He was never holding it, but the officer believed he matched the description of a suspect that was wanted by police. The officer then approached the individual who told him that he had a gun, which probably triggered alarms of all sorts - a completely understandable reaction, IMO. Castile thought he was cooperating by reaching for his wallet; Officer Yanez thought Castile was NOT cooperating and though he was reaching for a gun when in fact he was reaching for a wallet. I’m usually on this thread banging on about training, but if my understanding of what transpired is correct - and it may not be but if it is - then I am honestly not sure how I would have decided. Castile had the legal right to carry a gun, as did the victim in Mesa, AZ, but guns - even legal ones - just introduce a new and volatile new element into the equation. That doesn’t absolve the officers to exercise good judgment and care, but I’m sure it makes it harder to get a conviction.
If a full investigation can’t find evidence that shows it wasn’t justified, but some random person on the Internet who’s read a couple of news reports claims there is, I’m going to believe the investigation. Even if it’s flawed, it’s a hell of a lot less flawed than drawing a conclusion based on incomplete evidence and a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
And a jury can’t mistakenly acquit someone. That’s just one of your major misunderstandings, to add to the conspiracy theory nonsense about killings not being investigated properly.
It’s not a jump, it’s two separate issues. It was self defence, and it was irrelevant to any discussion about whether a cop can shoot someone for holding a gun.
And self defence doesn’t justify murder, killing in self defence is not murder. Killing to save one’s life is not only justified, if you have dependants its morally correct. If not, it’s still morally acceptable, just not the only correct action.
Not all of these situations are fully investigated. Cops protect their own at the expense of all others.
If cops kill your friends and family, would you still want to figuratively suck them off for doing the right thing?
You missed the intent of my question. Castile announced he was armed; the cops then shot him when he attempted to comply with their order to reach for his driver’s license. I wonder if he “should” have NOT announced that he had a gun. What’s your opinion on this? (I put “should” in quotes since in the other case, after he was killed, the cop suckers would be saying that he SHOULD have mentioned the gun.)
Have you also been informed that you’re an idiot? This post helps confirm that information.
When a cop behaves like a thug, calling him a “thug” is called “using English properly.” Calling an apparently innocent black a “thug” because he is black is racist. Why is this hard for you to understand?
Questions for the cop suckers in the thread: Crazy Americans are everywhere. As a private gun owner I am constantly fearful. The guy I pass on the street who’s smiling might be trying to distract me so he can stab me with a knife. Should I shoot a couple rounds into his center of mass just in case? At the 7-Eleven the checker opened her cash drawer just now to make change. She might have had a gun in there. Should I have shot her a few times just in case?
Most of you cop-sucking racist thugs are also thuggish 2nd Amendment idiots. In your utopian vision for America will almost all Americans be walking around armed? The facts demonstrate that it is innocent black motorists who should be fearful, not the thuggish or cowardly racist cops. Wouldn’t black motorists be well advised to shoot cops in self-defense as soon as they approach the car after a traffic stop? A glance at YouTube will demonstrate they have good reason to be in fear of their lives. Surely no jury would convict them. :smack:
So the juries that acquitted white supremacist murderers in the South for decades and decades weren’t mistaken, according to Steophan (who is also a repeated liar, lest we forget).
So, organized crime gets to a juror, resulting in a hung jury. No problem?
Having to see a gun before you shoot someone because you are afraid they are going to shoot you is a ridiculous standard? Really?
Well, no, they certainly weren’t mistaken, they were exercising jury nullification for despicable reasons. Or, in cases such as the murder of Emmett Till, the prosecution deliberately failed to prove their case, which would lead an honest jury to acquit. Not that all members of that jury, based on their later claims, would have convicted even had the evidence been presented to them.
You are a crazy conspiracy theorist. There’s a word for people who think that “the man” is out to get them, and that word is “paranoid”.
No, having to wait until the gun is pointed at you is a ridiculous standard. Whether or not you need to see the gun would depend on the circumstances, what is required is a resonable belief that someone is imminently going to seriously harm you. That’s an obviously sensible standard, despite what some people here keep claiming. The only reason not to support that is because you don’t believe in the right to self defence.
Clearly plenty of people here don’t but for whatever reason are unwilling to defend that belief.
Of course it’s a problem. Once again, though, what it isn’t is a mistake.
The man isn’t out to get me. I am a middle class white male. However as a concerned member of society, I am concerned about the innocent people who have been murdered by cops.
So based on this, a cop can kill a quadriplegic and claim self-defense??
Obviously yes. And if it was reasonable that they were in fear of imminent harm, the claim would be valid.
There doesn’t have to be an actual threat, it’s ridiculous to expect people to investigate and assess that in the face of what appears to be imminent death.
That’s what you, and others, don’t seem to understand here. We are talking about people having to make split second decisions in what appears to be the threat of imminent death or serious injury. To categorise a mistake in that situation as murder, and to consider showing sympathy for someone who had to kill in that situation to be either a cover up, or to be an uncritical cop fellator, is insulting to any thinking person, and inhumane to the person who had to defend themselves.
Somehow you missed the 250,000 or so black people who are arrested every month without being killed making it not reasonable to assume every black person who encounters a police officer is in immediate mortal peril.
Half of black people report that they personally have been mistreated by law enforcement: What Americans think about the Economy - AP-NORC
Considering that, I think it’s pretty damn reasonable that many black people are terrified of police.
OMG!! How do we know that baby in the crib isn’t actually a tiny midget with a gun stuffed in his diaper!
To summarize Steophan’s input here:
If a cop feels scared for whatever reason it’s OK to kill anybody in sight until he no more feels scared.