It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2860
pizza_Place: maciano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
Part of the problem for Castillo was he didn't know the cop was thinking he was a dangerous felon. The cop approached him as an on the run robbery suspect. He was already guilty in the cops eyes.

Castillo, in his own mind, was following instructions on a normal traffic stop.
That is not the problem of the guy getting killed. In a just world, that would be a reason to convict the cop.


Agreed, a cop shouldn't be able to use a hunch or incorrect suspicion as a reason to fear for life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And yes, Castille should be able to inform the officer that he has a firearm while reaching for his wallet without getting shot. Point being, though, presented with all the facts, including announcing the presence of a firearm while reaching for the area where most people keep their firearms on their person, does what the officer did constitute a crime, and if so, which crime and how?
Manslaughter, like he was charged for. He fired 4 times! This was a man that had told him exactly what he is going to do and he was doing exactly that.

We as a country and a legal system need to somehow remove the idea that police officers, simply by being "concerned" can just shoot people with no justification. It's a sad time that we live in that it seems 100 innocent non-police deaths are worth making sure 1 police death does not occur.

To answer your second question, police should be held to a higher standard than the general population. We shouldn't need new special laws.

The problem is our society gives cops the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's time for us to stop teaching our children that cops are heroes until they actually start acting like them.

Instead it's shoot first, ask questions later, and use cowardice as a defense while the rest of the police union members provide cover for the story.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.

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

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.

or perhaps change the way we ask police to do their jobs so that their encounters with the public are not confrontational.

Let me ask you a question, when you see a cop driving out on the street, do you feel like he is protecting you or looking for something he can fine you for?

Politicians are too chicken shit to raise taxes so they utilize their cops as armed tax collectors writing fines and looking to abuse asset forfeiture laws.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.
It isn't an impossible job though. It is more dangerous than your average job but it also has benefits that very few other jobs offer.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.

or perhaps change the way we ask police to do their jobs so that their encounters with the public are not confrontational.

Let me ask you a question, when you see a cop driving out on the street, do you feel like he is protecting you or looking for something he can fine you for?

Politicians are too chicken shit to raise taxes so they utilize their cops as armed tax collectors writing fines and looking to abuse asset forfeiture laws.


They are a gang that we pay tribute to. No denying that.

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

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.
It isn't an impossible job though. It is more dangerous than your average job but it also has benefits that very few other jobs offer.

We need to arm our nations truck drivers and have them patrol the streets.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.


I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.
It isn't an impossible job though. It is more dangerous than your average job but it also has benefits that very few other jobs offer.


If you were to make 100s of stressful stops every year, can you say with certainty, that you would not shoot someone on accident? I don't think they are considering their pension fund when they pull someone over, and they say they have a gun.

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

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Last edited by WaitingforRuffcorn on Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
If you were to make 100s of stressful stops every year, can you say, with certainty that you would not shoot someone on accident? I don't think they are considering their pension fund when they pull someone over, and they say they have a gun.
Yes, I would not shoot someone by accident like most cops who somehow don't kill innocent people.

Most of these "stressful stops" don't even include multiple officers at the scene. Are they really scared every time they walk up to a guy going 15 MPH over the speed limit?

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
If you were to make 100s of stressful stops every year, can you say, with certainty that you would not shoot someone on accident? I don't think they are considering their pension fund when they pull someone over, and they say they have a gun.
Yes, I would not shoot someone by accident like most cops who somehow don't kill innocent people.

Most of these "stressful stops" don't even include multiple officers at the scene. Are they really scared every time they walk up to a guy going 15 MPH over the speed limit?


So what experiences do you have in your life that make you certain of this? It's an absurd thing to say. Have you been with a team that has served a drug warrant? Given what we know about post traumatic stress it's beyond naive to say, I would not do that until you are actually in that situation.

If you want police shootings to stop you have to take away the guns.

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

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And yes, Castille should be able to inform the officer that he has a firearm while reaching for his wallet without getting shot. Point being, though, presented with all the facts, including announcing the presence of a firearm while reaching for the area where most people keep their firearms on their person, does what the officer did constitute a crime, and if so, which crime and how?
Manslaughter, like he was charged for. He fired 4 times! This was a man that had told him exactly what he is going to do and he was doing exactly that.


I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".

Quote:
To answer your second question, police should be held to a higher standard than the general population. We shouldn't need new special laws.


How do you codify that higher standard, then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
If you were to make 100s of stressful stops every year, can you say, with certainty that you would not shoot someone on accident? I don't think they are considering their pension fund when they pull someone over, and they say they have a gun.
Yes, I would not shoot someone by accident like most cops who somehow don't kill innocent people.

Most of these "stressful stops" don't even include multiple officers at the scene. Are they really scared every time they walk up to a guy going 15 MPH over the speed limit?


So what experiences do you have in your life that make you certain of this? It's an absurd thing to say. Have you been with a team that has served a drug warrant? Given what we know about post traumatic stress it's beyond naive to say, I would not do that until you are actually in that situation.

If you want police shootings to stop you have to take away the guns.
Well, obviously you'll never know for certain how you would react in any hypothetical question. If I saw someone dropped their wallet in front of me on the street I believe I would tell them about it and hand it back to them but I can't know for certain and it isn't absurd to say that I would hand them back their wallet. It sounds like you simply wanted the answer you wanted to hear. I believe I would not shoot innocent people as a cop. Why is that absurd?

Now, a drug bust in a house would be a little different than what most of these innocent deaths are but I would hope that my training would keep me from just lighting a guy up who wasn't doing anything to deserve such treatment.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:36 am
Posts: 270
pizza_Place: Tata's
There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Pal wrote:
. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?


You must be new around here.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68609
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Hey, easy pal.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2860
pizza_Place: maciano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".


The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:36 am
Posts: 270
pizza_Place: Tata's
TurdFerguson wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".


The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.

If a cop waits for someone to control a loaded gun, that is a dumbass cop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Pal wrote:
There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?
So, should cops shoot every person with weed in their system and an improper holster?

We aren't more plugged in than the jurors. The fact is that there isn't a single case of a cop killing someone on the job and serving more than five years in jail in decades. Originally, I asked for three cases. I couldn't even find one and no one has been able to provide one. So, the fact that the jurors didn't find him guilty doesn't mean much unless you believe that in the past 30+ years that no cop has ever been wrong to the point where they deserve a jail sentence of even five years for an on the job killing.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 31369
pizza_Place: Milano's
Pal wrote:
He was found to have weed in his system



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 101542
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Pal wrote:
If a cop waits for someone to control a loaded gun, that is a dumbass cop.
Welcome to the party.

_________________
ltg wrote:
[Fields will] be the starting QB on an NFL roster at the start of next season. Book It!
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
TurdFerguson wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".


The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.
I obviously agree 100%. Let me add the cop shot 4 times too! At a minimum, shoot once and then see what happens.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76675
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Pal wrote:
There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?



Well, those things may be facts, but it's also a fact that the cop was as nervous as a gerbil in a snake tank. That's not the temperament necessary to do that job. If you're that frightened of a traffic stop, perhaps you should find another line of work.

I don't know if any of you have followed the shooting of the woman at Irving and Western. But there's film of her being thrown out of the store by two retail clerks. She had the same fucking knife in her hand as they shoved her out of the store as she did when a couple cops decided she was so dangerous she needed to be shot. Maybe the cashiers and the cops should switch professions.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2860
pizza_Place: maciano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".


The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.
I obviously agree 100%. Let me add the cop shot 4 times too! At a minimum, shoot once and then see what happens.


I actually don't have a problem with the multiple shots fired. Once an officer has opened fire, in my mind, he has made the decision there is valid concern to take a life. I don't like legislating the result, any time an officer opens fire, the burden of lethal force needs to be justified.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 9:30 pm
Posts: 135
pizza_Place: Score cafe
Pal wrote:
There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?


This case is so much like Drinky's life. Think about it. Drinky worked in violation of guidelines. He probably had weed in his system. You can't have weed in your system on the radio. Just like Castillo couldn't have weed while carrying. But Castillo was shot. Drinky wasn't fired (the equivalent result). Is that because no one found out yet that he had weed in his system?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".
So are you saying he was justified in his actions?



No, I'm not.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
How do you codify that higher standard, then?
By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".


That's not how are system works. Are you suggesting we abandon our current criminal trial system in favor of locking people up because we just know they're guilty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
TurdFerguson wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with the multiple shots fired. Once an officer has opened fire, in my mind, he has made the decision there is valid concern to take a life. I don't like legislating the result, any time an officer opens fire, the burden of lethal force needs to be justified.

I think a cop should err on the side of caution. To me, the multiple shots simply made it more likely that if he was wrong(and he was) that the ultimate end of it is the death of a suspect.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76675
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
That's not how are system works. Are you suggesting we abandon our current criminal trial system in favor of locking people up because we just know they're guilty?



How about we judge them the same way we judge anyone else rather than simply granting them wide latitude to shoot citizens at will?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group