Verdict in Minnesota

[LumRaiderFan]

13 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

There it is!

[stevenash]

13 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

Let me ask you a pretty elementary question.  If the individual who was stopped fit a particular description, why would you have a problem with someone who does not fit the description not being stopped?

[Fee Dee]

I watched this video over and over and over, what I see is a murder! You see it your way, but that is what I see and believe!

[Fee Dee]

20 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Let me ask you a pretty elementary question.  If the individual who was stopped fit a particular description, why would you have a problem with someone who does not fit the description not being stopped?

That was too vague!  It's just an excuse.

 

[tvc184]

A robbery happens a day or two earlier. Officers are given a general description. Part of that description includes a female accomplice and color of vehicle. 

Officer spots a similar colored vehicle and a man that generally fits the description and he has a woman with him. It is called a hunch. It gives no lawful authority for a detention. BUT.... brake lights out give not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause. even if the officer is using the traffic violation to check out something else.  (Whren v. US- US Supreme Court) 

Since the officer doesn’t know if this is really the suspect and may be innocent citizen, he doesn’t approach with gun drawn in felony traffic stop mode. He strikes up almost casual coversation with driver and in all likelihood just wants name. Why? Photo lineup. Several photos are shown to clerk in the robbery with driver being one of them. It is routine police work. 

Driver says I have a firearm on me. Officer says don’t pull it out and if you listen closely, it sounds like the driver says I have to pull it out. Officer’s statements were, “Don’t reach it though.. don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!!”  

Officers flinches to the rear as he draws and opens fire. 

We will never know why the driver reached for the gun and sounds like he said I have to pull it out. 

 

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

That was too vague!  It's just an excuse.

 

The guy had brake lights out. There is no excuse needed. It is called probable cause. Officers need no description when a crime is witnessed. 

[Fee Dee]

Mail him a ticket, policemen shouldn't be stopping people because a bulb is burned out in his tail light. Go solve a real crime!

 

[tvc184]

7 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

Mail him a ticket, policemen shouldn't be stopping people because a bulb is burned out in his tail light. Go solve a real crime!

 

So when you find out that everything the officer did was lawful, now the narrative is, police shouldn’t write citations. 

Got it. 

Oh yeah, the officer was trying to solve a real crime and a violent one at that. 

[Fee Dee]

12 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

A robbery happens a day or two earlier. Officers are given a general description. Part of that description includes a female accomplice and color of vehicle. 

Officer spots a similar colored vehicle and a man that generally fits the description and he has a woman with him. It is called a hunch. It gives no lawful authority for a detention. BUT.... brake lights out give not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause. even if the officer is using the traffic violation to check out something else.  (Whren v. US- US Supreme Court) 

Since the officer doesn’t know if this is really the suspect and may be innocent citizen, he doesn’t approach with gun drawn in felony traffic stop mode. He strikes up almost casual coversation with driver and in all likelihood just wants name. Why? Photo lineup. Several photos are shown to clerk in the robbery with driver being one of them. It is routine police work. 

Driver says I have a firearm on me. Officer says don’t pull it out and if you listen closely, it sounds like the driver says I have to pull it out. Officer’s statements were, “Don’t reach it though.. don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!!”  

Officers flinches to the rear as he draws and opens fire. 

We will never know why the driver reached for the gun and sounds like he said I have to pull it out. 

 

 

. I think the cop was afraid and shot because he was afraid. I think the victim may have miss understood and I could buy that, I just can buy shooting him 7 times!

[Fee Dee]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

So when you find out that everything the officer did was lawful, now the narrative is, police shouldn’t write citations. 

Got it. 

Oh yeah, the officer was trying to solve a real crime and a violent one at that. 

We are at loggerheads on this one, I think he should have been found guilty and you evidently don't, so we may as well drop it. It's just a difference of opinions anyway, what done is done.

[tvc184]

7 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

 

. I think the cop was afraid and shot because he was afraid. I think the victim may have miss understood and I could buy that, I just can buy shooting him 7 times!

The last officer involved shooting in my department two years ago, the officer fired 7 shots in about 2.5 seconds. This officer took about the same time frame. 

This isn’t Hollywood.  

[tvc184]

5 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

We are at loggerheads on this one, I think he should have been found guilty and you evidently don't, so we may as well drop it. It's just a difference of opinions anyway, what done is done.

Awesome. 

My facts (not opinion) are backed up by a jury of 12 people that unanimously came to the same conclusion after they saw hours of evidence and had the law explained to them by a judge. 

Fortunately for the officer, wishful thinking isn’t evidence. 

[Fee Dee]

A jury of his peers, let me google the jury and I might have more to say on that subject.

Okay, I googled it, his peers were 2 blacks out of 12 on the jury, hardly had a chance of a conviction.

[tvc184]

12 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

A jury of his peers, let me google the jury and I might have more to say on that subject.

 

Go for it. Keep looking for some emotional backup. 

When facts and evidence doesn’t side with an opinion, such relief is often sought out. Maybe the minorities on the jury felt bullied. 

Like the lone juror in the Zimmerman case that spoke publicly, we wanted to find him guilty but we followed the law and the evidence was not there. She admitted being prejudice toward Zimmerman but could not find evidence to back up a guilty verdict. 

[LumRaiderFan]

29 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

A jury of his peers, let me google the jury and I might have more to say on that subject.

Okay, I googled it, his peers were 2 blacks out of 12 on the jury, hardly had a chance of a conviction.

Isn't 2 blacks out of 12 a fair representative of the country?

Are you saying the other 10 can't be fair because they're not black?

[tvc184]

16 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Isn't 2 blacks out of 12 a fair representative of the country?

Are you saying the other 10 can't be fair because they're not black?

 It is actually slightly over represented however we cannot cut people in half. 

[Fee Dee]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

 It is actually slightly over represented however we cannot cut people in half. 

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

So when you find out that everything the officer did was lawful, now the narrative is, police shouldn’t write citations. 

Got it. 

Oh yeah, the officer was trying to solve a real crime and a violent one at that. 

We are at loggerheads on this one, I think he should have been found guilty and you evidently don't, so we may as well drop it. It's just a difference of opinions anyway, what done is done.

[Fee Dee]

Maybe you should watch this again.                      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

26 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Isn't 2 blacks out of 12 a fair representative of the country?

Are you saying the other 10 can't be fair because they're not black?

And of the two counties that the city Yanez worked for was located, had a black population of less than 8% in one county and less than 9% in the other. Going by population only, there should have been one black on thr jury. I wouldn’t care if there were all minority jurors. The facts seem clear that there was nothing that showed proof beyond any reasonable doubt. 

[Fee Dee]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

          Are talking about the same incident?

[tvc184]

24 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

Maybe you should watch this again.                      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I watched it. Utter nonsense and political, not factual statements. 

One lawyer says, don’t look at this case (doesn’t like the facts?) but let’s look at it as a whole. Really? He wants to convict Yanez due to other cases. Let’s just convict someone to appease the masses maybe.  

Judge Hatchett then outright lies and claims her speculation is fact. She made statements that she wants to help her civil case but isn’t backed up by any known fact. 

An interesting video of opinions, almost none of which can be backed up. 

[Fee Dee]

We see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe if you get news from msnbc and I get my news from Fox we will surely have different opinions of what the facts actually are.

[bullets13]

Reading through the comments here, a couple of people mention that he was reaching for the documents the officer asked for and not the gun.  That's all well and good, except he had already handed them to the officer. He then informed the officer that he had the gun, and was told not to reach for it. It would then appear that he did in fact reach for it, or the officer wouldn't have  screamed multiple times for him to stop reaching for it.  The officer says "don't pull it out", and to me, Castile can clearly be heard saying "I have to pull it out", and is shot seconds later as he apparently continued to reach towards his gun.  Now, he was high on marijuana, which may have affected his comprehension skills and judgement, and he may not have (and most likely didn't) had any intent to shoot the officer with his gun.  But this video in my mind (and in the mind of the jury that tried him) clearly shows the officer was not guilty of the charges against him.  Don't reach means don't reach, and he clearly had a gun that was in the general vicinity of where he continued to reach, even after the officer clearly told him multiple times not to.  It seems that in today's society some folks feel like police officers don't have the right to defend themselves unless they've already been shot at or stabbed.  My sister is a cop, and I hope that if she's ever in a situation where she needs to defend herself she doesn't hesitate due to the fact that she might possibly be tried and convicted by the media before she ever has her day in court.

Edited June 22, 2017 by bullets13

[Englebert]

31 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

We see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe if you get news from msnbc and I get my news from Fox we will surely have different opinions of what the facts actually are.

And some are greatly more effective at filtering out facts versus fiction than others. And many have a very biased way of using mental gymnastics to skew facts to what they want to believe...but not everybody, and definitely not to the same degree. Don't try to blame differences entirely on what news source someone watches or doesn't watch. You don't know which and how many sources any of us on this site watch/read. This post is typical of the Liberal agenda of attempting to remove all personal responsibility from an individual.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

Reading through the comments here, a couple of people mention that he was reaching for the documents the officer asked for and not the gun.  That's all well and good, except he had already handed them to the officer. He then informed the officer that he had the gun, and was told not to reach for it. It would then appear that he did in fact reach for it, or the officer wouldn't have  screamed multiple times for him to stop reaching for it.  The officer says "don't pull it out", and to me, Castile can clearly be heard saying "I have to pull it out", and is shot seconds later as he apparently continued to reach towards his gun.  Now, he was apparently high on marijuana, which may have affected his comprehension skills and judgement, and he may not have (and most likely didn't) had any intent to shoot the officer with his gun.  But this video in my mind (and in the mind of the jury that tried him) clearly shows the officer was not guilty of the charges against him.  Don't reach means don't reach, and he clearly had a gun that was in the general vicinity of where he continued to reach, even after the officer clearly told him multiple times not to.  It seems that in today's society some folks feel like police officers don't have the right to defend themselves unless they've already been shot at or stabbed.  My sister is a cop, and I hope that if she's ever in a situation where she needs to defend herself she doesn't hesitate due to the fact that she might possibly be tried and convicted by the media before she ever has her day in court.

+10,000