The Castile family just received a $3,000,000 settlement for the murder of their relative. If this cop was so innocent why did the city pay?
3
The problem is that its not whether the officer reasonably thought he was in danger. That is a defense. The problem is the burden of proof to establish that the shooting was malicious. Any claim of any defense, however preposterous, seems to be enough to prevent the prosecutor from reaching that burden. We are a poorly evolved, uncivilized people.
4
The fear of these cops is paranoid fear. They are violent people.
Besides, in most of these situations, they don't need guns. Traffic cops should not have guns.
Guns do kill. So do paranoid people.
Besides, in most of these situations, they don't need guns. Traffic cops should not have guns.
Guns do kill. So do paranoid people.
5
A dept. for traffic and a dept. for crooks?
Any idea how much that would cost, given the worst USA economic position in 100 years?
Sorry for the reality -- couldn't help myself.
Any idea how much that would cost, given the worst USA economic position in 100 years?
Sorry for the reality -- couldn't help myself.
1
Well CK with about 15,000 murders per year in America, how many did you see? All 15,000 were seen by the police. The first responders. Think about it! It would make anybody paranoid. You too!
1
For black people, these officers are more like Judge Dredd, because video evidence, which was proven to be futile from the beginning (see: Eric Garner,) isn't enough to question the word of the officer against theirs.
4
The over kill is awful. 6 or 7 shots? The fear and hate must be mind numbing. there is no excuse for that kind of fear. There must be more training and mental testing. We must quit teaching so much hatred, it is taught, it does not come naturally.
2
It's become apparent that the American public has become befuddled by all the violence that our society justifies and is permeated by, and it can't tell the difference between justice, injustice and a hole in the ground. So, even the trust in our jury system has eroded greatly in my lifetime, to the point of it being a farce.
To these eyes, this was an unjustified killing plain and simple, committed by someone who probably should not have been in possession of any firearm, or have any authority over any fellow citizen or human being. The fact that it was committed in broad daylight in front of the dead man's woman and child, and the jury still couldn't see the enormity of this crime against a fellow American citizen and human being, regardless of any and all priors, is further proof of the erosion of our working class and even unemployed rights and freedoms as American citizens.
In a way, the public ha become so brainwashed into accepting authoritarian violence, it rubber stamps these human rights atrocities, which is what they would be called if they happened almost anywhere else in the world.
Shooting innocent people dead first and asking the hard questions required later should be seen for what it is, a gross injustice and violation of civil and human rights. Trigger happy gunslinger justice is no justice at all, except in the land of the free and home of the brave? How'd we arrive at this state of affairs in 2017? Hollywood and video violence, creeping militarism?
To these eyes, this was an unjustified killing plain and simple, committed by someone who probably should not have been in possession of any firearm, or have any authority over any fellow citizen or human being. The fact that it was committed in broad daylight in front of the dead man's woman and child, and the jury still couldn't see the enormity of this crime against a fellow American citizen and human being, regardless of any and all priors, is further proof of the erosion of our working class and even unemployed rights and freedoms as American citizens.
In a way, the public ha become so brainwashed into accepting authoritarian violence, it rubber stamps these human rights atrocities, which is what they would be called if they happened almost anywhere else in the world.
Shooting innocent people dead first and asking the hard questions required later should be seen for what it is, a gross injustice and violation of civil and human rights. Trigger happy gunslinger justice is no justice at all, except in the land of the free and home of the brave? How'd we arrive at this state of affairs in 2017? Hollywood and video violence, creeping militarism?
12
Follow what the police say, and get killed. Fall on the ground, and not be a threat, and get shot--the Charles Kinsey incident in North Miami from last year.
Run away from the police, unarmed, and get shot-- the Walter Scott South Carolina incident in 2015.
As long as there is no accountability for the "lawful but awful" shootings by police, tension will remain between African Americans (along with other minorities) and the police/justice system.
Run away from the police, unarmed, and get shot-- the Walter Scott South Carolina incident in 2015.
As long as there is no accountability for the "lawful but awful" shootings by police, tension will remain between African Americans (along with other minorities) and the police/justice system.
8
Not just minorities ... minorities, as a whole, certainly have it worse but white people -- particularly white men, who don't look obviously wealthy enough to bring a world of hurt onto police departments via a team of lawyers, are also mistreated on a daily basis across the country. This is in no way meant to diminish the plight of minorities, particularly black men, trying to survive routine encounters with police but the current popular narrative treats the situation as though only minorities need worry about their civil rights being ignored by police. I think that this allows too many people to dismiss the problem that has developed due to racial bias that tells them that police are just doing their jobs and keeping "certain types of troublemakers in line." This is a national problem that has been building for a long time. Do to the War on Drugs police have began disregarding 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches decades ago. This has been exacerbated by the dramatic increases of civil asset forfeitures that law enforcement agents have made going from a bit over 400 million dollars in 2004 to over 4.5 BILLION dollars 10 years later. People coming carrying cash from casinos, to buy used cars & other legiitimate purposes are routinely stopped and relieved of perfectly legal money on highways & airports. In literally 80% of instances no charges are even filed against the people whose money is taken. Our police have run amuck & the situation must be fixed.
5
I've been a criminal defense attorney for more than 23 years and a public defender for nearly all of those years. A friend of mine was shot and killed by police. With all my heart, I believe the police had no choice but to shoot my friend.
The question in an officer involved shooting case is: Did the officer reasonably believe s/he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The officer doesn't have the advantage of minutes or even seconds to analyze a situation. The officer doesn't have the advantage of a second line of sight. The officer doesn't have the advantage of time to look around to determine if the gun or knife was dropped. The officer doesn't have a person's detailed mental health history.
Frequently, police deal with people on illegal drugs. Crack, cocaine, PCP, spice, methamphetamine, and an assortment of other drugs can, and frequently do, cause a person to become violent and to become violent in a fraction of a second.
Many law enforcement agencies offer a citizen's academy where people from the community sit through several weeks worth of education, including when police can use deadly force. I attended a citizen's academy after I had been in practice for 20 years. I didn't know how much I didn't know until I attended a citizen's academy.
Before you criticize any officer for using deadly force, attend a citizen's academy. Talk to the sheriff or chief of police about the use of deadly force.
The question in an officer involved shooting case is: Did the officer reasonably believe s/he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The officer doesn't have the advantage of minutes or even seconds to analyze a situation. The officer doesn't have the advantage of a second line of sight. The officer doesn't have the advantage of time to look around to determine if the gun or knife was dropped. The officer doesn't have a person's detailed mental health history.
Frequently, police deal with people on illegal drugs. Crack, cocaine, PCP, spice, methamphetamine, and an assortment of other drugs can, and frequently do, cause a person to become violent and to become violent in a fraction of a second.
Many law enforcement agencies offer a citizen's academy where people from the community sit through several weeks worth of education, including when police can use deadly force. I attended a citizen's academy after I had been in practice for 20 years. I didn't know how much I didn't know until I attended a citizen's academy.
Before you criticize any officer for using deadly force, attend a citizen's academy. Talk to the sheriff or chief of police about the use of deadly force.
3
But the officer does have two eyes and the benefit of training (we hope). The problem is the idea that whatever the officer reasonably believes, no matter how unreasonable, is justification. Unless and until we have the courage to start defining what exact is unreasonable for an officer, unless we are will to call out the obvious lies, this is not justifiable self defense or even justice under trying circumstances, it is execution. The officer claimed that he thought Philando Castile was reaching for his gun. NONSENSE! I saw the video and no REASONABLE person, cop or not, could have thought that. What the cop really thought was that it was reasonable excuse if the jury buys it. And they did. Most likely with a little grease from the bench.
3
I have some training on military rules of engagement. I'm also in the medical profession. My problem is usually not with the moment the officer fires the gun. By that point they typically are in fear for their life. But both the military and the medical community have taught me to look at the chain of events. Did the officer create the situation where they felt their only choice was deadly force? Did they get tunnel vision and react out of proportion to the threat? Does the department condone aggressive and unprofessional behavior during regular interactions with the community? Do departments force officers into positions where they might make bad decisions because of inadequate staffing, training or equipment?
In many of these cases the answer is yes. And when that is true, convicting individual cops isn't going to fix anything. The entire department is at fault, more than the individual officer. That's what we need to change.
In many of these cases the answer is yes. And when that is true, convicting individual cops isn't going to fix anything. The entire department is at fault, more than the individual officer. That's what we need to change.
2
The aim of these reporters is to convict policemen, regardless of the evidence.
1
You clearly did not read this carefully researched and reasoned article!
1
The aim of corrupt police officers (not all of them) seems to be kill first, ask questions later.
2
No I don't think that's the aim, the aim is just a sensationalized story.
1
The key to the problem is stated straight out here:
"The foreman said the law, as written, prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the troubling video. “I believe that I speak for the whole of the jury, when I say that the general public in these types of cases are unaware of just how specifically the rule of law dictates how a jury must reach a verdict,” the foreman wrote.
What is seen in the videos is subject to the law as explained by the judge. . In one of the states involved here, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer acted with malice. Proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt is next to impossible.
Some states have no special standard for the police. Some don't require malice. But even in involuntary homicide cases, the officer must have flagrantly violated professional standards. While a motive isn't required, juries look for them. Most of these cases are cross-race and the videos raise the question of racism. But it is one thing to raise the question and another to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The video is generally the factual core of the case. The law is the legal standard that applies. In all these cases, the particular law that applies is critical, as stated by the quoted jury foreman. The foreman notes that the law is a mystery to the public, and he is correct. An informed public needs to know the law. The video tells only half the story.
"The foreman said the law, as written, prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the troubling video. “I believe that I speak for the whole of the jury, when I say that the general public in these types of cases are unaware of just how specifically the rule of law dictates how a jury must reach a verdict,” the foreman wrote.
What is seen in the videos is subject to the law as explained by the judge. . In one of the states involved here, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer acted with malice. Proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt is next to impossible.
Some states have no special standard for the police. Some don't require malice. But even in involuntary homicide cases, the officer must have flagrantly violated professional standards. While a motive isn't required, juries look for them. Most of these cases are cross-race and the videos raise the question of racism. But it is one thing to raise the question and another to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The video is generally the factual core of the case. The law is the legal standard that applies. In all these cases, the particular law that applies is critical, as stated by the quoted jury foreman. The foreman notes that the law is a mystery to the public, and he is correct. An informed public needs to know the law. The video tells only half the story.
3
Cops kill more whites than minorities, but that may be just because there are more whites. I cannot remember a news story featuring a police involved shooting of a white person.
Look at these cases. In one, the officer, in the act of defending himself against an armed suspect, is expected to stop shooting the instant the criminal tosses his gun. Who among us would be able to do that?
In another case, an legally armed driver was reaching for his drivers license located in the pocket next to his firearm. This case is really sad. The driver was doing the right thing by producing his license, while the officer saw his hand move towards the gun. The result would have been different if the person said "My license is in my pocket next to my holster. What would you like me to do officer?"
Everyone, when dealing with the police must realize they are authorized to use deadly force. Regardless of the facts, the orders of the police must be obeyed in the moment. Keep your hands in view. Showing respect, instead of confrontation, helps.
Look at these cases. In one, the officer, in the act of defending himself against an armed suspect, is expected to stop shooting the instant the criminal tosses his gun. Who among us would be able to do that?
In another case, an legally armed driver was reaching for his drivers license located in the pocket next to his firearm. This case is really sad. The driver was doing the right thing by producing his license, while the officer saw his hand move towards the gun. The result would have been different if the person said "My license is in my pocket next to my holster. What would you like me to do officer?"
Everyone, when dealing with the police must realize they are authorized to use deadly force. Regardless of the facts, the orders of the police must be obeyed in the moment. Keep your hands in view. Showing respect, instead of confrontation, helps.
3
"My license is in my pocket next to my holster. What would you like me to do officer?"
Yes. Can only college-educated people speak like this? It involves reasoning (the police officer might misconstrue my action). I'm quite serious. How many of these horrible events would have been avoided, if communication had been more sophisticated and more clear?
In the instance in which the man tosses his gun, isn't he tossing it IN ORDER THAT he can leap the fence and pick it up again? I mean, I don't think he tossed his gun and the came to a complete standstill wit his hands behind his head.
Yes. Can only college-educated people speak like this? It involves reasoning (the police officer might misconstrue my action). I'm quite serious. How many of these horrible events would have been avoided, if communication had been more sophisticated and more clear?
In the instance in which the man tosses his gun, isn't he tossing it IN ORDER THAT he can leap the fence and pick it up again? I mean, I don't think he tossed his gun and the came to a complete standstill wit his hands behind his head.
Barry you need to pay more attention to the news. There are several cases of cops shooting white citizens. You call yourself Boston Barry. The most notorious case of a cop shooting a white person occurred near Boston. Cops shot both Tsaernaev brothers killing the older one. There are more but I won't waste my time refreshing your memory. Last I checked they were both white and from Russia. Also Castile did like the cop say which was to produce his ID. Anyway why would someone who told a cop he got a gun turns around to shoot the cop? No reasonable person believe that. Most likely that cop was under the influence of some sort of narcotic or other drug that made him fear for his life. And the jurors who let him off won't be able to sleep well at night because even they know what they did was wrong.
3
Comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S.
Great photo of the high capacity magazine in the gun Smith had. I wonder what he was doing with that gun. He wouldn't use it to shoot at the officer, would he?
1
Since he threw it over the fence, apparently he didn't think of shooting the officer with it.
1
but, Dan, wasn't he trying to leap over the fence to pick up the gun and flee? It looks like he was not surrendering. He trying to flee. If he had been surrendering, he would have dropped the gun at his feet. Not tossed it over the fence.
Dan, I ask you this: Does the man look like he's surrendering or fleeing?
Dan, I ask you this: Does the man look like he's surrendering or fleeing?
Are we saying that jurors are not indicting police officers because of racism? The jurors did not convict the police involved with Gray in Baltimore, but most of the police involved were black as were many jurors. Were they racist? More whites are killed by police than any other race - is this some kind of bias or racism?
Or, are there some police that should not have that job; do not have the disposition to refrain from reacting whether out of fear or anger? Do readers here know that many on the force, especially in urban areas, have been convicted of crimes before even joining the force? Would it be a good idea to prohibit a person convicted of a crime from joining the police force? Or, would that somehow be racist too?
Or, are there some police that should not have that job; do not have the disposition to refrain from reacting whether out of fear or anger? Do readers here know that many on the force, especially in urban areas, have been convicted of crimes before even joining the force? Would it be a good idea to prohibit a person convicted of a crime from joining the police force? Or, would that somehow be racist too?
2
Michjas that is why there are appeals court. I'm sure the DA who brought the case knows the law better than the foreman of the jury. So I am not buy that drivel. Cops can't just going shooting people claiming they feared for their lives then the taxpayers end up paying out millions of dollars in civil lawsuits like they already did in this case. I agree with some people that some jurors are fearful of cops who might want to intimidate them. I know this happened in New York where some cops kept beating up a man who gave directions to the crazy man who shot and killed two cops inside their patrol car in Brooklyn. The man was walking down the street when the would be killer stopped him and asked for directions. He had no idea who he was and what he intended to do. I give people directions all the time if they stop and ask me. Well they have beaten this man on more than one occasion. The last incident two detectives were arrested and charged because there was a camera in the vicinity to back up that happened to the victim. So I think it has more to do with fear than a reading of the law. And that is very sad because we are a nation of laws not a nation of who has the most power in government like the police to be able to intimidate the rest of us. If that is so then amend the constitution so only judges rule on cases like they do in many other countries.
I thought police were going to be supplied stun guns and instructed to use them first; before pulling out a gun. I know that stun guns have a downside too, but seems that is a better solution. If stunned, you cannot shot, right?
1
We must face the fact that our predominantly yahoo juries will never convict a law enforcement officer, at least very, very rarely.
5
Maybe because there is no real physical evidence that anybody was injured much less killed.
The excuse "I feared for my life" might have meaning for average people. However, police officers, who wear a uniform, carry guns and disport a great, shiny brass-gold colored badge, are supposed to be trained and alleged to have split second responses to imminently deadly situations. They are thus trained NOT to be always "fearful for their lives."Isn't that why thery are paid to wear uniform, gun, badge and et al?
These individuals and police in general, "claim" by the fact that they often make demands for extra pay, based on their special skills and espcial bravery. That they "
every day, "place their lives on the line" and that"I could be killed at any moment, (but I never fear or flinch because I am so well trained)"
If this is so, yet they claim to be in constant fear for their lives. Whenever they even "think, or consider the vague possibility" that some other person might have a gun or other "weapon"(do pocket knives count? What about as steel nail file in a woman's purse?)
So, if they are actually such quaking bowls of jiggling terror, ought they not to resign their police commissions and find a safe and peaceful line of work- maybe?
Facing the public-some of who, in the USA have guns, is clearly too frightening a job for most. As police, they are supposed to be far more fearless and brave then we 'ordinary people'. Why do we then judge them as though they are 14 year old junior high school students ? Maybe let the kids police us, instead?
These individuals and police in general, "claim" by the fact that they often make demands for extra pay, based on their special skills and espcial bravery. That they "
every day, "place their lives on the line" and that"I could be killed at any moment, (but I never fear or flinch because I am so well trained)"
If this is so, yet they claim to be in constant fear for their lives. Whenever they even "think, or consider the vague possibility" that some other person might have a gun or other "weapon"(do pocket knives count? What about as steel nail file in a woman's purse?)
So, if they are actually such quaking bowls of jiggling terror, ought they not to resign their police commissions and find a safe and peaceful line of work- maybe?
Facing the public-some of who, in the USA have guns, is clearly too frightening a job for most. As police, they are supposed to be far more fearless and brave then we 'ordinary people'. Why do we then judge them as though they are 14 year old junior high school students ? Maybe let the kids police us, instead?
8
I am a white over sixty female who likes to walk, and I have had NUMEROUS encounters with hyped up, nervous, aggressive cops, one of which pulled his gun on me for having my dog off the leash (AND he was a mounted cop, so he was pointing a gun at me from a great height.)
There is something wrong with how cops are trained, these days. Very wrong. Sessions going back on all the progress Obama made in terms of trying to get cops to be less aggressive and unaccountable, is incredibly depressing.
I am simultaneously frightened to death of cops and despise them, at least the ones that have accosted me over the years. These people should not have guns, just like in the UK. They cannot handle the responsibility, obviously.
There is something wrong with how cops are trained, these days. Very wrong. Sessions going back on all the progress Obama made in terms of trying to get cops to be less aggressive and unaccountable, is incredibly depressing.
I am simultaneously frightened to death of cops and despise them, at least the ones that have accosted me over the years. These people should not have guns, just like in the UK. They cannot handle the responsibility, obviously.
20
With all due respect to the expetiences you have had, it stands to reason that if you hate and fear an entire group of people without regard to people as individuals, that your interactions will automatically be biased towards negative outcomes.
I'm sitting in an airport right now, and I spent 20 minutes laughing and joking with the TSA people whose job was to rummage through my things and scan my body. I hate the invasive nature of the searches and the inconvenience, but I don't see any of the people doing that job as inherently evil, much less the entire group as a whole.
Maybe if all of us stopped judging eachother (in both directions in these stupid conflicts over things like class and race) and understood that we are all human beings who generally want the same things in life, we wouldnt have so many people shooting eachother like we are foreign enemies in a war instead of fellow countrymen.
Solving problems is not a team sport.
I'm sitting in an airport right now, and I spent 20 minutes laughing and joking with the TSA people whose job was to rummage through my things and scan my body. I hate the invasive nature of the searches and the inconvenience, but I don't see any of the people doing that job as inherently evil, much less the entire group as a whole.
Maybe if all of us stopped judging eachother (in both directions in these stupid conflicts over things like class and race) and understood that we are all human beings who generally want the same things in life, we wouldnt have so many people shooting eachother like we are foreign enemies in a war instead of fellow countrymen.
Solving problems is not a team sport.
2
Think about being a cop today. Almost none have war experience and few have been seriously unemployed. They are now learning that under any circumstances they will be let off by juries (afraid they'll be targeted by angry police?)... Why not threaten the public? No one will stop the police. . .
Further-it needs to be recalled that this began in the 90's , with the so called OJ Simpson case-where, a man who had clearly committed a terrible pair of bloody murders, with a knife, was let off because the jurors, all women of a certain age, decided he was too precious an asset to convict. That he had only killed a white women-his wife, and a white man-who didn't count as special, or a movie star.
This is all of American society, now, having climbed into little ethnic self protective units, pushing all outsiders off the cliff, when they feel the need. Cops as a special group are no different than Blacks who , almost uniformly agreed with the OJ Simpson verdict-regardless of evidence-"if the glove don't fit- u-must acquit"
(the glove fit fine!-OJ had a pair of rubber gloves on underneath. ..I saw them as did anyone willing to look . .
This will continue until or unless we cease expecting happily ever after verdicts from groups so self involved and refusing to acknowledge the rights and humanity of others.
Further-it needs to be recalled that this began in the 90's , with the so called OJ Simpson case-where, a man who had clearly committed a terrible pair of bloody murders, with a knife, was let off because the jurors, all women of a certain age, decided he was too precious an asset to convict. That he had only killed a white women-his wife, and a white man-who didn't count as special, or a movie star.
This is all of American society, now, having climbed into little ethnic self protective units, pushing all outsiders off the cliff, when they feel the need. Cops as a special group are no different than Blacks who , almost uniformly agreed with the OJ Simpson verdict-regardless of evidence-"if the glove don't fit- u-must acquit"
(the glove fit fine!-OJ had a pair of rubber gloves on underneath. ..I saw them as did anyone willing to look . .
This will continue until or unless we cease expecting happily ever after verdicts from groups so self involved and refusing to acknowledge the rights and humanity of others.
meloop I guess you did not get the memo. Blacks did not agree with Simpson's verdict. It's been said over and over that Simpson happened to be a black man in American who used his money to beat the system and that is what that was all about. The rich and the mighty often don't do prison time. Remember the affluenza kid who killed four people in a car accident but a judge refused to lock him up because his parents are wealthy and that was the problem. By the time Simpson had a trial in Las Vegas for robbery and he was convicted and now doing time blacks did not care about him because he was wealthy and arrogant. Most people with common sense would have just waved that man off who told him some people got some of his trophies and want to sell them. Who cares? The man has a great pension for the rest of his life but his mind is so small that he just could not let a lark go.
After the Michael Brown fiasco where where many witnesses lied and then many rose up to defend the thug people are siding with the cops. After all, your police are only a representation of your society.
And a great society police force would be great. In a Criminal society the police force would be criminal. We live in a violent society therefore...
And a great society police force would be great. In a Criminal society the police force would be criminal. We live in a violent society therefore...
5
The jury foreman wrote, "...the law, as written, prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the troubling video. 'I believe that I speak for the whole of the jury, when I say that the general public in these types of cases are unaware of just how specifically the rule of law dictates how a jury must reach a verdict."
So where is the rest of the article? The foreman gave a pointer. What is the law here that is so different that police are not subject to the ordinary rule of law? Do we have yet another case of "separate but equal" that is anything but?
So where is the rest of the article? The foreman gave a pointer. What is the law here that is so different that police are not subject to the ordinary rule of law? Do we have yet another case of "separate but equal" that is anything but?
11
To convict a murderer, one must have no reasonable doubt. That is the law. If there is any doubt, you cannot convict.
There is a different standard for police. Police have a duty to confront persons suspected of breaking the law. We have the option of walking away. So the police routinely face dangers the rest of us can easily avoid. That's why they carry weapons.
1
A detailed analysis of the videos reveals much more then the incendiary media had to offer on them. The media likes to convict first and then confuse the evidence, this is not how it works in an impartial court of law.
5
Then why do the police file false police reports in 100% of these shootings, as their bosses admit?
Then why did the police block dash cams and precinct cams for decades?
Then why does the world's largest police force not have dash cams still?
This is why the NYTimes printed your utterly specious comment (that fits the NYPD's agenda perfectly) (what a stroke of luck, right?) but blocks us educated liberals.
Then why did the police block dash cams and precinct cams for decades?
Then why does the world's largest police force not have dash cams still?
This is why the NYTimes printed your utterly specious comment (that fits the NYPD's agenda perfectly) (what a stroke of luck, right?) but blocks us educated liberals.
As a country we have allowed every citizen to be armed. You can be shot and killed in the blink of an eye. Does the 2nd amendment and our current implementation really allow for a routine traffic stop to turn deadly?
The article talks about police training. I'd like to know what type of training is necessary to ensure everyone's safety when two nervous people face off at the side of a car both equipped to use deadly force?
The article talks about police training. I'd like to know what type of training is necessary to ensure everyone's safety when two nervous people face off at the side of a car both equipped to use deadly force?
9
When It Comes to Police Shootings, the US doesn't even look like a Developed Nation. -PRI
People killed by police gunfire, annually (per 100 million people)
US 3.11
Australia 0.21
Denmark 0.18
Netherlands 0.14
Germany 0.10
New Zealand 0.08
England & Wales 0.04
Singapore 0.03
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/when-it-comes-police-shootings-us...
"By the Numbers: US Police Kill More in Days than Other Countries Kill In Years" -the Guardian US police fired 17 bullets at a guy with a rock, 3 times as many as were fired in Finland in and entire year.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killi...
People killed by police gunfire, annually (per 100 million people)
US 3.11
Australia 0.21
Denmark 0.18
Netherlands 0.14
Germany 0.10
New Zealand 0.08
England & Wales 0.04
Singapore 0.03
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/when-it-comes-police-shootings-us...
"By the Numbers: US Police Kill More in Days than Other Countries Kill In Years" -the Guardian US police fired 17 bullets at a guy with a rock, 3 times as many as were fired in Finland in and entire year.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killi...
9
OK, two left-wing media "studies." So what?
1
You failed to mention that the murder rate in the United States is higher than all those countries put together. I would think that would be a big part of the equation.
2
Mick, do you think maybe it has something to do with the easy availability of firearms?
It is so troubling, disheartening and infuriating that video recordings have not influenced jurors to view these killings as crimes/murders, not self-defense, as many of us had hoped they would.
The bottom line: if you are a black man, the odds are stacked heavily against you that your family and loved ones will see justice served by the "shoot first, ask questions later" (or never)" mentality of some law enforcement officers throughout this country.
As a white woman, I cannot even imagine how terrifying it must be to see those flashing lights coming up behind you.
The bottom line: if you are a black man, the odds are stacked heavily against you that your family and loved ones will see justice served by the "shoot first, ask questions later" (or never)" mentality of some law enforcement officers throughout this country.
As a white woman, I cannot even imagine how terrifying it must be to see those flashing lights coming up behind you.
12
No body camera is going to show the mind of the officer wearing it. Everything can be justified by his fear of imminent danger from a black man or his belief that the black man was reaching for a weapon.
If I deny myself "white privilege"--notice that these high-profile shootings do not involve white men--, I ask for a supervisor at any stop, put my arms through the steering wheel, and keep my hands on the dashboard. I assert fear of an aggressive office likely to think my reaching for a license in my wallet or my car registration in my dashboard drawer as a threat to his life.
So long as police invoke fear as a justification for shooting people at traffic stops for minor infractions, people have a right to invoke fear as a reason for waiting for supervisors to arrive and, one hopes, ensure their safety. But trust a cop or two on a traffic stop, no way--unless I want to rely on my white skin to protect me.
If I deny myself "white privilege"--notice that these high-profile shootings do not involve white men--, I ask for a supervisor at any stop, put my arms through the steering wheel, and keep my hands on the dashboard. I assert fear of an aggressive office likely to think my reaching for a license in my wallet or my car registration in my dashboard drawer as a threat to his life.
So long as police invoke fear as a justification for shooting people at traffic stops for minor infractions, people have a right to invoke fear as a reason for waiting for supervisors to arrive and, one hopes, ensure their safety. But trust a cop or two on a traffic stop, no way--unless I want to rely on my white skin to protect me.
6
Far more white people are shot by cops than any other race. What are you talking about?
4
It's not true that the shootings do not occur with white men as the victim. In fact it even happens more often. It's just not a story anyone wants to read. It's not news. It's like so what?
4
No amount or quality of video will change the fact that some juries simply will not convict a police officer. Still, video may make a difference over time, as officers who kill unarmed people sometimes lose their jobs, and others become more circumspect.
4
To the general public, most of the camera footage in police shootings has been clear, convincing, unambiguous, and terrible.
But body- and phone-camera footage is still new in courtrooms. I think prosecutors are still figuring out how to use such evidence--how to give it context.
Juries today have expectations about "the facts" of which they are supposed to be the finders that are shaped by television shows (both fictional and "reconstructed" or "ripped from the headlines"), in which the camera evidence has zero ambiguity. I've served on several juries and seen how the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" provides shelter for those who just do not want to convict. Above all, though, prosecutors face the reality that juries nearly always have at least one or two members who simply will not convict a member of law enforcement.
To overcome this may take some time, and a lot more videos posted on the Internet. For example, it is shameful that the footage of the shooting of Philando Castile was not made public until after the trial.
But body- and phone-camera footage is still new in courtrooms. I think prosecutors are still figuring out how to use such evidence--how to give it context.
Juries today have expectations about "the facts" of which they are supposed to be the finders that are shaped by television shows (both fictional and "reconstructed" or "ripped from the headlines"), in which the camera evidence has zero ambiguity. I've served on several juries and seen how the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" provides shelter for those who just do not want to convict. Above all, though, prosecutors face the reality that juries nearly always have at least one or two members who simply will not convict a member of law enforcement.
To overcome this may take some time, and a lot more videos posted on the Internet. For example, it is shameful that the footage of the shooting of Philando Castile was not made public until after the trial.
2
If the footage or any evidence is made public before a trial, then one cannot possibly get objective jurors. It is a hallmark of our justice system that investigations are conducted without bias of any kind (or was until those required to keep investigations under wraps started leaking).
1
Most prosecutors work with the local police every day. They are biased. If they prosecute a cop successfully, their cases and the careers can be sabotaged. An easy way to get around that is to charge the officer with a crime that is not reflected in the facts, so the jurors, following the letter of the law, under the judges instructions, can't convict. If you don't believe this, look at the TV lawyers wondering why the police are charged with murder one, when it is not likely to be proved.
What prosecutors should be doing is using these cases to go after the top brass, and how they train and deploy their officers. When an organization is committing crimes you pressure the bottom level to rat on the king pins. But how likely is that when the prosecutor talks to the police commissioner regularly?
What prosecutors should be doing is using these cases to go after the top brass, and how they train and deploy their officers. When an organization is committing crimes you pressure the bottom level to rat on the king pins. But how likely is that when the prosecutor talks to the police commissioner regularly?
3
As someone else wrote:
'The foreman said the law, as written, prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the troubling video. “I believe that I speak for the whole of the jury, when I say that the general public in these types of cases are unaware of just how specifically the rule of law dictates how a jury must reach a verdict,” the foreman wrote.'
So even though the jury thought the cop did in fact kill the 'suspect' it wasn't proved, or provable, that he did so with malice aforethought.
'The foreman said the law, as written, prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the troubling video. “I believe that I speak for the whole of the jury, when I say that the general public in these types of cases are unaware of just how specifically the rule of law dictates how a jury must reach a verdict,” the foreman wrote.'
So even though the jury thought the cop did in fact kill the 'suspect' it wasn't proved, or provable, that he did so with malice aforethought.
I have both career cops and career crooks in my family.
My cop family have seen nothing but sheer cop incompetence at a minimum with malice aforethought based upon white supremacist myth at a maximum in these cop videos. With black cops and black jurors buying into and participating in and perpetuating the myth to detriment of all black folks.
Back in my youth on the South Side of Chicago both the two best and the two worst cops were black. Blacks are presumed guilty while whites are presumed innocent.
Cliven Bundy, family and friends were armed angry white males while standing against federal government law enforcement and they became Fox News Sean Hannity 'heroes'. Lee Oswald, Jim Ray, Eric Frein, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, Randy Weaver and Dylann Roof all survived their cop encounters being separate and more equal while white male.
My cop family have seen nothing but sheer cop incompetence at a minimum with malice aforethought based upon white supremacist myth at a maximum in these cop videos. With black cops and black jurors buying into and participating in and perpetuating the myth to detriment of all black folks.
Back in my youth on the South Side of Chicago both the two best and the two worst cops were black. Blacks are presumed guilty while whites are presumed innocent.
Cliven Bundy, family and friends were armed angry white males while standing against federal government law enforcement and they became Fox News Sean Hannity 'heroes'. Lee Oswald, Jim Ray, Eric Frein, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, Randy Weaver and Dylann Roof all survived their cop encounters being separate and more equal while white male.
17
Since you are quoting your experience, we can look at year to date stats for your Chicago: 2017 YTD
Shooting Victims: 98% Black and Brown
Shooting Assailants: 100% Black and Brown
So - yeah - whites are somewhat presumed innocent based on simple statistics.
If you want to see this data simply google gun violence in chicago for a site that accumulates the data.
Shooting Victims: 98% Black and Brown
Shooting Assailants: 100% Black and Brown
So - yeah - whites are somewhat presumed innocent based on simple statistics.
If you want to see this data simply google gun violence in chicago for a site that accumulates the data.
Wasn't the Cliven Bundy standoff a federal matter? I mean, weren't the FBI and/or DEA on the scene for that? Those aren't regular cops. Those are FBI agents, which means much more well-trained. Furthermore, if I recall, there was a small army of FBI agents on the scene. Having numbers would lessen anxiety. These police shooting usually involve one or maybe two cops. Not twenty trained FBI agents and/or DEA marshals or what have you. Furthermore, the police shootings are usually happening out on the street very quickly. They aren't like two military camps at a stand off eyeing each other from 100 yards away. My point is just that the situations are more disimilar than they are similar.
The videos are only unclear if viewed through the distorting lens of racism.
12
I am not sure that we can really say that the videos arent clear. I think the issue is this: before video we thought that regular citizens, many of them white, refused to convict cops because they trusted their word against the word of regular black citizens. We knew this was racist but only in a protracted institutional way. Now that we have video, many of us are reeling because we are slowly beginning to realize that the majority of American citizens are actively in support of the eradication of black people. They watch the videos like lynchings and then tell themselves oh well he had it coming.
7
The cop shouldn't be on any police force. He should have backed away or even gone to the rear of the car if he was so afraid of being shot. He's too trigger-happy to be a police officer.
As far as the jury goes, each member should think about their being in the same position as the late Mr. Castile. Perhaps they would have seen the whole situation differently.
And why wasn't the second cop at the passenger's window? Perhaps he could have calmed things down from Yanez's hyperactivity. Sadly, another person has been shot dead.
When are juries going to start taking a good look at the evidence and start to rule in favour of the deceased? And how many more needless deaths will happen before juries take the side of the dead?
As far as the jury goes, each member should think about their being in the same position as the late Mr. Castile. Perhaps they would have seen the whole situation differently.
And why wasn't the second cop at the passenger's window? Perhaps he could have calmed things down from Yanez's hyperactivity. Sadly, another person has been shot dead.
When are juries going to start taking a good look at the evidence and start to rule in favour of the deceased? And how many more needless deaths will happen before juries take the side of the dead?
10
I think the jurors confuse "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "beyond any doubt." Shooting unarmed persons and someone tossing his gun away requires criminal sanctions to ensure the safety of society.
Deficient training and poor communication with the public also needs to be urgently remedied. But any society with so many uncontrolled firearms will always have large numbers of unnecessary deaths. Police will always be mindful of the supply of weapons, as they are entitled to be.
Deficient training and poor communication with the public also needs to be urgently remedied. But any society with so many uncontrolled firearms will always have large numbers of unnecessary deaths. Police will always be mindful of the supply of weapons, as they are entitled to be.
7
What are the instructions to the jury in a murder of an African American by a police person?
Why are the videos not shown from beginning to end? But only a partial video favoring the accused?
Do the citizens of our country have to Change every law in existence to get true justice?
State law makers , fix this and do it before it's too late.and you have a revolution on injustices.
Why are the videos not shown from beginning to end? But only a partial video favoring the accused?
Do the citizens of our country have to Change every law in existence to get true justice?
State law makers , fix this and do it before it's too late.and you have a revolution on injustices.
1
Why does this story keep coming back to the perp who actually had a gun? Why does the media pick Scott Brown (big scary and aggressive, and no video) as its poster boy for police shootings, and not Tamir Rice, the 12 year old shot to death in 3 seconds for playing with a toy gun, in an open carry state? The media creates the narrative, through biased coverage and biased fiction like cop shows, that minorities are dangerous.
The problem is not the apples. Its the barrel. The system encourages and protects the worse officers, who go on to train rookies, most of whom just want to help people.
Watch the Seven Five to see how the entire precinct in East NY, Brooklyn, was corrupted, protecting drug dears, and mugging people in hallways.
In Ferguson, the Justice Department found that the City Manager, Chief of Police, and Judge, were engaged in a conspiracy on email, to ticket blacks for bogus tickets to close the budget gap. They were not arrested.
In normal crime, police threaten to prosecute small players to get to the ring leaders.That is what we should be doing with police. But prosecutors often protect the system by bringing inappropriate charges.
"The foreman said, the law as written prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the video." This has happened numerous times, with outside lawyers wondering why prosecutors bring murder 1 charges when lessor charges make more sense, for example.
The system pays half the poor to kill the other half.
Fix it!
The problem is not the apples. Its the barrel. The system encourages and protects the worse officers, who go on to train rookies, most of whom just want to help people.
Watch the Seven Five to see how the entire precinct in East NY, Brooklyn, was corrupted, protecting drug dears, and mugging people in hallways.
In Ferguson, the Justice Department found that the City Manager, Chief of Police, and Judge, were engaged in a conspiracy on email, to ticket blacks for bogus tickets to close the budget gap. They were not arrested.
In normal crime, police threaten to prosecute small players to get to the ring leaders.That is what we should be doing with police. But prosecutors often protect the system by bringing inappropriate charges.
"The foreman said, the law as written prevented the jurors from returning a guilty verdict, regardless of the video." This has happened numerous times, with outside lawyers wondering why prosecutors bring murder 1 charges when lessor charges make more sense, for example.
The system pays half the poor to kill the other half.
Fix it!
6
" .. Tamir Rice, the 12 year old shot to death .."
That officer was fired -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/us/cleveland-police-tamir-rice.html
Hey, y'all get robbed, call the ACLU Police. Good luck. You'll need it.
That officer was fired -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/us/cleveland-police-tamir-rice.html
Hey, y'all get robbed, call the ACLU Police. Good luck. You'll need it.
The cameras are intended to document what actually happened. The authors appear to suggest at the start that they are designed to "ensure convictions" and they have failed if they don't.
It is disappointing that the reporters seem to have set out with a set of preconceptions, but it is fortunate that those seem to have been shaken, at least to some extent.
It will be interesting to see whether the increasingly widespread use of such cameras leads to more or fewer convictions of police involved in these incidents.
It is disappointing that the reporters seem to have set out with a set of preconceptions, but it is fortunate that those seem to have been shaken, at least to some extent.
It will be interesting to see whether the increasingly widespread use of such cameras leads to more or fewer convictions of police involved in these incidents.
3
All of these cases are disputed in one way or another. It would be better to see onlookers, such as reporters, especially, take a more patient stance on these matters, which after all, they usually did not witness. Our tradition is to say innocent until proven guilty. That is a powerful principle of our justice system, and accused persons ought to be able to rely on it unquestioningly. That goes for people of any particular background. No person accused should be forced to believe that they will be punished for something other than the act of violation itself. Onlookers after the fact, therefore, ought to practice a calm and even skeptical attitude until the investigations and trials are done, and even then rely on the basic decency of the jurors and judges. The quality of being disinterested in matters of serious import is curiously scarce these days, when tensions all around make it essential to let justice take its course.
I am not sure that we can really say that the videos arent clear. I think the issue is this: before video we thought that regular citizens, many of them white, refused to convict cops because they trusted their word against the word of regular black citizens. We knew this was racist but only in a protracted institutional way. Now that we have video, many of us are reeling because we are slowly beginning to realize that the majority of American citizens are actively in support of the eradication of black people. They watch the videos like lynchings and then tell themselves .
1
These jurors are following the laws that in effect have reasonable doubt built in. The fear for ones life defense is so subjective, convictions are impossible. The tapes defy practically any thinking persons senseabilities. International media outlets rightly have a field day with these videos. The many commenters that defend these shootings through victim blaming truly frighten me.
1
It's pretty clear that, so far, video footage is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is hope that with better footage, and more of it, it may get easier. In the case of Philando Castile, the dash-cam video made it clear to me that Mr. Yanez acted hastily and thoughtlessly, but what would possibly have convicted him is simultaneous video showing what Mr. Castile was actually doing. If he was reaching under the seat, then Mr. Yanez had more reason to overreact, if he was calmly reaching into his pants pocket, Mr. Yanez could have been found guilty.
But I think this dodges the larger question of why the victims in these police shootings seem to be solely black men. I really don't see questionable police shootings of people other than black men in the news. So it seems to me that the primary factor in criminal police shootings is racism, and that's probably a major factor in the juries finding the police not guilty too.
And unfortunately, I don't think video proof alone can do anything about racist attitudes, and in order to reduce these murders or increase the convictions of police that have committed murder, we're going to have to do something about racism.
But I think this dodges the larger question of why the victims in these police shootings seem to be solely black men. I really don't see questionable police shootings of people other than black men in the news. So it seems to me that the primary factor in criminal police shootings is racism, and that's probably a major factor in the juries finding the police not guilty too.
And unfortunately, I don't think video proof alone can do anything about racist attitudes, and in order to reduce these murders or increase the convictions of police that have committed murder, we're going to have to do something about racism.
4
"But I think this dodges the larger question of why the victims in these police shootings seem to be solely black men. I really don't see questionable police shootings of people other than black men in the news. So it seems to me that the primary factor in criminal police shootings is racism, and that's probably a major factor in the juries finding the police not guilty too."
What unites all these shootings is that the man has a gun. It's not race that unites them. It's the possession of a hand gun. This doesn't happen to white drivers, because white people don't carry handguns (at least not north of Atlanta). Why is everybody ignoring the gun? name one such incident in which a gun was NOT involved. Name one shooting in which the man who got shot was not holding or in possession (by his own admission) of a gun.
Name one incident in which the man who got shot is not stoned, drunk, or otherwise intoxicated.
What unites these cases are poverty, drug use, and having a gun. Also, lack of compliance with police directive. Am I wrong? I think race is an epiphenomenon. This people HAPPEN to be black, but they are poor, highly intoxicated people in possession of a weapon.
What unites all these shootings is that the man has a gun. It's not race that unites them. It's the possession of a hand gun. This doesn't happen to white drivers, because white people don't carry handguns (at least not north of Atlanta). Why is everybody ignoring the gun? name one such incident in which a gun was NOT involved. Name one shooting in which the man who got shot was not holding or in possession (by his own admission) of a gun.
Name one incident in which the man who got shot is not stoned, drunk, or otherwise intoxicated.
What unites these cases are poverty, drug use, and having a gun. Also, lack of compliance with police directive. Am I wrong? I think race is an epiphenomenon. This people HAPPEN to be black, but they are poor, highly intoxicated people in possession of a weapon.
Sorry Richguy, but your assumptions are incorrect. Plenty of white people carry guns, and plenty of the black men shot dead by police did not have guns. For examples, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner (wasn't shot, but was killed), Freddy Gray (also not shot, just killed).
didn't Tamir Rice have a replica pistol that was indistinguishable from a real pistol, and wasn't the kid pointing it at people at a playground? It's not fair to distinguish between a real gun and a replica that looks like a real gun. Who can tell at 30 feet in the dusk?
Garner and Gray were not shot. Those were very different situations, unless one's ONLY concern is race.
Garner and Gray were not shot. Those were very different situations, unless one's ONLY concern is race.
Just because a person doesn't instantly respond to a police officer, or questions an officer, or tries to explain the situation to an officer, doesn't make it ok for the officer to shoot the person. The minute a person raises an objection, or in some cases, even speaks, the officer is on the defensive. No one should be shot because they have a broken tail light, or ran a stoplight, or even robbed a store. The idea that these highly trained, armed officers, wearing bulletproof vests are threatened by nervous, unarmed motorists is preposterous. I've seen in some of these videos the way officers speak to and manhandle civilians, and it borders on assault.
I'm a white, 64-year old woman, and I was just pulled over by police in my town for driving 34 in a 25 mph zone. I was terrified. I barely spoke, only answered his questions, gave him my license and insurance card and kept my hands on the steering wheel. When I had to reach in my purse for my wallet, my hands were shaking. If I can be so frightened, I can't imagine how some of these Black victims must have felt. As a child, I was taught that the police were my friends and I could depend on them to help me. Now, I'm not so sure.
I'm a white, 64-year old woman, and I was just pulled over by police in my town for driving 34 in a 25 mph zone. I was terrified. I barely spoke, only answered his questions, gave him my license and insurance card and kept my hands on the steering wheel. When I had to reach in my purse for my wallet, my hands were shaking. If I can be so frightened, I can't imagine how some of these Black victims must have felt. As a child, I was taught that the police were my friends and I could depend on them to help me. Now, I'm not so sure.
5
It is difficult to convict police officers involved in fatal police shootings of murder because it’s difficult to show motive or criminal intent. Most officers placed on trial have made dozens or hundreds of previous arrests without drawing or firing their weapon. Arguing that police officers are racist doesn’t work because most police officers places on trial have previously arrested people of all races without drawing or firing their weapon.
I'm very happy for Mr. Castile's family $3M settlement. I'm sure it won't replace him but well help them heal in more comfort.
1
Did the family's lawyer's family get 50%? Anyone know?
Since the video taping of the LAPD beating to near death an unarmed, subdued motorist in 1991, then being acquitted, juries and the public have easily "learned" that, in certain cases, what you "see" is not what's REALLY happening, because, well....(fill in the blank). In the consequent riots that have followed these regular acquitals of officers caught on tape, video is used to convict the rioters and looters, because what you see IS really happening, and that's ALL that's happening. Video in these cases are the "OG"--original gangsters--of "alternate facts;" they're too complicated or outright false when they question police use of deadly force against unarmed black men, but they're evidence beyond doubt when they show "real" criminals in action.
2
The camera footage also puts a check on those people who claim (inaccurately) that they were mistreated by the police. As has often been the case with these BLM cases, the "victim" is sometimes not so innocent as was originally thought, which is, like it or not, the reason so many these cases have dead-ended in court.
11
Tell us, what exactly is it that Philando Castile did that makes you think he was 'not so innocent' that it needed to result in his death?
Or the 12-yr-old Tamir Rice, with a toy gun?
Was Eric Garner, choked to death for selling loosies, so horrible that you think it's okay for police to treat him worse than they'd treat an animal?
The video in the Castile case clearly shows a cop who was scared, in total panic mode, completely incapable of paying attention to what the 'suspect' was saying or how he was acting, ignoring the fact that there was a woman and a very young child in the car.
Do we really want the police to be judge, jury, and executioner? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Or the 12-yr-old Tamir Rice, with a toy gun?
Was Eric Garner, choked to death for selling loosies, so horrible that you think it's okay for police to treat him worse than they'd treat an animal?
The video in the Castile case clearly shows a cop who was scared, in total panic mode, completely incapable of paying attention to what the 'suspect' was saying or how he was acting, ignoring the fact that there was a woman and a very young child in the car.
Do we really want the police to be judge, jury, and executioner? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
7
I remember seeing a guy with a 3 inch pocket knife on a highway, with cops all around him, but at least ten feet away, and one gets out of his car and empties his whole clip into the guy, as he is moving away. Was he mistreated?
2
They didn't know it was a toy gun. It was terribly unfortunate, but they thought it was areal gun. You would too. Didn't people call the police, because Tamir Rice had a "gun." Evidently, those people thought it was real. It wasn't a super-squirter water gun. It was a replica toy gun that looked exactly like a real gun.
Sally B, you and I experience the video footage differently. That's why none of this footage is serving to make a jury's decision open and shut. You say the video "clearly shows." To me, nothing is clearly shown.
Sally B, you and I experience the video footage differently. That's why none of this footage is serving to make a jury's decision open and shut. You say the video "clearly shows." To me, nothing is clearly shown.
1
I think that in wartime the mere possession of a gun is legitimate reason, according to rules of engagement, to shoot someone. How many of these officers have military training? How many of them were trained by people with military experience or training? If a police department utilizes a training program or curriculum put together by an independent company or consultant, are people in that company military veterans?
It should be obvious by now that these cops are trained to shoot to kill at the slightest indication of hostile intent by a person they have encountered especially if they have a gun. Once upon a time it was acceptable for a cop to shoot a perp who was running away. "Stop! Or I'll shoot!", is a common line heard in many early movies.
It should be obvious by now that these cops are trained to shoot to kill at the slightest indication of hostile intent by a person they have encountered especially if they have a gun. Once upon a time it was acceptable for a cop to shoot a perp who was running away. "Stop! Or I'll shoot!", is a common line heard in many early movies.
6
Except there are numerous times when this explanation falls short, Whitelady drives around town shooting people. Subdued. White guys openly carrying guns to Republican convention, allowed past first barrier, stopped at second. Black twelve year old in the same city, in the same open carry state, shot for having a toy gun within 3 seconds of police arriving at the scene. Shoot out between biker gangs, police shoot no one, and the bikers are sitting around on their cell phones later. A bunch of ranchers that don't want to pay their grazing fees point rifles at the FBI, no shots fired y law enforcement. (Untilo one pulled a gun in a traffic stop and was killed.
The list goes on and on. When police encounter white people with guns, they talk them down. When they encounter minorities without guns, or politely pointing out that they have a gun in their pocket, they shoot them down.
But its not the officers. Its the system.
The list goes on and on. When police encounter white people with guns, they talk them down. When they encounter minorities without guns, or politely pointing out that they have a gun in their pocket, they shoot them down.
But its not the officers. Its the system.
3
I know of a black man who drove around town shooting people for two or three weeks and was not killed by cops when he was arrested. He was referred to as " the shotgun stalker" in Washington, DC in 1993.
1
I am in the medical field. Anesthesia specifically. I am literally responsible for a patients life during the procedure. My actions or lack of action may or may not kill orinjure some one. If I were to hurt or kill them without criminal intent I could loose my credentials and lisencure.
It is time that we start doing this in cases such as these. I doubt very much there was criminal intent in the officers actions but in the officer has clearly shown that he is not capable of making good decisions under stress. He should loose his job. This is not punitive. The ability to make decisions under stress is a critical aspect of the job He cannot do it so he should not be an offficer.
It is time that we start doing this in cases such as these. I doubt very much there was criminal intent in the officers actions but in the officer has clearly shown that he is not capable of making good decisions under stress. He should loose his job. This is not punitive. The ability to make decisions under stress is a critical aspect of the job He cannot do it so he should not be an offficer.
46
" .. He should loose his job .."
He did -- http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-officer-found-guilty-fatal-shooting-p...
He did -- http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-officer-found-guilty-fatal-shooting-p...
1
Your own life is not on the line if you mess up though. A policeman's life is.
1
Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the USA. It is estimated that up to 400,000 people die in this country every year as a result of medical error. Cops shoot less than a thousand people in one year and most of them are justified. At 400,000 deaths a year that makes deaths by medical error more than 1,000 deaths a day. Yet medical professionals are not losing their licenses as a result of these deaths. They are handled by the system so that a health professional who spent more than a decade in school is not put out on the street. Doctors protect one another.
When Walter Scott was shot in the back multiple times while running away from a police officer, someone was there in that park with a cell phone. I have no doubt that that police officer would still be working today had it not been for the 'other version' of the events.
Video footage will never be the absolute proof that people seek in the majority of cases. But their existence has changed forever the 'game'. Police can no longer rely on only their story being told and that's a good thing.
Video footage will never be the absolute proof that people seek in the majority of cases. But their existence has changed forever the 'game'. Police can no longer rely on only their story being told and that's a good thing.
40
I agree, and I'm glad you brought up the Walter Scott case, which was not mentioned in this article. There was no ambiguity in that video. And, I simply can't fathom why that resulted in a mistrial. How could any reasonable person conclude that was not murder? He shot him in the back while he was running away and kept shooting. I don't want to speculate what was going through the officer's mind, but how could it possibly have been fear for his life? I am horrified and ashamed that an American jury could not convict in that case.
3
Philando Castile followed Officer Yanez's instructions to the letter in a calm manner. So, what could he have done differently that would have saved his own life? Nothing. His life at that point was in the hands of Offcier Yanez, who "freaked out." Even the other police officer who had arrived to assist prior to the shooting stated that he did not feel threatened by Castile. Based on all of that, how can the jury not have found Yanez liable? It boggles the mind.
No doubt, Yanez feared for his life and that is why he fired. But this fear was unwarranted and somebody died as a result. The police's principle responsibility is to protect the public and in that duty Office Yanez failed miserably. Policing is a difficult job; not everyone is up to it. Office Yanez is one such individual who should be seeking employment elsewhere.
No doubt, Yanez feared for his life and that is why he fired. But this fear was unwarranted and somebody died as a result. The police's principle responsibility is to protect the public and in that duty Office Yanez failed miserably. Policing is a difficult job; not everyone is up to it. Office Yanez is one such individual who should be seeking employment elsewhere.
56
There's a saying in self-help circles: "Feelings are not facts." Perhaps officers should see that posted in their briefing rooms every morning.
1
If you watch the video it is plainly evident that Castile did not follow the officers direction "to the letter". If you read the officer's testimony it is plain that Castile was not listening to the officer's directions. Even Castile's girlfriend offers verbal evidence that Castile was not heeding the officer's directions. It's stipulated in many state laws that people must follow an officers directions especially when a gun is involved.
1
Ron, I don't see a cooperative man in Castile. I see a guy who is reaching and moving and not sitting still as directed. The fact that he has a gun in the car changes things a lot. He's also intoxicated, at this time, right?
I live in NYC. In this area, I don't think many white people carry concealed weapons. Perhaps I m wrong. I think we might read about more violent altercations between police and white drivers, if white people routinely carried concealed weapons. I grew up in Boston and am so sheltered that I have never actually SEEN a handgun (non hunting rifle) outside of a holster. the fact that intoxicated motorists carry guns terrifies me. It's part of lifestyle that I simply cannot fathom. My hunch is that white motorists in Armonk/Bedford/Greenwich don't carry concealed weapons and don't drive stoned. Some, I'm sure, drive drunk, but they usually drive at half the speed limit. I've been trapped behind them on Banksville Rd..
I live in NYC. In this area, I don't think many white people carry concealed weapons. Perhaps I m wrong. I think we might read about more violent altercations between police and white drivers, if white people routinely carried concealed weapons. I grew up in Boston and am so sheltered that I have never actually SEEN a handgun (non hunting rifle) outside of a holster. the fact that intoxicated motorists carry guns terrifies me. It's part of lifestyle that I simply cannot fathom. My hunch is that white motorists in Armonk/Bedford/Greenwich don't carry concealed weapons and don't drive stoned. Some, I'm sure, drive drunk, but they usually drive at half the speed limit. I've been trapped behind them on Banksville Rd..
It's not just in cops' trials. Just last week in Florida a woman was convicted on the 3rd trial for hiring a hitman to kill her husband. There's video of her sitting in the car telling the "hitman" exactly what she wanted. And video of her being hysterical when cops told her that her husband was murdered, which he was not. It was to see how she would react. The first jury found her guilty but an appeals court overturned it. The second jury hung, And the third convicted her after 90 minutes of deliberations. I've served on juries before and I really wish I never have to go back. Some people just want to argue and when I read out excerpts from the documents to support my argument they just ignored it and held to their own way. Some of these people work for the government so it's in their interest to spend time away from their jobs. And get free lunch as we did when I last served. So why would you want to stop debating when you get free lunch and you spend time away from your job, you probably dislike, if you're being paid for it?
'Third Trial's a Charm as Woman Is Convicted of Hiring Hit Man to Kill Husband'
http://skylarkutilities.com/video/watch/vid01NLihJkc_fKE
'Third Trial's a Charm as Woman Is Convicted of Hiring Hit Man to Kill Husband'
http://skylarkutilities.com/video/watch/vid01NLihJkc_fKE
8
(People from the government like days off from work, bu people from the private sector don't? I thought government workers did nothing all day anyway? [dripping with sarcasm] Why would they need a day off?)
I don't know what jury pay is in Brooklyn, but I've served on juries in NH, CA and WV and it in no way is an incentive to miss work. A free lunch isn't much of a perk either. Frankly, most of the people I have served with on juries would rather be doing something else.
Some of us have been on juries with folks like you, Wayne. Just because you feel you read out evidence to support your view doesn't mean that others see it that way. That's the reason there are 12 people in the room. Should everyone be respectful and listen to other points of view, yes of course. It's wrong if you were ignored, but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean it's a ploy to play hookie from work.
One jury I served on in NH remains vivid in my mind. One gentleman (loosely used term in his case) walked into the jury room, declared himself to be the best choice for foreman and proclaimed "the guy is guilty, let's convict and go home!". While I felt the defendant had indeed committed insurance fraud, I also felt we owed him at least a bit of a discussion. I became a devil's advocate with the intent to foster a discussion. We ultimately did convict the defendant - on only one of three charges - after a 2 hour of discussion. Had we allowed ourselves to be bullied, the defendant would have been convicted on all counts with a significantly stiffer penalty.
As a defendant, which jury would you rather have deciding your case?
Some of us have been on juries with folks like you, Wayne. Just because you feel you read out evidence to support your view doesn't mean that others see it that way. That's the reason there are 12 people in the room. Should everyone be respectful and listen to other points of view, yes of course. It's wrong if you were ignored, but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean it's a ploy to play hookie from work.
One jury I served on in NH remains vivid in my mind. One gentleman (loosely used term in his case) walked into the jury room, declared himself to be the best choice for foreman and proclaimed "the guy is guilty, let's convict and go home!". While I felt the defendant had indeed committed insurance fraud, I also felt we owed him at least a bit of a discussion. I became a devil's advocate with the intent to foster a discussion. We ultimately did convict the defendant - on only one of three charges - after a 2 hour of discussion. Had we allowed ourselves to be bullied, the defendant would have been convicted on all counts with a significantly stiffer penalty.
As a defendant, which jury would you rather have deciding your case?
Dawson your scenario is different. The one I mentioned was a civil case requiring six jurors. The evidence I showed them to support my argument was that the landlord representative had full authority to oversee how the contractors were doing the job. He was a qualified engineer but he was derelict in his overseer duties. Some of the other jurors completely ignored my argument. Got nothing to do with seeing things my way. Another thing too is that some of them brought up personal anecdotes about how their relatives or spouses had incidents where they were hospitalized but never thought of suing. So it was more of a personal thing that because someone in their family was beneficent and suffered without seeking compensation then why should they feel sorry for someone else who does? I did not really want to get into it but basically that is how it went and they were willing to hang the jury if they did not include the plaintiff at 25% at fault. The only reason I joined them was that it would be taxpayer money retrying the case and who knows maybe with the same results. One person did not join us because he believed the plaintiff should never be responsible for 25%. I agree with I had to compromise or the other four won't budge. Where I live if you're a government worker they will pay for the balance of your jury duty. That's why government workers are in no rush. Some private companies will pay too. I have also heard about jurors who want that free meal and extra time.
With all evidence, the jurors see what they want to see.
12
As a general rule, I would think that MORE evidence is a good thing.
What cannot be calculated is the effect it is having on police officers ( as well as suspects ) in cases where violence or breaking the law may occur. ( especially as it relates to guns )
Just the fact that police officers are being held accountable and being charged is a good thing. ( even though some\many ? are being acquitted )
It's progress. Aye, slowing moving, but still ~ progress.
What cannot be calculated is the effect it is having on police officers ( as well as suspects ) in cases where violence or breaking the law may occur. ( especially as it relates to guns )
Just the fact that police officers are being held accountable and being charged is a good thing. ( even though some\many ? are being acquitted )
It's progress. Aye, slowing moving, but still ~ progress.
16
Way TOO slow, Irishman. How many black lives have to be lost while we wait for white Americans to come to some kind of mythical raised consciousness? Why should the human rights of minorities depend on the supposed progress of white thinking?
I grew up in the Deep South in a family of diehard segregationists, and believe me, no one is going to get that raised consciousness voluntarily.
The standard of proof demanded in cases involving black victims in this country is very different from that in cases involving white victims. For the USA to criticize any other country's violations of "human rights" is ridiculous. Our enemies are right in saying we have no credibility on this score, given the way we treat our own.
I grew up in the Deep South in a family of diehard segregationists, and believe me, no one is going to get that raised consciousness voluntarily.
The standard of proof demanded in cases involving black victims in this country is very different from that in cases involving white victims. For the USA to criticize any other country's violations of "human rights" is ridiculous. Our enemies are right in saying we have no credibility on this score, given the way we treat our own.
4
US needs less guns on the streets, drastically less. More guns means police are taught to assume the presence of a gun in even the most benign encounters. Assuming the presence of a gun directly determines that fear-based, uninformed, consciously or unconsciously prejudice-fuelled split-second decisions are the de facto police norm. This is what needs to change, but you can't change one without changing the other. It's a simple as that: more guns on the streets will continue to breed more injustice.
27
If this is the case then why are we not seeing numerous examples of white males getting shot in their cars as they reach for registration papers. This is nothing more than establishing "order" in the law and order rhetoric that politicians use. Police officers make sure their is order, read obedience from people of color in our society. This is noting more than modern day lynchings. History will look back at our times and shake it's head with shame.
15
Fact: in the Castile case, the officer (since fired) is Hispanic/Latino. He is NOT white. Read the story.
"Just the facts, ma'am" are missing from 90% of these post, a wise NYTimes ombudsman once noted. Case in point: Rodney King in L.A., which did NOT include the eight minutes RK drove through central L.A. at 60+ mph, endangering many.
NYTimes, from the beginning, some said body-cams would NOT resolve many situations. For example, with Walkmans (remember them?), some "Einsteins" advocated officers wear them. But the political bureaucrats are always looking for an "easy out."
There must always be high performance standards for police officers, and required leave from the police force by those who would be better off, in another job. Period.
And for God's sake, if you are pulled over, especially at night -- put your hands on the steering wheel and do NOT start beefin'.
"Just the facts, ma'am" are missing from 90% of these post, a wise NYTimes ombudsman once noted. Case in point: Rodney King in L.A., which did NOT include the eight minutes RK drove through central L.A. at 60+ mph, endangering many.
NYTimes, from the beginning, some said body-cams would NOT resolve many situations. For example, with Walkmans (remember them?), some "Einsteins" advocated officers wear them. But the political bureaucrats are always looking for an "easy out."
There must always be high performance standards for police officers, and required leave from the police force by those who would be better off, in another job. Period.
And for God's sake, if you are pulled over, especially at night -- put your hands on the steering wheel and do NOT start beefin'.
6
The fact that nonwhite police officers are biased against non-white suspects show that the whole system is corrupt, not just individual officers. They are trained to treat minorities differently.
8
With a courtroom packed with cops who can get your name, address, work info and ruin your and your family members lives forever, how does the average citizen do the right thing and convict a cop? Don't imagine that they do not harass and intimidate jurors in these cases. It's a proven fact! Until the police want to get rid of these murderers in their midst, justice will not happen. Dream on...they like the ability to be a law unto themselves. The police are permanently ruined by their militaristic view of the citizens as the enemy. Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. Beware! The police are not your friends.
25
Here in New York the judges won't allow the cops dressed in uniform in court during trials. They are allowed during preliminary hearings when they are brought before the judges on charges. And at the very end of the trial. But not during the trial for the reasons you highlight.
3
Key phrase here is "won't allow cops dressed in uniform". But of course they are free to come in plain clothes and who can tell if they're cops. They can bring all their cop friends to take notes.
This my friends is actually allowing a secret police presence in the courtroom when a cop is on trial.
Welcome to Putin's Amerika.
This my friends is actually allowing a secret police presence in the courtroom when a cop is on trial.
Welcome to Putin's Amerika.
4
Harassing a witness is a very serious felony and would lose those officers their jobs and PENSIONS -- do you have any direct provable evidence that this has ever occurred?
I do agree that officers in uniform might intimidate jurors -- or present an image of authority that some jurors might fear -- but apparently in NY State, this is not permitted anyways.
I do agree that officers in uniform might intimidate jurors -- or present an image of authority that some jurors might fear -- but apparently in NY State, this is not permitted anyways.
How does that joke go? If you think that the outcomes in police brutality prosecutions are about body cameras or citizen video, I have a bridge to sell you.
10