It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RIOT WATCH Minneapolis BREAKING Officer Yanez NOT GUILTY in shooting of Philando Castile

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

What untruth am I desperate to believe?




posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: UKTruth

Oh, right.
So he said don't pull out your firearm... And then the idiot in the car started reaching for something.
Pretty obvious why he is dead and no wonder the officer was acquitted.

Now there are more spoiled brats out in force to protest against justice.


Yeah, he was reaching for the ID he was instructed to provide and the cowardly idiot shot him to death.
Obvious indeed.

Now there are more cowardly idiots who just got the green light to shoot anyone that scares them.


The testimony against the officer says that the ID had already been handed over.
Read it.
The decision was wholly correct.
Maybe it will encourage others to follow instructions to the letter when they are given them.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The testimony against the officer says that the ID had already been handed over.
Read it.
The decision was wholly correct.
Maybe it will encourage others to follow instructions to the letter when they are given them.


How about you actually produce a source so there are no misunderstandings to what you are referring. Because the official complaint that I've seen and provided multiple times states that Castile's ID was still in his wallet upon arrival to the hospital. So if you have another source that refutes this information I'm open to looking at it and we could put our misunderstanding to bed right now.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

It doesn't matter whether he already produced his ID. The cop does not know what he's reaching for. He doesn't have x-ray vision. He doesn't know which pocket the ID is in and which pocket the gun is in. So to protect his own life, he ordered him to stop. The guy failed to comply. It's a very simple case. If there was any ambiguity at all, there would've been a hung jury.
edit on 17 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: UKTruth
The testimony against the officer says that the ID had already been handed over.
Read it.
The decision was wholly correct.
Maybe it will encourage others to follow instructions to the letter when they are given them.


How about you actually produce a source so there are no misunderstandings to what you are referring. Because the official complaint that I've seen and provided multiple times states that Castile's ID was still in his wallet upon arrival to the hospital. So if you have another source that refutes this information I'm open to looking at it and we could put our misunderstanding to bed right now.


I have got a better idea... about YOU actually read the thread and the links already provided.
The official complaint document has already been linked.
From it:



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So you're using the same source I've provided several times to claim ID was already provided.

I'll simply refer you to my first post on the matter then.

POST

So did you stop reading at the point you've provided or are you intentionally ignoring this part?


In the HCMC emergency department, medical personnel recovered a holster and wallet from one of Castile's pockets, although it was unclear which pocket these items were in at the time of the shooting. In Castile's wallet was his Minnesota Driver's License and his Permit to Carry a Pistol.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

And since it's irrelevant none of that matters. Again the cop does not know which he was reaching for, which is why he felt his life was in danger. All he had to do was stop reaching and comply with the officer.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

So it's relevant when others use it but irrelevant when I do?

How about before forming our opinions we just make sure the information provided in this thread is accurate.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: UKTruth

So you're using the same source I've provided several times to claim ID was already provided.

I'll simply refer you to my first post on the matter then.

POST

So did you stop reading at the point you've provided or are you intentionally ignoring this part?


In the HCMC emergency department, medical personnel recovered a holster and wallet from one of Castile's pockets, although it was unclear which pocket these items were in at the time of the shooting. In Castile's wallet was his Minnesota Driver's License and his Permit to Carry a Pistol.


He had already provided his insurance, then said he had a gun.
When he reached for it (or his further ID) he was told not to.
He refused the direction he was given.

It's pretty clear and in no way would the officer have known - or should have risked - that he was only going for further ID.
He clearly said "DONT".

The courts came to the ONLY logical conclusion.
edit on 17/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: face23785

So it's relevant when others use it but irrelevant when I do?

How about before forming our opinions we just make sure the information provided in this thread is accurate.


The only information we really need is that Castile told the officer he had a gun and was given clear instruction not to reach ("pull it out"). Castile refused to comply and the officer did the right thing - for both himself and his family. Nobody would reasonably expect the officer to wait till he was sure a gun was being pulled on him.

The correct verdict was reached and those rioting are rioting against the proper application of justice.
edit on 17/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

Where did I tell someone else that it was relevant? I've consistently throughout this thread said whether he had already provided ID didn't matter. The issue was that the cop knew he had the gun, knew he was reaching for something and didn't know what, and perceived his life was in danger because it could've been the gun. We'll never know for sure what he was reaching for because he refused to comply with lawful orders. The 12 jurors reviewed the facts of the case and unanimously acquitted the officer.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Correct. Castile had already provided proof of insurance, which was in possession of officer Yanez. Though despite what you've claimed numerous times, Castile had not provided his ID as instructed to do. He was following the instruction to provided his ID while repeatedly telling Yanez he was not reaching for his firearm. It was not made clear to Castile that officer Yanez no longer wanted him to provided his ID.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
All of this is so pointless anymore. Why have I never seen the question asked, If the cop felt threatened weather in this case or others, why not retreat? Is that not an option? Can the officer not step back from the vehicle while explaining to the driver/ other a miscommunication is taking place and pause? Because it seems glaringly obvious to me this would deescalate a lot of these encounters. I guarantee whatever offense the original pull over was initiated with does not equal death on either side. In most cases. Hell even if the person got spooked and drove off catch them another time, it just seems there is an unwritten law that says # has to be handeled asap even a minor traffic offense. I just dont get it. Perhaps the cops need to be toned down a few notches in tense situations and it made policy. Perhaps a bullet proof cruiser with a bank style drive up teller slot where the officer doesnt leave the car until info is ran would solve this, i really dont know but the way we are doing it and have done it aint working anymore apparently.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

I think it's completely clear that this is what was going on. It was a breakdown in communication. Yanez was telling him not to reach for the gun when what he meant was for Castile to not reach for anything. Castile was saying "I'm not" because he knew what Yanez couldn't have; he was just reaching for his license.

From the time when Yanez asked for license and proof of insurance to the time Castile was shot seven times was 24 seconds. I say it's likely that Castile kept reaching for his license until Yanez unholstered his weapon at which point I think Castile probably quickly pulled out his hand from where he was reaching. This sudden movement by Castile caused Yanez to start firing.

It's an all around horrible situation. One which I hope is not made worse by more violence.
edit on 6/17/2017 by Josephus because: too many prepositions



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: UKTruth

Correct. Castile had already provided proof of insurance, which was in possession of officer Yanez. Though despite what you've claimed numerous times, Castile had not provided his ID as instructed to do. He was following the instruction to provided his ID while repeatedly telling Yanez he was not reaching for his firearm. It was not made clear to Castile that officer Yanez no longer wanted him to provided his ID.


No, the document we have that is based on video and sound recordings does not mention the officer asking for a second document. His insurance document was provided... then the officer was told Castille had a gun. Don;t insert things into what we know just to prove an invalid point.
This is simple and the courts reached the correct verdict. It is a tragedy that the guy is dead, but the officer is innocent and did what he had to do.
Anyone rioting because of this is simply doing it out of grief or opportunism, certainly not because of any miscarriage of justice.
edit on 17/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaynkeel
All of this is so pointless anymore. Why have I never seen the question asked, If the cop felt threatened weather in this case or others, why not retreat? Is that not an option? Can the officer not step back from the vehicle while explaining to the driver/ other a miscommunication is taking place and pause? Because it seems glaringly obvious to me this would deescalate a lot of these encounters. I guarantee whatever offense the original pull over was initiated with does not equal death on either side. In most cases. Hell even if the person got spooked and drove off catch them another time, it just seems there is an unwritten law that says # has to be handeled asap even a minor traffic offense. I just dont get it. Perhaps the cops need to be toned down a few notches in tense situations and it made policy. Perhaps a bullet proof cruiser with a bank style drive up teller slot where the officer doesnt leave the car until info is ran would solve this, i really dont know but the way we are doing it and have done it aint working anymore apparently.


No they can't step back from the vehicle. I. GA t doing that is even more dangerous. This person died for failure to comply with offices we instructions. Now I will say this officer's fear he should not have had that job. However nothing he does is wrong just overly cautious. In a tragic stop an officer has to expect people to misunderstand what he wants. People are all ready nervous dealing for with the police.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Officer Yanez asked for license and proof of insurance which is right in your very own POST. That is two separate documents. Only one of those (proof of insurance) was provided based on all the information we have.

So what "things" am I inserting and what "invalid point" am I inserting these "things" to prove?



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, why cant they step back from the vehicle? At that point in time your usually dealing with a traffic infraction. Its not like a high speed chase, escaped convict etc. It seems to me as with many things in life time is on your side in these cases where there is a miscommunication. Step back out of harms way, let things settle down. Traffic cops get paid hourly correct? Then if the person in the car takes off or does somthing else stupid yeah gun em down, but I think a lot is due to confusing commands and that is at the officers control none the less. When you get pulled over for whatever reason by a cop, thats their job they did all the training etc for it. Dont know about you but when I signed up for my drivers license 25 yrs ago I didn't get training in how to act/deal with pull over situations. So the average motorist in my mind is the one not trained and educated like the officer. And in my case in 25 yrs of a lot of mileage driving I have been pulled over...... 1 time. So to sum it up for me the whole situation is in the cops hands and the flow of the situation is in their hands as well, they created the confrontation if you will.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The math being he was still buckled into his seatbelt and his 4 yo daughter was behind him. A law abiding citizen(obviously if he is licensed to CC) is going to put his baby in harms way over a busted tail light.[SNIP] a reply to: JinMI


edit on 17/6/17 by argentus because: removed vile insult



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Right justified in killing a father in front of his daughter cause he was black and supposedly feared for his life. I doubt a man who was still strapped in his seatbelt with a child behind him is going to shoot a cop. a reply to: UKTruth


edit on 17-6-2017 by sk126 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join