Posted on 07/10/2016 3:09:41 PM PDT by NoLibZone
After a Minnesota police officer fatally shot a black man on Wednesday, gun control advocates weren’t the only ones criticizing the National Rifle Association. Some of the blowback was coming from within the organization.
The NRA is facing internal division as its members argue that the group did not do enough to defend gun owners’ rights by speaking out on behalf of Philando Castile of Falcon Heights, Minn., who was shot to death during a traffic stop.
Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun. He also reportedly informed the officer who shot him that he was armed in an attempt to head off a misunderstanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See 34.
Castile was stopped because Officer Yanez noticed that he matched the physical description of the robber of a convenience store, caught with great clarity by the store’s CCTV camera, and that included a description by Yanez of his nose.
When he looked down into the car, he saw a gun on Castile’s thigh. That would catch any officer’s attention. Neither of the occupants complied with Officer Yanez’s instructions.
With a robbery suspect sitting there with a gun in full sight, *not* complying with instructions, should Yanez have waited for Castile to pull his gun? Or maybe the equally uncompliant woman with him? Quick-draw situation?
It's a tough case and we probably (undoubtedly) don't know all the fact yet. But whether Castile had a permit or not, would be the least of Officer Yaneez' worries.
Ask yourself, why the authorities in MN just don’t go public and say one way or another? It certainly won’t change, hinder or obstruct the investigation.
No, I understand he told dispatch prior to the stop he was going to pull over person who fit the description of an "Armed robbery suspect" from days early. What happened to a felony traffic stop for the officers own protection?
Btw there actually audio of this recording picked up allegedly by a scanner listener who recorded it.
Good question but..., the anti-Second Amendment crowd could easily corrupt some CCW clerks to issue and therefore "Prove" that only weapon confiscation would work to ensure "Safety" in this "Post Constitutional America"!
Would you pull over a possible “Armed robbery suspect” and simply stroll up to the window asking him for ID/registration?
I certainly would not. No way.
...claimed his "side bitch"...who lied about the tail light
In Minn, if you are officially on the gang database, it’s disqualifying.
And that is the way it should be...everywhere. But if you go to Florida and get a permit, they won’t see that gang hit in their database.
You gave me a hard time in defending this Cop while you tore him down, from the gitgo. You will be proven wrong in all of your false assumptions in the not very far future on all points. But keep it up, and dig your grave deeper. Sincerely yours.
I didn't assume anything or assign blame to any party.
I asked some questions based on existing reports. You should learn the difference.
While your at it, ask yourself why someone in charge up there does not simply go public and state if the deceased has a permit or not? They know this is festering and lots of folks are asking questions regarding these conflicting reports. No? Revealing one way or another won't affect the investigation? No?
I can guarantee you LE knew within minutes if the deceased had a CW permit or not. Why the silence? Why the games?
If you're offended by unbiased legitimate questions, I can't help ya.
WTH does disability claim have to do with a CCW permit?
Btw lady, if you consider asking questions "Giving you a hard time" you probably should stay off these types of threads. Ya see I am not the only one asking questions based on existing reports. OK?
And to be honest, I think one of the problems with your above statement is you're, "Defending" one of the players, or taking sides before they even revealed their version of what occurred or even finished their investigation.
It's why I did not defend or support anyone regarding this incident and simply asked questions.
“If you’re offended by unbiased legitimate questions, I can’t help ya.”
It’s your know-it-all attitude on this subject when it is obvious to many on these threads that you don’t know it all at all, that is so irritating. And your comments have not been unbiased at all, you have shown a definite bias in favor of this lying psycho chick and her multiple legal infractions dead boyfriend from the beginning. You will be proven very wrong in your assumptions, mark my words.
The cops always get the benefit of the doubt at the beginning.
Cops do not start out EQUAL with the criminals from which they protect us.
Same with soldiers.
Those are just basic rules of how a civilization gets honorable men to risk their lives. It’s what they rightly deserve.
“The cops always get the benefit of the doubt at the beginning.
Cops do not start out EQUAL with the criminals from which they protect us.
Same with soldiers.
Those are just basic rules of how a civilization gets honorable men to risk their lives. It’s what they rightly deserve.”
Hear ye, hear ye, well stated. BRAVO!
Giving them the "benefit of doubt" and "defending" one party or another prior to hearing their complete version/testimony/evidence is not something I practice.
And I don't think giving them, "The benefit of doubt" should include accusing or implying those asking legitimate questions as being anti-law enforcement or pro-criminal.
MN permit holder names are not public information. The police don’t owe any information about an ongoing investigation and I’m sure that decision not to tell is coming from the Mayor’s/Governor’s Office.
He had a gun in the open? Where did you see/hear that? First I’ve heard and if so, that’s a good piece of info.
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.