HorrorMovieFans.com

https://youtu.be/aufMdURbitU

Trevor Noah behind the scenes. Talked about the shooting. Very interesting to get his take on it.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Btw, the officer made a couple additional statements that are relevant:

- Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect (that officer saw the video of the robbery)
- when he approached the car, and smelled an overwhelming stench of freshly smoked marijuana with a child in the car, the officer though the people in the car might not have respect for human life.

Both added to his anxiety during the stop. Now you add a gun into the mix (remember cop already thinks he might be an armed robber), and there you go...

if we're going to use the respect for human life angle, what about shooting four times into a car, with a child passenger?

Better than blowing the car up with dynamite.

I am not sure what police procedure is when it comes to those situations. They are shooting for center mass with small caliber, though. I would think they would continue firing until the suspect is neutralized, even if in quick succession. It is not like the movies.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Just a regular reminder that Castile's facebooking girlfriend tried to beat someone to death with a hammer recently. In case we are to refute the officer's instinct that he stumbled onto some bad hombres.

She didn't try to beat someone to death in the car in front of the officer. Irrelevant.

Speaks to character.

You want the police to lob dynamite into cars with kids? How much power do you want to ascribe police?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Just a regular reminder that Castile's facebooking girlfriend tried to beat someone to death with a hammer recently. In case we are to refute the officer's instinct that he stumbled onto some bad hombres.

and she may have snapped as a result of someone being shot and killed right next to her? that does not excuse the hammer thing. but it's all hypothetical, just like your argument.

Sounds like an excuse.

Ever consider she is a piece of shit?

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Just a regular reminder that Castile's facebooking girlfriend tried to beat someone to death with a hammer recently. In case we are to refute the officer's instinct that he stumbled onto some bad hombres.

She didn't try to beat someone to death in the car in front of the officer. Irrelevant.

Speaks to character.

speaks to YOUR charater for trying to smear the name of a dead guy and his grieving girlfriend, to be honest. Having seen the video, there's absolutely no way whatsoever that any of what you claimed happened would enter into the situation. None whatsoever.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Btw, the officer made a couple additional statements that are relevant:

- Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect (that officer saw the video of the robbery)
- when he approached the car, and smelled an overwhelming stench of freshly smoked marijuana with a child in the car, the officer though the people in the car might not have respect for human life.

Both added to his anxiety during the stop. Now you add a gun into the mix (remember cop already thinks he might be an armed robber), and there you go...

if we're going to use the respect for human life angle, what about shooting four times into a car, with a child passenger?

Better than blowing the car up with dynamite.

I am not sure what police procedure is when it comes to those situations. They are shooting for center mass with small caliber, though. I would think they would continue firing until the suspect is neutralized, even if in quick succession. It is not like the movies.

what is the point of the dynamite thing?

i understand that it's not like the movies. they do have some sort of training in the situation, it was not just wild blasting, but it was still firing into a car with a child. it could be seen as a lack of respect for human life, easier than your pot angle.

showa58taro wrote:You want the police to lob dynamite into cars with kids? How much power do you want to ascribe police?

Just saying, his shooting of a person he believes is going to shoot him is not a disregard for life because a child was present.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Just a regular reminder that Castile's facebooking girlfriend tried to beat someone to death with a hammer recently. In case we are to refute the officer's instinct that he stumbled onto some bad hombres.

and she may have snapped as a result of someone being shot and killed right next to her? that does not excuse the hammer thing. but it's all hypothetical, just like your argument.

Sounds like an excuse.

Ever consider she is a piece of shit?

absolutely, she could be a piece of shit. he had only the one encounter with her, at that time, as he didn't seem to recognize her or philando at all. so it's not relevant. but yeah, anyone could be a piece of shit. you never know.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Btw, the officer made a couple additional statements that are relevant:

- Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect (that officer saw the video of the robbery)
- when he approached the car, and smelled an overwhelming stench of freshly smoked marijuana with a child in the car, the officer though the people in the car might not have respect for human life.

Both added to his anxiety during the stop. Now you add a gun into the mix (remember cop already thinks he might be an armed robber), and there you go...

if we're going to use the respect for human life angle, what about shooting four times into a car, with a child passenger?

Better than blowing the car up with dynamite.

I am not sure what police procedure is when it comes to those situations. They are shooting for center mass with small caliber, though. I would think they would continue firing until the suspect is neutralized, even if in quick succession. It is not like the movies.

what is the point of the dynamite thing?

i understand that it's not like the movies. they do have some sort of training in the situation, it was not just wild blasting, but it was still firing into a car with a child. it could be seen as a lack of respect for human life, easier than your pot angle.

You are going to equate self defense to simultaneously driving impaired and exposing a child to marijuana smoke? Really?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Btw, the officer made a couple additional statements that are relevant:

- Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect (that officer saw the video of the robbery)
- when he approached the car, and smelled an overwhelming stench of freshly smoked marijuana with a child in the car, the officer though the people in the car might not have respect for human life.

Both added to his anxiety during the stop. Now you add a gun into the mix (remember cop already thinks he might be an armed robber), and there you go...

if we're going to use the respect for human life angle, what about shooting four times into a car, with a child passenger?

Better than blowing the car up with dynamite.

I am not sure what police procedure is when it comes to those situations. They are shooting for center mass with small caliber, though. I would think they would continue firing until the suspect is neutralized, even if in quick succession. It is not like the movies.

what is the point of the dynamite thing?

i understand that it's not like the movies. they do have some sort of training in the situation, it was not just wild blasting, but it was still firing into a car with a child. it could be seen as a lack of respect for human life, easier than your pot angle.

You are going to equate self defense to simultaneously driving impaired and exposing a child to marijuana smoke? Really?

i'm not comparing one to the other. they are different examples of putting a life in potential danger. hat's all.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:You want the police to lob dynamite into cars with kids? How much power do you want to ascribe police?

Just saying, his shooting of a person he believes is going to shoot him is not a disregard for life because a child was present.

Yeah, it is. It disregarded the guy who got shot's life. An innocent man stopped for a busted tail-light. I'd say that was a pretty good sign. Firing into a car with 2 other people in it is not exactly a glowing endorsement either. All of this is a massive fuck-up on his part and it's a good thing he's fired from the police force and won't work in law enforcement again.

we can smear the character of those involved and make hypothetical claims forever. that's all hindsight and trying to justify or smear people. it doesn't really mean anything to the actual incident, because neither the cop or the victim had prior experience with the other. all we should be going by is the video evidence of that incident. that's what we have.

Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

Foo wrote:Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

we went through this. if you don't want to discuss it, as it already been decided. don't discuss it.

Foo wrote:Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

At this point, I don't see what difference that makes. We can't relitigate it. We're talking about our perceptions of the incident and its implications. I think there's scope to see it as not manslaughter. But doesn't make it right.

from what i'm reading now, the jury were not privy to an "interview" between yanez (the shooter) and another cop in the aftermath.

and also, that philando had his gun in his pocket, not in the glove compartment, not between his legs. i don't see any indication that philando had tried to reach into his pocket. and reports are that an offcer had to reach deep into his pocket to retrieve the gun, before paramedics arrived.

and to clarify earlier, when i mistakenly said it was four shots into the car.. it was seven reportedly. maybe four into philando? i don't know where that came from, otherwise.


http://www.citypages.com/news/interview ... /429733013

http://www.startribune.com/the-latest-g ... 426777761/

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

we went through this. if you don't want to discuss it, as it already been decided. don't discuss it.

Just saying a jury of 12 people, men and women, black and white decided the officer was not guilty of a crime. They listened to evidence for days.

It brings about the question as to why you think he is guilty of a crime and they did not.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

we went through this. if you don't want to discuss it, as it already been decided. don't discuss it.

Just saying a jury of 12 people, men and women, black and white decided the officer was not guilty of a crime. They listened to evidence for days.

It brings about the question as to why you think he is guilty of a crime and they did not.

okay. what are you inferring as to why i think it should have been ruled as manslaughter?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Do you guys think you have s greater knowledge than the jury who acquitted the officer?

we went through this. if you don't want to discuss it, as it already been decided. don't discuss it.

Just saying a jury of 12 people, men and women, black and white decided the officer was not guilty of a crime. They listened to evidence for days.

It brings about the question as to why you think he is guilty of a crime and they did not.

Because police convictions in the US are extremely rare?