CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

Ranb said:
The NRA finally has more to say. But maybe they shouldn't have bothered at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ing-heated-debate_us_59637764e4b02e9bdb0e0e9e

If the NRA can call the ATF jack booted thugs, then at the very least they could have called the cop who shot Castile a 150 pound pussy with a badge and gun. But they didn't; after all in the NRA's eyes he was probably just another man killed because he was "carrying while black".

Did she really use this event to push their "carry guard" crap? Or was she actually putting the blame on the victim?
Click to expand...


Well, he was "carrying while black", so I don't think his guilt can be questioned as far as that goes.

That's why his killer got a nearly $70,000 bonus along with his exoneration.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
The NRA finally has more to say. But maybe they shouldn't have bothered at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ing-heated-debate_us_59637764e4b02e9bdb0e0e9e

If the NRA can call the ATF jack booted thugs, then at the very least they could have called the cop who shot Castile a 150 pound pussy with a badge and gun. But they didn't; after all in the NRA's eyes he was probably just another man killed because he was "carrying while black".

Did she really use this event to push their "carry guard" crap? Or was she actually putting the blame on the victim?
Click to expand...

Of course the NRA isn't going to support the rights of black gun owners, they have a long history of fighting those. When some uppity black guy thinks he has actual second amendment rights he is going to get into trouble.

The NRA isn't ever going to criticise a cop just for shooting a black man. So they needed to pretend this was just a minor misunderstanding. Funny really.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Well, he was "carrying while black", so I don't think his guilt can be questioned as far as that goes.

That's why his killer got a nearly $70,000 bonus along with his exoneration.
Click to expand...

If they felt he really did anything wrong they wouldn't have had to pay him off to fire him. Clearly in the eyes of his fellow cops he wasn't all that far out there.
 
Ranb said:
The NRA finally has more to say. But maybe they shouldn't have bothered at all.
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of black gun owners were expecting that - which is why they created their own organizations to represent their interests.
 
Dashcam footage released. How this cop was acquitted is a mystery to me, this video is extremely damning to my eyes. Castile seems remarkably calm and speaks slowly and clearly before before killed by a barrage of bullets by our jumpy cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94Lphx6z6Y
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Dashcam footage released. How this cop was acquitted is a mystery to me, this video is extremely damning to my eyes. Castile seems remarkably calm and speaks slowly and clearly before before killed by a barrage of bullets by our jumpy cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94Lphx6z6Y
Click to expand...

That's what juries are for and they are the ones who acquitted him.

That video was published in 2017.
 
Watching that video again makes me really believe that Castile's mindset was "here, in just a second he'll see that I'm reaching for my ID, not the gun" when it should have been "okay he's saying don't reach, gonna completely freeze all hand movement"

Not a sufficient mistake to earn him what then happened, but also just understandable enough from the cop's POV to make locking him up unjustified too.
 
William Parcher said:
No. Christchurch killings video were removed from YouTube. Everyone was clothed.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point entirely, which is that violence is, for some reason, entirely acceptable while nudity is a threat to the bedrock of our morality. It's a dichotomy that has been noted for a long time. Want to test it? Upload some porn to Youtube.
 
Belz... said:
I think you missed my point entirely, which is that violence is, for some reason, entirely acceptable while nudity is a threat to the bedrock of our morality. It's a dichotomy that has been noted for a long time. Want to test it? Upload some porn to Youtube.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of that is based on moral outrage and how much of that is based on protecting the website from becoming a porn site.

I'm not sure if this is really the case now, given that there are major, well run pornographic websites that are popular, but there was a time when a site that allowed pornographic content was in danger of becoming primarily a pornographic website. If early Youtube allowed porn, it might have just become a de facto porn site, which may have undercut it's mission to become a general use video sharing site.

I see this as similar to Liveleak. Sure, anything is allowed, but is primarily known as a site to watch violent videos, mostly because it is one of the few sites that allow such content. Whatever mission it may have had, it is best known for its of videos of grisly deaths. Allowing such content often becomes a feedback loop where the site ceases to be a general use site and becomes banned-content only type clearinghouse.

This is all speculation on my part.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I wonder how much of that is based on moral outrage and how much of that is based on protecting the website from becoming a porn site.

I'm not sure if this is really the case now, given that there are major, well run pornographic websites that are popular, but there was a time when a site that allowed pornographic content was in danger of becoming primarily a pornographic website. If early Youtube allowed porn, it might have just become a de facto porn site, which may have undercut it's mission to become a general use video sharing site.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Not sure it's still the case, but on Twitter people posted some pretty explicit stuff and it was allowed to stand. Twitter didn't become a porn site.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know about that. Not sure it's still the case, but on Twitter people posted some pretty explicit stuff and it was allowed to stand. Twitter didn't become a porn site.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is between Twitter linking porn and a place like Youtube actually hosting it. But again, I have no real way of actually demonstrating this. It amounts to little more than a gut instinct.

I would say that, even if that were the case at one time, it isn't now. Internet porn is a mature industry and there are dedicated websites that host countless free videos in high quality and free of malware and other scumminess known to the early internet porn world. There's really no risk of NSFW content taking over a general use video host these days, given that well known pornographic sites exist and have such good reputations as hosts.

Something I haven't mentioned is YouTube's reliance on ad revenue, and that likely makes them very sensitive to social mores. I could easily see them being quite prudish about this, as you say, to protect their viability as an outlet for ads for respectable companies.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think the difference is between Twitter linking porn and a place like Youtube actually hosting it. But again, I have no real way of actually demonstrating this. It amounts to little more than a gut instinct.
Click to expand...

Well, guts are better than brains, as we've learned with the current POTUS, so you're in the clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom