celljean89
Neo Member
Fuck the Police
One thing I don't get, if its a few "bad apples" why the hell are a majority of the police fighting to fix their own system?
BS.Latinos are marked as white on the driver's license.
Yep the entire system needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Police training also needs to stop focusing on putting the fear of death in every encounter as well. Tragic events happen in the line of Duty but the system trains Police to be scared children with the power to end lives out of fear even if the fear isn't justified.
Throw in the fact such power then lures in the Bigots etc. and its a recipe for disaster especially when overall society refuses to acknowledge the problems
One thing I don't get, if its a few "bad apples" why the hell aren't a majority of the police fighting to fix their own system?
Our judicial system isn't equipped to properly try cops. Far too many cop-lovers to ever properly convict a cop for shit like this.
You mean aren't right?
The opposite for me, cops are always acting like power hungry douchebags (at least in L.A. county)I almost always side with the police at first, until I know more..
America deserves some bad karma for these verdicts.Justice system working exactly as designed. Fuck this country.
R.I.P. Philando Castile.
America deserves some bad karma for these verdicts.
I always laugh when they say its just a few bad apples because the rest of saying is that they spoil the bunch. Keeping them employed is the exact opposite of the point of the saying.One thing I don't get, if its a few "bad apples" why the hell are a majority of the police fighting to fix their own system?
From what I've read about this, it seems like the prosecution flubbed this one pretty badly.
It appears as if they attempted to introduce a key piece of video testimony that contradicted Yanez' account on the stand, without entering said evidence into discovery first. Presumably, the intent was to setup a 'gotcha' situation wherein Yanez would be forced to take the stand in his defence and the prosecution would thereafter introduce evidence for impeachment in the cross-examination.
The Judge, probably correctly, said 'no es bueno' and disallowed the testimony.
The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last year fired a volley of bullets within seconds of learning the driver was armed, according to a video recording released publicly Tuesday.
Yeah, this ruling makes no fucking sense whatsoever.Christ, that video is horrible. I don't understand what the jury was thinking. Did they get hung up on a legal technicality? Because it seems rather open and shut manslaughter, the cop shot him without confirming an actual threat, just that he "thought" he was reaching for something in the dark. Ridiculous. I feel so bad for that family, and the child that was in the car too. Fucking tragic and shameful.
Star Tribune had an article with an interview of one of the jurors.
Immediately a 10-2 not guilty, 2 hold outs, eventually they caved. Guy said 2 black people on the jury were not the holdouts.
They focused on "culpable negligence" for the manslaughter charge I guess.
I fail to see how you can watch the tapes and not convict. Firing that many rounds is not self defense. Could have killed a kid.
http://www.startribune.com/yanez-juror-talks-about-difficult-and-emotional-deliberations/428966163/
Dashcam footage was released today.
Police release dashcam video that shows fatal shooting of Philando Castile
Wesley Lowery‏ (@WesleyLowery) June 20, 2017
Yanez shoots 7 secs after Castile informs him he's armed. Both Castile/Reynolds assure him no one reaching for gun, then officer opens fire
Wesley Lowery‏ (@WesleyLowery) June 20, 2017
WaPo: Video footage shows Minn. traffic stop that ended with Philando Castiles death
Video up on Ramsey County's Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ac7Zblqyk
Christ, that video is horrible. I don't understand what the jury was thinking. Did they get hung up on a legal technicality? Because it seems rather open and shut manslaughter, the cop shot him without confirming an actual threat, just that he "thought" he was reaching for something in the dark. Ridiculous. I feel so bad for that family, and the child that was in the car too. Fucking tragic and shameful.
Does the law say anything about confirming a threat? My understanding was that the burden was "feared for his life," (possibly with a "reasonable person would" in there) so if the cop thought the dude was reaching for the gun he's legally in the clear.
There's a lot wrong with drawing the line there, of course, but if that's the law then that's what the jury would've decided based on.
That interpretation of the law allows cops to imagine any threat, act on it, then cite whatever was in their own imagination as self defense. And it doesnt have to have any relation to the facts. Castile's pistol was still in his pocket and where he was shot through his hand, the autopsy said the bullet went through his finger as he had his hand on his seatbelt buckle.
You think that's a fair way to protect people from murderous law enforcement?
How the hell weren't the two black people on the jury not Not Guilty!?!?! 8-4 would have had a better chance of eventually convincing everyone to convict.
How the hell weren't the two black people on the jury not Not Guilty!?!?! 8-4 would have had a better chance of eventually convincing everyone to convict.
They may have been of the David Clarke type
No, I don't think it's fair. That's why I said that there's a lot wrong with the law.
But people are blaming the jury when it's not the jury's fault. Dude was talking about needing to "confirming an actual threat" when that is, to my understanding, not a requirement in the law.
As I understand the situation, the officer didn't get off because of half-assed prosecution, a racist jury or a blue wall. The officer got off because his actions were within the confines of the law. And it's important to recognize that.