[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Watching The Cops See other Watching The Cops Articles Title: Police officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty Source: thehill.com URL Source: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby ... astile-found-not-guilty-report Published: Jun 16, 2017 Author: John Bowden Post Date: 2017-06-16 17:09:44 by misterwhite Keywords: None Views: 10189 Comments: 55 Minnesota police officer who was charged with manslaughter after he shot a black motorist five times during a traffic stop last year was found not guilty by a jury on Friday, according to multiple reports. Defense attorneys said Jeronimo Yanez, the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life when he shot Philando Castile, 32, seconds after Castile informed the officer he was armed. Prosecutors insisted Yanez never saw the gun and had plenty of options other than shooting Castile, who was an elementary school cafeteria worker. The officer was also acquitted of two counts of discharging a firearm that endangers safety, according to CNN, which reported that several members of Castile's family screamed profanities and cried Friday after the verdicts were announced. ADVERTISEMENT Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer. Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times. The video shows Yanez firing into the car but doesn't show any of Castile's actions inside the car. Some of the conversation between Yanez and Castile is unintelligible. Yanez was charged with endangering the lives of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the car during the shooting, but found not guilty. In November, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi argued that Yanez's use of force was unwarranted, because Castile never attempted to access his gun. After the verdict, Castile's mother Valerie was quoted by The New York Times saying, “My son loved this city, and this city killed my son. And a murderer gets away. Are you kidding me right now?” “The system in this country continues to fail black people and will continue to fail us," she added. Ten members of the 12-person jury were white, while the remaining two were black. Reynolds says in the video that Castile never reached for his gun, but defense attorneys targeted inconsistencies in her story to cast doubt on her credibility. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45. #12. To: misterwhite (#0) The moral of the story seems to be that it is dangerous to be in the presence of an armed police officer, and anyone that doesn't realize that and does something to scare the officer, even if such action is normal behavior anywhere else, can be shot and killed for doing so. People need to be taught that an armed police officer is a dangerous police officer so they won't do stupid things like what this guy did. It's apparent this man felt safe in the presence of this officer, felt he could trust and be trusted by him, and that's what got him killed. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   4:47:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Pinguinite (#12) "The moral of the story seems to be that it is dangerous to be in the presence of an armed police officer ... " Is that the moral of the story? His girlfriend was the presence of an armed police officer and nothing happened to her. The child was in the presence of an armed police officer and nothing happened to the child. Hmmmm. Maybe the moral of the story is that you don't ignore the lawful orders of a police officer and reach for a loaded gun in your front pocket. I think that'll get you shot every single time. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   11:03:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: misterwhite (#13) Hmmmm. Maybe the moral of the story is that you don't ignore the lawful orders of a police officer and reach for a loaded gun in your front pocket. I think that'll get you shot every single time. Yes, something everyone should know and be taught, because when you do, you get shot and killed by a public servant because he'll be in fear for his life. Why would you be opposed to teaching this to the general public? If this guy was stupid for how he behaved, why not let it be a lesson for all? Don't reach for anything. Including a driver's license. Maybe he should not have informed the cop he was armed as required by law, as that information scared the crap out of the cop. If he had not done that, he may have been fine. If he really was a hardened criminal intent on shooting the cop, then why would he have told the cop he had a gun? I suppose all thugs do that, right? Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:02:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Pinguinite (#16) "Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so." How can you possibly know that? The cop was screamng at him to stop what he was doing. Yet he persisted. The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:43:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: misterwhite (#18) The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I. No he didn't, and neither did the jury. He was just in fear for his life. That's all the justification that's required for cops to kill. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:54:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Pinguinite (#19) "He was just in fear for his life." For no reason? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:55:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: misterwhite (#20) For no reason? For any reason. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   13:32:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Pinguinite (#21) For any reason. Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason. Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   14:38:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: misterwhite (#22) Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason. I sure do. Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was? Because there was no video of the actual shooting, or the moment beforehand. And in order to convict, the jury needs evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the shooting was unwarranted. Circumstantial evidence is not enough. For any ordinary person, shooting another is itself sufficient evidence to convict. But cops are uniquely granted the "I feared for my life" defense which ordinary people are not. And without any video of the shooting or the moment beforehand, there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life. So he walks. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   16:12:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Pinguinite (#23) "there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life." Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting. The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty. Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ... misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   17:45:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#24) Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting. It's not clear if he was reaching for his wallet or the gun, but even if he had been reaching for the gun, it was pursuant to the conversation in which he voluntarily (albeit via lawful mandate) informed the cop that he had a legally owned firearm, and that he felt it prudent to allow the officer to see the gun, as a concealed gun could be considered more dangerous than one in plain view. While I'm sure you would suggest the jury believed that thugs and outlaws routinely tell cops they are armed before firing upon them, I would, in fact, disagree. I also maintain complete confidence that the same jury would, in spite of this acquittal, also say that this man did not deserve to die and that it is very unlikely that this man had any intention of firing upon the cop. What we could agree on is that the guy should have realized his life was in danger when he first informed the cop he legally possessed firearm, and at that point, conduct himself as though he was being robbed at gunpoint. Which he pretty much was, being robbed of his life. OF course, he had no way of knowing that the real reason for the stop was probably because his car matched the description of a car used in a crime earlier in the day, and not for any infraction. So the cop was on edge, and the guy wasn't, and the guy had no way of knowing the cop was on edge. BTW, 52 traffic stops in 14 years, and he still had his license? Apparently eitehr that number is not true, or many/most of those stops did not result in any penalty. The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty. Without specific evidence to the contrary, that's exactly how it happens. Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ... Yet what? Did he get convicted or acquitted, or is that still playing out in the courts as this old cop hopes he dies of natural causes before any trial can happen? Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   18:31:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#25) In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges. They have the surveillance video of him shooting the guy throwing the popcorn and texting to his babysitter. It didn't help that the accused told the detectives in his statement immediately after "As soon as I pulled the trigger I said, 'Oh shoot, that was stupid.' If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened," he said. "If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. I wouldn't have moved. But you don't get do-overs." The movie was Lone Survivor. C'mon, no one should die over some crappy Mark Wahlberg movie. The court set up a website for this case: http://www.curtisreevestrial.com/. Just don't click any of the links so you can see the PDF documents because they all crash the website. Lordy. It's a disgrace that it takes 3.5 years to get to a pre-trial hearing in a murder case. At this may not be the last pre-trial hearing either; they've already had several of these. What happened to the right to a speedy trial (for both accused and victim)? These courts across the country and at the federal level are a complete disgrace with their indulgence of lawyers' endless stalling tactics. Who knows when this trial will finally go to court? Chances are pretty good that the trigger-happy cop will die first. Certainly, he's already avoided a trial for at least 2 more years than is reasonable. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   10:26:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Tooconservative (#31) In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges. There are two separate defenses -- stand your ground and self-defense. Even if the retired cop had a duty to retreat he couldn't. Not if he thought the popcorn was a prelude to an attack. What he told the detectives was stupid, and he of all people should know that. But you have to wonder how many people say that to themselves after a shooting. My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively. You or I might not have. I'm thinkng there might be enough here for reasonable doubt. Both parties acted irrationally. Unfortunately, one died. Don't pick a fight with an old man. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   10:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#32) (Edited) My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively. I assume he had advanced training on the use of lethal force against a criminal throwing popcorn at LEOs. Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime. Is there any cop shooting you won't defend, no matter how repulsive it is? Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   10:53:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: Tooconservative (#33) "Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime." "Throwing popcorn isn't assault." Who are you? Deckard? Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him. "The facts in this case are sufficient to establish a prima facie claim that Reeves feared at least an imminent simple battery at the hands of Oulsen. Given that Reeves was in excess of 65 years at the time of this incident, a battery by Oulsen would constitute a third-degree felony—in other words, a forcible felony." "Specifically, the relevant elements to be considered in determining whether Reeves’ use of deadly force was lawful self-defense are to be found in that first sentence of §776.012. It tells us that Reeves’s shooting of Oulsen was lawful deadly-force self-defense if he reasonably believed it was necessary to either (1) protect himself or another from death or great bodily harm or (2) to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." Under the language of §776.012(2), then, if Reeves reasonable feared an imminent battery by Oulsen he would be justified in using deadly force to prevent that forcible felony. If this were established by a preponderance of the evidence, Reeves would qualify for self-defense immunity under §776.032. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/order-denying-immunity-in-popcorn-shooting- riddled-with-legal-errors/ misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   12:03:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: misterwhite (#34) Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him. So if you throw popcorn at an old cop, he is fully justified to just kill you? Your badge-sniffing is some kind of a mental illness. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   12:33:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Tooconservative (#39) "So if you throw popcorn at an old cop, he is fully justified to just kill you?" You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-19   12:35:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: misterwhite (#43) You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me. Why not? When being pelted with popcorn, maybe there should be a usual police 22' rule for knives: if they are throwing popcorn at less than 22', they can close the distance and assault you before you can draw and shoot. Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher? Admittedly, he was a creepy old dude. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-19   12:44:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Tooconservative (#44) Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher? Jiffy Pop. I was certain it would explode and kill everyone in the kitchen. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-19   13:16:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 45. #46. To: misterwhite (#45) Jiffy Pop. Yeah, it makes sense now. It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-20 02:12:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 45. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com