Verdict in Minnesota

[stevenash]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

 I have a gun but it's OK because I have a permit does not stop a person from having to comply with a police officer's orders. 

 Don't move means......... don't move. 

[Kountzer]

The two horned beast of Rev 13:11 has once again showed the universe its true character.  

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 I have a gun but it's OK because I have a permit does not stop a person from having to comply with a police officer's orders. 

 Don't move means......... don't move. 

Got mistaken for a bad guy one time in my mid 20's.  I was out, hands spread on the car and turned my head to ask what he thought I'd done.  Officer said, "Don't turn and look at me boy, I'll blow your mxxxxxxxxxx head off.  I turned my head straight and said "Yessir, I understand that".  I'm still alive, and he apologized when he found out I wasn't his man.

Moral of the story, do what the Officer says.

[BS Wildcats]

52 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

The two horned beast of Rev 13:11 has once again showed the universe its true character.  

How's that??

[Kountzer]

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

Quote

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

Got mistaken for a bad guy one time in my mid 20's.  I was out, hands spread on the car and turned my head to ask what he thought I'd done.  Officer said, "Don't turn and look at me boy, I'll blow your mxxxxxxxxxx head off.  I turned my head straight and said "Yessir, I understand that".  I'm still alive, and he apologized when he found out I wasn't his man.

Moral of the story, do what the Officer says.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

Got mistaken for a bad guy one time in my mid 20's.  I was out, hands spread on the car and turned my head to ask what he thought I'd done.  Officer said, "Don't turn and look at me boy, I'll blow your mxxxxxxxxxx head off.  I turned my head straight and said "Yessir, I understand that".  I'm still alive, and he apologized when he found out I wasn't his man.

Moral of the story, do what the Officer says.

 

[Kountzer]

The Philando Castille tragedy re enforced something I have thought for a long time.  And that is concealed carry rights are mostly for white people.  If you are carrying a concealed pistol and you witness a robbery.  If the police show up and you got your gun out they are going to shoot you.  And they will say they told you to drop it.  All the "conservatives" will buy it hook line and sinker, because that is what they want to believe.  

[Englebert]

26 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

The Philando Castille tragedy re enforced something I have thought for a long time.  And that is concealed carry rights are mostly for white people.  If you are carrying a concealed pistol and you witness a robbery.  If the police show up and you got your gun out they are going to shoot you.  And they will say they told you to drop it.  All the "conservatives" will buy it hook line and sinker, because that is what they want to believe.  

How's that tin foil hat fit on your head. Do you have it straight or askew?

And when you calm down from your searing hatred of White people, please provide some evidence of your wild theory. I would love nothing better than to discuss why you have come to this conclusion, and would love for you to back up your statements. When you make the statement "that is what they want to believe", I have no problem calling you a bigot and scourge on society that lets racism fester in an otherwise civil society. If you want to speculate on why racism won't die, you just provided the prime example.

[BS Wildcats]

11 minutes ago, Englebert said:

How's that tin foil hat fit on your head. Do you have it straight or askew?

And when you calm down from your searing hatred of White people, please provide some evidence of your wild theory. I would love nothing better than to discuss why you have come to this conclusion, and would love for you to back up your statements. When you make the statement "that is what they want to believe", I have no problem calling you a bigot and scourge on society that lets racism fester in an otherwise civil society. If you want to speculate on why racism won't die, you just provided the prime example.

The spitting image of tobie.

 I will say this, on the surface. it sure looks to me that this was not a good shooting by the officer.  But there again, just do what the cop tells you, and the majority of these shootings do not happen.

[tvc184]

58 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

The Philando Castille tragedy re enforced something I have thought for a long time.  And that is concealed carry rights are mostly for white people.  If you are carrying a concealed pistol and you witness a robbery.  If the police show up and you got your gun out they are going to shoot you.  And they will say they told you to drop it.  All the "conservatives" will buy it hook line and sinker, because that is what they want to believe.  

So I assume that with no evidence, you believe just the opposite?

You have no idea what the officer saw in this case but you know that he is wrong. A jury looked at the evidence and said that there was not enough evidence to convince them of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is interesting that you accuse a different opinion of to "believe" it with no evidence... while you are doing exactly the same thing. 

[Kountzer]

9 hours ago, REBgp said:

Got mistaken for a bad guy one time in my mid 20's.  I was out, handsturned my head to ask what he thought I'd done.  Officer said, "Don't turn and look at me boy, I'll blow your mxxxxxxxxxx head off.  I turned my head straight and said "Yessir, I understand that".  I'm still alive, and he apologized when he found out I wasn't his man.

Moral of the story, do what the Officer says.

 

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

So I assume that with no evidence, you believe just the opposite?

You have no idea what the officer saw in this case but you know that he is wrong. A jury looked at the evidence and said that there was not enough evidence to convince them of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is interesting that you accuse a different opinion of to "believe" it with no evidence... while you are doing exactly the same thing. 

9 hours ago, REBgp said:

Got mistaken for a bad guy one time in my mid 20's.  I was out, hands spread on the car and turned my head to ask what he thought I'd done.  Officer said, "Don't turn and look at me boy, I'll blow your mxxxxxxxxxx head off.  I turned my head straight and said "Yessir, I understand that".  I'm still alive, and he apologized when he found out I wasn't his man.

Moral of the story, do what the Officer says.

...

[Kountzer]

The guy, Philando Castille was complying.  He told the officer he had a concealed hand gun and a license to go with it.  He told the trigger happy, now fired, officer he was reaching for his ID.  And he still got shot and killed.  The officer was acquitted.  i was expecting that.  The journalist did their usual character assassination: " oh he only had a minor criminal record, mostly traffic tickets".  They just wanted to plant that word criminal in the media.  It is the same pattern.  it is almost cliche.

That's why I don't drink or get high.  I'm groggy enough from insomnia & not enough sleep.  You driving around and get pulled over, they ask for ID & u don't give it to them you're in trouble.  They ask and u reach for your wallet you're still in trouble, possibly shot dead.  It is a no win situation.  

[BS Wildcats]

Still waiting to hear about that two horned beast

[Kountzer]

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

Still waiting to hear about that two horned beast

I'm no expert, but sharing what I know:  there are 3 basic interpretations or schools of prophecy:   historicism, which is the oldest, most reliable and most logical, futurism, and prediterism.

Historicism is the only true way to interpret bible prophecy.  It will show you among other things exactly who or what office is the antichrist.  The other two schools were created by the antichrist to throw people off their tracks, so to speak.  Historicism interprets the 2nd beast of revelation 13, at revelation 13;11 to be the USA.  

[nappyroots]

15 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 I have a gun but it's OK because I have a permit does not stop a person from having to comply with a police officer's orders. 

 Don't move means......... don't move. 

I agree 100%. My only move would be to transfer some of my lawyer money to my checking account . 

[PAMFAM10]

Did anybody really expect a different outcome.

[1989NDN]

20 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Did anybody really expect a different outcome.

I did.  I thought the video released to the public was strong evidence against the officer.  What evidence did the jury see or hear that the public did not?  Not being a smart alec; serious question.  He told the officer that he had a gun, a license to carry, and when asked for his ID, he was shot as he reached for his wallet.  And, it was on video.  Officer Yanez told him not to reach for his gun; Castille was reaching for his wallet. BAM. Five shots.  The gun was never pulled by Castille.  No video evidence of the gun being pulled from his pants.  Again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  That video was a high hurdle to overcome.  Ten Anglo jury members and two African-American.  I read where the jury verdict was unanimous.  So, I ask again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  It must have been something.  I hope the discussion of this topic does not meltdown to name calling, or a racial back-and-forth blame game.  I hope the discussion sticks to the evidence and how the jury viewed/interpreted it.  I wonder what the explanation was from Yanez as to why he feared for his life?  No gun was pulled; it was his wallet?

Go Indians.  Peace.

[BS Wildcats]

20 minutes ago, 1989NDN said:

I did.  I thought the video released to the public was strong evidence against the officer.  What evidence did the jury see or hear that the public did not?  Not being a smart alec; serious question.  He told the officer that he had a gun, a license to carry, and when asked for his ID, he was shot as he reached for his wallet.  And, it was on video.  Officer Yanez told him not to reach for his gun; Castille was reaching for his wallet. BAM. Five shots.  The gun was never pulled by Castille.  No video evidence of the gun being pulled from his pants.  Again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  That video was a high hurdle to overcome.  Ten Anglo jury members and two African-American.  I read where the jury verdict was unanimous.  So, I ask again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  It must have been something.  I hope the discussion of this topic does not meltdown to name calling, or a racial back-and-forth blame game.  I hope the discussion sticks to the evidence and how the jury viewed/interpreted it.  I wonder what the explanation was from Yanez as to why he feared for his life?  No gun was pulled; it was his wallet?

Go Indians.  Peace.

As I said earlier, on the surface the officer looks to be 100% in the wrong.  There absolutely has to be something else, that if you weren't in the courtroom, you wouldn't know about.  Great post, 1989NDN.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 1989NDN said:

I did.  I thought the video released to the public was strong evidence against the officer.  What evidence did the jury see or hear that the public did not?  Not being a smart alec; serious question.  He told the officer that he had a gun, a license to carry, and when asked for his ID, he was shot as he reached for his wallet.  And, it was on video.  Officer Yanez told him not to reach for his gun; Castille was reaching for his wallet. BAM. Five shots.  The gun was never pulled by Castille.  No video evidence of the gun being pulled from his pants.  Again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  That video was a high hurdle to overcome.  Ten Anglo jury members and two African-American.  I read where the jury verdict was unanimous.  So, I ask again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  It must have been something.  I hope the discussion of this topic does not meltdown to name calling, or a racial back-and-forth blame game.  I hope the discussion sticks to the evidence and how the jury viewed/interpreted it.  I wonder what the explanation was from Yanez as to why he feared for his life?  No gun was pulled; it was his wallet?

Go Indians.  Peace.

 What video are you talking about? The only video that I have seen was after-the-fact when his girlfriend broadcast it. Maybe you can point out a video that shows everything you said before the shooting actually took place. If not then it is nothing but speculation. 

 As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

As I said earlier, on the surface the officer looks to be 100% in the wrong.  There absolutely has to be something else, that if you weren't in the courtroom, you wouldn't know about.  Great post, 1989NDN.

 I am thinking a questionable post but I will pose the same thing to you. What video do you know where it shows the incident before and during the shooting? I did not know they released such a video and would like to see it.  It might change my opinion. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Did anybody really expect a different outcome.

 I did. I assumed that if the DA took this to trial and there was actual evidence of wrongdoing by the officer other than his word against a girlfriend. 

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

 I am thinking a questionable post but I will pose the same thing to you. What video do you know where it shows the incident before and during the shooting? I did not know they released such a video and would like to see it.  It might change my opinion. 

Have not seen or heard it.  Just saying there is something out there, in my opinion, for the officer to be found not guilty.  As I said, on the surface, he is guilty, again my opinion.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

Have not seen or heard it.  Just saying there is something out there, in my opinion, for the officer to be found not guilty.  As I said, on the surface, he is guilty, again my opinion.

 I could find nothing released to the public that I am aware of that shows the officer did anything wrong at all. What "on the surface"  makes you think he is guilty? Hutch? 

 They only evidence that I have seen against the officer is a girlfriend's testimony.   Her video however that everyone thinks is so much against the officer, has him under extreme stress having your shot someone and if I remember right saying something like I told him not to move.   That is not under cool reflection with time to talk with the lawyer and get your story straight. Watch the video, it is pure emotion. 

 I understand people have an opinion. I'm just curious of what makes people think the officer is guilty other than just being a police officer. 

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

 I could find nothing released to the public that I am aware of that shows the officer did anything wrong at all. What "on the surface"  makes you think he is guilty? Hutch? 

 They only evidence that I have seen against the officer is a girlfriend's testimony.   Her video however that everyone thinks is so much against the officer, has him under extreme stress having your shot someone and if I remember right saying something like I told him not to move.   That is not under cool reflection with time to talk with the lawyer and get your story straight. Watch the video, it is pure emotion. 

 I understand people have an opinion. I'm just curious of what makes people think the officer is guilty other than just being a police officer. 

I think you are trying to insinuate I think he is guilty because he is a cop?  That's asinine thinking on your part.  I understand you are in law enforcement and will side with them, and for the most part I do as well.  I just don't see in the video that the officer had justification to fire 5 shots. Whether you agree or not, my opinion is he didn't need to do that, from what I have seen.  An opinion is that, just an opinion.  Again I appreciate what you and other law enforcement deal with on a daily basis, and that split second, life changing decisions are made.  I just don't see the need for such force here, maybe I'm missing something.

[tvc184]

25 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

I think you are trying to insinuate I think he is guilty because he is a cop?  That's asinine thinking on your part.  I understand you are in law enforcement and will side with them, and for the most part I do as well.  I just don't see in the video that the officer had justification to fire 5 shots. Whether you agree or not, my opinion is he didn't need to do that, from what I have seen.  An opinion is that, just an opinion.  Again I appreciate what you and other law enforcement deal with on a daily basis, and that split second, life changing decisions are made.  I just don't see the need for such force here, maybe I'm missing something.

I have never sided with the officer.  I have never said on any forum that he is not guilty or that he was justified. I have no clue. Apparently some people are seeing evidence that I have not seen and I would like to view it.

Twice above you said that the video shows no justification. 

The video shows absolutely nothing. It shows a woman gives her opinion after the incident is over. That is why I am asking anyone for some rationale to draw the conclusion that the video shows anything. Opinion? Sure, everyone is entitled to any thoughts without any justification. 

This is a discussion forum however and I am curious why (and I am fairly certain that I will never get an answer) anyone thinks the girlfriend's video has anything to do with the events leading up to the officer being guilty of anything. The officer might be completely guilty or he might be completely innocent.  The burden is on the state to prove guilt. 

Has anyone seen any evidence on video that shows the officer is guilty? If not, what would a guilty verdict be based on..... other than bias?

So a person can believe that the officer is 100%. Great!!! I was wondering why. I don't think that is asinine.