• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Blue Privilege in Minnesota

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-during-traffic-stop/?utm_term=.5950f4723cee

While it's theoretically possible this officer is innocent of the charge, given the department response and all the other public information, I think it's much more likely another cop found a very sympathetic court. You or I would be in jail now.

We saw in Charleston a cop murder a man in the back in cold blood and acquitted of the murder charge, incredibly. What exactly goes on in Voir Dire? I've never had jury duty. Does it differ by state to state? Is the public just that much into boot licking? Why is it so hard to get a murder charge on the cop's "home turf", as it were?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Another criminal walking free, because they had a badge.. Hopefully the Creator shall not be so kind..

My .02
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I believe, Sola Fide, that you are confusing our Creator and our God vengeful, wrathful, and jealous, that will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Creator gives a shiite.

" I am not a christian"

" I believe in one God, and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life".

Deism = single creator

CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I believe, Sola Fide, that you are confusing our Creator and our God vengeful, wrathful, and jealous, that will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Creator gives a shiite.

Theology-- " An effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms of the not worth knowing".. H.L. Mencken

Need I say more old word salad.

CCJ
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Deism = single creator

Wrong.

Deism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
- Monotheism is theism with respect to a single god
- Polytheism is theism with respect to multiple gods

The "single creator" belief can apply to both deism and monotheism.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Wrong.

Deism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
- Monotheism is theism with respect to a single god
- Polytheism is theism with respect to multiple gods

The "single creator" belief can apply to both deism and monotheism.

Thank you for your intelligent prose, I prefer Deism, over all beliefs, however, " the "Golden Rule" is my creed.. Religion and politics are indeed a major divide.

This board via the 2nd amendment, binds us all, politics and religion aside, " The right to keep and bear arms", is our creed, is our Constitution..

Since9, I always enjoying reading your post and opinions..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-during-traffic-stop/?utm_term=.5950f4723cee

While it's theoretically possible this officer is innocent of the charge, given the department response and all the other public information, I think it's much more likely another cop found a very sympathetic court. You or I would be in jail now.

?

Unless your are a LEO I don't think You or I would find themselves in the same type of circumstances as the MN officer did when he fired those shots.

If You or I stopped some one in a motor vehicle approach them and ask things from them without proper authority then shot them even if the person shot was reaching for his gun you are right You and I would end up in jail.

But that is not what happen.

The officer had the authority to make the stop he had the authority to ask for things.

The idea that You and I would be in jail for doing the same thing officer did in wrong because You and I do not have the legal authority to set the situation up.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Unless your are a LEO I don't think You or I would find themselves in the same type of circumstances as the MN officer did when he fired those shots.

If You or I stopped some one in a motor vehicle approach them and ask things from them without proper authority then shot them even if the person shot was reaching for his gun you are right You and I would end up in jail.

But that is not what happen.

The officer had the authority to make the stop he had the authority to ask for things.

The idea that You and I would be in jail for doing the same thing officer did in wrong because You and I do not have the legal authority to set the situation up.

WOW, such a Statist reply.. The officer in question, fired seven shots into a vehicle, killing a law abiding citizen, and leaving lasting impressions upon the other occupancy therein..

Did your fellow officer, have the authority, TO COMMIT UNJUSTIFIED MURDER?

All of my children, posses the proper documentation for exercising their 2nd amendment right, when out and about, and they exercise said right with intelligence and dignity.. Therefore, what is the legal justification, why, some untrained, scared, ignorant, probably racist Leo, should take their life?

If you as a human being and parent, can support the actions of the murderous criminal ex-leo, than you Sir, are indeed a part of the problem, and have loss all respect from me and my posterity..

A cheap badge, does in fact grant no extra powers..

My .02

CCJ
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Unless your are a LEO I don't think You or I would find themselves in the same type of circumstances as the MN officer did when he fired those shots.

If You or I stopped some one in a motor vehicle approach them and ask things from them without proper authority then shot them even if the person shot was reaching for his gun you are right You and I would end up in jail.

But that is not what happen.

The officer had the authority to make the stop he had the authority to ask for things.

The idea that You and I would be in jail for doing the same thing officer did in wrong because You and I do not have the legal authority to set the situation up.

he stopped this guy because he was black. period. it's already been said that he was looking for the armed robbery suspect. he had it made up in his mind that he was stopping the armed robbery suspect. when he heard the word firearm, he IMMEDIATELY pulled out his gun. immediately. legal justification for a traffic stop does not equate to legal justification to shoot someone. like, he pulled the gun out and shot, immediately. and guess what? he's back out on the streets, ready to shoot and kill another "suspected black armed robber with a wide set nose". this is atrocious.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
he stopped this guy because he was black. period. it's already been said that he was looking for the armed robbery suspect. he had it made up in his mind that he was stopping the armed robbery suspect. when he heard the word firearm, he IMMEDIATELY pulled out his gun. immediately. legal justification for a traffic stop does not equate to legal justification to shoot someone. like, he pulled the gun out and shot, immediately. and guess what? he's back out on the streets, ready to shoot and kill another "suspected black armed robber with a wide set nose". this is atrocious.

All conjecture on your part.

The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously the 12 people on the jury found some reasonable doubt.

Or are you saying a LEO should be convicted on a lesser standard.

And there is a lot off doubt in this situation otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Even if he did stop him because he match the description of an arm robber that his job.

As far as I know he is no longer employed as a LEO.

Please enlighten us with all your training and personnel experience in handling these situation we are all willing to learn from your vast knowledge base.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The cop walked because he is a cop. We have the girlfriend's eye witness testimony (and her video) and the jury chose to ignore it.

I've seen the video. What it does not show is what lead up to the moment where the video starts, after he's already been shot and he quickly fades while the cop does nothing but cover him with his firearm.

Here's a thought: Attend to the wounded.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
I've seen the video. What it does not show is what lead up to the moment where the video starts, after he's already been shot and he quickly fades while the cop does nothing but cover him with his firearm.

Here's a thought: Attend to the wounded.

Well you really need to watch the dash cam. It clearly shows that castile or the driver had already handed Officer Yanez the paper work and officer Yanez had the paper work in his hand when Philando Castile told him he had a firearm then Castile started moving and it is clearly heard officer Yanez saying don't reach for it, don't pull it out

Castile continued to reach for it what ever it was.

What he was reaching for we don't know.

Watch the dash cam stop action it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMKcWz5nNoM
 
Last edited:

ManoftheSea

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
14
Location
Outside Manassas, VA
Jury Instruction

From the Jury Instruction:
"The State has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was *NOT* authorized to use deadly force" (Emphasis mine)
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Well you really need to watch the dash cam. It clearly shows that castile or the driver had already handed Officer Yanez the paper work and officer Yanez had the paper work in his hand when Philando Castile told him he had a firearm then Castile started moving and it is clearly heard officer Yanez saying don't reach for it, don't pull it out

Castile continued to reach for it what ever it was.

What he was reaching for we don't know.

Yes, we do.


I watched it:

21:05:52-54: Castile: "I, uh, do want to let you know I have a firearm..."

21:05:55: Second Officer: "Don't reach for it, though, man - don't reach for it."

21:05:56: Castile: "(unintelligible)"

21:05:57: Officer Yanez: "Don't pull it out."

21:05:58: Officer Yanez: (drawing his own weapon) "Don't pull it out."

21:05:59: BANG - First of SEVEN shots.

21:06:02: BANG - Last of SEVEN shots.

At that point, Officer Yanez says the F-word three times then repeatedly tells the guy he just fatally shot not to move.

Seriously? Here's what I see wrong with this picture:

1. Officers are taught clear, standard, and unambiguous terminology. "Don't pull it out" is not clear (it sounds too much like "pull it out" or "Ok, pull it out"). It almost certainly is not standard. Given the nature of the situation, most notably the Castile's calm voice, the unclear phrase and its non-standard terminology, it certainly wasn't ambiguous.

2. Officer Yanez's 7 shots is non-standard. Perhaps that's what he practiced on the range. You will tend to do what you practice.

3. When two people are speaking at you either at the same time or nearly the same time, it creates confusion, particularly in a stressful situation. That significantly added to the problem.

4. Officer Yanez's f-bombs clearly indicate he was out of his element. I've been in a number of life-threatening incidents I encountered while flying. Not once did I ever hear an aircrew member repeatedly drop F-bombs. Instead, they tool care of business, followed their training, and we did what we had to in order to save return to safe (or safer) flight status. Heart-pounding? Absolutely. F-bombs? No.

5. Judging by the following account, Castile was removing his wallet immediately after informing the officers that he was armed. Highly unfortunately mixup by Yanez: "According to Reynolds' testimony and a police dashcam video/audio, Castile told the officer he had a firearm and had one hand in his pants pocket after being asked for his license and registration. Reynolds said Castile was shot while reaching for his ID after telling Yanez he was armed. The officer shot at Castile seven times.

6. Yanez was charged: "On November 16, 2016, John Choi, the Ramsey County Attorney, announced that Yanez was being charged with three felonies: one count of second-degree manslaughter and two counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm. Choi said, "I would submit that no reasonable officer knowing, seeing, and hearing what Officer Yanez did at the time would have used deadly force under these circumstances."

7. I agree with John Choi.

8. The same day Yanez was acquitted of all charges, he was fired by the City of Saint Anthony.

9. I agree with the City of Saint Anthony.

The time it took to go from routine stop to total screw-up was all of five seconds and involved four comments, one by Castile and three by the two officers.

That is confusing to anyone, people. The average human brain is on the edge of being incapable of processing information that fast. On adrenaline? Sure. But Castile's voice clearly indicated he was upset at all, so he was just being cooperative, and his "I'm armed" is

Why are cops overly alarmed when suspects calmly tell them they're armed? Criminals do NOT calmly offer an "I'm armed" to cops any more than they OC. Properly trained cops should NOT become alarmed as Yanez did. In fact, cops should be trained to be cautious in that situation such that they recognize the calm voice, the freely given and calm comment by the suspect that they are armed such that the cops will NOT speed-jerk react and start blowing people away based on false clues.

I don't agree with the civil unrest. That's no way to handle this sort of clear mistake that Yanez made. The protests are fine, so long as they remain peaceable, and serve as a clear reminder that a lot of cops are just poorly trained.

While I agree that Yanez should not have been convicted of manslaughter, given all the circumstances, that was indeed a reckless discharge of a firearm. However, in the light of his possibly poor training by the department, I would hate to see him spend ten years in prison. I do believe, however, he should have received at at least a year as a stern reminder to the force to tighten up their training, as well as to disqualify Yanez from being a member of law enforcement anywhere else (felon status).

Before some yahoo here says I'm the one doing the armchair quarterbacking, here, they need to read Choi's comments to the press.
 
Top