Dashcam of the shooting of Philando Castile - NSFW

It's hard to think of a single greater training priority than escalation of force. When proper escalation isn't taught and drilled, the result is corpses, either cop or civilian. Or both.

digging through glove boxes and center consoles or pockets when the cop can only see you as a silhouette is a bad idea. This is just about the worst advice I have ever seen.

Wait for instructions, state your intentions, where your papers are and let the flash light see what you are doing.

The escalation here occurred because the guy volunteered information to the police. He was trying to responsibly carry, but he only had to inform if asked.

I do believe he was touching his weapon, it is a common reaction for concealed carriers to want to show the police their weapon, mistakenly believing it is the right course of action, especially if holstered.

My problem here is that Philando was making every effort to comply 110% with his responsibilities while carrying; but he made common mistake that many many people have made and were not shot for making, and was executed and then dragged through the mud in the court of far-right overreaction to every damn thing public opinion.

The police officer's time to escalation, his choice to fire an entire magazine into an occupied car at point blank range, and no effort to make any other move than straight attacking a citizen for trying to comply with his responsibilities should had lead to a jail sentence, this is a miscarriage of justice is an issue that can not be taken lightly. I do respect it is a tough job, but given the overwhelming advantages the officer had in this situation, from tactical to authoritative to tools to training, he acted grossly incompetent, leading to wrongful death; acquittal is not the correct response.

Literally the man could have taken one step towards the back of the car and opened a window of time to allow Philando to comply or commit, while being safe.

You need to read what I wrote again. You dig while cop is in car or cycle nowhere near you. You have it all out and ready before he/she approaches vehicle. You do NOT want to go digging around or playing in your pants while they are near you. This is from a cop.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Let's say he was putting his wallet back in his back pocket when the officer said "don't pull it out", what should he do from there?

You freeze, tell the officer that you've stopped and then very politely ask the officer to let you know what to do next.

"

soneka101 wrote:

"Don't pull it out" is a crappy directive. He could have asked for Castile to put his hands on the driving wheel or outside of the window

The driver apparently didn't listen to his command (that's a legal imperative, it's not a matter of deciding whether to obey or not) to not pull it out, so what makes you think he would have listened to any other command?

"

soneka101 wrote:

but I doubt that would be helpful with THIS kind of cop, after all it took 6 seconds. Castile informed he had a gun on him and 6 seconds later he was shot, not much time to slowly comply to a command.

6 seconds is a lot of time.


------------

"

soneka101 wrote:

I don't know why anyone would defend this incompetence.

Me either, why are people defending the incompetence of this driver? (Do you see how foolish the argument sound with no proof or logic, and only assertion?

"

soneka101 wrote:

Is it because they sympathize with the cop?

I want to ask, do anyone here want more cops like that?

For all we know, YOU would do the exact same thing if you were in that officer's shoes. Let me put it another way, if your hand touched a hot burner on the stove, would you keep your hand there and calmly and rationally think about the best course of action, or would you pull your hand away in instinctive reaction?

"

soneka101 wrote:

If the answer is yes, then is it because you think you wouldn't act the way Castile did? But let's say you did, and by accident, would you be okay in dying just like that?

If by accident, you were struck by lightning, would you be ok in dying just like that? This is what the logic of your argument looks like. If Tiger Woords ran around on a golf course during a thunderstorm with his golf club raised high in the air and got struck by lightning, do we blame the clouds for being racist?

As I said in my first post, we don't know if the driver did anything wrong or not. Body cam footage might show the driver acted reasonably and the officer was completely at fault, but we don't know that either.

"

soneka101 wrote:

7 shots in front of your girlfriend and her kid because of a broken taillight...

Would 6 shots be OK? Four? Two? Would it have been OK, if he had told the girlfriend and her kid to cover their ears and close their eyes and then shoot the driver? Would it have been OK to shoot the driver if instead of a broken tail light, the driver had gone 17 mph over the speed limit? What if the driver was obviously drunk? OK to shoot then?

All your argument did there was add emotional hyperbole to the sole question of whether the officer's reaction was justified by what the driver did.

"

soneka101 wrote:

You could have 30 or 40 years ahead of you

So, it would be OK if the driver were 80 and only had 2-7 years?

"

soneka101 wrote:

but that is gone because people thought it was fine to hire someone that wasn't fit for the job.

If the officer had been disciplined or involved in other questionable shootings before this, then he may not have been fit for the job. If you have seen such evidence, please present it. I'm not disputing its putative existence, rather, I am saying that without such prior evidence there is nothing to suggest the officer wasn't and isn't fit for the job.

To be clear, this was a tragic loss of life. It may have been a crime. What little we have seen so far, isn't enough to tell.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I should have mentioned this (explicitly) earlier, but what bothers me about this incident is escalation of force. It starts off correctly with a calm communication not to reach for the weapon. This communication is then repeated as a command, which is fair enough. The problem is this: it is repeated a third time. It's insane to believe that, after saying it twice, that the third time would be a charm. At this instant, Yanez should have used nonlethal force — basically, Castile should have maybe been punched in the face, or maybe Yanez draws and points his weapon at Castile as he yells the command a third time. But Yanez goes immediately from verbal to deadly force, and that's just... fucking stupid.

If you watch the video closely a couple more times, look at the officer's hands. He appears to do what you are talking about - reaching into the vehicle (my guess would be to try and immobilize the driver's hand that he thought was reaching for the weapon). Whether he was trained to make that move, forgot his training and panicked, or what. I can't say.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I was trained and I actually performed better in a real-life situation (thankfully, just one*) than this so-called cop, so I'm not wondering whether Yanez is stupid... only whether he's institutionally stupid, or individually.


It could be that the training the officer received covered the behavior necessary for such situations, a couple demonstrations and then a quick one-off practice session. While that is great for conceptualization, it is of little practical value in a crisis situation compared to repeating training to where the actions are reflexive.

If there is an institutional flaw in many police department's training, then we will continue to see the problem, countless lives will be thrown away or we could demand a review of the exact training programs and policies, and prevent this.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

6 seconds is a lot of time.

You disgust me

where the fuck is the video

"

where the fuck is the video

For some reason the support removed.

Search for @webster on twitter, the guy (Tony Webster) has lots of info on his timeline

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

6 seconds is a lot of time.

You disgust me

I like how you refuted his arguments and employed logic and reasoning to assert your point.

@I_NO: cop goes out to vehicle, talks to the driver for a while, body language: calm and relaxed, then the cop becomes extremely agitated, reaches in the vehicle, changes his mind, pulls his gun out and shoots multiple times from point blank range. That's basically it. Zero visibility to the driver.