Cop Who Murdered Philando Castile Acquitted

[Foo]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

[Headhunter]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

I probably wouldn't have heard about the story, I'm sure. If I did, I would have condemned it. Again, none of this is relevant to what actually occurred. You can make every excuse, not one has been legitimate so far.

[zombie]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

if that had happened, philando would have been shot on the spot by the other cop, and it would have been completely justified. even if he had just pulled a gun but was shot before he had a chance to fire it, it would have been justified.

[Foo]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

hr acted in fear. did any of us suggest otherwise? if it was malice, i'd expect it to be ruled as murder.

When a person is performing their dangerous job, and scared for their life, and makes a decision that may not have been ideal, do you think locking them in prison is appropriate?

it would depend on the situation and outcome. here, i think that it should have been ruled as manslaughter.

Would you say you have more information than the 12 people who served 17 days on the trial? Why do you think they came to a different conclusion?

[Foo]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

if that had happened, philando would have been shot on the spot by the other cop, and it would have been completely justified. even if he had just pulled a gun but was shot before he had a chance to fire it, it would have been justified.

If someone is reaching for a gun, bit has not yet pulled it out, could that be cause for a police officer to use their firearm?

[zombie]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

hr acted in fear. did any of us suggest otherwise? if it was malice, i'd expect it to be ruled as murder.

When a person is performing their dangerous job, and scared for their life, and makes a decision that may not have been ideal, do you think locking them in prison is appropriate?

it would depend on the situation and outcome. here, i think that it should have been ruled as manslaughter.

Would you say you have more information than the 12 people who served 17 days on the trial? Why do you think they came to a different conclusion?

were you asking my opinion, or the opinion of those 12 people?

[zombie]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

if that had happened, philando would have been shot on the spot by the other cop, and it would have been completely justified. even if he had just pulled a gun but was shot before he had a chance to fire it, it would have been justified.

If someone is reaching for a gun, bit has not yet pulled it out, could that be cause for a police officer to use their firearm?

yes, if you saw that he was reaching for a gun (or that his girlfriend was reaching for it). do you just want to talk hypotheticals now? i mean there are several different scenarios we can all ask about, if you don't want to focus on the way that this actually happened anymore?

[Foo]

Back to the cop for a moment. Do you see a person acting with malice in the video, or a person acting out of fear?

If you're asking whether or not I think he intended to kill him from the jump, obviously not. That hardly matters. He didn't come close to properly assessing the situation and killed an innocent man because of it.

You called him a murderer. You understand murder requires intent?

I already explained this. I know what the legal definition of murder is. I used murder in this thread because as a society we're way too desensitized to senseless cop killings.

What would you be saying right now if the cop was shot in the face with his gun still in the holster? Nothing at all, right? Because the politics of the moment is to act outraged over iffy situations involving black people and ignore violence perpetrated against police.

if that had happened, philando would have been shot on the spot by the other cop, and it would have been completely justified. even if he had just pulled a gun but was shot before he had a chance to fire it, it would have been justified.

If someone is reaching for a gun, bit has not yet pulled it out, could that be cause for a police officer to use their firearm?

yes, if you saw that he was reaching for a gun (or that his girlfriend was reaching for it). do you just want to talk hypotheticals now? i mean there are several different scenarios we can all ask about, if you don't want to focus on the way that this actually happened anymore?

We have just established that we both feel that reaching for a gun is cayse to use deadly force. In this case, the officer was aware there was a gun and the person was reaching for something. Whether or not he was reaching for the gun or his wallet we will never know. That is why acquitting the officer was the only solution.

[zombie]

We have just established that we both feel that reaching for a gun is cayse to use deadly force. In this case, the officer was aware there was a gun and the person was reaching for something. Whether or not he was reaching for the gun or his wallet we will never know. That is why acquitting the officer was the only solution.

it was the solution, reached. it was not the only solution.

[Foo]

Facts:

- Castile had a gun
- Castile was reaching for something
- Castile was shot

Speculation
- the mindset of the officer
- the mindset of Castile

We both seem to think the officer was afraid of Castile.

Not sure why you would think this warrants prison for the officer.

[Foo]

We have just established that we both feel that reaching for a gun is cayse to use deadly force. In this case, the officer was aware there was a gun and the person was reaching for something. Whether or not he was reaching for the gun or his wallet we will never know. That is why acquitting the officer was the only solution.

it was the solution, reached. it was not the only solution.

Is there reasonable doubt? Seems fairly obvious there is, thus there is only one solution.

[zombie]

We have just established that we both feel that reaching for a gun is cayse to use deadly force. In this case, the officer was aware there was a gun and the person was reaching for something. Whether or not he was reaching for the gun or his wallet we will never know. That is why acquitting the officer was the only solution.

it was the solution, reached. it was not the only solution.

Is there reasonable doubt? Seems fairly obvious there is, thus there is only one solution.

then we don't have any reason to continue the debate?

[showa58taro]

We finally found a sliver of society Foo doesn't want locked up for life. Cops. What a glorious day.

The NRA are pricks. Where is their moral outrage over a legal gun owner being shot for his right to bear arms?!

[Headhunter]

We finally found a sliver of society Foo doesn't want locked up for life. Cops. What a glorious day.

The NRA are pricks. Where is their moral outrage over a legal gun owner being shot for his right to bear arms?!

From what I understand, the NRA is becoming pretty unpopular among gun owners. The truth that the NRA doesn't want people to know is that the majority of gun owners do want some common sense provisions like background checks, but it doesn't matter. The NRA is too powerful for any dissent among gun owners to see the light of day.

[showa58taro]

We finally found a sliver of society Foo doesn't want locked up for life. Cops. What a glorious day.

The NRA are pricks. Where is their moral outrage over a legal gun owner being shot for his right to bear arms?!

From what I understand, the NRA is becoming pretty unpopular among gun owners. The truth that the NRA doesn't want people to know is that the majority of gun owners do want some common sense provisions like background checks, but it doesn't matter. The NRA is too powerful for any dissent among gun owners to see the light of day.

They lose a bit of credibility by not having the guts to stand up for an innocent man being shot for having a licensed gun. If the only thing they care about is white guys with shotguns then they should disband.

[showa58taro]

Finally saw the video. That is a police officer not ready for that situation. Good lord. It goes from "you've got a broken tail light" to shots fired in 3 seconds! Terrifying to see. The one thing I would obviously suggest is that if the plan is to shoot a guy without seeing a gun, maybe don't fire 6 shots.

[Reign in Blood]

He told him to not reach for the gun. He said he wasn't. He was getting his license, per the instructions of the police officer. To not get his license would have been not following orders. That's on the police officer.

Let us not act like he didn't give him additional orders, ones that were far more important because the situation just became potentially life threatening. Any rational person, who perhaps wasn't stoned off their ass and actually gave a fuck, would have put their hands in the air and explained that you are only reaching for your wallet, if the officer doesn't want that he will have to remove it.

[Reign in Blood]

Finally saw the video. That is a police officer not ready for that situation. Good lord. It goes from "you've got a broken tail light" to shots fired in 3 seconds! Terrifying to see. The one thing I would obviously suggest is that if the plan is to shoot a guy without seeing a gun, maybe don't fire 6 shots.

Yeah, I was like damn, 2 shots would have been good, dude.

[showa58taro]

Finally saw the video. That is a police officer not ready for that situation. Good lord. It goes from "you've got a broken tail light" to shots fired in 3 seconds! Terrifying to see. The one thing I would obviously suggest is that if the plan is to shoot a guy without seeing a gun, maybe don't fire 6 shots.

Yeah, I was like damn, 2 shots would have been good, dude.

It definitely proves it wasn't malicious. That was the act of a nervy panicked man. I'm not clear how that is t manskaughter though but I was t in the courtroom. Ultimately it's a tragic end to a pretty interesting life from what I was reading.

[Headhunter]

He told him to not reach for the gun. He said he wasn't. He was getting his license, per the instructions of the police officer. To not get his license would have been not following orders. That's on the police officer.

Let us not act like he didn't give him additional orders, ones that were far more important because the situation just become potentially life threatening. Any rational person, who perhaps wasn't stoned off their ass and actually gave a fuck, would have put their hands in the air and explained that you are only reaching for your wallet, if the officer doesn't want that he will have to remove it.

Are we not using 20/20 hindsight here though? We're trying to explain how Castile could have acted rationally to save his life in a quick window, but nobody in that situation is probably thinking they're in that position. We know the shots are coming but nobody in that car at that moment could possibly expect it. It happens so quickly too.