Minnesota man killed by cops

[westend1]

27 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Now I am reading that the deceased did not have a weapons license and he was not pulled over for a taillight out. Of course the girlfriend spit that out while the guy was dying. 

Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description. According to some unconfirmed reports that I read the officer's recording (not the after the fact one by the girlfriend... making an alibi perhaps) that the officer ordered the guy not to move or to stop moving. 

Again, none of this is confirmed except that guy being stopped as a robbery suspect which I believe was put out by the state police. 

IF.. the "what if" game.... If these things are true, does it change some of the opinions that the officer is guilty and there seems to be no need for an investigation? Let's say the officer was pulling over a guy and maybe girl that he believes just committed an armed robbery, he ordered the guy not to move and then the guy did move and was shot.... does it change the "let's build the gallows and hang the officer now" which seems to have prevailed in some of the posts?

Also and without knowing the truth of any of these, does it tend to make sense on the idea of let's see what the investigation shows before we convict? If only the armed robbery suspect is correct and the handgun license facts change, that alone would tend to change the dynamic of the incident completely from what has been portrayed. 

Yep.  If that is all true, the chick is one quick and cool liar.

[Big girl]

I read an article that said that the story is not true. He was not a armed robbery suspect. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Yep.  If that is all true, the chick is one quick and cool liar.

22 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I'm not sure how cool you have to be to say he has a handgun license and was stopped for a traffic charge.  If it was some detailed explanation under stress I would call nonsense also. 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Now I am reading that the deceased did not have a weapons license and he was not pulled over for a taillight out. Of course the girlfriend spit that out while the guy was dying. 

Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description. According to some unconfirmed reports that I read the officer's recording (not the after the fact one by the girlfriend... making an alibi perhaps) that the officer ordered the guy not to move or to stop moving. 

Again, none of this is confirmed except that guy being stopped as a robbery suspect which I believe was put out by the state police. 

IF.. the "what if" game.... If these things are true, does it change some of the opinions that the officer is guilty and there seems to be no need for an investigation? Let's say the officer was pulling over a guy and maybe girl that he believes just committed an armed robbery, he ordered the guy not to move and then the guy did move and was shot.... does it change the "let's build the gallows and hang the officer now" which seems to have prevailed in some of the posts?

Also and without knowing the truth of any of these, does it tend to make sense on the idea of let's see what the investigation shows before we convict? If only the armed robbery suspect is correct and the handgun license facts change, that alone would tend to change the dynamic of the incident completely from what has been portrayed. 

For the life of me, I can't imagine any of us videoing the shooting death of our spouse. Being pulled over for a taillight that's out is cause for her to grab her phone and record the incident? She also doesn't sound very genuine in the aftermath, especially not even holding her little girl. I know people react differently to situations, but this is strange to me.

Also, if one has to stomp their foot for extra drama (why would she need more drama), I question the sincerity.

[Big girl]

 

I read an article that said that the story is not true. He was not a armed robbery suspect. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

•  

[tvc184]

25 minutes ago, Big girl said:

 

I read an article that said that the story is not true. He was not a armed robbery suspect. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

•  
•  

Did you really read it? Maybe you don't understand laws, reasonable suspicion and simple reading comprehension. 

He was not "wanted" as in, there was no warrant. You responded to my post with the snopes nonsense. Let's refresh our memories... this is my quote, "Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description".

Yep, there it is. He "fit the description", meaning the officer was pulling him over as a potenial armed robbery suspect. Even the snopes article states exactly that with this quote, "WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case". 

Yep, there it is ... again. Snopes reports that he "might resemble" a suspected armed robbery. I love the "might resemble" because I doubt that the officer said on the radio... "This guy might resemble a suspect". He likely said something like, "This looks like the guy" or "I am looking at a guy that might be the suspect". Snopes is merely adding their opinion on the officer's thoughts. That is great for a claimed "fact" based site to add nothing but their opinion as "What's True". 

Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of such a statement almost to the point of hilarity? 

Yes, he was an armed robbery suspect in the eyes of officers. How is an officer going to approach a guy that he thinks "may" have just pointed a gun at someone while committing a violent crime. Obviously the officer does not know but is stopping a person that he believes just pulled a gun on someone. Did he have warrants? No but I have never seen any claim that he did. If you want to quibble over the meaning of words go ahead but the girlfriend said that they were pulled over for a taillight and your "proof" that I was wrong and the girlfriend is right... was the statement by snopes that "he might have resembled an armed robbery suspect". Snopes doesn't sound like the vehicle was pulled over for a taillight. 

 

[tvc184]

Suggested reading might be the US Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio from 1968. This case gives officers the authority under reasonable suspicion to detain a person that the officer believes, by his experience and knowledge, "might be" about to commit a crime. He need not even have committed the crime and only looks like he may be about to commit a crime. In this case we have a crime that has been committed and a description given. 

In Terry, Detective McFadden saw what he thought (and has never proved) was an armed robbery about to happen. Why did he think that which he cannot prove? He watched 3 guys walk back and forth and appeared to be casing a store for a robbery. What was his belief based on? Only his experience and observations of what he thought was suspicious activity. He could prove nothing. 

What was McFadden's actions. As the guys approached the store, McFadden put them on the wall and reaching into a coat pocket grabbed (lo and behold).... A GUN. Hmmmm...... officer says I see what looks like a robbery about to go down based on my experience and as they were walking into the store, he finds a gun. 

The USSC only had one justice dissenting that the officer cannot use his experience and knowledge to briefly detain someone and check for weapons to protect the officer and citizens. 

Now comes along a MN officer that sees a person that looks like a robbery suspect that had recently occurred. He didn't need vast experience like McFadden because this crime had been reported. He only had to rely on his eyes and the USSC says that to do so is lawful 

I have no clue if the MN officer was justified and I don't know what he saw. I do know that the officer stated that he was stopping a possible robbery suspect, as reported by his radio traffic and at least somewhat backed up by snopes, Of course I have not seen that radio traffic released so even that is yet to be confirmed but again, to merely rely on the girlfriend as the end of the discussion is ludicrous at this point. 

[team first]

1-94 protests 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[tvc184]

37 minutes ago, team first said:

1-94 protests 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

We'll show those police, we will keep the average citizen from getting to work.

That'll teach 'em!!

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

We'll show those police, we will keep the average citizen from getting to work.

That'll teach 'em!!

Better let them go to work...someone has to pay for their welfare checks so they can continue their unemployed protesting.

[AHUDDLESTON]

When they block the highways, they should be arrested.  If too many, use whatever means is necessary to get them off the road.  This is not a peaceful protest when you disrupt traffic. T Square(which was overboard due to not being on a highway and disrupting others) comes to mind.

[BS Wildcats]

8 minutes ago, AHUDDLESTON said:

When they block the highways, they should be arrested.  If too many, use whatever means is necessary to get them off the road.  This is not a peaceful protest when you disrupt traffic. T Square(which was overboard due to not being on a highway and disrupting others) comes to mind.

Again, what good do these idiotic protests serve.

[stevenash]

10 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Better let them go to work...someone has to pay for their welfare checks so they can continue their unemployed protesting.

No problem.  George Soros will foot the bill

[AHUDDLESTON]

Just to piss people off. 

[Big girl]

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Did you really read it? Maybe you don't understand laws, reasonable suspicion and simple reading comprehension. 

He was not "wanted" as in, there was no warrant. You responded to my post with the snopes nonsense. Let's refresh our memories... this is my quote, "Why was he pulled over? An armed robbery had taken place not far away and this guy fit the description".

Yep, there it is. He "fit the description", meaning the officer was pulling him over as a potenial armed robbery suspect. Even the snopes article states exactly that with this quote, "WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case". 

Yep, there it is ... again. Snopes reports that he "might resemble" a suspected armed robbery. I love the "might resemble" because I doubt that the officer said on the radio... "This guy might resemble a suspect". He likely said something like, "This looks like the guy" or "I am looking at a guy that might be the suspect". Snopes is merely adding their opinion on the officer's thoughts. That is great for a claimed "fact" based site to add nothing but their opinion as "What's True". 

Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of such a statement almost to the point of hilarity? 

Yes, he was an armed robbery suspect in the eyes of officers. How is an officer going to approach a guy that he thinks "may" have just pointed a gun at someone while committing a violent crime. Obviously the officer does not know but is stopping a person that he believes just pulled a gun on someone. Did he have warrants? No but I have never seen any claim that he did. If you want to quibble over the meaning of words go ahead but the girlfriend said that they were pulled over for a taillight and your "proof" that I was wrong and the girlfriend is right... was the statement by snopes that "he might have resembled an armed robbery suspect". Snopes doesn't sound like the vehicle was pulled over for a taillight. 

 

I forgot that all black people look alike. How could he see how the guy looked in detail, before he pulled him over?According to the article, the robbery took place 4 days prior. Oh, the article mentioned that the cop said the victim had a wide nose. I guess the robbery suspect had a big nose.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Sit back, I dont think I need to type up 6 or so paragraphs to tell you whats going on out here, video footage is a killer now, welp maybe not killer, overall this still is "Merica". Brotherhoods exists, no different than the olden days. No sense in arguing over a message board about it, well this one in particular where a majority cant seem to grasp different perspectives, been apart of a couple of em underlined, so I see both sides, then there's that common sense thing that alot of people in this area and across the nation is heavily lacking. All I'll say lastly since im done with this side of the forum as of today lockerroom included (and no I wont be answering anything pertaining to this message): keep it up, keep mixing up your God given common sense with taught personal views that may be wrong and this here out in our nation right now will be continuing on down the line. Some of you guys need to place a mirror in front of self and have a real fullout conversation with self, its probably been about time sorta like its been about time for all this silly foolishness to stop in "Merica".

 

Yall have a great day. 

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

I forgot that all black people look alike. How could he see how the guy looked in detail, before he pulled him over?According to the article, the robbery took place 4 days prior. Oh, the article mentioned that the cop said the victim had a wide nose. I guess the robbery suspect had a big nose.

Big Girl-  If you are looking at three or four people from a distance of perhaps 50 yards, and they consist of a caucasian, an Indian, an Asian, and an Afro American, are you able to tell who has the biggest nose?

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Big Girl-  If you are looking at three or four people from a distance of perhaps 50 yards, and they consist of a caucasian, an Indian, an Asian, and an Afro American, are you able to tell who has the biggest nose?

No, so how could the cop? The article also said the victim was licensed to carry a gun. I can assume that the African American had the biggest nose, based on sterotypes.

[stevenash]

So you are saying that stopping this particular individual was an unwarranted event?

[baddog]

I think what her own mother says, says it all.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[NDNation]

[Hagar]

On July 7, 2016 at 0:04 PM, thetragichippy said:

We are jumping to conclusions again without even seeing the initial contact that caused the death. The cop could be guilty as heck, or not. All I seen was a man bleeding and a cop in a panic stating he told him not to reach for the gun. Hopefully we can see his body-cam soon.

As in Ferguson, social media has already convicted this officer.  And like Ferguson, IF this officer shooting was justified, the damage to him & his family is done.  It may turn out that it wasn't justified, but I doubt the officer wanted to kill the man.  Seems many think cops just wait for a chance to kill someone.  I think 99% who've taken a life, are haunted by it.  But, as hippy said, everyone really needs to stop condeming this officer until all the facts are in.  

[Hagar]

14 hours ago, NDNation said:

There you go posting stuff making fun of Vidor  

[westend1]

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

There you go posting stuff making fun of Vidor  

That's not a Vidor Pirate.  He has all his teeth.

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, westend1 said:

That's not a Vidor Pirate.  He has all his teeth.

Lol, funny stuff.  I'm an original Vidorian, until I got run outta town  

Still pull for them to win, but my G'son is a Rebel, so my black & gold blood is more blue & gold.