

Once the police are warned, I wait for explicit orders on how to proceed while my hands are kept visible. If I'm in a car, hands are at 10 and 2, while my wallet was already out and on the dash before the cop finished their walk over.

That last sentence happens even if I'm not armed.

[andi*pandi]

That is best practice, yes. I think we discussed it in this very thread. I cannot bring myself to watch the video to see if that is what Philando did or did not. Time can be short.

I think we can agree that what you could get away with as a registered gun owner is not the same as this person.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the calculus as simple as if the cop is not found guilty, then the victim has been blamed?

I was responding to your victim blaming not the verdict

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

That is best practice, yes. I think we discussed it in this very thread. I cannot bring myself to watch the video to see if that is what Philando did or did not. Time can be short.

I think we can agree that what you could get away with as a registered gun owner is not the same as this person.

Because I'm white? Most likely.

It's impossible to tell on the video but the consensus seems to be either during or immediately after giving the cop the warning, Castile tried to pull out his wallet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was responding to your victim blaming not the verdict

The reasoning behind my statement is in large part responsible for the verdict,

That's why Castile's actions have relevance. They will be what determines whether the officer gets punished for his actions.

Edit: that should be "what helps determine".

[The Final Dakar]

Do you realize the argument boils down to if Castile had been trained on how to interact with police better he'd be alive? How do you not see that's ass backwards.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because I'm white? Most likely.

It's impossible to tell on the video but the consensus seems to be either during or immediately after giving the cop the warning, Castile tried to pull out his wallet.

He was instructed to show his ID. Which I'm not sure why was necessary as he was the passenger.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He was instructed to show his ID. Which I'm not sure why was necessary as he was the passenger.

He was the driver according to Wiki, however I admit not realizing his girlfriend was in the passenger seat. This alters some things I've said earlier, but nothing substantive to the debate.

Yes. He was instructed to show his ID. I should have put that in my summary. My apologies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do you realize the argument boils down to if Castile had been trained on how to interact with police better he'd be alive? How do you not see that's ass backwards.

That's not what I'm trying to argue, though.

I'm arguing the cop maybe shouldn't go to prison.

The reason he maybe shouldn't go to prison is because there's a straightforward explanation for what caused him to so horribly misread Castile: Castile's actions.

This isn't really blaming Castile.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

He was the driver according to Wiki, however I admit not realizing his girlfriend was in the passenger seat. This alters some things I've said earlier, but nothing substantive to the debate.

Yes. He was instructed to show his ID. I should have put that in my summary. My apologies.

You're right. I saw a screen cap where he looked like he was in the passenger seat. I'll have to assume it was reversed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not what I'm trying to argue, though.

I'm arguing the cop maybe shouldn't go to prison.

The reason he maybe shouldn't go to prison is because there's a straightforward explanation for what caused him to so horribly misread Castile: Castile's actions.

This isn't really blaming Castile.

He panicked. He was no better than a damn civilian. In writeups ive seen it noted that his partner didn't freak out from the presence of the gun.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not what I'm trying to argue, though.

I'm arguing the cop maybe shouldn't go to prison.

The reason he maybe shouldn't go to prison is because there's a straightforward explanation for what caused him to so horribly misread Castile: Castile's actions.

This isn't really blaming Castile.

I'll have to reread the charges but a straightforward explanation doesn't mean it was reasonable. That's the crux here.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Stirring pot: If cops weren't targets of late, he might not have panicked.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know this risks a venture into victim blaming territory, but I'm not sure how else to approach it.

If I say I have a gun, and my next move is an attempt to take something else out of my pocket, I have set up a scenario likely to cause confusion.

Quoting another part of the article:

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified during Yanez's trial that the officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a criminal suspect. That initial misconception evidently colored everything that followed, even though Castile was polite, cooperative, and forthcoming in letting Yanez know about the gun.

Even if Yanez had good reason to fear Castile, Noble said, he could have addressed the threat he perceived by instructing the driver to put his hands on the dashboard, which he never did. Yanez also could haver stepped back from the car window to the area between the front and back seats, which would have given him more space and time to react. Yanez did not take those precautions because he was not thinking clearly.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know this risks a venture into victim blaming territory, but I'm not sure how else to approach it.

If I say I have a gun, and my next move is an attempt to take something else out of my pocket, I have set up a scenario likely to cause confusion.

Here's what I haven't been able to clarify up til now:

If you read carefully, you’ll note that it appears that the officer shot Castile for doing exactly what the officer told him to do. Yanez asked for Castile’s license. Castile told him that he had a gun, and the officer – rather than asking for his carry permit, or asking where the gun was, or asking to see Castile’s hands – just says, “Don’t reach for it then.”

At that point, Castile is operating under two commands. Get his license, and don’t reach for his gun. As Castile reaches for his license (following the officer’s orders), and he assures him that he’s not reaching for the gun (also following the officer’s orders). The entire encounter, he assures Yanez that he’s following Yanez’s instructions.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rriage-justice

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know this risks a venture into victim blaming territory, but I'm not sure how else to approach it.

If I say I have a gun, and my next move is an attempt to take something else out of my pocket, I have set up a scenario likely to cause confusion.

According to all accounts, the victim was exactly following orders and acting in accordance with what the NRA recommends when a lawful gun owner is stopped by the police. After being asked for an ID and not reach for his gun, the victim told the police officer he would get his license and not reach for the gun. The clear cut nature is the reason that the verdict was strongly criticized also by very conservative, pro-gun media outlets. It wasn't a case where the victim committed a lesser crime and tried to flee or was not following the police officers instructions properly.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's what I haven't been able to clarify up til now:

What is the point of a warning if the cop isn't given a chance to act on it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to all accounts, the victim was exactly following orders and acting in accordance with what the NRA recommends when a lawful gun owner is stopped by the police. After being asked for an ID and not reach for his gun, the victim told the police officer he would get his license and not reach for the gun. The clear cut nature is the reason that the verdict was strongly criticized also by very conservative, pro-gun media outlets. It wasn't a case where the victim committed a lesser crime and tried to flee or was not following the police officers instructions properly.

Without even looking at the NRA guidelines, I'm going to guess they make no comment on continuing to follow a directive given immediately before the warning which puts one within grasping range of their gun.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What is the point of a warning if the cop isn't given a chance to act on it?

What?

[subego]

Let me try it this way.

As I've mentioned, I keep a knife in my glovebox, and used to keep my insurance card in there.

Let's say I got pulled over, and the cop asks for my insurance card.

The cop has just given me a command which will put my life in danger if I follow it.

Therefore, I quite simply don't follow the command.

I don't move, I offer the warning, and ask how to proceed.


If the problem is the cop might go batshit on me for speaking rather than following his command, I don't see how getting near a knife is going to improve my prospects.

[The Final Dakar]

No, no, no, I want you to either agree or disagree with what was posted:

At that point, Castile is operating under two commands.

Yes? No?

[subego]

Okay... to be fair, I'm not sure how I was supposed to get that from "what?"

No. He's not operating under two commands. The second command supersedes and nullifies the first.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay... to be fair, I'm not sure how I was supposed to get that from "what?"

No. He's not operating under two commands. The second command supersedes and nullifies the first.

I'm not so sure. The officer commanded him to get his license. Unless the officer stated otherwise, that was still a command under the eyes of the law.

The officer should have countermanded the "get your license" command by saying something like "don't move", "step out of the car" or "put your hands up on the dash".

"Don't reach for the gun" does not countermand "get your license". Infact, you can easily construe that they are infact part of the same command.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay... to be fair, I'm not sure how I was supposed to get that from "what?"

No. He's not operating under two commands. The second command supersedes and nullifies the first.

What happens if the civilian can do both at the same time?

[andi*pandi]

it comes down to both a slacker attitude and an inherant mistrust. Snarky cop: "don't reach for it then." + driver opening jacket to get license from pocket... The cop does not believe the driver that he is not reaching for his gun, because the cop failed to do basic diligence and ask about location of said gun.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not so sure. The officer commanded him to get his license. Unless the officer stated otherwise, that was still a command under the eyes of the law.

I can't definitively state what the law says in this jurisdiction, so the best I can do is say how I'd write the law.

Following this command could get the person killed.

I would write the law such that disobeying a command which could get the person killed is not a crime.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

it comes down to both a slacker attitude and an inherant mistrust. Snarky cop: "don't reach for it then." + driver opening jacket to get license from pocket... The cop does not believe the driver that he is not reaching for his gun, because the cop failed to do basic diligence and ask about location of said gun.

I can buy a mistrust argument, but slacker?

As much as one can determine such things from a video, judging by his voice it wasn't laziness motivating the cop, it was fear.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What happens if the civilian can do both at the same time?

This is a different question from whether he's complelled to do it, and I'm not sure of the relevance.

[subego]

I put the following questions to the floor.

Is not the reason the best practice is to give a warning because guns are dangerous, and the presence of non-cop guns make cop-civilian interaction way more dangerous?

Is there a reason the term which fits this situation is warning, as opposed to "informing" or "notifying"?

Is a civilian legitimately warning the police something which happens so commonly we can all be casual about it at this point?

[andi*pandi]

I have not watched the video because I enjoy sleeping at night. I only read transcripts, so thanks for the tone info.

I see the reason for a warning as "you may see my gun as I reach for my wallet and I wouldn't be telling you this if I didn't want you to be aware and not freak the **** out." or, "if you decide to go all supercop and search my car because you think you smell pot, the gun you will find is legal."

Was Castile's gun even directly on his person?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not so sure. The officer commanded him to get his license. Unless the officer stated otherwise, that was still a command under the eyes of the law.

The officer should have countermanded the "get your license" command by saying something like "don't move", "step out of the car" or "put your hands up on the dash".

"Don't reach for the gun" does not countermand "get your license". Infact, you can easily construe that they are infact part of the same command.

Plus, it is not up to the civilian who is stopped to think about all these subtleties in a split second, the onus is on the officer here, he is the professional and had he acted professionally instead of panic, the other person would have been alive.

The cop could have done tons of things differently: first of all, a guy who advises a cop that he is carrying and has his family in the car is actually less likely to attack him (otherwise, why warn the cop). The cop could have confirmed the location of the gun in a calm way and asked whether license and registration were in the same place (e. g. the glove box). The cop could have asked the driver to keep his hands on the steering wheel in the meantime, just to be sure.

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't definitively state what the law says in this jurisdiction, so the best I can do is say how I'd write the law.

Following this command could get the person killed.

I would write the law such that disobeying a command which could get the person killed is not a crime.

Not obeying a command might not be a crime under your law, but that doesn't do you any good because the cop shoots you as you were acting suspiciously by not following his command. It is not the civilian responsibility to make up for mistakes made by the cop. By this standard the civilian can't win here.

The responsibility to handle the situation properly lies with the law enforcement officer, and police officers who make mistakes should take responsibility for their mistakes. Entering into a discussion what the civilian could have done better wastes a lot of time that could be used to talk about how to improve training of police officers, work out what society expects of cops in the 21st century and weed out bad cops.

Originally Posted by subego 

Is not the reason the best practice is to give a warning because guns are dangerous, and the presence of non-cop guns make cop-civilian interaction way more dangerous?

Sure, they increase the risk, but not by the same amount for everyone — race matters. Plus, since you are even against further scientific study into gun violence, why do you bring up this point? If you are a cop in the US, you just have to accept the fact that you do live in a country with a strong gun culture, and that many people legally own firearms.