CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[Giordano]

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.

Well, your source is wrong in at least one "fact." See Snopes link above. As to the picture of "the gun?" And if a gun, when it got there? Come on! But these aren't even my point. Some of this may be prove true, some of it is already clearly not true, and most of it is not established either way. Propagating rumors on little or no actual factual evidence in this way is inherently a smear.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

The presence of a gun was not in dispute, in fact the woman has already said as much, and stated that Castile was licensed to carry a concealed gun..

Now if we are to believe that the radio communication is correct, we've run into a major issue with the officer's judgement - namely, he claims that the man and woman in the car "just resemble" the two men in the discovered robbery, which means that he *clearly* misidentified at least the woman in the car.

If we're to avoid speculation, then I'd suggest that everyone drop that robbery from the discussion until we can verify that it's what the cop had in mind, as it would serve as strong evidence for his incompetence.

 

[Pterodactyl]

The presence of a gun and the plain view of a gun are wholly different and change the scenario dramatically. To my knowledge that quote is the first mention of the weapon being actively handled.

Also, i don't see the rationale to dropping the robbery thing if it was indeed part of what actually happened. It needs to be fleshed out completely. Could a robbery suspect not travel with a different campanion four days later? Who knows how good a look he got at the driver and passenger?
Ps. I've driven by your avatar countless times. That thing is nuts.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, you could always prove they have it wrong instead of just making content-free noise.

The burden is on the one making the claim.

For example:

Oh, and Martin did assault Zimmerman first, and was the cause of his own death.

If you have evidence to support that claim, you'd be the first ever to do so. Of course, that's a topic for another thread. But, if that rag makes similar claims that you're making, it supports my assessment.

 

[Jules Galen]

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.

LOGIC ALERT! LOGIC ALERT!



This man needs help recognizing Logical Fallacies!

The man plays with his onus probandi too much! (quit doin' that....it will make you go blind)

 

[Mumbles]

The presence of a gun and the plain view of a gun are wholly different and change the scenario dramatically. To my knowledge that quote is the first mention of the weapon being actively handled.

There was no word of him handling the gun. The lawyer said that he saw the gun.

Also, i don't see the rationale to dropping the robbery thing if it was indeed part of what actually happened. It needs to be fleshed out completely. Could a robbery suspect not travel with a different campanion four days later? Who knows how good a look he got at the driver and passenger?

Because his supposed reason for being so jittery wasn't just that he had *one* person that "fit the description" of these robbers (which, as others have said, is pretty generic - black guy, moustache and braided hair.) The claim was that both people resembled the two men in the robbery. If that's true, and then walks up and sees that one of the "two men" is in fact a woman, and he's still terrified, then he's an idiot who doesn't realize that his fears were entirely unfounded.

Ps. I've driven by your avatar countless times. That thing is nuts.

We discussed it in the political forum when people were discussing people removing monuments to the Confederacy. one person suggested tearing that one down, and I agreed.

I'm just saying, the statue clearly lacks an alibi.

 

[Ranb]

No, they're not saying anything because the victims were black. Just *********** say it.

Well it took a few days, but I've read this from the NRA.

"As the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization, the NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation," the statement, released on Twitter, read.

"The reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated. In the meantime, it is important for the NRA not to comment while the investigation is ongoing. Rest assured, the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

I'm not a fan of the NRA, but is there something wrong with failing to be overzealous, not jumping the gun or waiting for a few facts? A few people in this thread have made fools of themselves for failing to gather a few facts.

Ranb

 

[Jules Galen]

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.

Yeah, and Philipe Castille never applied for a Carry Permit in Elk-Piss Minnesota, Rotten-fish Wisconson, or Dog Crap, Texas, either.

So what?

He had the Permit. DEAL!

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

Even more sense if the cop asked for ID (allegedly the purpose of the stop). Castile, knowing cops can get annoyed if the driver doesn't "promptly" declare a CCW, tells him the ID also shows the CCW.

Cop panics "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

Castile fails to act on the change in command quickly enough,

 

[Mumbles]

Even more sense if the cop asked for ID (allegedly the purpose of the stop). Castile, knowing cops can get annoyed if the driver doesn't "promptly" declare a CCW, tells him the ID also shows the CCW.

Cop panics "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

Castile fails to act on the change in command quickly enough,

Asa reference to how this could easily happen, here's a link to another shooting, this one Chris Hayes playing Groubert's report on what occured to what was caught on his dash camera.

And as always, I don't think that Groubert was lying at all. I think that what he relayed was, in his mind, the absolute truth of what happened. And that frightens me much more.

 

[banquetbear]

Cop panics "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out."

...its interesting that early transcripts have the policeman saying "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his head up!" For example:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...g-of-philando-castile-caught-on-facebook-live

Since we are all in the realms of speculating: it wouldn't surprise me if Castile heard or understood the policeman to be saying "get your hands up!" and went to do so and the policeman over-reacted to the change in movement. "Hand out" "Head up" Hands up".

 

[Nessie]

I would say that the likelihood of a CCW permit holder out in his car with partner and child is not going to suddenly draw and fire on a police officer.

The cop who killed the driver is going to exaggerate the actions of the driver so as to try and justify his actions to himself and others. Fact is the cop grossly over reacted to a low threat situation, panicked and fired.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Could a robbery suspect not travel with a different campanion four days later? Who knows how good a look he got at the driver and passenger?

According to the radio communication transcript posted earlier:

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says.

The officer expressed his belief that both occupants of the vehicle might be the robbery suspects.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... The cop who killed the driver is going to exaggerate the actions of the driver so as to try and justify his actions to himself and others. Fact is the cop grossly over reacted to a low threat situation, panicked and fired.

My reading as well. There was no crime in progress, or past crime to worry of that we know about, so there is no logical reason for the gentleman to draw intentionally on the officer. Guilty of driving while black, and killed for it.

 

[applecorped]

guilty of hyperbole

 

[jimbob]

My reading as well. There was no crime in progress, or past crime to worry of that we know about, so there is no logical reason for the gentleman to draw intentionally on the officer. Guilty of driving while black, and killed for it.

guilty of hyperbole

Why do you think that is hyperbole? He was an innocent victim whose looks almost certainly* made him seem more of a risk to the policeman.

The police need better training or screening at the least. Personally, I think that this demonstrates that being in a society where people have easy access to guns makes police more trigger happy, which is understandable**



*There are plenty of articles and studies on institutional and unconscious profiling.

**But not excusable.

 

[jimbob]

He had been stopped 52 times previously and more than half the 86 violations against him had been dismissed.

That's a shocking number of dismissed charges.

 

[paulhutch]

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

NO! (and I've never even come close to even implying such a thing)

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

You're equating KARE11 the NBC TV station in Minneapolis to a disgusting Hollywood production that promotes racism and slavery, that's nuts.

 

[paulhutch]

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

+1 I completely agree with this statement.

 

[Mumbles]

NO! (and I've never even come close to even implying such a thing)



You're equating KARE11 the NBC TV station in Minneapolis to a disgusting Hollywood production that promotes racism and slavery, that's nuts.

I went back and looked at what I was replying to, and yeah, I messed up. I apologize.

My intent was to compare what you posted to that crap site Conservative Treehouse, who I absolutely do put on the same level as Birth of a Nation. But that didn't come through.