[Falcon Heights] Woman goes live on Facebook after boyfriend is shot by police

"Yes, you can be killed by cops when you are a perceived threat that causes them to believe their life is in danger."

Of course that is true. I hope it is not a legal maxim though.

Felony traffic stop: Bringing a suspect out at gunpoint while officers are in a position of cover and having them lie on the ground until they can identify who that individual is.

This was not done in this case. Both cops were at ease. It was a simple rear light violation. The dashcam proves that. The theory of an armed and dangerous suspect as the reason for the threat and fear flies out of the window. They did not treat him as a suspect. It was MISPLACED FEAR of the cop that manifested WHEN the driver calmly told him that he is carrying a firearm.

It was misplaced because the victim was not reaching for the gun (law of evidence: dying declaration + witness account + cop partner did not disprove). Without REASONABLE reason(s) to fear, anyone who will defend the cop with:

"Yes, you can be killed by cops when you are a perceived threat that causes them to believe their life is in danger" needs to have their head examined.

You can't allow cops just go on shooting simply because they perceive their life is in danger. Actually, they can and one did. They just need to be punished.

 

Depends on the state, but in most states lethal force is justified for police officers when they rationally believe their life is in danger. A situation where a potential robbery suspect that is armed with a gun who continues to reach for something unknown after being told to "not reach for it" is a situation where the officer can claim that they rationally believed that their life was in danger.

It wasn't done in this case because it wasn't a felony stop. It was a stop to check ID and to likely give some kind of warning about a taillight being out. The "theory" of the stop being for the reasons the officer himself stated on the radio previous to pulling the people over isn't "out the window" due to the fact that they didn't perform a felony stop for what wasn't a felony stop.

The raised awareness was there from the beginning due to the suspicion that the man might be an armed robbery suspect and was only elevated by the smell of mar1juana in the car and the knowledge that the man was armed.

The fear ended up being misplaced, but there was reason for the officer to rationally believe that his life was in danger due to the potential armed robbery suspect who was armed and reaching for something despite repeated instructions to not "reach for it". The fact that the danger didn't actually exist is irrelevant in the criminal case because that's not the legal standard. An ultimately incorrect but reasonable belief that their life is in danger is a legal justification for use of force.

 

Have you seen the footage? The guy's face was not clearly distinguished at all as he was wearing a ball-cap and sunglasses. He was black and he had dreads. Oh yeah, and the nose. Must not forget that.

If the armed robbery suspect was white, and Castile was white, and Castile acted the exact same way with the exact same demeanor, and he had a white girl next to him and a white baby in the back, I'm quite confident that the officer would not have been as spooked/threatened by the situation. There is ample evidence that deadly force is proportionately more frequently used against blacks than whites in police altercations. It is also well known that black men are viewed as more threatening than non-black men by people on average, and this feeling would naturally be amplified in circumstances where a person is already on edge. Given the tensions that exist between the black community and police officers, it is further quite natural to assume that many officers (especially the young and relatively inexperienced ones) would be especially susceptible to such bias.

Castile would have been alive today if the police officer wasn't inept in his handling of the situation.

Huh? The lengths you're going to defend this guy's ineptitude is remarkable. Castile said he wasn't reaching for the gun when the officer told him not to do so. The passenger next to him also said this. There was a kid in the backseat! How hard would it be for the officer to simply assess the situation and say "Sir, do not reach for anything! Keep your hands on the wheel!" That's harder to do then pulling out a gun and shooting several bullets into him? Seriously?

The only explanation for the officer taking such extreme action is (a) he is a psycho, or (b) he was in the moment convinced that Castile was going to pull out a gun and shoot him. Let's suppose he's not a psycho. Can you honestly say that all the facts the officer had at his disposal up that point warranted him being convinced that Castile was going to shoot him? Of course not. It was pure irrationality on the officer's part. Irrationality that in my opinion was driven, to a large extent, by racial bias. But even if you can't bring yourself to admit that race was a factor in this, it is irrationality nonetheless.

This I fully agree with. I don't dispute that there were things Castile could have or even should have done differently in that situation. People should learn from this, especially black people as they are more likely to be presumed dangerous.

I also hope that police officers learn from what happened how not to handle a situation like this.

 

Believing your life is "in danger", even if you think the belief is "rational", is not a justification for using lethal force against someone who has not yet committed an act of aggression. Police officers are frequently "in danger". That doesn't give them license to shoot first and ask questions later. The threshold for deadly force should not be being "in danger" of getting attacked, it is getting attacked. Unless the man actually pulled a gun on him or he had good reason to be convinced that an attack was imminent, and neither bar was met here, his preemptive use of lethal force is simply inexcusable. My opinion, of course. Lawyers may disagree.

 

Sure, you might think that a cop should wait until they are actually murdered before responding with force, but the law disagrees. Honestly that's what I've been trying to explain to you.

 

Sure, of course that's the narrative you've been pushing, I just don't agree with it. It's basically the argument that it was just a racist Hispanic cop who is scared of black people or whatever. I get why some people want to pimp out that narrative, but I'm just not buying.

 

Let me be clear I'll never defend bad cops.

Like this cop who should be fired asap

 

So you are actually saying the cop did nothing wrong? So if the cop thought the victim was an alien hell bend on taking over the world, and he really believed it he is in his right to kill him? There was no reason to believe the guy was dangerous. The victim was calm, had his kid in the backseat. Told the cop he had a gun. All this add up to: he is dangerous.. It is disgusting that you actually try to place the blame on the victim. In other threads I sort of enjoy reading your posts, since you are clearly trolling people, but in this thread you really show your true colours.

People can say but he kept on reaching for his papers when the cop sad "don't pull it out" but the victim clearly said I am not pulling out the gun (he was obviously reaching for his papers). The victim did not understand the cop, he thought that the cop did not want him to take out his gun, and thought that it was smart to show his papers as fast as possible. Was this a mistake of the victim, yes. However it is the cops job to stay calm, and guide everybody through this situation. Placing the blame on the victim is terrible. This situation should be standard procedure for a cop, but not for the victim. You cannot expect the victim to do everything perfectly, but you can expect the cop not to make such a huge mistake. The cop did not give clear orders, clearly lost his head and shot the victim multiple times. In the process killing 1 person and destroying a little kids life. It is strange that the victim was calm relaxed and the cop was freaking out even before the shots.

That video was brutal. I really cannot understand how anyone can defend the cop. At the very least he made a mistake and was terrible at his job. If you mess up your job so bad a totally innocent person dies there must be consequences.

 

David French's view (National Review):

The Unwritten Law that helps Bad Cops Go Free

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-shooting-police-must-display-reasonable-fear

 

Here is the fundamental question: Is appearing to reach for something sufficient reason to be killed? I find that insufficient. In this situation, the officer already has a gun, it is already pointed at the suspect, and the suspect is sitting in a car, which is cramped quarters. I don't think the danger is sufficient, in this situation, for use of force until you're beyond the 'reaching for it' point. Essentially this allows an office to shoot someone for failure to follow directions. Yes, you should follow directions...but should you die if you don't? Is that what our society thinks is the proper outcome for not doing what someone said? If so...where does that lead? All sorts of scenarios no one would agree with.

The fact that the danger didn't actually exist is irrelevant in the criminal case because that's not the legal standard. An ultimately incorrect but reasonable belief that their life is in danger is a legal justification for use of force.[/QUOTE]

Hence the problem with the law, and I think perhaps particularly so with police. The difference for police being two fold. One, they are supposed to be highly trained in determining whether actual danger exists, and two, they are they to protect us (ie, not to create incidents that didn't exist).

I don't say this as someone who bashes the police, but the law seems a bit messed up in such situations. If you kill someone because you thought your life was in danger, there had better end up being a good justification for it, or there should be legal consequences. In this situation, it definitely sounds like there still could be, in a civil suit.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/video-police-shooting-philando-castile-trial.html
Experts Weigh In on Video of Philando Castile Shooting

The Approach

The Conversation

The Shooting

The Aftermath

 

Haha, Bobby backed into a corner, resorts to burying his head in the sand and going with the straw man plus "nuh uh" argument. Truly the pinnacle of debating here.

 

LOL is that what you think happened? Thank you for your adorable opinion on the subject.

 

Very professional.



"I had no idea what was going on when I was approached and attacked by this officer,” Promvongsa said in a statement. “I did not even have the opportunity to take off my seatbelt before I was literally blindsided with this unnecessary attack. I immediately pulled over for the Worthington squad car and before I knew what was happening I was beat and ripped from my vehicle."

The Worthington Police Department was surprised by this video Thursday and did not immediately respond for comment after it was shared with the department.

 

That's modern America for you, sad to say.

Not in America. Political tribes are now much more important than any notion of morality or justice or care for your neighbor. And that's exactly how the people in ultimate power want it.

 

No, what I think is what I wrote.

Your argument is that if a cop thinks he's in danger, he's within his rights to use lethal force. That's either an idiotic interpretation of what the law says, or its an idiotic law. Take your pick. I'm not going to budge from my position on what should have happened just because the law may be ridiculously skewed to protect bad cops (as Mr. French from The National Review explains) . That's why I wrote earlier I'm not focused on legality here, because what's appropriate behavior and what the law may say is within your rights to do are two different things. You seem to struggle with this distinction when it comes to police conduct.

 

LOL fair enough, the law is "stupid" because of your ignorant opinion on the subject. I can accept that.

 

A law that says a cop can shoot someone if he think he's in danger is a stupid law, yes. Of course, that's not really what the law says. What it says is that there must be reasonable cause for the officer to believe his life is being threatened. That's not the same thing as believing you're in danger, although it suits your argument to conflate the two.

The officer might have had reason to think he was in a dangerous situation. So what? That's not enough to shoot at someone. It's enough to proceed with extreme caution. This is all common sense, which you've apparently abandoned in your zeal to defend shoddy police work.

I asked the question before, and you didn't answer. Was it reasonable for the cop to be convinced that Castile was going to pull out a gun and fire at him? Yes or No.

 

LOL, no, that's not what it says, and it's not what I told you that it said....but it's good that you finally got around to writing what I said as if it was something new. They have to have a reasonable belief that their life is being threatened.....which is what the officer in this case had and that's why he was acquitted. Having a reasonable belief that you are in danger is not the same thing as actually being in danger....but then again, I already told you these things. Hopefully you will fully comprehend what you should have been able to comprehend 9 hours ago when I first spelled this out to you. Good luck.

Here, I'll even link to where I told you this the first time

 

Well, you've managed to quote yourself and validate what I wrote, as anyone can see for themselves. Thanks?

You continue to conflate "reasonable belief that their life is being threatened." with "reasonable belief that their life is in danger." I am saying those mean different things. You don't seem to have understood that this is the point I am making. If an officer walks into a neighborhood full of violent criminals that are known to attack cops, his life is in danger, even if his life is not being threatened. In other words, "life is in danger" is a necessary but insufficient condition for "life being threatened". They are not equivalent. I don't know how much clearer I can make that for you.

I am willing to accept the idea that him thinking "his life was in danger", under the circumstances, was reasonable.

I am not willing to accept the idea that him thinking "his life was being threatened" was reasonable. That is a much higher requirement, appropriately so for using lethal force against civilians. In my judgment, given the facts of the case, that officer concluding that his life was being threatened (meaning Castile was about to pull a gun on him) was not reasonable. As is your insistence that it was reasonable for him to have concluded this.

I think this conversation is no longer productive, so I'll stop it here. Have the last word, if you like.