Why mention the "mistakes" of the suspect then?

I don't understand. Can you explain further?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I just view the gun as lethal force. The side of caution would be tazing/pepper spray/bashing in the face with a club. If the scene has escalated to lethal force, go crazy.

I fear you are advocating a defense of I shot and killed the suspect, but I only shot once so its ok. Pulling that trigger needs to carry a lot of weight. I just don't see the incrimental increase of pulling it the second, third, fourth time. If he is reloading, there is probably a line somewhere in there its excessive.

If a shooting is justified it doesn't matter how many rounds are shot. And if you feel threatened enough to shoot, you are shooting to kill. Why wouldn't you unload your clip? And to those picking the weed part out of what I said, that's not why he should be shot, obviously. Totality of the stop. Schmuck had a loaded gun, wasn't following the rules to legally carry, and didn't listen when the cop told him not to reach.

So, as long as the cop feels threatened enough to shoot they should be able to shoot anyone they want? He had no way of knowing about the weed so at this point you are literally making a case that a cop can shoot anyone who has concealed carry and moves their hands.

People like you are part of the problem. The fact he shot him 4 times should matter. The fact that this guy never was a real threat to him should matter. You are the reason that cops can do pretty much whatever they want with the worst thing happening is they may get a very short jail sentence no matter how egregious their actions are.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I don't know of a holster carry requirement. It's stupid not to holster, but not required, could by a state to state thing.

Schmuck has a concealed carry permit for a loaded gun.

Did the cop even see a gun? He was reaching for a wallet when shot, gun was tucked somewhere.

Libtards lik you are part of the pussying down of this country. You can tak your backwards PC ideas about asking before shooting bak to France or wherever u come from. We need balls behind trigers not brains, u fukin pussy. If it werent' for pushing the triger then we would have never fond out about Castillo's weed consumpton. Balls gets results.

_________________
libtard's personfied:

Why is he not a real threat? He had a loaded gun and reached for it after being told not to. And, its a big joke, but he was under the influence. If having a gun is such a powerful tool for the police, the citizen shouldn't be under the influence of anything while carrying. Judgement is impaired, whether weed (or a beer for that matter). The rules are in place for a reason. If followed, really good chance we're not talking about it. Like we aren't talking about the thousands of stops a day involving cops and lawful concealed carry holders.

He was reaching for ID. What makes you think he was actually reaching for his gun?

Also, I just saw it was actually 7 shots into a car that he didn't even see a gun inside and only knew because the victim told him.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Because those mistakes make it really, really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop caused the death of Castille "by the [cop's] culpable negligence whereby the [cop] creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another."

The prosecution had to prove both culpable negligence on the part of the officer, and that the risk of causing death or great bodily harm to Castille was an unreasonable one. Again, the "mistakes" by Castille make that very hard to prove.



See above. In this case, the police officer did something that warrants punishment, I don't think that's in question, but as the law sits now, punishing him would require us—or a judge or jury—to disregard either the law itself or the standard of proof afforded to all other defendants in a criminal proceeding. Because of the nature of his job, applying the laws written for all people, through the defendant-biased trial system, to police officers is most likely going to result in a conviction rate that is far below the norm. It's like a feedback loop, but the proper response isn't to remove the bias for defendants, or for juries to disregard mitigating factors just to come back guilty, it's to legislate the very "higher standard" you talked about.

I wouldn't disagree with the above thoughts in and of themselves, but if you're saying that a jury would be likely to acquit a civilian who fired into a car and killed a guy because he claimed he felt he was in danger from a gun he hadn't seen, I'm going to disagree. (Unless maybe it was in Florida.) The problem isn't that there needs to be a higher standard for cops. It's that they should be judged by the same standard as all of us. There was a nut involved in this traffic stop. But it wasn't the guy that got shot.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.

If all this happened AND a gun was found on the person the civilian killed, they wouldn't be found guilty.

As JORR said though, this is simply because a police officer is granted an insanely high level of leeway for determining danger even though he is trained to be better at it than your average person.

It seems like you believe this shooting was not justified. That should result in a conviction.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That's the problem.

Pal,
Can you give me a recent case where a cop killed someone on duty with a gun and deserved( 5 years in prison? You seem quite knowledgeable so your input would be welcomed. They didn't have to be convicted but I want a golden example of a cop getting away with the unjust killing of a citizen.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No, I'm saying a jury (or judge, perhaps especially) is more likely to convict a civilian given the same circumstances than they are a cop.

Good to see one actually happened though hopefully the appeal process doesn't get him released eventually.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Also cases of cops getting years in prison for unlawful taser use that resulted in death and not the same but CPD Cosey got years in prison for slapping the shit out of a guy in a hospital a few years ago. Not the same as a shooting, I know.

When we had a discussion before it seemed like even the most egregious acts only got a couple years of actual jail time.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Guilt in these scenarios all revolves around race.

White shoots stoned balck guy with legal CC - justified
Balck shoots stoned while guy with legal CC - 2nd degree murder

If I may play devil's advocate here...

What makes you think he was actually reaching for his ID?

Because no one in their right mind would actually reach for his gun after he told the cop he had one.

_________________

Why would he tell the cop he had the gun if he was planning to pull it out and blow the guy's brains out?

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.

Well, he's in a car with a child and a woman. He had no reason to want to kill a cop for traffic stop. He also pretty much knew that given the positioning that pulling a gun on the cop would have been very difficult to deal with. He also was up front and honest with the cop about having it and if he had bad intentions he wouldn't have given the cop that knowledge.

To put it another way, I can't think of any good reason he would even consider pulling his gun out.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

He wasn't in his right mind. He was on the Mary Jane cigarettes.

_________________

Me either.

_________________

Ok, there, Boilermaker Mike.

_________________

That was for him.

_________________

Well I guess one advantage Rick has is that if he's ever wrongly suspected of committing a crime there's one less thing to retroactively cite while justifying how he was treated.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

That all makes sense to us and I understand where that reasoning is coming from. However, the jury needs proof. I'm sure some here have served on an actual case (and I'm sure there are some attorneys here as well). I was on a jury about two years ago for a gun-related offense. It requires a lot to return a guilty verdict, and the judge makes that abundantly clear. You can only decide based on evidence, not based on hearsay or what you think may have been motivating the person. While your reasons make sense, it's not exactly proof that he didn't reach for his gun. Something as simple as that can derail a jury (or juror, for that matter).

The cop says do not pull out the gun as the guy is reaching for it. Clearly the guy panicked, and should not have been a cop. Do people think he was lying when he said that?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?