.

[ewq1938]

Do you mean this one or a post #4 within another thread?

This post and thread of course.

 

[Biblicist]

This post and thread of course.

Oh . . . in that case, at what point in the video did the victim ever yell out that he has a gun?

 

[Biblicist]

U.S.News: The ex-Trooper "Groubert has spent the past 18 months driving a truck. He and his wife were arrested for shoplifting in October, and those charges are pending.

 

[Armoured]

The Philando Castile case is still under investigation. What doesn't make sense is the girlfriends video supposedly live streaming after he was shot.

Oh, yeah, THAT'S the bit that doesn't make sense.

 

[Armoured]

There's a Facebook page that proves otherwise.

We do? How do we know that? He had at least 55 traffic violations on his record. CC permit was issued in a different city years before this. Is there proof of a current issued CC permit?

The girlfriend narrating her own phone video claimed the officer pulled them over for a broken tail light. Apparently she didn't realize police have their own audio record.

LISTEN: Philando Castile Dispatch Audio/Police Scanner

Traffic violations are worth shooting someone for?

If the cop TOLD HER he stopped them for a broken tail light, what do you think she'd say? How do you think she was meant to know what passed between the cop and the dispatch officer? Do you know it's common practice for police to stop vehicles they are curious to know more about the occupants of for things like a random breath test, or a tail light, and then scrutinise the occupants? For example, if a police officer suspected a car was carrying a wanted robber, he could pull them over legally for an RBT, whereas pulling people over and accusing them of a robbery straight up violates probable cause.

Seriously guy, I know you're smarter than this. With all possible due respect, I humbly suggest you are rationalising here.

 

[Armoured]

Blacks shoot at cops at at rate of 10 to 1 over whites. You would be careful too, if you were in his shoes.

Without a base figure, 10 to 1 is a meaningless claim, clearly intended to distort and appeal to emotion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you mean this one or a post #4 within another thread?

a) Most men carry their license in a wallet, which they keep in their back pocket. The officer wasn't expecting the guy to go into to his car. He was expecting him to reach into his pants pocket.

b) You are never supposed to get out of your car when pulled over. Obviously, the man did that innocently, but the officer could not have known that.

c) Does anyone realize that POLICE get shot at in pullovers, and the scenario looks just what happened here. Do you realize the adrenaline-filled stress of this event for him?!

d) Even if I grant that this cop was trigger happy, insisting that he was out hunting black people to kill can not be proved by this video. If this trouper has a past of racist actions, maybe we can then assume this was racially motivated, but other than that, how can we assume racism of this cop?!

e) This tropper was tried in court and found guilty. He is no longer a state trouper. This is what we do with incompetent/bad cops. We prosecute them, We don't kill police 1,000 miles away because of his actions. We punish him, if he is guilty of any offense.

Lastly, before you assume race was a motivating factor, many years ago, I got out of my car in a pullover, and had a gun drawn on me, a white male. I froze, and put my hands over my head. I made no sudden moves, and it worked out, but I was one blink from being shot. My white skin color didn't prevent the cop from drawing on me, and it wouldn't have prevented him from putting a round into my chest either.

 

[Armoured]

a) Most men carry their license in a wallet, which they keep in their back pocket. The officer wasn't expecting the guy to go into to his car. He was expecting him to reach into his pants pocket.

b) You are never supposed to get out of your car when pulled over. Obviously, the man did that innocently, but the officer could not have known that.

c) Does anyone realize that POLICE get shot at in pullovers, and the scenario looks just what happened here. Do you realize the adrenaline-filled stress of this event for him?!

d) Even if I grant that this cop was trigger happy, insisting that he was out hunting black people to kill can not be proved by this video. If this trouper has a past of racist actions, maybe we can then assume this was racially motivated, but other than that, how can we assume racism of this cop?!

e) This tropper was tried in court and found guilty. He is no longer a state trouper. This is what we do with incompetent/bad cops. We prosecute them, We don't shoot at police 1,000 miles away because of his actions. We punish him, if he is guilty of any offense.

Lastly, before you assume race was a motivating factor, many years ago, I got out of my car in a pullover, and had a gun drawn on me, a white male. I froze, and put my hands over my head. I made no sudden moves, and it worked out, but I was one blink from being shot. My white skin color didn't prevent the cop from drawing on me, and it wouldn't have prevented the cop from putting a round into my chest either.

Forget the racial aspect, if it bothers you that much. Cops still shouldn't be shooting people when they're pinned on the ground or for reaching for their ID

As for

c) Does anyone realize that POLICE get shot at in pullovers, and the scenario looks just what happened here. Do you realize the adrenaline-filled stress of this event for him?!

Yeah, that's why they're supposed to be adequately selected and trained, so they don't shoot people just because they get stressed.

 

[Armoured]

st

 

[Kenny'sID]

Videos are limited in perspective, and they not demonstrate motive. Also, they tend to make people who are already irrational, twice as much so.

Yep, some do tend to be irrational, video or no video.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes there is, we are discussing it already.

The video from post #4?

 

[RDKirk]

I must be thinking of a different story. I thought it was a kid with a toy gun pointing at people.

You're thinking of the 911 call--which also actually said "it might be a toy."

But that's not what the police saw when they arrived at the scene.

There is a new concept: "Murder by SWAT." At the moment, legal open carry folk--particular black ones like Mark Hughes--are very vulnerable to "murder by SWAT."

 

[RDKirk]

This is about the video in post 4


That's wrong according to the audio and the man's girlfriend. A mention of a gun was the first conversation, then he went into his car suddenly and he got shot. No big surprise. No wrongful police action. The man was just dumb in how he behaved.

There is no girlfriend at all in the video in post #4. There is no mention of a gun at all in the video in post #4.

 

[Armoured]

There is no girlfriend at all in the video in post #4. There is no mention of a gun at all in the video in post #4.

You don't need to actually watch the video when the pundits and echo chamber has told you what (ideally ) was in it.

 

[JustOneWay]

There is no girlfriend at all in the video in post #4. There is no mention of a gun at all in the video in post #4.

That person is so vague that it has created much confusion.

My original post was meant to compliment the OP by asking where is the brilliant advice for those shot by police who were not being arrested, as indicated by the 2 examples I posted. I did not expect it to turn into a discussion on the specific videos. I am glad the cop who shot the man in the gas station was arrested, and I can only hope the same for the other cop who killed the man in front of his daughter and girlfriend.

 

[RDKirk]

a) Most men carry their license in a wallet, which they keep in their back pocket. The officer wasn't expecting the guy to go into to his car. He was expecting him to reach into his pants pocket.

I keep my wallet in the breast pocket of my blazer when I wear one--which most men wearing jackets do. When I wear jeans without a jacket, I carry my wallet in a front pocket (because I've been to cities in SE Asia and the middle east).

b) You are never supposed to get out of your car when pulled over. Obviously, the man did that innocently, but the officer could not have known that.

So the commands from the officer, if he was already in the red zone because the driver left his vehicle, should have been a lot more specific.

c) Does anyone realize that POLICE get shot at in pullovers, and the scenario looks just what happened here. Do you realize the adrenaline-filled stress of this event for him?!

d) Even if I grant that this cop was trigger happy, insisting that he was out hunting black people to kill can not be proved by this video. If this trouper has a past of racist actions, maybe we can then assume this was racially motivated, but other than that, how can we assume racism of this cop?!

e) This tropper was tried in court and found guilty. He is no longer a state trouper. This is what we do with incompetent/bad cops. We prosecute them, We don't shoot at police 1,000 miles away because of his actions. We punish him, if he is guilty of any offense.

So why did you spend the majority of your post defending actions that have been found indefensible?

 

[RDKirk]

You don't need to actually watch the video when the pundits and echo chamber has told you what (ideally ) was in it.

Do they play "bingo" in Australia?

 

[Armoured]

Do they play "bingo" in Australia?

They do...

Edit:fyi, I've never carried my wallet in my back pocket, and if I'm driving for any length of time I'll usually take it out of my front pocket and leave it on the seat next to me. Seems unreasonable to get shot for not carrying your wallet like 'most men'.

For that matter, most WOMEN carry their ID in a handbag. No cop could know for sure if she's reaching in there for ID or a gun. All women should presumably be shot on sight, I guess?

 

[RDKirk]

Forget the racial aspect, if it bothers you that much. Cops still shouldn't be shooting people when they're pinned on the ground or for reaching for their ID

As forYeah, that's why they're supposed to be adequately selected and trained, so they don't shoot people just because they get stressed.

Speaking of "forgetting the racial aspect" and "don't shoot people just because they get stressed:"

 

[expos4ever]

Every thoughtful person has examined the stats. There are in a dozen threads here, and all over the net. People who seek truth do research.

This is, frankly, outrageous and a case could be made that it should be against the rules of this forum to claim a statistic and then repeatedly refuse to produce it.

It is not the job of others to do your homework.