Politics And Current Events

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:26 am

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/878034183750262784

Postby **Viva la Ben** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:57 am

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/ ... 3554263040

Postby **Staggy** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:11 am

But I didn't tape. And I don't have any tape and I didn't tape.

Sane people speak like this.

Postby **Viva la Ben** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:13 am

The truth is there really are tapes that corroborate Comey's testimony.

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:22 am

Trump has a history of threatening people about recording convos 'to keep them honest', and then when push comes to shove he has to admit the claim was bogus. This has happened at least once under oath during a deposition.

Postby **Trip McNeely** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:00 pm

Trump has a history of threatening people about recording convos 'to keep them honest', and then when push comes to shove he has to admit the claim was bogus. This has happened at least once under oath during a deposition.

I love how he uses the word "tape" instead of "record". It's like he still has a VCR that tapes Melrose Place every Thursday night.

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:05 pm

Well, I didn't tape him. You never know what's happening when you see that the Obama administration, and perhaps longer than that, was doing all of unmasking and surveillance and you read all about it. And I've been reading about it for the last couple of months about the seriousness of the — and horrible situation with surveillance all over the place. And you've been hearing the word unmasking, a word you probably never heard before. So you never know what's out there.

But I didn't tape. And I don't have any tape and I didn't tape. But when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it's governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed. I mean you'll have to take a look at that, because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events.

And my story didn't change. My story was always a straight story. My story was always the truth. But you'll have to determine for yourself whether or not his story changed. But I did not tape.

Postby **Viva la Ben** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:10 pm

Imagine if a real crisis were to happen. Would you believe anything Trump would say about it?

Postby **dodint** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:33 pm

Did Grunty go on vacation?

Houston, I think.

Postby **slappybrown** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 pm

Hope he brought a jacket.

Postby **Algernon** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:37 pm

this might be the most disturbing and saddest video I've ever seen

jesus christ
we live in quite a country

I don't see how there isn't more anger about this.

What if that family was white? would people care then?

The Philando Castile incident is far more disturbing than any police abuse/shooting incident I've ever heard of in my entire life, more disturbing than Rodney King thats for damn sure, and I had just heard about this yesterday.

Michael Brown, Freddy Grey.... Those were pretty bad but this is on an entirely different level

Postby **MrKennethTKangaroo** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:42 pm

Hope he brought a jacket.

We need a like button

Postby **Algernon** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:43 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra ... 5b96c65888

Many gun owners, including NRA members, are outraged about this from a gun rights perspective, but interestingly, we haven’t heard much from the NRA, which is usually very quick to come to the defense of gun owners who make the national news for having their rights violated.

Shortly after the shooting, the NRA released a statement saying “the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known,” leaving open the possibility that the shooting was Castille’s fault.

Well, all the facts are known now. The investigation is over. The trial is over. The dashcam footage has been released. And still, we’ve heard nothing from the NRA. Many major news outlets have asked for their comment, and they have refused to respond.

surprise! The NRA is a racist organization

Postby **columbia** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:54 pm

Do African Americans Have a Right to Bear Arms?
And if so, why won’t the justice system or the NRA stand up for it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ms/531093/

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:03 pm

This is going to sound like victim blaming, but it is not intended as such. It's more cautionary than blamey.

From my perspective, even if you have no ill intent towards the cop and you are just doing what you think is the responsible and polite thing, the words "I have a gun" should never leave your lips when dealing with a law enforcement officer.

In MN there is no duty to inform you're carrying unless and until directly asked the question by the police. So you may think you're doing the right thing by affirmatively letting police know, what you're actually doing is inadvertently dialing up the adrenaline-o-meter in the cop; all he hears is 'gun'. Either hand over the CCW with your license, registration, and insurance stuff, or simply answer 'yes' when asked if you're armed. Do not say 'gun'.

That said, it is extremely telling how differently the other cop in the stop behaves.

Postby **columbia** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:05 pm

This is going to sound like victim blaming

Correct

Postby **CBear3** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:21 pm

I'm going with victim blaming and poor cop training.
Philando already has handed over his license when he tells the cop he's armed. The cop (either through poor training or not following training) doesn't give Philando clear and concise directions at that point. He let's a situation get out of his control which leaves him feeling vulnerable when Philando starts to reach for his registration. Philando then continues to reach for it, seeming to think that despite the officer's commands to stop reaching for "it" that somehow the registration is an incredibly important item at this point. From talking to other people who have carried during stops, they make damn sure that the cop knows he's in control of the situation. They sit with their hands on the wheel and await instructions. That didn't happen here.
Once Philando discloses his possession of a weapon there will be somebody who is in control of the situation and someone who feels very vulnerable. Philando takes control by filling the vacuum left by the officer who's first reaction is fear.
I think the volume of rounds spent speaks to the officer's fear for his own safety. If that fear stems from inadequate training it's hard to convict the cop of wrongdoing when a suspect is reaching towards his firearm despite commands not to. If it stems from failure to follow proper training than he should be subject to the appropriate penalty in the legal system for his negligence.

It's not racial, it's not militarization, it's poor training or adherence. If the subject was white, I'd further venture that we wouldn't have heard about it, the focus being so intently shone on minorities' interactions with the police force. I can't venture a guess as to whether the victims race would have an effect on the outcome of the trial however.

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:33 pm

Judging by the outwardly calm reactions of the other cop, I don't think this was a training issue. And that's why I think Yanez should've been convicted.

Postby **Algernon** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:35 pm

I'm going with victim blaming and poor cop training.
Philando already has handed over his license when he tells the cop he's armed. The cop (either through poor training or not following training) doesn't give Philando clear and concise directions at that point. He let's a situation get out of his control which leaves him feeling vulnerable when Philando starts to reach for his registration. Philando then continues to reach for it, seeming to think that despite the officer's commands to stop reaching for "it" that somehow the registration is an incredibly important item at this point. From talking to other people who have carried during stops, they make damn sure that the cop knows he's in control of the situation. They sit with their hands on the wheel and await instructions. That didn't happen here.
Once Philando discloses his possession of a weapon there will be somebody who is in control of the situation and someone who feels very vulnerable. Philando takes control by filling the vacuum left by the officer who's first reaction is fear.
I think the volume of rounds spent speaks to the officer's fear for his own safety. If that fear stems from inadequate training it's hard to convict the cop of wrongdoing when a suspect is reaching towards his firearm despite commands not to. If it stems from failure to follow proper training than he should be subject to the appropriate penalty in the legal system for his negligence.

It's not racial, it's not militarization, it's poor training or adherence. If the subject was white, I'd further venture that we wouldn't have heard about it, the focus being so intently shone on minorities' interactions with the police force. I can't venture a guess as to whether the victims race would have an effect on the outcome of the trial however.

No he didn't. He handed his Insurance not his license.

Postby **CBear3** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:36 pm

Judging by the outwardly calm reactions of the other cop, I don't think this was a training issue. And that's why I think Yanez should've been convicted.

So you're saying the other cop thought this was a straight shoot? That Yanez did everything by the book?
If so how can you convict him?
You can sue the pants off the PD for this being acceptable, but Yanez did everything he was told to do.

Postby **CBear3** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:39 pm

I'm going with victim blaming and poor cop training.
Philando already has handed over his license when he tells the cop he's armed. The cop (either through poor training or not following training) doesn't give Philando clear and concise directions at that point. He let's a situation get out of his control which leaves him feeling vulnerable when Philando starts to reach for his registration. Philando then continues to reach for it, seeming to think that despite the officer's commands to stop reaching for "it" that somehow the registration is an incredibly important item at this point. From talking to other people who have carried during stops, they make damn sure that the cop knows he's in control of the situation. They sit with their hands on the wheel and await instructions. That didn't happen here.
Once Philando discloses his possession of a weapon there will be somebody who is in control of the situation and someone who feels very vulnerable. Philando takes control by filling the vacuum left by the officer who's first reaction is fear.
I think the volume of rounds spent speaks to the officer's fear for his own safety. If that fear stems from inadequate training it's hard to convict the cop of wrongdoing when a suspect is reaching towards his firearm despite commands not to. If it stems from failure to follow proper training than he should be subject to the appropriate penalty in the legal system for his negligence.

It's not racial, it's not militarization, it's poor training or adherence. If the subject was white, I'd further venture that we wouldn't have heard about it, the focus being so intently shone on minorities' interactions with the police force. I can't venture a guess as to whether the victims race would have an effect on the outcome of the trial however.

No he didn't. He handed his Insurance not his license.

The first version of that post was lost thanks to Microsoft, but it said "I thought." The distinction doesn't change anything else in the post however.

Postby **Algernon** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:42 pm

The victim was given no clear instructions.

"dont grab your gun"

okay

He was getting his license.

No where in the video does he say "Stop", "Put your hands on the wheel" or anything reasonable, he reacted like an idiot

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:46 pm

Judging by the outwardly calm reactions of the other cop, I don't think this was a training issue. And that's why I think Yanez should've been convicted.
So you're saying the other cop thought this was a straight shoot? That Yanez did everything by the book?
If so how can you convict him?
You can sue the pants off the PD for this being acceptable, but Yanez did everything he was told to do.

Just the opposite. Other cop observed his partner unload seven rounds into a parked car with a child in the backseat, and his gun never cleared leather. He knew it was an overreaction from the go.

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:49 pm

The victim was given no clear instructions.

"dont grab your gun"

okay

He was getting his license.

No where in the video does he say "Stop", "Put your hands on the wheel" or anything reasonable, he reacted like an idiot

This is where the don't-say-gun-to-a-cop thing comes into play. Castille says he has a firearm, and begins reaching for his permit. Cop hears gun, and says "don't reach for it!" The 'it' in that statement meant two different things to Yanez and Castille: To the cop, he was instructing the guy who just told him he was armed to not reach for his gun. To Castille, he was never intending to reach for his gun, and was just trying to accommodate the officer by producing his license/permit.

Don't give the ref a reason to make a bad call.

Postby **CBear3** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:52 pm

"Don't reach for it." I believe was the repeated instruction. I'd stop in my tracks whether I was reaching for my registration, a firearm, or a candy bar.
The lack of instructions though is either a PD issue if he wasn't trained to give them or an officer problem if he didn't follow training.
Is it Philando's fault he's dead? No. He could have done more to prevent it, but it falls somewhere in the PD.

Like I said, if he was trained and didn't follow training he should have been convicted. If he wasn't trained, or followed training the death is on the hands of the PD.