Police Fatally Shoot Man During Traffic Stop, Aftermath Video Posted July 6, 2016 11:22 PM

[InTheLight]

OK, I stand corrected on the number of times he was pulled over. I would not characterize Falcon Heights as "mostly affluent", though it is middle class. (I live in the Twin Cities.)

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Smyth]

Over half of those 86 citations were dismissed by the judge as being without merit.

No, they weren't dismissed for being without merit. I haven't read why they were dismissed, but minor charges are can be dismissed for many reasons. Maybe the charging officer didn't show up for the hearing. Probably someone looked at all the previous charges for small things and decided to go easy on him by dropping some charges.

He has never been convicted of a serious crime.

He was a thug, a petty thug: packing a gun and chronically flaunting the law while driving. Even if half of the charges had merit, that's still chronically flaunting the law.

The shooting occurred in the Falcon Heights district which is a mostly white, mostly affluent community. And a place a black man is most likely to be stopped for "Driving While Black."

(Notice how going easy on an offender, maybe even racial preferences, creates an illusion of racial oppression. If they didn't drop charges, people wouldn't think those charges were without merit.)

He was pulled over for a broken taillight, which is completely legitimate. There's no need to suspect he was pulled over for "Driving While Black."

But, let's assume that he's been pulled over many times just for being black, and that he was pulled over this time for being black. That sounds like motive to be hostile, even threatening, to the officer who pulled him over. Just being pulled over 50+ times, for whatever reason, creates reasonable doubt that the officer shot without a perceived need of self-defense. An angry man with a gun in his front waistband.

The University of Minnesota Law School conducted a study, using information supplied voluntarily by 65 law enforcement jurisdictions in Minnesota, and found a strong likelihood that racial and ethnic bias played a role in traffic stop policies and practices. Overall, officers stopped minority drivers at greater rates than whites and searched them at greater rates, but found contraband in those searches at lower rates than whites.

I don't know anything about a study, but I do know that a university wouldn't dare release a study about race unless they could (by hook or by crook) spin in to make whites look bad.

Maybe black motorists act more hostile and so the cops search them for frequently for weapons because of the hostility (to be safe)? Maybe more black motorists drive cars that smell like pot, triggering more searches? I don't assume people are racist, but I give people credit for being rational until proven otherwise. Cops want to find contraband, and it goes against their professional interest to search cars out of desire to oppress blacks. It wastes their time and it opens them up to accusations of discrimination.

I bet black officers also pull over blacks more frequently and search blacks more frequently, finding contraband at a lower rate. Are black cops racist, too?

In Fridley, New Hope, Plymouth, Sauk Rapids and Savage combined, blacks were stopped about 310 percent more often than whites.

Blacks probably committed 620% the driving violations of whites. Consider the guy pulled over 50+ times, pulling up the average for blacks.

 

[InTheLight]

No, they weren't dismissed for being without merit. I haven't read why they were dismissed,

Translation: I don't know Jack about this but I'm gonna tell you how it is.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Smyth]

Translation: I don't know Jack about this but I'm gonna tell you how it is.

InTheLight also said, "He wasn't pulled over 50 times. He was pulled over perhaps 10 or 12 times."

You should step up your game and give up on the embarassing trolling. I reason from what I know. You make up your own facts and you go down hill from there.

 

[TCassidy]

No, they weren't dismissed for being without merit.

If they had merit they would not have been dismissed. Two of them were for driving on a suspended license - which wasn't suspended. Two more were for driving without insurance, except he had insurance.

He was a thug, a petty thug: packing a gun and chronically flaunting the law while driving. Even if half of the charges had merit, that's still chronically flaunting the law.

So, getting one to two legitimate tickets per year makes you a thug? Every time you get behind the wheel of a car you break 4 or 5 traffic codes. None are worthy of an honest cop making a stop. But one looking for an excuse to stop a black guy will use it as his probable cause.

And having a concealed firearms license makes you a thug? (Be careful how you answer that. I have a LTC and carry any time I leave the house, and if you call me a thug I will come down on you with both feet.)

He was pulled over for a broken taillight, which is completely legitimate. There's no need to suspect he was pulled over for "Driving While Black."

Except that is not true. He was NOT pulled over for a broken taillight. The audio tape of the radio call to the dispatcher clearly stated he was pulled over because he had a "wide nose." A characteristic of African Americans.

An angry man with a gun in his front waistband.

You have no evidence that he was angry. The officer did not say he was angry. And the legally licensed pistol was not in his waistband.

I don't know anything about a study, but I do know that a university wouldn't dare release a study about race unless they could (by hook or by crook) spin in to make whites look bad.

I see. So everybody is lying except you, who doesn't know anything about it?

Blacks probably committed 620% the driving violations of whites. Consider the guy pulled over 50+ times, pulling up the average for blacks.

There you go again, just making this stuff up as you go along.

 

[TCassidy]

OK, I stand corrected on the number of times he was pulled over. I would not characterize Falcon Heights as "mostly affluent", though it is middle class. (I live in the Twin Cities.)

My wife and I lived in Golden Valley and Plymouth in the mid 70s. Falcon Heights and Roseville clear up to Arden Hills was considered very comfortable bedroom communities back then. The Chief of Police in Roseville was a friend of mine before he retired and moved to Florida.

 

[TCassidy]

I reason from what I know.

Okay, let's check that theory.

No, they weren't dismissed for being without merit.

If they had merit they would not have been dismissed. Two of them were for driving on a suspended license - which wasn't suspended. Two more were for driving without insurance, except he had insurance.

He was a thug, a petty thug: packing a gun

He was an upstanding, gainfully employed citizen with a valid CCP issued by Hennepin County when he lived in Minneapolis.

He was pulled over for a broken taillight

Uh, no. He was pulled over because he might have looked like a man who had committed an armed robbery three days earlier. What caused the officer to think he resembled the robber? His "wide set nose."

I don't know anything about a study,

Obviously. And not a lot about anything else, either.

Blacks probably committed 620% the driving violations of whites.

Racist much?

 

[Smyth]

If they had merit they would not have been dismissed. Two of them were for driving on a suspended license - which wasn't suspended. Two more were for driving without insurance, except he had insurance.

Philando Castile did in fact have a suspended license and has at least five convictions for driving on a suspended licence. He also had a charge of driving with a suspended licences dismissed, but maybe that's because he already had that as pending charge. Probably something similar for insurance. Maybe he had insurance and when he later presented proof, the charge was drop. But, the charge still had merit because he didn't present proof the time of the stop.

Until I get facts, I go with "maybe". I don't find it reasonable to conclude that these charges were made in the first place without merit, especially charges as objective as whether or not the man had a suspended licence.

So, getting one to two legitimate tickets per year makes you a thug?

1 or 2 per year for ever a decade? Yes, that's a petty thug record. But, it was twice that number. His legitimate tickets are even less excusable if he had been pulled over unjustly as many times more. If he were a target of discrimination, he should have been twice as careful to obey the law, or at least half as careful as I am.

No, most people don't break 4 or 5 traffic codes, at least anything they'd get pulled over for, every time they get behind the wheel. Anyone and everyone would get pulled over for a broken tail light. But, he probably would have just gotten warning for that, if he hadn't threatened the cop with a gun. If he had a suspended licence, he, and anyone, would have gotten a ticket.

And having a concealed firearms license makes you a thug?

No, having a concealed gun doesn't make someone a thug, but a thug is someone who would have a concealed gun. Do you carry your gun with your front waistband? He did.

Except that is not true. He was NOT pulled over for a broken taillight. The audio tape of the radio call to the dispatcher clearly stated he was pulled over because he had a "wide nose."

He was pulled over for a broken tail light. He also fit the description of a criminal in a recent crime, which made it more likely he'd get shot. But, don't blame police racism, blame black crime. If the criminal were white, then it would have been a white motorist who would have been treated with more suspicion.

You have no evidence that he was angry.

How could the driver not have been angry if he had been stopped more than 50 times, half the time just for being black? We're talking about reasonable doubt in defense of the officer. An angry man with a gun is a danger. I'm sure the officer will testify something to the effect of the hostility of the driver.

 

[InTheLight]

No, having a concealed gun doesn't make someone a thug, but a thug is someone who would have a concealed gun. Do you carry your gun with your front waistband? He did.

Do you make stuff up as you go? Where do you get this idea that he had a gun tucked in his waist band? Give us a link to your source.

He was pulled over for a broken tail light. He also fit the description of a criminal in a recent crime, which made it more likely he'd get shot.

The description was man with a wide set nose and long dreadlocks. Add a broken taillight and, yes, in Smyth's world you've got yourself a death penalty.




Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

I have yet to see a single post in any thread where Smyth has posted a link to a source for any of his "information." Maybe I missed one somewhere?

Smyth, so you'll understand credentials: Mr. Cassidy is our resident law enforcement official. Thus, what he says about such matters usually carries the weight of actual authority.

 

[Smyth]

Do you make stuff up as you go? Where do you get this idea that he had a gun tucked in his waist band? Give us a link to your source.

Facts are irrelevant to you, so having this information will change nothing for you. Look at the video his unwed GF shot. Facts are irrelevant to you, so you've watched the video without paying attention to detail.

 

[TCassidy]

He was pulled over for a broken tail light.

You really have to do a little research to avoid making such a public fool of yourself.

(The audio has since been verified by the department.)

 

[TCassidy]

Facts are irrelevant to you,

You don't have any facts. Just lies and speculation.

 

[TCassidy]

Mr. Cassidy is our resident law enforcement official.

Retired.
(In the interests of full disclosure that picture was taken in 1987. )

 

[777]

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/phila...ook-live-video-watch-lavish-reynolds-diamond/

1. Violate instr permit – dismissed
2. No proof of insurance – guilty
3. Basic speed – guilty
4. Driving after suspension – dismissed
5. No proof of insurance – guilty
6. No seat belt use – dismissed
7. No proof of insurance – guilty
8. Impede traffic – dismissed
9. No Minnesota driver’s license – amended charge guilty
10. Driving after suspension of driver’s license – Convicted
11. No proof of insurance – dismissed
12. No proof of insurance – convicted
13. Driving after revocation – Dismissed
15. Driving after suspension – Dismissed
16. No proof of insurance – guilty
17. Speeding – dismissed
18. Driver’s license – failure to obtain new – dismissed
19. Muffler required – dismissed
20. Driving after revocation – guilty
21. Operation of motor vehicle after loss of license prohibited – dismissed
22. Dangerous public road/water – convicted
23. Driving after revocation – convicted
24. No proof of insurance – dismissed
25. Driving after revocation – convicted
26. Seat belt violation – dismissed
27. Driving after revocation – convicted
28. Proof on insurance – Dismissed
29. Driving after revocation – convicted
30. Driving after revocation – convicted
31. Driving after revocation – convicted
32. Seat belt required – convicted
33. Seat belt required – convicted
34. Driving after revocation – convicted
35. Driving after revocation – convicted
36. Driving after revocation – convicted
37. Driving after revocation – convicted
38. Driving after revocation – convicted
39. Driving after revocation – convicted
40. Stop/stand/park vehicle at any place where official signs prohibit stopping – convicted
41. Expired registration – dismissed
42. Snow emergency parking restrictions – convicted
43. Stop/stand/park vehicle on any street/ally, at the same location, for more than 48 consecutive hours – convicted
44. Abandon motor vehicle on any public/private property without consent – convicted
45. Stop/stand/park vehicle on any street/ally, at the same location, for more than 48 consecutive hours – convicted

 

[Smyth]

You don't have any facts. Just lies and speculation.

Did you mean to post that to InTheLight who claimed that Castile was unarmed and had been pulled over only 10 to 12 times before, while speculating without a shred of evidence that Castile was shot because he's black. Surely, you must have.

 

[InTheLight]

Thanks for posting that list, 777. Looking at the screen grabs at the link provided I see that some of the charges occurred at the same traffic stop. For example there are 5 charges on October 31, 2007 (#17 - #21 in your listing); 4 charges on July 29, 2008, 3 on March 12, 2008, 3 on May 2, 2008, etc. The guy drove without a license and didn't use a seat belt. In Smyth's world that is being a thug.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Smyth]

You really have to do a little research to avoid making such a public fool of yourself.

If I'm wrong, sorry for believing the unwed GF who said they were pulled over for a busted tail light. I now know better than to believe anything she says. (Actually, I still think it was for a broken taillight, but it doesn't matter.)

You continue to work against your position that the brown (not white) officer acted out of racism. If I were the officer's lawyer, I'd love you to be on the witness stand. You make the case that Castile was angry for past police abuse. And, you argue now that he was pulled without doing anything wrong, which would have just further enraged Castile (angry=dangerous). Your own testimony is that the officer didn't act out of racism, but was just going to question someone who looked like a wanted criminal. Castile and the criminal cold have both been white, or green, but just happened to have been black.

Congratulations, you've just acquitted officer Yanez. Let's home there's not another mock trial against an innocent man just to appease BLM mobs.

 

[Smyth]

2. No proof of insurance – guilty

5. No proof of insurance – guilty

10. Driving after suspension of driver’s license – Convicted

34. Driving after revocation – convicted
35. Driving after revocation – convicted
36. Driving after revocation – convicted
37. Driving after revocation – convicted
38. Driving after revocation – convicted
39. Driving after revocation – convicted

Didn't someone say, "Two of them were for driving on a suspended license - which wasn't suspended. Two more were for driving without insurance, except he had insurance. Yes, he did have two driving on a suspended license dismissals. But, highly unlikely the dismissals were because he had a valid licence.

 

[Sapper Woody]

It's a sad state all around. Obviously, the video starts after he has been shot; so now we have a he said/she said situation. The girlfriend says that he was reaching for his information that the officer requested, while in the video the officer says, "I told him not to reach for it". Does anyone have any more information on what happened prior to the shooting?

Now, to me, saying someone has a "wide set nose" does not mean pulling them over because they're black. Maybe it's just because I got used to having almost zero racism in the Army, but when you describe someone, it's not racist to use features like, "black" or "large nose" or something along those lines. On a lighter side, we had two SGT Davis that worked in our HQ company. They were both the same height, build, and hair color. But one was black, and one was white. Seeing people trying to describe which one they wanted to talk to without using the words "white" or "black" was hilarious.

So, to me, he could have meant that he was pulling the black man over because he thought he was a black man with a wide nose, and that may have been a description used by a witness to the robbery.

Whatever the motivation or mistake here, it is a tragedy. No one should go out like that. For what it's worth, in the video it sounded as if the officer was genuinely sorry for what happened.