Posted on 06/21/2017 9:19:40 AM PDT by deplorableindc
‘My original comments stand:’
Your original comments are disputed by the physical evidence of the video and my partial transcript of it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3562845/posts?page=59#59
are you an LEO?
Wrong. Only true in states that require training for CCW. Which, I don't know is true in the state at issue. Do you?
You are funny.
“he issued contradictory commands”
What were the “contradictory commands”?
do you have your driver’s license and insurance?
don’t pull it out.
Contradictory commands?
I disagree. The jury disagreed.
Castile was too stoned to comprehend the cops instructions.
Does that absolve the cop? Of the charges - yes (and just barely).
Does that mean this cop is well-suited for the job? No.
“The jury disagreed.
Castile was too stoned to comprehend the cops instructions.”
Can you provide citations for these two assertions of yours?
Or are unqualified assertions proof enough in your mind that you are correct?
KING: Philando Castile verdict a painful result of laws rigged to protect cops
Shaun King
New York Daily News
June 16, 2017
Thanks for self identifying.
Classic CYA.
“Can you provide citations”
Here’s one:
“Toxicology expert called by the defense to testify about THC — the active ingredient in marijuana — found in Castile’s system during his autopsy. He testified that the levels found in Castile’s system indicate he had smoked marijuana within two hours of his death. “
http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/15/yanez-trial-with-jury-in-4th-day-of-deliberations-heres-what-witnesses-said-at-trial/
“Thanks for self identifying.”
Sure thing. You have a good one now...
officer jonno (may i call you officer jonno?)!
just a few more questions, if i may...:
1. you still have not provided citation that the jury felt that the commands issued by officer yanez were consistent and not contradictory. you agree? because quite clearly, yanez did not tell castile “don’t move” until after he finished shooting 6-7 shots into castile’s body. —so castile was *not* under any police order not to move when yanez fired at castile. do we both agree at least on that?
2. if the commands issued by the officer yanez were contradictory, does that give officer yanez the right to kill civilians when civilians misinterpret officer yanez’ commands? —in your opinion, officer.
3. your citation about the marijuana is contradicted by opposing expert testimony favoring the plaintiff:
“Toxicology expert hired by state to testify about the level of THC — the active ingredient in marijuana — in Castile’s body after his death. She testified that THC found in postmortem blood samples can’t be used to accurately ascertain when a person last ingested marijuana because of the way the body starts decomposing at death. Unlike alcohol, which is stored in a person’s blood, she said THC is stored in a person’s fat tissue. Once those tissues start decomposing, the chemical leaches into the bloodstream and gives unreliable readings.”
officer, just because someone smokes some marijuana does not mean that he is high or his judgment is impaired by marijuana. nor does it imply that he is violent or prone to violence. the best that you have is that marijuana is present in the bloodstream, not that any violence was imminent. do you feel threatened, and so justified to shoot every marijuana user on sight, officer? do you feel other officers should be allowed to shoot marijuana users on sight?
are you an expert in marijuana toxicology, officer?
(otherwise, i think we should factor the marijuana out.)
4. are you in the habit of selectively quoting evidence so that it favors your point of view, officer?
I would not use idiotic, psychotic, fake black man Shaun King as a source for anything
Steve, believe it or not, there is a forest over there.
You can’t see it you say? Look again, it’s just past those trees.
You can’t see the trees you say? Well, sorry, I can’t help you if you won’t open your eyes.
Good day to you Steve.
regarding the defense testimony of St. Anthony Police Chief Jon Mangseth:
Said during cross examination that he also trains officers to ask drivers who disclose they have a firearm and a permit to carry to keep their hands visible, preferably on the steering wheel, and then asks them the location of the gun in the vehicle.
officer jonno, did officer yanez violate police procedure and training when officer yanez failed to “ask (castile) to keep (his) hands visible?
officer jonno, should officers always be required to follow police procedure and training when matters of civilian life and death are at stake? if your answer is no, then why bother with police procedure and training at all? Is it OK, for example, if a very controlled jury greenlights ignoring procedure and training?
Why didn’t the police officers at the scene even bother to search the vehicle and body to find out where castile’s gun was? Could it be, officer jonno, that the police officers were afraid to find the gun in a location that would contradict yanez’ debriefing? what is the point of confiscating evidence if evidence is not preserved for later reference by the jury, especially evidence at the scene of the incident? If it would be my job to preserve evidence at the scene of a shooting, should i not at least record the locations of all guns present at the scene of the shooting? If I did not, what does that sound like to you, officer jonno? How about “negligence in the performance of duties,” “evidence tampering” and “accomplice to manslaughter,” officer jonno?
Please forgive me for seeing all these pesky trees, officer jonno!
OK - I saw the video. I did not know it was out. What I saw ..
1-He does inform the officer that he has a legal firearm on him.
2-The officer panics
3-He must be moving his hands about, opposed to keeping them still, visible on the wheel or the dash let I was trained to do, as the officer says several times, do not pull it out.
4- Things go horribly wrong.
I was not at the trial, seeing other evidence. Not sure why 12 voted to let him go, BUT with just the distant video from from the Police car, I would vote to convict on...
Voluntary Manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant (Officer) is strongly provoked (under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person) and kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation. However, there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm.
OK - I saw the video. I did not know it was out. What I saw ..
1-He does inform the officer that he has a legal firearm on him.
2-The officer panics
3-He must be moving his hands about, opposed to keeping them still, visible on the wheel or the dash let I was trained to do, as the officer says several times, do not pull it out.
4- Things go horribly wrong.
I was not at the trial, seeing other evidence. Not sure why 12 voted to let him go, BUT with just the distant video from from the Police car, I would vote to convict on...
Voluntary Manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant (Officer) is strongly provoked (under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person) and kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation. However, there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills
If I’m not mistaken even though he was found not guilty he was let go from the police force.
The officer also yells "don't move" after he has pumped him with bullets.
So, I'm not taking clues off of what the cops says on the video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.