Dashcam of the shooting of Philando Castile - NSFW

Oh wow and I thought I was cold blooded for murdering people wtf lol

"

Oh wow and I thought I was cold blooded for murdering people wtf lol

I forgot to mention the cop had his partner watching the driver from the other side of the car the whole time.

Anyway, there's not enough information in the video to draw certain conclusions, but the transition from relaxed cop to "I'll just empty my clip into him from point blank" was sudden and inexplicable. It happened in seconds. There was no escalation.

And hes found not guilty? This isn't going to fly lol

"

Bars wrote:

"

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.

Why should I engage with him? To convince him that he is wrong? Read his comments and tell me if you think that is possible. His arguments are based on his opinion(that could very well be based on unshakable faith in the police forces), no matter what I say, to him, in 6 seconds Castile could have done something to save himself.

For anyone that watch that video and then say: "Duh... if he did that he would be alive" as if the blame is on the guy who got shot for doing nothing- I simply won't waste my time.

Just keep believing that. And if this kind of thing happens again, just keep doing it. Take the side your bias tells you, don't trust your eyes, find your excuses, ignore things. I think being that ignorant and blind is already enough punishment.

Who knows, maybe one day he will find a bunch of people that are just like him. He only has to pray they will be on his side.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Why should I engage with him? To convince him that he is wrong? Read his comments and tell me if you think that is possible. His arguments are based on his opinion(that could very well be based on unshakable faith in the police forces), no matter what I say, to him, in 6 seconds Castile could have done something to save himself.

His arguments are, as always, calm and rational. His posting style in the forum is as if he's at a debate.

Reacting to this style of delivery with an emotional outburst which carries zero useful information seems a pretty standard thing nowadays, and it does absolutely nothing for your position. You're just painting yourself as irrational and prone to tantrums instead of reasoning. From my observation, that's a systemic problem with people on the left side of the political fence. They attack rational arguments with emotion. I've said that before, but it bears repeating again:

"I use emotion for the masses and reserve reason for the few."

Adolf Hitler said that. Draw your own conclusions. I won't serve everything on a silver platter.

If you are unwilling to engage in an argument with him, which is perfectly understandable given his proclivity to write humongous posts and info dumps, you can just say you disagree and leave it at that.

When you write something like "you disgust me" instead, this is the first association I get:

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

6 seconds is a lot of time.

You disgust me

You are disgusted that the concept of time does not conform to your personal whim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k-e30YX3kE


In six seconds, a well trained athlete can traverse 120 feet. A fast reader can read over 100 words in six seconds. There are chess matches with less than a single second between each contemplated move.

Depending on someone's intelligence and alertness level, their brain is processing a minimum of 10 million to 300 million items a second.

Imagine that you have a little over a half second (0.545 seconds) and you need to

determine the type of pitch
determine if it's a strike or a ball
determine the speed of the pitched ball
finish the stride and get their foot down
get the bat to the ball

7-10 year old kids do this all the time in Pee Wee baseball.

If your mind is alert and prepared, six seconds is a long time. As we saw in the video of the shooting, there were several actions that happened in that time frame. Each step led to the next step, and the culmination of it led to the shooting.

Since you didn't dispute the other parts of my post you responded to, perhaps a rephrasing of the "6 seconds is a lot of time" will help make it more clear.

Would it have been OK, if the time taken before the shooting was 12 seconds? 30? Six minutes? What about an hour? Would the passage of an hour's time justify the shooting?

The shooting was horrible. An innocent person lost their life. Whether that shooting was a crime, or an unfortunate turn of events does not depend on how many seconds it took, but rather the underlying reasons. The short period of time actually works in the officer's defense, not towards his guilt. The shorter the time frame gets, the less time the officer had to think about it, and the less it would be considered a contemplated action of hate.

"

Bars wrote:

His arguments are, as always, calm and rational. His posting style in the forum is as if he's at a debate.

Want to debate if the earth is flat? *Said in a calm and rational way* (I hope you understand what I mean by that)

"

Bars wrote:

Reacting to this style of delivery with an emotional outburst which carries zero useful information seems a pretty standard thing nowadays, and it does absolutely nothing for your position.

"You disgust me" is not an outburst of emotions, is an statement, a simple one that is easy to understand giving the context of this whole conversation. About "useful information", if he wants to learn human decency he can look for someone else to teach him, I'm not getting paid after all. About "my position", why should I need to defend "my position" even further? there is a f**king video about it. Besides, I know what is right for me, I don't need confirmation from the internet(although I'm fighting hard my pride that is telling me to call out the bullshit on some things that he wrote)

"

Bars wrote:

You're just painting yourself as irrational and prone to tantrums instead of reasoning. From my observation, that's a systemic problem with people on the left side of the political fence. They attack rational arguments with emotion. I've said that before, but it bears repeating again:

"I use emotion for the masses and reserve reason for the few."

Adolf Hitler said that. Draw your own conclusions. I won't serve everything on a silver platter.

If you are unwilling to engage in an argument with him, which is perfectly understandable given his proclivity to write humongous posts and info dumps, you can just say you disagree and leave it at that.

When you write something like "you disgust me" instead, this is the first association I get:

You are entitled to your opinion *shrugs*.

I just think that a reasonable person that watched the video and then read his comment will have his own opinion if he is right or wrong, you don't judge what is in the video based on the arguments of one of the sides of the discussion, you judge based on your morals, values and common sense.

If someone watched the video, saw his comments and now is in doubt and is waiting for someone to refute his arguments so they can go back to the thought that Philando Castile's death was an unwarranted tragedy, then I pity that person as much as I pity him.

why are you guys fighting I'm lost

"

soneka101 wrote:

His arguments are based on his opinion(that could very well be based on unshakable faith in the police forces),

First off, on that question no. I've had a couple interactions with bad police officers. Some do exist, and they are just out to exert their power, and if possible hurt people. They are not your average police officer.

"

soneka101 wrote:

no matter what I say, to him, in 6 seconds Castile could have done something to save himself.

He could have NOT done something that he did. Possibly. Castile may have done everything right, and the officer responded violently anyway. The video doesn't tell us.

"

soneka101 wrote:

For anyone that watch that video and then say: "Duh... if he did that he would be alive"

Let me know when a police officer has his gun on you, suspects you of multiple first degree murders (your name is on a warrant for such) and you have to carefully comply to avoid getting shot.

Been there, done that. It is a scary situation. It turned out someone had stolen my identity (from a pick pocketed wallet a few years back) and then used that identity while committing crimes. Fortunately for me, the real criminal was covered in tattoos, which I was not. When you recognize that it is a dangerous situation, acting certain ways can help. If someone doesn't know how to act, that doesn't mean they are at fault. Cause and effect are not the same thing as guilt.

People don't wear seat belts because they are guilty of driving dangerously - for instance.
What would help is for driver's ed courses to teach people exactly how to behave in a traffic stop.

"

soneka101 wrote:

as if the blame is on the guy who got shot for doing nothing- I simply won't waste my time.

I repeatedly said we don't know whose fault it was. You assumed that because I mentioned some things that could have helped, that the driver did something wrong. We don't have any evidence the driver did anything wrong. We don't have any evidence the driver didn't do anything wrong. We just don't know without the bodycam footage.

"

soneka101 wrote:

And if this kind of thing happens again

What do you mean IF? It does happen, will happen and has happened repeatedly. Why? Well of course it can only be because of Russians. Or Trump. Or racist police.

The real question is, do people care more about finding the underlying causes, fixing them and preventing as many of these deaths as possible,

OR

Do they care more about prosecuting officers and putting them in prison.

If someone were to say, why does it have to be OR, then I would say they have taken the first step towards a solution - understanding that they do not know what the problem really is.

It could be a perceived bias of fear towards specific groups of people. It could be inadequate training. It could be hatred and/or racism. It could be psychological issues. It could be repeated threat exposure and a reflexive response. It could be a lot of other things or more likely a combination of things. Until we know, we can't fix it.

I'm 100% for demanding the body cam be released and a more thorough investigation be conducted. Whether this was a crime or not, we need to understand exactly why and how it happened and begin the process of figuring out what we can do to prevent this.

If the bodycam conveniently malfunctioned - than it would be another example of why we probably need stricter accountability laws, that the union can't bypass. Perhaps malfunctions have to be carefully qualified or the officer banned for life from any such position.

I'm not a fan of unnecessary taxes, but if they came up with a reasonable figure and said "We are going to mandate every officer carry a body cam, and this is how much it will cost...." I would vote for it.

Blame is easy. Solutions take time and far more work.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

6 seconds is a lot of time.

You disgust me

You are disgusted that the concept of time does not conform to your personal whim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k-e30YX3kE


In six seconds, a well trained athlete can traverse 120 feet. A fast reader can read over 100 words in six seconds. There are chess matches with less than a single second between each contemplated move.

Depending on someone's intelligence and alertness level, their brain is processing a minimum of 10 million to 300 million items a second.

Imagine that you have a little over a half second (0.545 seconds) and you need to

determine the type of pitch
determine if it's a strike or a ball
determine the speed of the pitched ball
finish the stride and get their foot down
get the bat to the ball

7-10 year old kids do this all the time in Pee Wee baseball.

Why are you writing all this bullshit? You are just repeating yourself, and I understood you the first time. When you say "six seconds is a lot of time" you are saying he had enough time therefore if he didn't react in this amount of time the blame is his. I understand what you said the first time you said, and still disgust me, because it is an excuse.

You are hell bent on trying to argue that the blame is with the guy that got shot. I understand that, and it disgusts me because all you have are excuses. You don't have any definitive proof or reason to show that he deserved what happened to him, but you will still come with "What if HE did that" without even considering what the cop could have done to not kill him.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If your mind is alert and prepared, six seconds is a long time. As we saw in the video of the shooting, there were several actions that happened in that time frame. Each step led to the next step, and the culmination of it led to the shooting.

When was the last time you met a cop? Did you thought it was a matter of life or death?

This says he was pulled over 49 times in 13 years, so, are you trying to say all those times he should have been at his sharpest, because if he did something wrong death would come, and that is perfectly justified and normal?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Since you didn't dispute the other parts of my post you responded to, perhaps a rephrasing of the "6 seconds is a lot of time" will help make it more clear.

I picked the most absurd point to quote, it doesn't mean I agree with the rest, I'm just not in the mood to refute everything.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Would it have been OK, if the time taken before the shooting was 12 seconds? 30? Six minutes? What about an hour? Would the passage of an hour's time justify the shooting?

The way things went no time would justify the shooting, but the fact he was shot in 6 seconds crushes the argument that he had a lot of time to comply with the commands, I don't understand how you don't understand that this was my point.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The shooting was horrible. An innocent person lost their life. Whether that shooting was a crime, or an unfortunate turn of events does not depend on how many seconds it took, but rather the underlying reasons. The short period of time actually works in the officer's defense, not towards his guilt. The shorter the time frame gets, the less time the officer had to think about it, and the less it would be considered a contemplated action of hate.

In your eyes, yes, sure.