Colin Kaepernick 2016: 16 TDs, 4 INTs, Unemployed in 2017

[Spider-Dan]

I completely agree that cops who are minorities also use excessive force on minorities.

The problem is not with the race of the officers, the problem is with police culture.  The biggest problem is the "thin blue line" effect which results in terrible cops being shielded; the proverbial "bad apples" are protected and remain to infect the other apples.

[CF DolFan]

It almost sounds like you are saying that police kill more unarmed black people because black people are more likely to be violent criminals.  Is that what you mean?
The problem is that when it comes to unarmed black people, "just cause" is almost literally anything.  Philando Castile was not killed with just cause.

CF, do you think "Blue Lives Matter" is also divisive bullying?  Or is that reserved only for causes you disagree with?

You also don't think Trayvon Martin was killed with "just cause" but the DA and then a jury found it so. But becuase he was black it meant Zimmerman acted illegally in your mind.

Blue Lives Matter would be divisive if it weren't a response to the national attack on police. Personally I hate any titles that separate socially. It seems very counterproductive to me to have your own network, schools, scholarships and even a separatist name like African-American and then complain because people think differently of you.   I think All Lives Matter would be the most appropriate but as I have learned that is offensive to the Black Lives Matter crowd. That makes no freaking sense to me either.  You really have to stretch pretty damn far to see that as an attack on black people.

[Spider-Dan]

Zimmerman wasn't an example of police brutality; he was an example of how black victims don't matter.  The verdict in his case "proves" no more than the verdict in the OJ or Casey Anthony cases.

If Blue Lives Matter isn't "divisive" because it's a response to an attack on police, then why is the same standard not applied to Black Lives Matter as a response to the attacks on unarmed black people?  To say otherwise implies that you believe the attacks on police are real and genuine while the attacks on black people are phony and/or deserved, which is just another way of saying that the political issues you agree with are not divisive, but the ones you disagree with are.

As for why "All Lives Matter" is offensive, I think I've already explained this, but I guess it doesn't hurt to say it again:

The slogan "Black Lives Matter" means that black lives are not valued by law enforcement and they can kill unarmed black people with little to no consequences.  BLM seeks changes in law enforcement policies to correct this problem.  To say "All Lives Matter" in response should logically mean that all lives are not valued by law enforcement; i.e. agreement that law enforcement policies need to be changed.  However, in practice the people who say "All Lives Matter" do NOT agree that law enforcement needs to be changed, and are really just telling black people to stop complaining.

[CF DolFan]

Philando Castile was not killed with just cause.

Funny how you are so certain when the evidence is only starting to come out today. Jump to conclusions much?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4623102/Dashcam-video-shows-moment-cop-shoots-dead-Philando.html#v-889192986232534903

[Spider-Dan]

CF, I have to imagine that you have not followed that case at all.  Nothing in that article is new information.

Castile was licensed to carry a firearm (which he was) and informed the officer as such.  He was asked for his driver's license and proof of insurance.  He handed over the proof of insurance.  Where do you keep your driver's license?

This is part of the problem.  The Second Amendment does not extend to black people; simply notifying an officer that you are carrying a licensed firearm means shoot first, ask questions later.  The officer drew his gun the moment Castile notified him he was armed!  How many videos are there of white people walking around with military-style rifles in plain view without receiving such treatment?

The absence of the NRA in this case is sadly not surprising.

edit: I think the point that you are getting at is that Castile, having a licensed weapon on him, does not qualify as unarmed?  That's a fair statement, but carrying a licensed firearm is not a crime.  I would be perfectly happy to concede that this is not an instance of an unarmed black person being killed, but instead an instance of a black person being killed for the act of carrying a licensed weapon - an act that the people who normally defend gun rights with great vigor are mysteriously silent on.

[Tenshot13]

I haven't been paying attention to the Castile incident until recently.  I usually will defend the LEO, but not in this case.  That appears to be straight up murder, but without actually seeing what is going on in the car, you can't tell.

If I were on that jury though, I'd probably be giving him a guilty verdict.

I don't know if his girlfiend was in shock or whatever, but she seemed awfully calm after her man was just shot 7 times.  Probably didn't want to get shot too, that cop seemed off his rocker a bit.

[CF DolFan]

First off Spider there is new information because you had never seen the video or heard the conversation before and yet you made your guilty conclusion based on media interpretation of minimal facts. Therefore you made your decision knowing that you probably hadn't seen all of the information.

That appears to be straight up murder, but without actually seeing what is going on in the car, you can't tell.

And that is exactly why you can't convict him. He was telling him NOT to reach for it and NOT to pull it out before the shots so to assume he wasn't doing anything is just an assumption.  The facts seem to support the officer felt he WAS doing something.

"Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster. Yanez says, 'OK. Don't reach for it then.'
There is shouting, and Yanez screams 'Don't pull it out!' before he fires seven shots into the car."

The cop could be guilty as hell but thank goodness you can't convict based on feelings.  At least in Florida ... they teach you in class that you don't have to tell a police officer you have a gun and definitely do not try to show it to him. His circumstance is seemingly strange but I can only assume he knew that since he had a permit.

[Tenshot13]

First off Spider there is new information because you had never seen the video or heard the conversation before and yet you made your guilty conclusion based on media interpretation of minimal facts. Therefore you made your decision knowing that you probably hadn't seen all of the information.
 And that is exactly why you can't convict him. He was telling him NOT to reach for it and NOT to pull it out before the shots so to assume he wasn't doing anything is just an assumption.  The facts seem to support the officer felt he WAS doing something.

"Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster. Yanez says, 'OK. Don't reach for it then.'
There is shouting, and Yanez screams 'Don't pull it out!' before he fires seven shots into the car."

The cop could be guilty as hell but thank goodness you can't convict based on feelings.  At least in Florida ... they teach you in class that you don't have to tell a police officer you have a gun and definitely do not try to show it to him. His circumstance is seemingly strange but I can only assume he knew that since he had a permit.

Innocent until proven guilty.  I get that, the facts aren't 100% conclusive even with video.

[Phishfan]

This is a terrible situation and one where it would be hard to sit on a jury. One thing is, I agree the cop seemed a bit quick but he did know of a gun. Another thing is, if someone is drawing a gun the last thing they would ever do is warn the cop that they had one. You also have to consider that Castile had originally been asked to supply his ID. I feel bad for everyone.

[Spider-Dan]

First off Spider there is new information because you had never seen the video or heard the conversation before and yet you made your guilty conclusion based on media interpretation of minimal facts. Therefore you made your decision knowing that you probably hadn't seen all of the information.

The "new information" is dashcam video confirmation that it happened almost exactly as Castile's girlfriend described it on video as Castile lay there dying.

The facts seem to support the officer felt he WAS doing something.

Those aren't supporting facts!  It's the same old "It looked like he was reaching for a weapon!" nonsense that is standard issue any time there is a questionable officer shooting.  That video does not show the inside of the car.

At least in Florida ... they teach you in class that you don't have to tell a police officer you have a gun and definitely do not try to show it to him. His circumstance is seemingly strange but I can only assume he knew that since he had a permit.

So now you are trying to blame Castile for informing the officer that he was armed; the victim-blaming has no bounds.

I find it impossible to believe that you are unaware of the kind of response that black people - who you just said are "more likely to commit violent crime" - receive from police officers that discover an undisclosed firearm on them.  Suffice it to say that it is not pleasant.  In fact, I would expect a result very similar to the one that occurred to Castile anyway, with the accompanying dismissive comments of, "Well, he should have told the cop that he was armed!"

If I were to ever have a police officer spot a concealed weapon on me, for any reason, there is a 100% chance I would immediately be looking down the barrel of their weapon.  100%.  The idea that I have some sort of legal privilege not to tell them I'm carrying a weapon is laughable.  It's rolling dice with your life, which is why Castile told the officer he was carrying... and got treated EXACTLY as if he didn't tell the cop ahead of time.

If you think that black people carrying concealed weapons can just interact with the cops without risking their life if the weapon is discovered, I just don't know what to tell you.  The very idea is absurd.

[CF DolFan]

The "new information" is dashcam video confirmation that it happened almost exactly as Castile's girlfriend described it on video as Castile lay there dying.
Those aren't supporting facts!  It's the same old "It looked like he was reaching for a weapon!" nonsense that is standard issue any time there is a questionable officer shooting.  That video does not show the inside of the car.
So now you are trying to blame Castile for informing the officer that he was armed; the victim-blaming has no bounds.

I find it impossible to believe that you are unaware of the kind of response that black people - who you just said are "more likely to commit violent crime" - receive from police officers that discover an undisclosed firearm on them.  Suffice it to say that it is not pleasant.  In fact, I would expect a result very similar to the one that occurred to Castile anyway, with the accompanying dismissive comments of, "Well, he should have told the cop that he was armed!"

If I were to ever have a police officer spot a concealed weapon on me, for any reason, there is a 100% chance I would immediately be looking down the barrel of their weapon.  100%.  The idea that I have some sort of legal privilege not to tell them I'm carrying a weapon is laughable.  It's rolling dice with your life, which is why Castile told the officer he was carrying... and got treated EXACTLY as if he didn't tell the cop ahead of time.

If you think that black people carrying concealed weapons can just interact with the cops without risking their life if the weapon is discovered, I just don't know what to tell you.  The very idea is absurd.

I'm not blaming him. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that he felt the need to tell him and then show him the gun.

If you have a gun on you and your hands are on the steering wheel you will not be shot because they do not know. If they search you then you will be against the car and you will not be shot when they find it. If it is in the glove box and they find it then you will have already been detained away from your vehicle ... again no threat to use it.  If you grab it to show them you will most likely be shot because they can't afford to assume you are a good guy. 

The officer told him twice not to grab it before the shots. That is evidence. Assuming he wasn't grabbing it is just an assumption.  While it MAY be true it is still an assumption. Again ... trials are based on evidence.

[CF DolFan]

This is a terrible situation and one where it would be hard to sit on a jury. One thing is, I agree the cop seemed a bit quick but he did know of a gun. Another thing is, if someone is drawing a gun the last thing they would ever do is warn the cop that they had one. You also have to consider that Castile had originally been asked to supply his ID. I feel bad for everyone.

This is a horrible case for everyone involved but saying they wouldn't tell him if they were going to shoot him is not true. Criminals use any deceptive method to get the upper-hand on officers. Police see tons of videos and work out numerous scenarios all the time. There have been a bunch of reporters who "die" in training because they are too cautious.

[Phishfan]

Well admitting you are going to pull a gun on someone seconds before doing it is either so brilliant it seems dumb or is just dumb.

[Spider-Dan]

The officer told him twice not to grab it before the shots. That is evidence. Assuming he wasn't grabbing it is just an assumption.  While it MAY be true it is still an assumption. Again ... trials are based on evidence.

Castile was instructed to produce his driver's license.
After receiving this instruction, he notified the officer that he had a firearm.
The officer said, "OK, don't pull it out."
Castile said, "I'm not pulling it out" as he reached towards his pants.
None of these facts are in dispute.

The question here is which of the following you believe:

a) Castile was attempting to produce his driver's license as instructed
b) Castile was preparing to attack the officer (the only course of action that justifies lethal force) immediately after notifying the officer that he was armed

To claim that B is the case requires the abandonment of all logic and common sense.  If Castile is an unhinged cop killer that was getting ready to fire on the officer (with no apparent motive, mind you!) while his family was in the car, why would he notify him first?  If he was not preparing to attack, why did the cop fire 7 shots into a car with a woman and child in it?

This is the root of why BLM exists: black lives are so insignificant that if a cop sees a man with a broken taillight reaching somewhere near his waist, that alone is sufficient cause to fire multiple rounds into a car with innocent passengers.  Castile's life doesn't matter, his girlfriend's life doesn't matter, the child's life doesn't matter.  He is a vicious, dangerous thug who must be executed without hesitation.

One more thing:

If you have a gun on you and your hands are on the steering wheel you will not be shot because they do not know.

And when you lift your shirt to pull out your driver's license from your pocket and the cop sees part of a firearm in your waistband, the exact same scenario in the video above plays out.  It is so obvious as to be the expected outcome in that situation.

[BuccaneerBrad]

Wow, we're not even talking football or Kaepernick anymore