CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[Upchurch]

That "rag" had the facts on both Zimmerman and Ferguson. It ran circles around the NYT and WaPo because it actually tries to report the facts instead of covering them up.

*sniff* smells like confirmation bias.

I very much doubt that rag gave an honest account of either event. More likely, it gave the account you want to believe is true. I'm guessing, for example, they claim Martin assaulted Zimmerman first?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Well if anything you must admit that we simply don't know, what preceded the shooting. We have the video .. but only after the shooting. Everything we know is based on what the girl said. All reaction on the internet are based on what the girl said.
And it will be major ********* if anything what she said will be shown to be false.

 

[paulhutch]

Yesterday the local NBC affiliate, KARE11, posted what is alleged to be the police radio traffic of the incident. http://www.kare11.com/news/police-scanner-audio-1/267042738

KARE 11 has attempted to confirm the authenticity of the recording with police officials, but so far they have not responded.

We have verified that the license plate mentioned by police in the recording matches the plate of the car Castile was driving. The location the officer gives also corresponds to the locations of the traffic stop.

“I’m going to stop a car,” the officer says on the recording. “I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

KARE11 also posted this story yesterday: Officers involved in Falcon Heights shooting identified

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has released the names of the two officers involved in the fatal shooting of a 32-year-old black man during a traffic stop Wednesday night.

They are identified as Officer Jeronimo Yanez and Officer Joseph Kauser. Both have been with the St. Anthony Police Department for four years.

ETA: I searched the site and found the gas station armed robbery story that they think is the robbery the officers where talking about.
Police: 2 wanted in gas station robbery

 

[Christian Klippel]

Saw this earlier, but didn't post as I wasn't sure of the source. Would seem to change things.

If he could have grown a beard in those 4 days, maybe. The images of the guy robbing the store clearly show only a moustache and little bit on the chin. Castile had far more than that, hair from the moustache down to the chin on the sides of his mouth, and from the chin to the ears.

Funny how they babble about ears being like fingerprints, but somehow are too blind to see the obvious.

But otherwise he was just a perfect match. Black and some facial hair.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mumbles]

Yesterday the local NBC affiliate, KARE11, posted what is alleged to be the police radio traffic of the incident. http://www.kare11.com/news/police-scanner-audio-1/267042738



KARE11 also posted this story yesterday: Officers involved in Falcon Heights shooting identified



ETA: I searched the site and found the gas station armed robbery story that they think is the robbery the officers where talking about.
Police: 2 wanted in gas station robbery

He somewhat resembles resembles someone who robbed a store, therefore ... it's okay to shoot him?

Well, I'm sure that's perfectly reasonable to the folks who backed Zimmerman, and doxxed an unrelated girl, and completely made up the ingredients to the drug Martin was supposedly going to make, AND thought that red was the color of the Crips, AND claimed that Martin's parents, who have since put their older son through college, did not care at all about Trayvon.

This makes perfect sense to people who completely buy into every negative stereotype about black people that have been around for the past...120 years or so. It's also why the rest of us would have no interest whatsoever in such nonsense.

Any updates from any sources that don't sound like Birth of a Nation?

 

[Dr.Sid]

He somewhat resembles resembles someone who robbed a store, therefore ... it's okay to shoot him?

No, but it's not 'non working tail-light stop' anymore. Which would explain why the cop was so jumpy.

I'm not saying police is not treating black people bad. And I'm not saying this shooting was justified, based on what we know at the moment, it was not.

I'm saying we know awfully little. We don't KNOW why the car was stopped, what the cop said, and what the man was doing.

What if it shows that the car was stopped because of the robbery, what if it shows that the guy said he has a gun in the car and the cop said not to reach for it .. but he did reach for it ? What if it shows it really is a gun on his lap ?
What if it shows he actually was the robber ? We cannot rule out any of these at the moment either.

All this media storm, president speech, demonstrations, Dallas shooting .. all based on false story and illusion that live video has information about what happened before the video started.

So .. let's just wait .. new information will show up eventually.

Also you can bitch about the source, but they link everything to decent sources, so all you have to do is just click.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

 

[Mumbles]

No, but it's not 'non working tail-light stop' anymore. Which would explain why the cop was so jumpy.

And yet still does not give us any substantial reason why he was shot, as you agree below.

I'm not saying police is not treating black people bad. And I'm not saying this shooting was justified, based on what we know at the moment, it was not.

I'm saying we know awfully little. We don't KNOW why the car was stopped, what the cop said, and what the man was doing.

But you'll agree that we do know what the immediate aftermath is - one shot black man, one woman calmly explaining what happened, and one remarkably panicky police officer pointing a gun directly at the man who had just been shot. We are free to give opinion as to what we think happened, based on the above - and I think what we have is substantial enough that we can proceed.

What if it shows that the car was stopped because of the robbery, what if it shows that the guy said he has a gun in the car and the cop said not to reach for it .. but he did reach for it ? What if it shows it really is a gun on his lap ?
What if it shows he actually was the robber ? We cannot rule out any of these at the moment either.

At this point, I think we can consider the "gun on his lap" issue disproven. He may well have had a gun on him, and it's not currently in dispute that he had a legal right to do so. But the evidence disproves that it was simply sitting in the open.

Also you can bitch about the source, but they link everything to decent sources, so all you have to do is just click.

Given what I've seen from them to date, I'll go right ahead and state that they either take things out of context (as has already been verified, thank you ZiprHead) or use links to other untrustrowthy sites (they're known to have lifted things from, say, Breitbart - and at least used to have a banner extolling readers to be Andrew Breitbart - along with what appeared to be a drawing of him as an armor-clad elf with a slightly overgrown head. I have no logical reason to point this out, I just find it hilarious. )

So again, I'll wait for sources that are at least somewhat reliable.

 

[Pterodactyl]

If he could have grown a beard in those 4 days, maybe. The images of the guy robbing the store clearly show only a moustache and little bit on the chin. Castile had far more than that, hair from the moustache down to the chin on the sides of his mouth, and from the chin to the ears.

Funny how they babble about ears being like fingerprints, but somehow are too blind to see the obvious.

But otherwise he was just a perfect match. Black and some facial hair.

Greetings,

Chris

Well first off Im totally open to the idea that the source is completely biased, racist, not to be trusted. I'd never even heard of it, so that's why I didnt post the link, but I thought it was (if true) interesting additional information.

Now, we're all supposed to be skeptics here, and one of the main things I've found skeptics to be consistent about is the relative (non) value of witness testimony or anecdotes vs. actual physical evidence. All we've pretty much had to go on are the passenger's words, so I'd urge caution to anyone putting too much stock into them. Did we ever determine if the guy actually did have a legal carry permit by the way?

Also, the photos at that link... Im not saying the two men are identical, but if you dont think they match the same general physical description, I dont know that it'd be worth the time debating.

Lastly, new information from the Officer's attorney was released a little while ago:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/philando_castile_killing_offic.html

St. Anthony Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez was reacting to "the presence of that gun and the display of that gun" when he opened fire on Castile, Minneapolis attorney Thomas Kelly told The Associated Press. He declined to elaborate on how Castile displayed the weapon or what led up to the deadly Wednesday traffic stop.

So now we have conflicting first-hand accounts to go by. Who do you give the benefit of the doubt to and why?

Im willing to let it play out before casting judgment here.

 

[Giordano]

No, but it's not 'non working tail-light stop' anymore. Which would explain why the cop was so jumpy.

I'm not saying police is not treating black people bad. And I'm not saying this shooting was justified, based on what we know at the moment, it was not.

I'm saying we know awfully little. We don't KNOW why the car was stopped, what the cop said, and what the man was doing.

What if it shows that the car was stopped because of the robbery, what if it shows that the guy said he has a gun in the car and the cop said not to reach for it .. but he did reach for it ? What if it shows it really is a gun on his lap ?
What if it shows he actually was the robber ? We cannot rule out any of these at the moment either.

All this media storm, president speech, demonstrations, Dallas shooting .. all based on false story and illusion that live video has information about what happened before the video started.

So .. let's just wait .. new information will show up eventually.

Also you can bitch about the source, but they link everything to decent sources, so all you have to do is just click.

What if..... what if... what if...

What if the dead kids at Sandy Hook were Satanic conspirators and they were killed just in time before they could carry out their plan of attacking their won parents?

Doesn't this latest reiteration of the "cops are right no matter what happens" approach, that of seeking to demonize the dead person, disturb you enough to give you pause before propagating these unsupported, prejudiced, and politically based rumors?

I am certain more facts will come out and I look forward to seeing them. I agree with you urging "let's just wait." But instead of doing so yourself, you have provided made-up possibilities created in large part by fanatics who have thrown them together to smear and dehumanize the dead guy (things for which there is no real evidence or for which there is actually good evidence against: e.g. the guy was the bank robber, that the gun was visible on his lap, that the cop specifically told him to not reach for it, etc).

I think it is wise to not reach conclusions as to facts not in evidence. But then equally I don't think it is legitimate to at the same time cite unsupported hypotheticals and then say, "Oh but what if this was the case." Urging caution and waiting until all the facts come out- okay! But that applies to not spreading unsupported rumors against the dead guy just as I would hope no one would spread unsupported rumors against the cop. What if I had heard that the cop left his home that day telling his wife that he was planning to kill a black man? What if it is my understanding that the cop involved was on crack cocaine? What if the cop was, in fact, himself the wanted robber and he was trying to distract attention from himself by providing a dead suspect (the match in appearance was nearly equally close to the cop as to the driver)? I don't have any real reason to believe any of these things, but they might be true, yes? Should I feel free to state them now and then justify it by saying- "Well, we will just have to wait to see, right?" with a little wink? Isn't that how all rumors are spread?

It appears to me that the only reasonable and fair approach is to carefully stick with the facts currently available even while recognizing that additional facts are likely to become clear latter. It appears to me to be particularly important to not spread unsubstantiated rumors and made up hypotheticals about anyone involved in this awful tragedy BEFORE the relevant facts are established.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

*sniff* smells like confirmation bias.

I very much doubt that rag gave an honest account of either event. More likely, it gave the account you want to believe is true. I'm guessing, for example, they claim Martin assaulted Zimmerman first?

Well, you could always prove they have it wrong instead of just making content-free noise. Oh, and Martin did assault Zimmerman first, and was the cause of his own death.

 

[lionking]

This quote is not from me or a lefty, Chardonnay-sipping European, but a US police chief:

In remarkable observations made before the Dallas killings, Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn said: "We're the most heavily armed, violent society in the history of Western civilization and we dump this duty on 25-year- olds [in police departments]. The problem for American policing is we're learning the hard way, that our political establishment finds it far easier to develop a constituency at the expense of our police than to solve these social problems."

I said earlier that the root cause of this and other tragedies is the stupid US gun culture. These things simply don't happen in other first world countries

 

[Giordano]

Well first off Im totally open to the idea that the source is completely biased, racist, not to be trusted. I'd never even heard of it, so that's why I didnt post the link, but I thought it was (if true) interesting additional information.

Now, we're all supposed to be skeptics here, and one of the main things I've found skeptics to be consistent about is the relative (non) value of witness testimony or anecdotes vs. actual physical evidence. All we've pretty much had to go on are the passenger's words, so I'd urge caution to anyone putting too much stock into them. Did we ever determine if the guy actually did have a legal carry permit by the way?

Also, the photos at that link... Im not saying the two men are identical, but if you dont think they match the same general physical description, I dont know that it'd be worth the time debating.

Lastly, new information from the Officer's attorney was released a little while ago:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/philando_castile_killing_offic.html



So now we have conflicting first-hand accounts to go by. Who do you give the benefit of the doubt to and why?

Im willing to let it play out before casting judgment here.

You mean other than black men with dreadlocks but clearly different facial hair? A similar level of comparison would conclude that I look a lot like Abe Lincoln. But yes, probably not worth us debating.

Police have a very difficult job, but clearly not killing law abiding citizens because of fear or mis-identification is a key part of that job. I am willing to wait to find out more detail about this event, but simply "well the cop had reasons to be nervous" would not do it for me. And please see my post above in terms of ideal speculation. Thanks.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Also, the photos at that link... Im not saying the two men are identical, but if you dont think they match the same general physical description, I dont know that it'd be worth the time debating.

They only "match" insofar that both show a black person with some facial hair. There is no "but" here. They are two different people.

Also, see the Snopes article linked to in this post regarding the permit issue:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11377762&postcount=307

Lastly, new information from the Officer's attorney was released a little while ago:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/philando_castile_killing_offic.html

So now we have conflicting first-hand accounts to go by. Who do you give the benefit of the doubt to and why?

Im willing to let it play out before casting judgment here.

I give it to the woman, not the cop. The reason is simply because a) it is a well known fact that there are issues with racism, use of excessive force, etc. with the police in the US. And b) because it already happend several times that a cop flat out lied in such cases. To such an extent that actual video evidence showed that what the cop was saying was the complete opposite to what happened.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: And on a more general note: I think that whatever a cop says in such circumstances should not be trusted simply because a cop said it. Quite the opposite. The reason is simple: We grant them special rights and privileges and power, that we don't give to other people. Also, they are _much_ less cops than non-cops, making them prone to excessive "we are special, we need to stick together" thinking. Both are things that are well documented to happen. Because of that, the risk for them abusing their power is rather high, and the chance of abuse being covered up is high as well. Just for these reasons alone i think that whatever a cop claims happens should be viewed with a _lot_ of skepticism. Why should we grant them much more benefit of the doubt than everyone else? They are supposed to serve and protect, and uphold the law. Not to put themselves above the law.

 

[Giordano]

Well, you could always prove they have it wrong instead of just making content-free noise. Oh, and Martin did assault Zimmerman first, and was the cause of his own death.

Odd- I would think that proving an accusation correct first would be the usual expectation before using it to smear someone. But to each their own.

By the way- can you prove that you aren't the "Son of Saul' serial killer? I understand that he was from Brooklyn too.

 

[Dr.Sid]

What if..... what if... what if...

It appears to me that the only reasonable and fair approach is to carefully stick with the facts currently available even while recognizing that additional facts are likely to become clear latter. It appears to me to be particularly important to not spread unsubstantiated rumors and made up hypotheticals about anyone involved in this awful tragedy BEFORE the relevant facts are established.

But that's what I'm saying. Undisputed facts are:

1) car was stopped
2) guy was shot dead

The rest are claims:
1) why was the car stopped
2) why did the policeman say to the guy
3) what the guy did

It's just a claim that he was told to reach for ID, yet it is spread around. It is just a claim that he was reaching for ID, yet it is spread around.
This very thread is named "CCW holder killed reaching for ID", and now it's not even clear if he was CCW holder.
I don't see why other claims and theories should be not talked about, as long as they are clearly stated as claims and theories.

The policeman now claims he saw the gun. Which would make lot more sense to his first recorded words:
"I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

You are telling me not to demonize dead person .. I'm telling you not to demonize the policeman .. not with the amount of information we have.

 

[Giordano]

More generally this event has convinced me of just how dangerous concealed carry makes any interaction with a law official. (IMHO even more so for minorities, but that is not my point here). Apparently even in a stressful situation, one must perform exactly the correct rituals and say the right words in the right order or run a real risk of being shot by the police. And the correct rituals and words differ in different locals and probably for different situations and different cops. Open carry also clearly has big risks as well (remember the guy shot dead because he was playing with a toy gun at a Walmart?). Have there been any studies on this?

 

[Giordano]

But that's what I'm saying. Undisputed facts are:

1) car was stopped
2) guy was shot dead

The rest are claims:
1) why was the car stopped
2) why did the policeman say to the guy
3) what the guy did

It's just a claim that he was told to reach for ID, yet it is spread around. It is just a claim that he was reaching for ID, yet it is spread around.
This very thread is named "CCW holder killed reaching for ID", and now it's not even clear if he was CCW holder.
I don't see why other claims and theories should be not talked about, as long as they are clearly stated as claims and theories.

The policeman now claims he saw the gun. Which would make lot more sense to his first recorded words:
"I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

You are telling me not to demonize dead person .. I'm telling you not to demonize the policeman .. not with the amount of information we have.

Have I demonized the police officer in any way?

Do you think that undocumented claims by others (and I agree that some are out there) are best offset by providing yet additional undocumented claims? How exactly do you see that working as helping find the truth? Aren't you yourself doing exactly what you are taking to task when done by others?

You rightly suggest waiting for the facts. I agree, and only suggest not filling in the time by spreading undocumented rumors of any kind. Sure, one can post whatever one wants on an Internet forum- that doesn't mean that everything one posts is justified, useful, or helpful in finding the truth.

 

[Lucian]

But that's what I'm saying. Undisputed facts are:

1) car was stopped
2) guy was shot dead

The rest are claims:
1) why was the car stopped
2) why did the policeman say to the guy
3) what the guy did

It's just a claim that he was told to reach for ID, yet it is spread around. It is just a claim that he was reaching for ID, yet it is spread around.
This very thread is named "CCW holder killed reaching for ID", and now it's not even clear if he was CCW holder.I don't see why other claims and theories should be not talked about, as long as they are clearly stated as claims and theories.

The policeman now claims he saw the gun. Which would make lot more sense to his first recorded words:
"I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

You are telling me not to demonize dead person .. I'm telling you not to demonize the policeman .. not with the amount of information we have.

The Snopes article that has been posted twice now confirms that Castile had a concealed carry permit. Snopes' source is this article from the Star Tribune. It is titled, "Philando Castile had permit to carry gun."

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Odd- I would think that proving an accusation correct first would be the usual expectation before using it to smear someone. But to each their own.

By the way- can you prove that you aren't the "Son of Saul' serial killer? I understand that he was from Brooklyn too.

It just so happens the source I listed has a link to the recording of the officer calling in and saying he is pulling them over because the driver matches the description of an armed-robbery BOLO that occured only a few blocks away. It has the 5 items listed in the description and compares it to the driver, and it does fit him exactly. It has a CCTV still of the perp actually engaged in the armed robbery. It has a picture of the gun resting on Castile's thigh after he was shot. It has a tweet from the Sheriff saying Castile had never applied for a carry permit so he never been issued one. It also has a picture of their vehicle with both tail lights illuminated.

Oh, and I didn't "smear" anyone. I took him/her to task for dismissing all of this without pointing out a single item that is incorrect. To me, that is not a good-faith argument.