Proof black lives don't matter - the execution of Philando Castile (30 page TL;DR added to OP)

[J.Wilkins]

You're not drunk?

No I'm on duty.

 

[woolfe9998]

How is that uncertain, did he see a gun or not? That is a yes or no question.

The answer he gave amounts to no.

He didn't have a gun in his hand either way, the gun was found elsewhere and it wasn't even loaded.

Nah, no way. You don't take a statement where someone says they saw something in a dark lit environment that they thought was a gun, and translate that to "he said he saw no gun." I wouldn't translate it as "he said he saw a gun" either. Reality is not always binary. A fair summary of what he said was that he said he saw him pull out an object that he held like it was gun, and he believed it was a gun, but because it was dark he wasn't 100% certain it was.

Your version omits what he says he did see, which is relevant in determining the reasonableness of his conduct. It may still be completely unreasonable, but I'm not buying this description of his statement I've seen repeated in the thread many times. Better to stick with facts instead of simplifying a statement in a way that makes him sound more guilty.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Really.... it boggles my mind why you otherwise intellegent people are wasting keystrokes on a very present and obvious parody troll... This over the top caricature of a racist/bigot white male conservative should be setting off more radars... You are providing in spades the attention he seeks... SMH

I was thinking of a standup that involves quoting repug-villans when no one knows who they are.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nah, no way. You don't take a statement where someone says they saw something in a dark lit environment that they thought was a gun, and translate that to "he said he saw no gun." I wouldn't translate it as "he said he saw a gun" either. Reality is not always binary. A fair summary of what he said was that he said he saw him pull out an object that he held like it was gun, and he believed it was a gun, but because it was dark he wasn't 100% certain it was.

That's literally not the testimony. The cops testimony is that Philando didn't pull anything out - only that he 'reached'.

 

[woolfe9998]

That being said, not everything in that interview is terribly helpful to the cop. This is just mind blowing:

As that was happening as he was pulling at, out his hand I thought, I was gonna die and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me. And, I let off the rounds and then after the rounds were off, the little girls was screaming.

Him subjecting his daughter to "second hand smoke" somehow made him dangerous. I'm going to assume that the jury never heard this because it makes him seem like an imbecile who has no idea how to assess risk.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's literally not the testimony. The cops testimony is that Philando didn't pull anything out - only that he 'reached'.

Can you please provide a link to the testimony you describe? I ask, because that version is inconsistent with what he said in the interview and any decent prosecutor would have gutted him on the witness stand over being inconsistent on such a critical point.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

1.) There are not 4x more "whites" to "blacks", unless you're calling people "of colour" to be white? Tsk tsk.
2.) That same rule you want to apply ALSO shows how black people are, on average, committing far more dangerous/violent crime than whites are which is WHY they get a different reaction when facing the police. If you get attacked by purple people far more often than magenta people, you're going to be more wary of purples. Simple fact. Don't like it? Stop doing violent crime.
3.) Cops are usually smart enough to recognize who's causing trouble and who's not - regardless of skin colour.


"Innocent.... no threat whatsoever..." #DINDUNUFFIN

The highlighted in red by me is a well known derogatory racist meme from the racist alt-right. We don't allow such here, something you should know as this is your 4th infraction for racism.

Perknose
Forum Director

This is an important thing to draw forward.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Nah, no way. You don't take a statement where someone says they saw something in a dark lit environment that they thought was a gun, and translate that to "he said he saw no gun." I wouldn't translate it as "he said he saw a gun" either. Reality is not always binary. A fair summary of what he said was that he said he saw him pull out an object that he held like it was gun, and he believed it was a gun, but because it was dark he wasn't 100% certain it was.

Your version omits what he says he did see, which is relevant in determining the reasonableness of his conduct. It may still be completely unreasonable, but I'm not buying this description of his statement I've seen repeated in the thread many times. Better to stick with facts instead of simplifying a statement in a way that makes him sound more guilty.

He DID NOT SEE A GUN.

He had him put trigger at two feet and did not see a gun.

Look, don't take this as disrespectful but you are digging here, you are digging too deep to find a justification. Why? I don't know, in someone elses case i would say because he wanted the outcome from the get go but for you... I get the feeling you have served at some point and i get the feeling that you are involved now or at some time with something similar and you feel a need to find an excuse or make sense of it.

He saw no gun, period. The coppers life is worth less than that of a civilians, just like my life was worth less than that of a civilians or yours if you served. You take the risk, he moves and you move your gun up and point it straight to his chin, he moves more, you put your finger on the trigger, at this position, you have him. You see the gun... you fire, don't see the gun, you hold that position and you breathe shallow as long as you have your finger there, you wait, you calm it down, you allow him to surrender to you.

Or you are scared shitless on the job and shoot a guy who doesn't have a gun in his hand in the face.

No problem until it happens to your son who moved his hands too fast, right?

 

[J.Wilkins]

This is an important thing to draw forward.

It's a Stormfront meme. The twat just exposed himself as a Nazi wise and beautiful woman.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can you please provide a link to the testimony you describe? I ask, because that version is inconsistent with what he said in the interview and any decent prosecutor would have gutted him on the witness stand over being inconsistent on such a critical point.

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/County Attorney/County Attorney transcribed remarks 7 29 16.pdf
See how he tells the truth "something, maybe C shaped", realizes how fucked he is, and then changes his story a year later:

Yanez said he ordered Castile not to reach for “it,” referring to the gun. He said Castile continued to move. “It appeared to me that [Castile] had no regard to what I was saying. And, he put his hand around something. And his hand made like a C-type shape and it appeared to me that he was wrapping something around his fingers and almost like if I were to put my hand around my gun. It was dark inside the vehicle. I was trying to fumble my way through under stress to look and see what it was to make sure what I was seeing,”

Later in the same interview, Yanez continued:

“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die. … He just had something in his hands.”

http://www.citypages.com/news/inter...timony-he-saw-philando-castiles-gun/429733013


So there you go, he said he never SAW a gun - he just THOUGHT there was a gun because of the context clues - black dude, being polite, informing him of a gun that could not be drawn by a rational person. No reasonable person would justifiably be in such a state of fear - the only way to think someone would justifiably be in such a state of fear is to think it justifiable to prejudging a man for 'fitting the profile' to such a degree that it overcomes the much more objective and probable criteria of politeness and informing the officer of the gun.


A year after the fact he changed his story - because of course he did.

 

[woolfe9998]

He DID NOT SEE A GUN.

He had him put trigger at two feet and did not see a gun.

Look, don't take this as disrespectful but you are digging here, you are digging too deep to find a justification. Why? I don't know, in someone elses case i would say because he wanted the outcome from the get go but for you... I get the feeling you have served at some point and i get the feeling that you are involved now or at some time with something similar and you feel a need to find an excuse or make sense of it.

Nope, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone who disagrees with you has a bias. From a personal perspective, I've had a general distaste for police since I was young and had some encounters with cops who acted like douches. If anything, this should bias me against police. However, it's more accurate to say that on this topic, I have little to no bias one way or another.

He saw no gun, period. The coppers life is worth less than that of a civilians, just like my life was worth less than that of a civilians or yours if you served. You take the risk, he moves and you move your gun up and point it straight to his chin, he moves more, you put your finger on the trigger, at this position, you have him. You see the gun... you fire, don't see the gun, you hold that position and you breathe shallow as long as you have your finger there, you wait, you calm it down, you allow him to surrender to you.

Or you are scared shitless on the job and shoot a guy who doesn't have a gun in his hand in the face.

No problem until it happens to your son who moved his hands too fast, right?

No, that is a misleading way to characterize what he said he saw. Now you're saying he saw no gun. Before you were saying he said he saw no gun. But we know he never said "I saw no gun" or words to that effect. To the contrary, he said he saw something he believed at the time was a gun. When I heard you and Dixiecrat say "he said he saw no gun" I just assumed it to be accurate and it conjured up the image of him seeing Castile moving his arm but that is all. Yet that is not an accurate picture based on what he said. I got the wrong idea about his statement by listening to you guys. I now have a more accurate idea because I happened on this WaPo piece after googling "Philando Castile."

I'm not saying the cop's behavior was reasonable. The fact that he suggested subjecting his daughter to second hand smoke made him more dangerous is idiotic beyond words. I just want to make sure we have the facts straight.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nope, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone who disagrees with you has a bias. From a personal perspective, I've had a general distaste for police since I was young and had some encounters with cops who acted like douches. If anything, this should bias me against police. However, it's more accurate to say that on this topic, I have little to no bias one way or another.



No, that is a misleading way to characterize what he said he saw. Now you're saying he saw no gun. Before you were saying he said he saw no gun. But we know he never said "I saw no gun" or words to that effect.

Yea, he did, right here:

Yanez said he ordered Castile not to reach for “it,” referring to the gun. He said Castile continued to move. “It appeared to me that [Castile] had no regard to what I was saying. And, he put his hand around something. And his hand made like a C-type shape and it appeared to me that he was wrapping something around his fingers and almost like if I were to put my hand around my gun. It was dark inside the vehicle. I was trying to fumble my way through under stress to look and see what it was to make sure what I was seeing,”

Later in the same interview, Yanez continued:

“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die. … He just had something in his hands.”


If you saw a gun, you lead with how you saw a gun - if you explain how little you actually saw, and then notice how totally screwed you are, you start walking it back best as you can.

By the time he testified this minor "i don't know maybe" turned into this:

Nearly a year later, when he took the stand during his trial, Yanez was more certain. He testified that he was “able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand,” forcing him to shoot.


Because of course he did! Jesus, the man's life was at stake a this point. But even if he saw Lucifer himself, no reasonable person would have. Paranoid delusions do not make killing legal - they just make it the workings of a criminally insane man.

 

[woolfe9998]

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/County Attorney/County Attorney transcribed remarks 7 29 16.pdf
See how he tells the truth "something, maybe C shaped", realizes how fucked he is, and then changes his story a year later:

Yanez said he ordered Castile not to reach for “it,” referring to the gun. He said Castile continued to move. “It appeared to me that [Castile] had no regard to what I was saying. And, he put his hand around something. And his hand made like a C-type shape and it appeared to me that he was wrapping something around his fingers and almost like if I were to put my hand around my gun. It was dark inside the vehicle. I was trying to fumble my way through under stress to look and see what it was to make sure what I was seeing,”

Later in the same interview, Yanez continued:

“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die. … He just had something in his hands.”

http://www.citypages.com/news/inter...timony-he-saw-philando-castiles-gun/429733013


So there you go, he said he never SAW a gun - he just THOUGHT there was a gun because of the context clues - black dude, being polite, informing him of a gun that could not be drawn by a rational person. No reasonable person would justifiably be in such a state of fear - the only way to think someone would justifiably be in such a state of fear is to think it justifiable to prejudging a man for 'fitting the profile' to such a degree that it overcomes the much more objective and probable criteria of politeness and informing the officer of the gun.


A year after the fact he changed his story - because of course he did.

You just said in your prior post hat his actual testimony has him saying he saw no gun, but your link says the opposite. He most definitely never said "I saw no gun." He first said he saw something he thought was a gun. Later, at trial, he said he definitely saw a gun. I agree that this inconsistency is a problem for his credibility. However, I do not understand how you guys keep saying that he claimed he saw no gun. It is not an accurate description of either statement he made.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Nope, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone who disagrees with you has a bias. From a personal perspective, I've had a general distaste for police since I was young and had some encounters with cops who acted like douches. If anything, this should bias me against police. However, it's more accurate to say that on this topic, I have little to no bias one way or another.



No, that is a misleading way to characterize what he said he saw. Now you're saying he saw no gun. Before you were saying he said he saw no gun. But we know he never said "I saw no gun" or words to that effect. To the contrary, he said he saw something he believed at the time was a gun. When I heard you and Dixiecrat say "he said he saw no gun" I just assumed it to be accurate and it conjured up the image of him seeing Castile moving his arm but that is all. Yet that is not an accurate picture based on what he said. I got the wrong idea about his statement by listening to you guys. I now have a more accurate idea because I happened on this WaPo piece after googling "Philando Castile."

I'm not saying the cop's behavior was reasonable. The fact that he suggested subjecting his daughter to second hand smoke made him more dangerous is idiotic beyond words. I just want to make sure we have the facts straight.

I hate to do this but i don't want to disrespect you and i don't see how I could have a discussion on this without doing so given that the stated facts have been presented time and time again and you have ignored them time and time again, the first statement is enough to deem my point valid, that it changed during the depositional testimony is common and perhaps you are a lawyer and think that that is more important since it carries a greater legal weight but...

As i said, i don't want to get to the point where I rip your head off in this discussion so I'll leave it at this. Take it as you wish and have a good night, I might get back to you privately later on but this issue... it pisses me off.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Wolfe: I will accept that while I cannot possibly see how you came to your conclusion, you have honestly done so. I will chalk it up to some unseen force that makes our minds significantly different (and please note, I am NOT saying this is racism - as structural racism is ubiquitous and you and I likely equally suffer from it) and accept that you have spoken the truth as you see it.

I do ask that you have a similar respect for my absolute conviction that the cop was entirely clear - he did not see a gun, he only saw what he thought could be a concealed gun. And more importantly, no reasonable person could have seen a gun.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Wolfe: I will accept that while I cannot possibly see how you came to your conclusion, you have honestly done so. I will chalk it up to some unseen force that makes our minds significantly different (and please note, I am NOT saying this is racism - as structural racism is ubiquitous and you and I likely equally suffer from it) and accept that you have spoken the truth as you see it.

I do ask that you have a similar respect for my absolute conviction that the cop was entirely clear - he did not see a gun, he only saw what he thought could be a concealed gun. And more importantly, no reasonable person could have seen a gun.

Thank you for this post, it brings the point to the forefront and it it helps me get out without having to have a discussion on that particular point.

I'll fall on the next grenade my friend.

 

[ivwshane]

You just said in your prior post hat his actual testimony has him saying he saw no gun, but your link says the opposite. He most definitely never said "I saw no gun." He first said he saw something he thought was a gun. Later, at trial, he said he definitely saw a gun. I agree that this inconsistency is a problem for his credibility. However, I do not understand how you guys keep saying that he claimed he saw no gun. It is not an accurate description of either statement he made.

I'm curious, do you think police should be required to verify a threat before taking someone's life? For me I want a cop to know with 100% certainty that he saw a gun before shooting someone who is sitting down in a confined space.

What do you make of the officers changing story?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm curious, do you think police should be required to verify a threat before taking someone's life? For me I want a cop to know with 100% certainty that he saw a gun before shooting someone who is sitting down in a confined space.

What do you make of the officers changing story?

As time progressed he got better coaching.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wolfe: I will accept that while I cannot possibly see how you came to your conclusion, you have honestly done so. I will chalk it up to some unseen force that makes our minds significantly different (and please note, I am NOT saying this is racism - as structural racism is ubiquitous and you and I likely equally suffer from it) and accept that you have spoken the truth as you see it.

I do ask that you have a similar respect for my absolute conviction that the cop was entirely clear - he did not see a gun, he only saw what he thought could be a concealed gun. And more importantly, no reasonable person could have seen a gun.

OK, I'll reply to you one more time here, rather than Wilkins, who evidently is in a "heading ripping" mood for reasons that are beyond me.

It's very simple: when someone says, in effect, "I saw something I thought was a gun" that is in no way the same thing as saying, "I did not see a gun." I know what you're both doing here. You are assuming that if he did not say "I definitely saw a gun" that is the same thing as saying "I definitely did not see a gun." Actually, he said neither of those two things. This is what you're doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

In any event, I think it's clear. You have your own opinion and that is fine.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm curious, do you think police should be required to verify a threat before taking someone's life? For me I want a cop to know with 100% certainty that he saw a gun before shooting someone who is sitting down in a confined space.

What do you make of the officers changing story?

It's hard to answer that question as a general proposition. What I do know is that I am correcting what I believe is an inaccurate description of what the cop said. What you're asking me is a different topic and a complicated question because there is an infinite array of possible factual scenarios. I certainly don't want cops shooting under totally ambiguous circumstances. Do I think this particular incident was a bad shoot? Probably was. Especially since I can now see that the cop changed his story from, I saw something which might have been a gun to, I saw a gun. This to me suggests the officer changed his story because he evidently didn't think "I saw a maybe gun" was a good enough defense. So you have your answer there, as implied by the officer himself. If he thought it was a good enough defense, he would have stuck with it instead of changing it.

Sometimes I correct people's facts just because I think it's important, especially in today's world, to respect facts when you make an argument. When I do this people always assume that I am on the opposite "team" as them and get all bent out of shape, but it may well not be the case. Sometimes I really am just trying to get the facts straight.

 

[J.Wilkins]

OK, I'll reply to you one more time here, rather than Wilkins, who evidently is in a "heading ripping" mood for reasons that are beyond me.

It's very simple: when someone says, in effect, "I saw something I thought was a gun" that is in no way the same thing as saying, "I did not see a gun." I know what you're both doing here. You are assuming that if he did not say "I definitely saw a gun" that is the same thing as saying "I definitely did not see a gun." Actually, he said neither of those two things. This is what you're doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

In any event, I think it's clear. You have your own opinion and that is fine.

First of all, my apologies for being an arse, this shit winds me up because it is so easily preventable. So this will continue as long as you defend this bullshit that happens ONLY in the US and in NO other western nation.

I just don't get how you hold Police officers to a lower standard than the average low life and make excuses for them reacting like a speed twitch punk.

Here's a fucking clue for he bright ones though, if you didn't see a gun, did you SEE A FUCKING GUN?

No? Didn't see a fucking gun...

Look, i'm not your average opponent if i am wrong i'll admit it but twitchy would shoot you or your son too because of his imagination and you think this is acceptable?

Explain that to me.

 

[woolfe9998]

First of all, my apologies for being an arse, this shit winds me up because it is so easily preventable. So this will continue as long as you defend this bullshit that happens ONLY in the US and in NO other western nation.

I just don't get how you hold Police officers to a lower standard than the average low life and make excuses for them reacting like a speed twitch punk.

Here's a fucking clue for he bright ones though, if you didn't see a gun, did you SEE A FUCKING GUN?

No? Didn't see a fucking gun...

Look, i'm not your average opponent if i am wrong i'll admit it but twitchy would shoot you or your son too because of his imagination and you think this is acceptable?

Explain that to me.

So first of all, I am "defending" no one, nor holding anyone to a "lower standard." I am correcting an inaccurate description of statements made by the cop. Because it is inaccurate. Full stop. There is nothing more to what I am doing here than that. I know this is difficult for some people to fathom that I am not in these threads to argue like I'm playing a team sport. I honestly think we live in a world where there is no respect for facts anymore. This problem is generally worse among people on the right (and out and out frightening because it now emanates from the White House), but it's a disease that afflicts both sides. So sometimes I look at a thread and I decide that the most constructive thing I can do is to make sure everyone has the facts straight.

Yours and Dixiecrat's description of the cop's various statements about whether or not he saw a gun were at best incomplete and not helpful. What he said was quite a bit different. Yet strangely enough, after seeing the inconsistency of his various statements, I find myself even more convinced that this was a bad shoot. So you guys can rest easy. I am apparently on the right "team" this time. I can't and won't guarantee that will be the case for future discussion. Because that will depend on the facts.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

The only right "team" is the one who have the facts on their side, end of story. Don't start acting like the local degenerate squad.

 

[someEEguy]

It's worth pointing out that a black male stands an elevated chance of being shot while reaching for anything. Were I black, I would acknowledge that fact and behave appropriately - meaning as you did - regardless of whether I agreed with the reality and accepted the underlying causes behind it. Fact is, that is how I react to being pulled over anyway: I have my wallet and registration out, my window down, and my hands on the wheel when the officer walks up. Way I see it, the cop and I each have a vested interest in the encounter going smoothly, so I'll do my part as long as he does his.

I think it’s important to remember, Castile was able to successfully navigate at least 52 of these police interactions before being killed and Timothy Thomas for instance 11 in two months. At those frequencies, you’re only one off-day and one high-strung police officer away from death.

Philando Castile, 32:

When Philando Castile saw the flashing lights in his rearview mirror the night he got shot, it wasn’t unusual. He had been pulled over at least 52 times in recent years in and around the Twin Cities and given citations for minor offenses including speeding, driving without a muffler and not wearing a seat belt.

He was assessed at least $6,588 in fines and fees, although more than half of the total 86 violations were dismissed, court records show.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/07/09/philando-stops/


Timothy Thomas, 19:

In fact, in just more than two months, Thomas was pulled over 11 times by six different white officers and four black officers. They cited Thomas for 21 violations, almost all of them for the exact same things -- not wearing a seat belt or driving without a license. Driving without a license is a criminal offense and can be dangerous -- which is why the law requires people to take a test to get their license.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4703574/n...s/t/behind-death-timothy-thomas/#.VRrjp-G8rSo

Note: for those who don’t know many of these stops were for non-moving violations, this is often a sign of profiling.

 

[agent00f]

Non-degenerate people prone to being on the same side of arguments as race realists like buckshot seriously need to reevaluate their choices in life.