.

[expos4ever]

I am aware that a number of you have indeed addressed this point but I think it needs re-emphasis: your culture (I am not an American) has gotten into a very strange place indeed if there is an expectation that one must follow a careful protocol when interacting with the police and you risk being shot if you don't follow that protocol.

Please think about this for a bit. Each of us routinely violates behavior protocols all the time:

1. We don't come to a complete stop at red lights;
2. We display unreasonable anger when someone in front of us in a line is not doings things as fast as we want;
3. We yell at kids or spouses;
4. We are late;
5. etc. etc.

If someone were to suggest that we merit "taking a bullet" for our failure to follow the perfectly legitimate protocols associated with these areas of behavior, we would rightly deem that person to be a raving loon.

Yes, there may indeed be a proper protocol to follow in interactions with the police. And, yes, it's wrong to resist and kick up a fuss. But a little realism please; each day each of us almost certainly violate rules of behavior that are every bit as reasonable as the protocol for interacting with the police. Do we deserve to die for this?

I know that some of you (Americans) are very sensitive about this, but this whole problem would be greatly attenuated if you gave up your "right" to play with guns.

To be fair: As a Canadian, I fully recognize that there are areas of my culture that are just as off-kilter as the whole gun culture is in the USA - the acceptance of fighting in ice hockey comes to mind.

 

[AdamSK]

The only problem is that this man was not being arrested

That man had a gun on his thigh and, when told not to move at all, responded by reaching toward it. If you openly carry a gun and don't do what the police tell you, you're going to get shot.

 

[AdamSK]

I am aware that a number of you have indeed addressed this point but I think it needs re-emphasis: your culture (I am not an American) has gotten into a very strange place indeed if there is an expectation that one must follow a careful protocol when interacting with the police and you risk being shot if you don't follow that protocol.

Or don't have a gun on your person.

 

[JustOneWay]

That man had a gun on his thigh and, when told not to move at all, responded by reaching toward it. If you openly carry a gun and don't do what the police tell you, you're going to get shot.

He was not being arrested. If you have any evidence the man was actually being arrested, post it.

The OP clearly states that the issue is what to do when one is being arrested, not being pulled over for having a wide nose.

Please follow the discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

A follow-on to my most recent post - I suspect some of you may argue that there is a key difference between not following the "protocol" when interacting with the police and not following the proper protocol in a myriad of other situations: the police have a legitimate reason to fear for their lives when you do not comply whereas no one is in fear for their lives when, for example, you get a little angry in a line-up.

Fair point. However, I would then say the real problem is the guns - if you freed yourselves from gun culture, the police would be far less justified in imagining that a person is "going for their piece" when they are, in fact, simply retrieving their license.

 

[Cernunnos]

That man had a gun on his thigh and, when told not to move at all, responded by reaching toward it. If you openly carry a gun and don't do what the police tell you, you're going to get shot.

Except he didn't have a gun on his thigh & he did what the officer told him to. At no point did he reach anywhere near as gun, but he did reach for his ID when the officer told him to show his ID.

Maybe you cherry picked the wrong video. There are actually plenty of videos where the suspect does ignore or disobey police orders and/or is visibly armed. No jedi mind trick required: That was not the video you were looking for

 

[RDKirk]

That man had a gun on his thigh and, when told not to move at all, responded by reaching toward it. If you openly carry a gun and don't do what the police tell you, you're going to get shot.

No, he didn't. You got your information from a blog that is simply rubbish.

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

 

[RDKirk]

I am aware that a number of you have indeed addressed this point but I think it needs re-emphasis: your culture (I am not an American) has gotten into a very strange place indeed if there is an expectation that one must follow a careful protocol when interacting with the police and you risk being shot if you don't follow that protocol.

Please think about this for a bit. Each of us routinely violates behavior protocols all the time:

1. We don't come to a complete stop at red lights;
2. We display unreasonable anger when someone in front of us in a line is not doings things as fast as we want;
3. We yell at kids or spouses;
4. We are late;
5. etc. etc.

If someone were to suggest that we merit "taking a bullet" for our failure to follow the perfectly legitimate protocols associated with these areas of behavior, we would rightly deem that person to be a raving loon.

Yes, there may indeed be a proper protocol to follow in interactions with the police. And, yes, it's wrong to resist and kick up a fuss. But a little realism please; each day each of us almost certainly violate rules of behavior that are every bit as reasonable as the protocol for interacting with the police. Do we deserve to die for this?

You are right that this "protocol" is very much like the "protocol" you must follow to stay alive if a bear wanders into your campsite. Essentially, Americans must treat police as though they are wild animals that might become inexplicably deadly at any moment.

Having to teach your children to behave around police officers as though they were wild animals is not a lesson in respect, it's a lesson in fear.

It doesn't require any changes to the "gun culture" (which would be too hard to do), only changes in standardized police training (which ought to be pretty easy).

 

[AdamSK]

No, he didn't. You got your information from a blog that is simply rubbish.

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

No, I didn't. The Snopes article doesn't even address the claims I just made, which were based on statements made by a representative of the police involved.

 

[JustOneWay]

No, I didn't. The Snopes article doesn't even address the claims I just made, which were based on statements made by a representative of the police involved.

Post the evidence

 

[AdamSK]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-philando-castile-case-has-nothing-do-n606471

 

[JustOneWay]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-philando-castile-case-has-nothing-do-n606471

Does not prove your comment.

 

[Archivist]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-philando-castile-case-has-nothing-do-n606471

Interesting article, but would you honestly expect the cops lawyer to say anything else?

 

[expos4ever]

It doesn't require any changes to the "gun culture" (which would be too hard to do), only changes in standardized police training (which ought to be pretty easy).

I am not so sure. Given the situation with guns, police officers have legitimate fears that a person may be armed. You appear to believe that the cops can be trained to deal with that fear by implementing certain "procedures" when dealing with the public that ensure that "unjustified" shootings are reduced to an exceedingly low level. I just wonder whether that is realistic - there are simply so many ways a "bad guy" could get to his gun that I suspect there may not be a way for police to reduce that threat to near-zero simply by procedures.

 

[AdamSK]

Interesting article, but would you honestly expect the cops lawyer to say anything else?

About as much as I'd expect Castile's girlfriend to admit he did anything wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Adam, do you have people in law enforcement? Friends family?

 

[AdamSK]

Adam, do you have people in law enforcement? Friends family?

Why is it that when people can no longer argue the facts, they start making the discussion about the arguer?

Why would my personal life have any bearing whatsoever on whether the things I describe are consistent with reality?

Reported as personal attack and off-topic.

 

[Hank77]

Brilliant article by John Gibbs over at the Federalist.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-cbe167ab22-83889421

I got as far as this reading your posted article before I wanted to get in this guy's face. According to the people Castile had worked with, some for many years, and the kids at knew him, he was a well loved and respected man. The author has no problem defaming people and I suspect he did it for some personal gain. He show's himself to be a backbiter, imo.

It saddens me that what little is left of the black civil rights movement is spent defending thugs, hustlers, drug dealers, and troublemakers such as Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile.

 

[Archivist]

About as much as I'd expect Castile's girlfriend to admit he did anything wrong.

I would trust her statements on the video over statements by his lawyer. Her comments would qualify as an excited utterance. His comments were prepared in advance.

 

[AdamSK]

I would trust her statements on the video over statements by his lawyer.

Do you have any objective reason to do so?