BLM Baton Rouge police fatally shot man

[JTsyo]

I think the public is too quick to jump on these stories and it dilutes the issue. Alton Sterling I can see being a justified shooting as he was armed and struggling with police. It shouldn't have have been the issue that it was made out to be. People are just jumping on every case they can.

On the other hand, Philando Castile was certainly shot for no reason other than a jumpy cop. This should be the case that is pursued.

 

[CZroe]

Bad situation all around. Guy shouldn't have had pistol on him and definitely not threatening people with it if that's true. Cops seemed trigger happy at first glance. I could see how either side could be blamed depending on the side you take. I really think both sides made bad decisions. I don't know the right answer tbh. Video wasn't 100% clear and the judicial system is always going to be partial to their own which makes it look suspicious to those on the outside.

Are you saying he should not have been threatening someone with it if it's true that he was threatening someone with it or are you saying that he definitely was not threatening someone with it if it's true that he had it?

I'll respond as if you said the latter, since that's what so many are missing:
The police were there specifically because someone called and said that the man threatened them with a gun.

If you have a gun and you don't cooperate with a lawful demand from the police then you ARE threatening them with a gun.

This guy didn't even have a gun yet. You don't think the police took it as a threat when he went for their weapon? He's lucky he didn't get shot. It would have been entirely justified. If you try to argue how different they are, it only becomes worse for Alton's case: They also tried tazing Alton and it didn't work (he remained standing). The officers here were able to keep this man from getting a gun but in Alton's case he already had a gun and they were not able to subdue him well enough (his arm was still free to reach for the gun in his pocket).

I think the public is too quick to jump on these stories and it dilutes the issue. Alton Sterling I can see being a justified shooting as he was armed and struggling with police. It shouldn't have have been the issue that it was made out to be. People are just jumping on every case they can.

On the other hand, Philando Castile was certainly shot for no reason other than a jumpy cop. This should be the case that is pursued.

Well, that an assumption too. A much more likely assumption, but an assumption, none the less. It's very possible that the officer changed his request after being informed of the gun and Philando reached anyway. We don't have/see that part yet. Still tragic either way. Is there any dash cam footage expected?

 

[Knowing]

His point was the cops didn't have any information on the man when they rolled up other than the call. So, your question is irrelevant.

The point he's making is that the people involved have or do not have knowledge of their own criminality and that impacts the tension of the encounter.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Are you saying he should not have been threatening someone with it if it's true that he was threatening someone with it or are you saying that he definitely was not threatening someone with it if it's true that he had it?

I'll respond as if you said the latter, since that's what so many are missing:
The police were there specifically because someone called and said that the man threatened them with a gun.

If you have a gun and you don't cooperate with a lawful demand from the police then you ARE threatening them with a gun.

This guy didn't even have a gun yet. You don't think the police took it as a threat when he went for their weapon? He's lucky he didn't get shot. It would have been entirely justified. If you try to argue how different they are, it only becomes worse for Alton's case: They also tried tazing Alton and it didn't work (he remained standing). The officers here were able to keep this man from getting a gun but in Alton's case he already had a gun and they were not able to subdue him well enough (his arm was still free to reach for the gun in his pocket).



Well, that an assumption too. A much more likely assumption, but an assumption, none the less. It's very possible that the officer changed his request after being informed of the gun and Philando reached anyway. We don't have/see that part yet. Still tragic either way. Is there any dash cam footage expected?

Just where are you getting your info from? All the videos/audio prior to the tackle/takedown, (you know, the real damning ones), have not, and probably will never be released. At a press conference law enforcement denied the use of tazers. In the 2 videos we are allowed to see, I see no violent struggle, no reaching for anything, and it looks to me that he was pretty well subdued. Well, at least up until they took their hands off him to, --- ummm, tell him that resistance would be futile, and he should just turn over to be cuffed.

 

[Wuzup101]

Just where are you getting your info from? All the videos/audio prior to the tackle/takedown, (you know, the real damning ones), have not, and probably will never be released. At a press conference law enforcement denied the use of tazers. In the 2 videos we are allowed to see, I see no violent struggle, no reaching for anything, and it looks to me that he was pretty well subdued. Well, at least up until they took their hands off him to, --- ummm, tell him that resistance would be futile, and he should just turn over to be cuffed.

So there are various "versions" of the first video that were put up on different media websites. If you look at the video linked below and compare it to the video linked in the OP, you'll see they are just slightly different in length (with some trimmed off of the beginning). In the video below, at the 1-2 second mark, you hear a crack (taser firing) followed by the electrical impulse (zapping sound). At about 7 seconds you hear the second crack (taser firing) followed by the zap again. When the video pans up at about the 9-10 second mark you see the officer (the one that doesn't tackle Alton) has the taser in his hand. At about the 11-12 second mark, you see him holster the taser on his left side (where a right handed officer carries their taser).

You don't hear the taser stuff if you only watch the video that is linked in the OP, because it starts as the camera pans out the window (actually right at the start of that video you can hear the "zap" from the second firing of the taser).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._rouge_man_alton_sterling_shot_by_police.html

Furthermore, in an interview with the shop owner (linked below), he says that they tried to first put him up against the car and he resisted, then they tased him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVz4HzmMdGY

 

[CZroe]

Just where are you getting your info from? All the videos/audio prior to the tackle/takedown, (you know, the real damning ones), have not, and probably will never be released. At a press conference law enforcement denied the use of tazers.

Even if he wasn't tased, it doesn't change much. This is the first attempted correction on that point I've seen in this thread despite the claim that he was ineffectively tased in the very first reply. I'm guessing he got that info from some place like this:
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/06/youre-reading-alton-sterling-written-idiots/

On the other hand, I gleaned it from this thread and since no one corrected it until now it seemed to be an accepted part of the sequence of events. Maybe they didn't even have a taser or maybe they thought tackling first made more sense. It doesn't change much. What would change it is if he could be shown to have been perfectly compliant. Refusing to get on the ground and instead saying "what did I do?" is NOT complying. It's perfectly reasonable for police to tell you to do that first when responding to a caller saying they were threatened by him with a gun. That came from an article linked in the OP, BTW.

Edit: so he was tased after all. Good job looking for a tangent that would not have changed much after all.

In the 2 videos we are allowed to see, I see no violent struggle, no reaching for anything, and it looks to me that he was pretty well subdued. Well, at least up until they took their hands off him to, --- ummm, tell him that resistance would be futile, and he should just turn over to be cuffed.

Get your head out of the sand. Struggling AT ALL when you have a weapon is violent because of the potential. They can't wait for him to break free and point it at them. His right arm was completely unrestrained and... surprise, surprise, the gun comes out of his right pocket. You've got to be an idiot to think that a man who is still fighting the cops when they have him pinned on the ground was not being violent... and how are they supposed to cuff him if one doesn't take hands off? The biggest question I have is why you aren't ashamed to be so gullible and ignorant?

Ostriches like you are spreading outrage with your lies and ignorant assumptions causing the deaths of innocent people. You should be ashamed. Seriously: screw you.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

So there are various "versions" of the first video that were put up on different media websites. If you look at the video linked below and compare it to the video linked in the OP, you'll see they are just slightly different in length (with some trimmed off of the beginning). In the video below, at the 1-2 second mark, you hear a crack (taser firing) followed by the electrical impulse (zapping sound). At about 7 seconds you hear the second crack (taser firing) followed by the zap again. When the video pans up at about the 9-10 second mark you see the officer (the one that doesn't tackle Alton) has the taser in his hand. At about the 11-12 second mark, you see him holster the taser on his left side (where a right handed officer carries their taser).

You don't hear the taser stuff if you only watch the video that is linked in the OP, because it starts as the camera pans out the window (actually right at the start of that video you can hear the "zap" from the second firing of the taser).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._rouge_man_alton_sterling_shot_by_police.html

Furthermore, in an interview with the shop owner (linked below), he says that they tried to first put him up against the car and he resisted, then they tased him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVz4HzmMdGY

Thank you sir for that video. I had not seen it before, so I stand corrected. It appears they tazed him twice before throwing him to the ground in 12 seconds. Ahhh, don't you just love a nice soft target.
Did you see him twitch? Yes! he twitched, OPEN FIRE!

 

[Ackmed]

His point was the cops didn't have any information on the man when they rolled up other than the call. So, your question is irrelevant.

You don't know what they had. The "CD man" had been there for years selling CD's, breaking the law's. He has a very long criminal history. Cops generally work in the same area, driving up and down the same streets all the time. It is not far fetched to think the cops had run in with him before or knew about him from other officers.

So no, it is not irrelevant. Suspect B would resist and argue with the officer more.

 

[CZroe]

Thank you sir for that video. I had not seen it before, so I stand corrected. It appears they tazed him twice before throwing him to the ground in 12 seconds. Ahhh, don't you just love a nice soft target.
Did you see him twitch? Yes! he twitched, OPEN FIRE!

They were responding to a report that he had already threatened someone with a gun. OF FREAKING COURSE they would have fired the taser within seconds if he did not comply immediately. It's laughable that you keep going back to this perspective to convince yourself that they jumped the gun. Stop lying to yourself.

Did you forget that tasers are non-lethal? Why do you insist on digging your hole deeper? It's pathetic.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

On the other hand, Philando Castile was certainly shot for no reason other than a jumpy cop. This should be the case that is pursued.

There's more to the story that will never be covered by the MSM, nor would it matter to the BLM racists. It turns out that Philando Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. The officer may have overreacted, or he may actually have been justified...

 

[woolfe9998]

There's more to the story that will never be covered by the MSM, nor would it matter to the BLM racists. It turns out that Philando Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. The officer may have overreacted, or he may actually have been justified...

Yes, that's interesting. However, the audio recording which is the evidence that the cop stopped Castile because he suspected him of armed robbery was sent to a local police station by an anonymous viewer. The police have so far not verified its authenticity. Could well be legit, but I'll wait for the police response.

Which I'm sure is what the "MSM" you refer to is doing as well, not reporting on something sourced by an unknown person and not verified by the cops. You shouldn't be asking why the MSM isn't reporting on it. You should be asking why "conservative treehouse" and about 10 other conservative "news" sites are reporting on something which may or may not be real. That's why it isn't real journalism.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if it turns out to be authentic after all. The point is its authenticity should be verified before it gets reported to the public. AFAIK even FoxNews has not reported on this, and surely you cannot believe THEY have a liberal bias. I suspect they aren't reporting on it for the same reason CNN, etc. is not reporting on it. Because they don't want to report it, have it turn out to be a fake, then have to print an embarrassing retraction.

Prediction: if the police do verify it, I suspect the MSM will report on it. We'll see.

Also, your so-called news site has drawn the fascinating conclusion that this audio recording means that the girlfriend was lying when she said the cop told her he pulled them over for a broken tail light. Yet not only is the recording not authenticated, but even if it's authentic it doesn't make her a liar. If a cop stops someone on uncertain suspicion of being someone who committed a serious crime, does the cop say this outright when asked why he stopped them? Doing so either alerts a violent felon that he is about to be arrested and hence should either shoot the officer or try to flee, or else seriously offends a person who is innocent. Better to just tell them it's a busted tail light so you can get a closer look, get license and registration, run plates, check for warrants and priors, and decide if you want to arrest him or not. Which is totally consistent with her allegation that the officer said he stopped them for a tail light which in fact was not broken. The officer may very well have lied about why he stopped them, which is a totally logical thing for him to have done.

This stuff you fill your head with is rank propaganda.

 

[Brian Stirling]

His past history isn't really relevant to whether use of force was justified this time or not.

Maybe not in court, but if the police know him and know his record then they have to take into account past behavior or they may die!

WE don't know just yet if the cops knew him or recognized him, but given his long term presence at this location it's not out of the question that they did know him and his record.


Brian

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Which I'm sure is what the "MSM" you refer to is doing as well, not reporting on something sourced by an unknown person and not verified by the cops. You shouldn't be asking why the MSM isn't reporting on it. You should be asking why "conservative treehouse" and about 10 other conservative "news" sites are reporting on something which may or may not be real. That's why it isn't real journalism.

So the MSM won't report this audio because it's not verified but they will report that it was another racist cop shooting another "innocent" black male (who also happened to have a gun on him), and will immediately push the girfriend's story as fact, before it was verified. Yeah, that makes sense... not.

Also, your so-called news site has drawn the fascinating conclusion that this audio recording means that the girlfriend was lying when she said the cop told her he pulled them over for a broken tail light. Yet not only is the recording not authenticated, but even if it's authentic it doesn't make her a liar. If a cop stops someone on uncertain suspicion of being someone who committed a serious crime, does the cop say this outright when asked why he stopped them? Doing so either alerts a violent felon that he is about to be arrested and hence should either shoot the officer or try to flee, or else seriously offends a person who is innocent. Better to just tell them it's a busted tail light so you can get a closer look, get license and registration, run plates, check for warrants and priors, and decide if you want to arrest him or not. Which is totally consistent with her allegation that the officer said he stopped them for a tail light which in fact was not broken. The officer may very well have lied about why he stopped them, which is a totally logical thing for him to have done.

You say the girlfriend wasn't lying because the cops absolutely would lie rather than say "I pulled you over because you match the description..." which is completely consistent with the unverified audio recording. You've just made the unverified audio recording seem even more legitimate.

This stuff you fill your head with is rank propaganda.

No, that is what the MSM is doing when they report the police shooting black males (with long criminal histories and guns) as racist, but don't report the police shooting the white male (with no criminal history or gun) because that goes against their narrative. That's the propaganda.

 

[woolfe9998]

So the MSM won't report this audio because it's not verified but they will report that it was another racist cop shooting another "innocent" black male (who also happened to have a gun on him), and will immediately push the girfriend's story as fact, before it was verified. Yeah, that makes sense... not.

You're claiming they're "pushing the story as fact." What they're doing, actually, is reporting the story and what she said. It's how you report things.

Do you really know why the media reports on shootings of blacks by cops more than shootings of whites? I can tell you think you know, and that you understand nothing about our media. It is corporate, shareholder owned, and profit driven. The more controversial an issue, the more attention it gets. Right now in this culture, anything to do with race, race relations, or racial tension sells because it is incendiary. The news media loves anything and everything that is incendiary.

Incidentally, I agree that the media's reporting is differential and that this is problematic. I just don't agree with you about the reason because you think the media is driven by a liberal agenda and I think they are driven by a profit motive. The real trouble is that the media, like any profit driven corporation, has no sense of social responsibility. They will report certain incidents but not others because certain things are what the greatest number of people will view and read, bolstering ad revenues. But of course it gives the false impression that it's mainly just blacks who get shot. Most people are interested in, and form their opinions from, anecdotes, stories about specific incidents involving specific people. Very few of us bother looking up statistics because statistics are boring. The media understands this but it doesn't care if it's exacerbating racial tension by giving a false impression for the same reason that oil companies don't care if they're polluting the environment. Any effect that what they're doing is having on the world at large is not really a consideration.

You say the girlfriend wasn't lying because the cops absolutely would lie rather than say "I pulled you over because you match the description..." which is completely consistent with the unverified audio recording. You've just made the unverified audio recording seem even more legitimate.

To some extent, yes. Her story could be consistent with the tape being authentic or not being authentic. I think it could be authentic though. It's certainly possible. One plausible scenario is the tape is authentic and the girlfriend was also telling the truth about the tail light.

Point of clarification in case I didn't emphasize the point enough. It would be utterly foolish for a cop to approach a possible felon sitting in a car, and in effect tell them that, in 5 or 10 minutes, I might arrest you for a felony, and in the mean time, just sit tight while I go back and sit in my car. If the cop decides to arrest him, he has to call for backup and wait for another car while the suspect sits in his car. They want the suspect thinking the cop is just taking a while checking his license and possibly writing up a ticket, not that he is waiting to be arrested. I'd be surprised if telling a suspect that it's just a routine stop isn't absolutely standard operating procedure.

No, that is what the MSM is doing when they report the police shooting black males (with long criminal histories and guns) as racist, but don't report the police shooting the white male (with no criminal history or gun) because that goes against their narrative. That's the propaganda.

Really, they're reporting the cops as racist meaning the news stories reporting the incident are actually stating the opinion that the cop is a racist? Uhm, no, they're not. I'm afraid you're confusing the quoting of someone who holds that opinion with the media pushing the opinion. Or maybe you're reading an editorial and mistaking it for a fact piece. I think when you read MSM, you're seeing what you expect to see and filtering it through a lens which just assumes a liberal agenda and interprets it in light of that pre-existing assumption. Try just reading what it actually says instead.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Really, they're reporting the cops as racist meaning the news stories reporting the incident are actually stating the opinion that the cop is a racist?

Yes, they are actually pushing the narrative that this was a racially motivated shooting:

Fiancée of slain Minnesota man Philando Castile blasts cops who arrested her, comforted police officer after traffic-stop shooting: ‘I was treated like a criminal’

The fiancée of victim Philando Castile, at a tumultuous Thursday news conference, recounted how “racist” cops offered him no medical aid and slapped her in handcuffs after the Wednesday night killing.

Names are released of officers involved in shooting that Minnesota governor calls an example of racism

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton on Thursday forcefully condemned the police officers involved in the shooting of a 32-year-old black man, singling out the shooting as an example of racism and an incident that would have played out differently if it didn’t involve black Americans.

Watch This Black Officer's Heartbreaking Response to Police Violence and Racism

In the wake of the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling, a black police officer from Warrensville Heights, Ohio took to Facebook Live on Wednesday to post an impassioned response to the violence and speak out against racist police officers.

In the wake of Philando Castile's death, Minnesotans must address implicit racism — now, not after an investigation

Don't wait; take action
When will white Minnesota claim and meaningfully address its systemic racism that is killing our black friends and neighbors? Gov. Mark Dayton has now apparently called for a federal investigation and stated this is unacceptable. Maybe that is a good idea. But this response, unfortunately, and with all due respect to our governor, feels to me like it just continues to pay lip service and nibble around the edges at what continues to be an ongoing crisis. And I say that as a Democrat who likes Gov. Dayton. When do we all finally say "enough"?

Show up and demand change
Those of us who continue to enjoy our white privilege and claim to love our state of Minnesota need to get off the couch and Facebook, quit telling people we're not racists, and actually show up and demand change. We participate daily in systems that foster racism. It's not somebody else's problem. It's our problem, and until we demand real change, the killing will continue. That's not a tolerable outcome for any Minnesotan, regardless of the color of your skin.

And fuck that cowardly governor for fanning the flames.

One plausible scenario is the tape is authentic and the girlfriend was also telling the truth about the tail light.

I agree.

 

[CZroe]

Bump.

Can't let this thread die when we still haven't gotten an apology from the idiots who jumped to conclusions and got it completely wrong, yet again. The fact that they are letting this thread go shows that, yes, they might actually feel shame after all. If you let them get away that easily, they'll just do it again on the next incident.

Until they realized that they were wrong they weren't just "not ashamed" to risk being completely wrong by jumpong to their ultimately-incorrect conclusions, THEY WERE PROUD OF IT. Indeed, they try to shame anyone who refuses to take their side of the issue right away. The only way to shame them is to continue shining the spotlight in the aftermath of their mistake.

YOU ARE THE ONES INCITING VIOLENCE BY SPREADING OUTRAGE AND MAKING THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ASSUMPTIONS BEFORE THE DETAILS ARE KNOWN! Cut it out, you irresponsible self-righteous monsters.

 

[purbeast0]

saw this going around on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/Bikers4America/posts/1249988178346228?pnref=story

apparently he was teaching his kids to be model citizens too...

 

[Ackmed]

saw this going around on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/Bikers4America/posts/1249988178346228?pnref=story

apparently he was teaching his kids to be model citizens too...

Some of the comments in that FB post are laughable. One guy claimed he was trying to teach his kids gun safety? I see three of the four firearm safety rules from my Marine Corps violated;

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.
Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

1. Not treating as if it were loaded.
2. Not keeping the finger off the trigger.
3. Pointing it at the camera man.
4. Not sure about this one, hard to tell which they are and if they have a safety. The revolver most certainly does not though, so probably a violation of the 4th too.

Granted none of this means anything in the courts. It still looks like a justified case by the cops, but more time will tell for sure either way.

I've carried a gun almost every work day, and when not working for a very long time. Going for an almost 5 week course here very soon sponsored by DOE. Shooting pistols, M4's, machine guns, using flash bangs, grenades. Using a live shoot house for room clearing, etc. At work now we shoot all the above, and a 7.62 mini gun, basically a gatling gun.

We train every day with "blue guns", glocks and M4's that shoot 9mm paint rounds and fucking hurt. Going through shoot houses with adversaries, honing our skills. Even with these types of weapons we follow the same basic principles (DOE's are a bit differently worded but mean the same). Even when empty we never, ever, EVER point the gun at anyone. This is how "accidental" shooting happen, and they do all the time.

Ok, I just ranted. I hate seeing pics like that with anyone involved. This is how bad things happen with guns, and then we have to deal with guns shouldn't be out there. No, people like this shouldn't have guns, and certainly shouldn't have his kids with guns like that.

 

[MongGrel]

Some of the comments in that FB post are laughable. One guy claimed he was trying to teach his kids gun safety? I see three of the four firearm safety rules from my Marine Corps violated;

The boots and some things in the C4 pic the other day seemed a bit indivative along those lines, I was wondering what was up with the C4 rigged over the plated on the right hand side in your pic the other day, looked like a big improvised Claymore rig.

But that is another thread.

I still think the LEOs went over the line on this one, it was not in a war zone.

 

[Ackmed]

It was a wall charge, busting a hole through a mud wall to move on with the mission. Not exactly how it was supposed to be, but we improvised.

How did they go over the line? What should they have done with someone that had a gun, had threatened someone and appeared to not be cooperating?

 

[ivwshane]

Was this posted already?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-...lton-sterlings-death-suing-baton-rouge-police

Has that security footage been released yet?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Even if he wasn't tased, it doesn't change much.

It calls into question the honesty of the department who apparently claimed that the tazer wasn't used. You're right that it doesn't change what happened much. I honestly don't care if it was used or not. I care very much if they get their shit straight before releasing statements that are easy to verify or disprove.

Did you forget that tasers are non-lethal? Why do you insist on digging your hole deeper? It's pathetic.

If you're going to get snarky, can you at least be correct? Although certainly less lethal than guns, how would "non-lethal" be an accurate description of devices that have killed 600+ people over the last 15 years?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

saw this going around on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/Bikers4America/posts/1249988178346228?pnref=story

apparently he was teaching his kids to be model citizens too...

Ugh, why do people do stupid things like this?

 

[umbrella39]

saw this going around on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/Bikers4America/posts/1249988178346228?pnref=story

apparently he was teaching his kids to be model citizens too...

Yeah, I saw that, if you scroll down a bit further on their page they show 3 little white girls with weapons, too. But, but, but they aren't pointing them at the cameraman so that's cool... DERP

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yeah, I saw that, if you scroll down a bit further on their page they show 3 little white girls with weapons, too. But, but, but they aren't pointing them at the cameraman so that's cool... DERP

That's the exact point. Don't point guns at people EVER. Holding guns = OK. Pointing guns at people = NOT OK. It's basic gun safety. Don't point guns at stuff you don't intend to shoot. Why is this derp?