White Privilege is Alive and Well

[_Maxine Waters]

Whether you think the officer was justified in his use of force or not (I don't). The oddest part of this story to me is the absolutely deafening silence from the NRA. This was technically one of their own, skin color aside, that they typically will jump to the defense of. You think they would worry about a case that basically says that a "suspect" having a concealed weapon is enough to merit lethal force.

The NRA believes you have the right to be armed. They don't believe you have the right to disobey a police officers direct order. The jury sided with the officers version of events.

[_EAllusion]

Why Didn't the jury convict Yanez if he were so guilty? Hispanic Racism?

Part of a widespread pattern of unreasonable deference to police by juries coupled with police always having good defense teams in their corner. Those factors heavily tilt in the defense's favor. In fact, they combine in that competent defense attorneys are good at getting juries highly likely to acquit. Police also tend to stick together making building a case harder. The criminal justice system in the US is more like two justice systems. One for the well-connected that makes it hard to convict and one for the relatively dispossessed that makes it hard not to convict (or force a plea).

If race entered the picture at all, it would be on the value of the victim, not the race of the officer. But it's really hard to know if that subtly biased jurors' thinking. We can only speak to macro-trends on that. What we do know is that when police use excessive force, they nearly always get away with it. They're rarely indicted, and when they are, they're rarely convicted by juries.

You don't trust a public school teacher to be be competent, but apparently police are plucked from the heavens as nigh-infallible arbiters of street justice.

[_Kevin Graham]

Why Didn't the jury convict Yanez if he were so guilty? Hispanic Racism?

Part of a widespread pattern of unreasonable deference to police by juries coupled with police always having good defense teams in their corner. Those factors heavily tilt in the defense's favor. In fact, they combine in that competent defense attorneys are good at getting juries highly likely to acquit. Police also tend to stick together making building a case harder. The criminal justice system in the US is more like two justice systems. One for the well-connected that makes it hard to convict and one for the relatively dispossessed that makes it hard not to convict (or force a plea).

If race entered the picture at all, it would be on the value of the victim, not the race of the officer. But it's really hard to know if that subtly biased jurors' thinking. We can only speak to macro-trends on that. What we do know is that when police use excessive force, they nearly always get away with it. They're rarely indicted, and when they are, they're rarely convicted by juries.

You don't trust a public school teacher to be be competent, but apparently police are plucked from the heavens as nigh-infallible arbiters of street justice.

The link Doc provided shows that the video footage of the BCA interview with Yanez after the incident wasn't used in court for some reason. In that video Yanez is babbling left and right about how uncertain he was of seeing a gun. But of course, a year later is is absolutely certain he saw a gun. Go figure.

[_Maxine Waters]

Part of a widespread pattern of unreasonable deference to police by juries coupled with police always having good defense teams in their corner. Those factors heavily tilt in the defense's favor. In fact, they combine in that competent defense attorneys are good at getting juries highly likely to acquit. Police also tend to stick together making building a case harder. The criminal justice system in the US is more like two justice systems. One for the well-connected that makes it hard to convict and one for the relatively dispossessed that makes it hard not to convict (or force a plea).

Wouldn't it be safer to just do what the police officer tells you to do and save your arguments for the courtroom? I'm not even saying you should have to do so. But I do think the strategy of disarming the police and disrespecting them like you would a public school teacher is going to ultimately backfire on the BLM crowd.

[_EAllusion]

Wouldn't it be safer to just do what the police officer tells you to do and save your arguments for the courtroom? I'm not even saying you should have to do so. But I do think the strategy of disarming the police and disrespecting them like you would a public school teacher is going to ultimately backfire on the BLM crowd.

You're posting in a thread about a victim that was incredibly cooperative and was killed for it. So, bad time to make that point.

Julian Sanchez recently made a point that I think is relevant to this type of comment, though:

The Castile case reminds me of a weird pattern we always see in the inevitable defenses of police who've shot innocent people. However objectively unreasonable the officer's conduct might seem, we're reminded of the fog of war, the stresses of the job, etc etc ...while the conduct of the victim is held to an oddly higher standard: "Oh, he should have known NOT to keep pulling out his wallet even though that's what the officer had told him to do. He should have instantly deduced the officer would now take it for a gun..." Which seems rather backwards. Civilians get nervous when they're stopped by police. Especially when the police are shouting! Which is unsurprising, because civilians don't get extensive training on just how to behave in such situations. Police do. As in law or medicine, part of being admitted to the profession is that your conduct can reasonably be held to a higher standard. These defenses perversely invert that. It's like excusing gross malpractice because the patient didn't describe his symptoms in Latin jargon.

Imagine a civilian in similar circumstances. Hell, even imagine the situation being a little more ambiguous. Two men arguing after a fender bender, outside a shooting range say—so there’s actual conflict—and one suddenly reaches into his car. The other panics and shoots him, imagining he *might* be reaching for his gun (though it was just his insurance card). No prior physical altercation, no weapon actually seen by the shooter. Would anyone defend the panicked shooter? Would anyone take his somber pronouncement that “I had to make a SPLIT SECOND decision” as anything but a pathetic rationalization? I hope not. We’d recognize the urgency, even if sincerely felt, as an objectively unreasonable product of the killer’s imagination. But my imaginary panicked shooter would at least have the (weak) excuse of not being trained or prepared for the situation. So it seems weird that we are willing to make excuses for people who should be the best prepared for such scenarios that we wouldn’t make for a civilian who made the same kind of panicked decision without the benefit of training.

[_subgenius]

...

Still, though. If you watch the dashcam video the cop escalated the situation and then shot Castile in seconds.

- Doc

Days the guy who can't see anything the driver is doing or not doing. ...but please, continue sharing your expert knowledge for what "really happened"

[_DarkHelmet]

Whether you think the officer was justified in his use of force or not (I don't). The oddest part of this story to me is the absolutely deafening silence from the NRA. This was technically one of their own, skin color aside, that they typically will jump to the defense of. You think they would worry about a case that basically says that a "suspect" having a concealed weapon is enough to merit lethal force.

The NRA believes you have the right to be armed. They don't believe you have the right to disobey a police officers direct order. The jury sided with the officers version of events.

Is it also the NRA's position that disobeying a police officer's orders should result in being shot to death by the police officer? Is that the country we live in now?And based on that video, that was more of a miscommunication than disobedience.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

...

Still, though. If you watch the dashcam video the cop escalated the situation and then shot Castile in seconds.

- Doc

Days the guy who can't see anything the driver is doing or not doing. ...but please, continue sharing your expert knowledge for what "really happened"

You literally watched a police officer shoot and kill a man with no history of violence. I'd like to believe you didn't watch the video. Sigh... I can't even bring myself to make a snarky comment because, at this point, your willful ignorance is only surpassed by your moral depravity and I'm not sure how you function.

Wait. Maybe I can. I mean, I get that you're a dull-eyed cow of a man, and believe you me I use the term 'man' very loosely when talking to you. You're more like a living caricature of the 80's Garbage Pail Kids. To be able to pin you down to one embodiment of a Garbage Pail Kid is a task too Herculean for me, so you're just kind of a montage of all of them.

Even then that's giving you too much credit. Those caricatures have personalities and panache. You? You're an infant. Sure, people have trained you as you physically matured to read and write to a degree. But make no mistake, you're just an infant permanently arrested. You'll never make it to the adolescent phase of development, and you certainly are literally incapable of reaching adulthood.

I can't feel sorry for you, though. To me you're just an accumulation of actions that are inevitable, much like the toddler who reaches into his diaper and smears his fecal matter on himself, the walls, the floor, whatever his fat little hands can reach... And then he smiles because why not? He just does what he does. You do what you do, and you will always do that. You will always just reach into your diaper and smear crap everywhere and be completely incognizant of your actions while disgusting those who are within reach of your stubby little fingers.

- Doc

[_DarkHelmet]

You literally watched a police officer shoot and kill a man with no history of violence. I'd like to believe you didn't watch the video. Sigh... I can't even bring myself to make a snarky comment because, at this point, your willful ignorance is only surpassed by your moral depravity and I'm not sure how you function.

Wait. Maybe I can. I mean, I get that you're a dull-eyed cow of a man, and believe you me I use the term 'man' very loosely when talking to you. You're more like a living caricature of the 80's Garbage Pail Kids. To be able to pin you down to one embodiment of a Garbage Pail Kid is a task too Herculean for me, so you're just kind of a montage of all of them.

Even then that's giving you too much credit. Those caricatures have personalities and panache. You? You're an infant. Sure, people have trained you as you physically matured to read and write to a degree. But make no mistake, you're just an infant permanently arrested. You'll never make it to the adolescent phase of development, and you certainly are literally incapable of reaching adulthood.

I can't feel sorry for you, though. To me you're just an accumulation of actions that are inevitable, much like the toddler who reaches into his diaper and smears his fecal matter on himself, the walls, the floor, whatever his fat little hands can reach... And then he smiles because why not? He just does what he does. You do what you do, and you will always do that. You will always just reach into your diaper and smear ____ everywhere and be completely incognizant of your actions while disgusting those who are within reach of your stubby little fingers.

- Doc

It's all about being part of a group, and saying what the party wants you to say. You can bet if the cop was ex-president Barack Obama, who decided to became a cop after being president, and the driver was Alex Jones, and the dialog was exactly the same, I'm sure subgenius and maxine would have a different opinion of that video.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dumb dull-eyed cows aside the totality of the facts and circumstances indicate that Officer Yanez's use of deadly force was not necessary, objectively unreasonable, and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices.

- Doc