"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[CPanther95]

Because being a "good" black person involves a different set of behaviors than a good white person. Good white people can, and do, question the police about why they are being pulled over. Good white people don't have to fear being shot for doing that. Witness the disbelief on this very thread about why black people pulled over don't video tape and sue every time they are pulled over inappropriately. Black people live by a different set of rules in their interactions with the police. Black people leave for work early just in case they get pulled over for driving while black. White people don't have to do that. Even the bad ones.

That's what we should be attempting to change. We shouldn't be working on differing sets of rules.

 

[mnrose]

That's what we should be attempting to change. We shouldn't be working on differing sets of rules.

Agreed.

 

[momz]

Any group of people who encourages violence toward another group of people is a hate group. Any group of people who uses intimidation and aggression over another group of people to provoke a reaction or show power is a hate group. I've seen many instances of this intimidation and encouragement with certain groups and it is counterproductive to creating positive changes.

Interesting generalizations in your post. I recall a long ago example of a protest that would've easily fit your description of a group using aggression and intimidatin over another. But, I suspect you may not refer to the protesters as a hate group. Do you remember a little incident in our history now referred to as the Boston Tea Party?

 

[asta]

Well, a lot is still being figured out. The police pulled him over because he had a broken tail light (that is what the video suggested) although pictures at the scene show his tail light was operational. So, maybe for Driving While Black. There is unconfirmed police scanner audio that suggests he was pulled over due to his "wide set nose" which matched that of a suspect in an armed robbery several days earlier. The lawyer for the policeman said he shot him due to the presence of a gun. There is no gun visible in the girlfriend's video and at no point have the police said he pulled a gun. He just mentioned he had a license to carry. Half the state has a license to carry. This is Minnesota. So, you have to wonder why this guy got shot when white guys are pulled over for speeding or other violations all the time and are not shot.

I am not sure I see any proof in any of that. I have seen a photo that purports to show the handle of a gun under his shirt but I don't think that matters. I think it is more important to establish what he was doing with hands and did he do what the officer asked him to do. I could see an officer feeling threatened if a gun is present and the guy is not doing what the officer ordered. But I am guessing since no evidence has been presented. I don't know what happened. I still see this as something that should be left to a jury/judge to decide. Not marchers trying to shut down cities. The officer is due the presumption of innocence until that trial.

 

[CPanther95]

There has been no report from the Falcon Heights department on "their" version of the story. I find that interesting myself.

There HAVE been reports that the officers decided that the Mr. Castille matched the description of a robbery suspect in the area because he had dreadlocks "and a wide nose." So, they pulled him over, using the ostensible "tail light out" as their immediate justification for doing so. But, what exactly prompted the officer to shoot (let alone 4 or 5 times) is unclear as no explanation has been given. (BTW, in case it's not clear, there is ZERO evidence that Mr. Castille was, in fact, the person they sought. He had a wide nose and dreadlocks, but honestly, that probably described a goodly percentage of the black men in our state.

I don't think the tail light was used as justification. According to the police scanner (if those transcripts were accurate) it was the robbery suspect part - the tail light must have been noticed after. But you're right, that description alone as justification seems thin. Seems you could have enough suspect descriptions from various crimes to "justify" pulling over just about anyone based on a vague description.

I'm also not comfortable with how liberal the guidelines are for ultimately being able to search a vehicle following a routine traffic stop. A routine traffic stop should not be able to be used as a fishing expedition. Anything beyond simply writing a ticket for the traffic offense should require an extremely high standard.

You can't really judge anything based on the 4 or 5 shots. Different officers react different ways when using deadly force. It's all about whether deadly force was justified or not. It's all about that first shot. There's no expectation that the threat should be reevaluated after each subsequent shot. Some will fire 3 or 4 shots, some may keep pulling the trigger after they've emptied their 15 round magazine before the adrenaline subsides.

 

[JimMIA]

There has been no report from the Falcon Heights department on "their" version of the story. I find that interesting myself.

I'm not sure whether they have issued any statements or not, but if not, it's probably because they are waiting for a thorough, professional investigation to indicate what actually happened. Police departments don't normally comment immediately -- they gather facts first.

Also, it's not unusual (often even required) that a different agency conduct the death investigation. That is commonly done to insure impartiality and transparency. If that is the case, the officer's agency should NOT issue any statements.

There HAVE been reports that the officers decided that the Mr. Castille matched the description of a robbery suspect in the area because he had dreadlocks "and a wide nose." So, they pulled him over, using the ostensible "tail light out" as their immediate justification for doing so. But, what exactly prompted the officer to shoot (let alone 4 or 5 times) is unclear as no explanation has been given. (BTW, in case it's not clear, there is ZERO evidence that Mr. Castille was, in fact, the person they sought. He had a wide nose and dreadlocks, but honestly, that probably described a goodly percentage of the black men in our state.

ETA: A lawyer representing the cop has said that the cop was "reacting to a gun", although he declined to say what he meant by that. We already know that Mr. Castille was carrying a weapon, which he was authorized to carry, and announced same to the officer. Again, I find it intriguing that the lawyer declined to elaborate on what "reacting to a gun" meant. If Mr. Castille was flashing the gun in some sort of hostile way, surely this would be announced, right? The mere presence of a gun isn't license to kill is it?

There are always "reports," many of which are just complete fabrications.

I wouldn't pay any attention to anonymous reports, nor would I pay much attention to what the officer's lawyer says. What do you expect him to say?

The facts will come out in due time -- but it's going to be a while, probably several weeks.

 

[JimMIA]

I don't think the tail light was used as justification. According to the police scanner (if those transcripts were accurate) it was the robbery suspect part - the tail light must have been noticed after. But you're right, that description alone as justification seems thin. Seems you could have enough suspect descriptions from various crimes to "justify" pulling over just about anyone based on a vague description.

Well, we're all speculating on speculation about unsubstantiated reports about what the motivation for the stop might have been.

Having said that, IF a similarity to an armed robbery suspect is what precipitated the stop, and IF someone in the car asked, "Why did you stop me officer?" the officer would have to be a blithering idiot to tell them the real reason. It wouldn't be unusual to cite some innocuous reason for the stop, and there is nothing the least bit improper in that.

I'm also not comfortable with how liberal the guidelines are for ultimately being able to search a vehicle following a routine traffic stop. A routine traffic stop should not be able to be used as a fishing expedition. Anything beyond simply writing a ticket for the traffic offense should require an extremely high standard.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The legal requirements for searching a vehicle without a search warrant are quite stringent -- not liberal at all. But I haven't heard anything about a search in this case.

 

[JoeA]

I was always thought that if you have a CCW and are carrying to inform the officer and keep your hands on the steering wheel or if a passenger, on the dashboard. I haven't read a lot about this specific case but it doesn't appear this individual followed those instructions. He may have been pulled over for "driving while black" but he also may be alive if he followed this very basic protocol. I'm not absolving the police because I simply don't really know enough to form an opinion one way or the other but a person needs to take appropriate measures, regardless if the "stop" is legit or not.

 

[CPanther95]

Well, we're all speculating on speculation about unsubstantiated reports about what the motivation for the stop might have been.

I'm trying to cover all my comments with " if accurate", or "if true" - but if I happen to miss it once or twice, it should be assumed (as it should be with all comments) that we are simply speculating based on what little is known in this case. We can discuss hypotheticals on an internet forum and likewise we can discuss an unfolding actual incident with the assumption that our opinions may change as new evidence presents itself. We are getting only one side of the story, so whatever we may think now, it doesn't mean it's time to put on our marching shoes and hit the streets.

 

[CPanther95]

I was always thought that if you have a CCW and are carrying to inform the officer and keep your hands on the steering wheel or if a passenger, on the dashboard. I haven't read a lot about this specific case but it doesn't appear this individual followed those instructions. He may have been pulled over for "driving while black" but he also may be alive if he followed this very basic protocol. I'm not absolving the police because I simply don't really know enough to form an opinion one way or the other but a person needs to take appropriate measures, regardless if the "stop" is legit or not.

In Minnesota, there's no requirement to notify the officer if you are legally carrying.

If you inform him anyway, you certainly should keep your hands on the wheel until you are instructed otherwise.

 

[JimMIA]

I'm trying to cover all my comments with " if accurate", or "if true" - but if I happen to miss it once or twice, it should be assumed (as it should be with all comments) that we are simply speculating based on what little is known in this case. We can discuss hypotheticals on an internet forum and likewise we can discuss an unfolding actual incident with the assumption that our opinions may change as new evidence presents itself. We are getting only one side of the story, so whatever we may think now, it doesn't mean it's time to put on our marching shoes and hit the streets.

Right, and we're not even getting one side of the story.

We are getting little bits and pieces of one part of one side of the story -- those pieces someone chooses to selectively share, subject to editing by news sources depending on what they think is important (or supportive of their agenda), and with many tidbits being reported totally out of context. So we're getting only a tiny bit of the true picture.

The truth is, at this early point in the investigation, even the investigators working the case still probably don't understand much more than the bare outlines of the event.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I was always thought that if you have a CCW and are carrying to inform the officer and keep your hands on the steering wheel or if a passenger, on the dashboard. I haven't read a lot about this specific case but it doesn't appear this individual followed those instructions. He may have been pulled over for "driving while black" but he also may be alive if he followed this very basic protocol. I'm not absolving the police because I simply don't really know enough to form an opinion one way or the other but a person needs to take appropriate measures, regardless if the "stop" is legit or not.

Well in the video the girlfriend clearly says to the cop that he was reaching for his id as he was told to do. It sounds like a no win. Keep your hands on the wheel and you are refusing to give the cop your id as instructed. Try to get your id as instructed and he gets spooked that you're going for you're gun.

 

[ChloroformSdxn]

But proof does matter when you demand action be taken against specific people, police officers in this case. It is really all that matters.

Oh, there's lots of proof for various actions, but what I'm saying is that they aren't necessarily protesting these very specific incidents. They're rallying points, but what is driving people to protest is that these are part of a larger, systemic, pattern.

Not sure why anyone would have a different standard just based on someone's race.

No one is saying that they should have a different standard, they're saying that there is a different standard. It's well documented that blacks in the US are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, and there are different (unwritten) rules for black people than there are for white people.

 

[CPanther95]

Well in the video the girlfriend clearly says to the cop that he was reaching for his id as he was told to do. It sounds like a no win. Keep your hands on the wheel and you are refusing to give the cop your id as instructed. Try to get your id as instructed and he gets spooked that you're going for you're gun.

That's the part of her recollection of events that rings the least true - or at least seems the least likely - without some other factors not mentioned being involved.

You're almost to the point that you'd have to believe that it was the officer's intent to flat out execute him if you are going to believe that he was instructed to do something and he immediately, and accurately complied to what was asked - then was shot anyway.

 

[Geoff_M]

It appears that I'm in the ever decreasing minority of people, thanks to things like the Internet Outrage Culture, that feels we all are better served by waiting for a more complete set of facts to emerge before becoming emotionally invested in a belief about what did or didn't happen in a given situation. The danger in not following this approach is that it encourages people to project into gaps what they "just know" really happened or triggered an incident, and there's a real tendency to ignore additional information that might not support an initially invested position. BLM and other "social justice warrior" groups, fueled by the Internet and "trial by video", have taken this notion to "11." Without a doubt, there are criminal police abuses against minorities. It would be silly to try and claim otherwise. But it is reckless to try and say you have the whole picture of something based on a simple 30-second video. With regard to the shootings in NOLA and Minnesota, were these criminal actions by the police? Perhaps, but we need a whole set of facts to even try to make that assessment. Personally, I can see both being found to be a criminal action, or one of them, or none of them (though less likely).

With regard to the NOLA shooting in particular, I think as more information (and a 2nd more clear video) has surfaced in recent days, I think this case in particular is less clear. The deceased was an armed man, who though on the ground was still resisting arrest (after the police had confirmed that he was armed with a gun), and may have still had a free arm, and was given warning. I'm not an expert on use of force protocols, but that may have been sufficient to use deadly force in such a scenario. But the problem we have, as I see it, is that based on the initial reports and video, we have groups like BLM as well as elected officials (up to and including the President) making pronouncements about both shootings that leave little or no room to consider that either shooting could have just justified. Just yesterday the President of our local NAACP issued a statement in the wake of the five murders of police officers in Dallas that, while condemning the murder of police officers, also drew a clear moral equivalence between the shootings in NOLA, Minnesota, and Dallas. Period. End of story.

Another problem with swift pronouncements is that it also can breed mythologies that continue. Take the still popular "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" mantra, that I saw written on more than one placard during the protests of this week. Multiple investigations into the death of Michael Brown found that the physical evidence refuted the initial narrative that inflamed much of the country, and backed the officer's claims of justifiable use of force. Yet, how many news stories have I heard this week that list Brown's death in the litany of perceived lethal police excesses in recent times? Answer: more than one. One stories went so say to note that Michael Brown simply was "gunned down" by Ferguson Police. Curiously, there were also often references to Treyvon Martin included, even though it wasn't a police shooting.

All of this, for many, has swirled into other mythologies (as I seen them) that you often hear (and that I've debated with other DISer's in the past when they've expressed them) such as "Police have license to kill young black men!", and "This sort of thing never happens to a white person!" It's not hard to point to cases that contradict both claims... There are certainly cases of convictions of police officers for unlawful deaths of black suspects, as well as whites being the victims of such crimes. And while there are certainly others that are not found guilty of such charges, it if often due to the fact that accused officers get the same rights in a criminal court as the rest of us and the state has the same burden to prove their guilt. That many not please the "courts" that roam our streets, but I think an alternative system would threaten all of our personal liberties.

There's also the notion of "disparities" in policing. As I said earlier, there are certainly abusing that DO exist, and departments that no doubt need to change the way they do business in some manner. But I cringe when I see people trying to use raw statistics to "prove" racism. In post #295, a link is given to the latest study that paints racial bias in policing. Then problem that I've seen with these sorts of studies all too often is that there is little effort to look at context and instead look at this simplistic notion "Disproportional policing = racism." This latest studies finds that police use force against black persons at a rate disproportional to their demographics in each community. Fair enough, but the researchers don't bother to look of the context behind the use (as I see from light reading) other than if the person was being apprehended for a violent crime. It's a short coming that even the authors seem to acknowledge in their conclusions (bolding mine):

...significant attention should be paid to additional situational factors in attempting to quantify and explain racial disparities in use of force. For instance, might racial disparities in the tendency to resist, flee, or disrespect officers be implicated in the observed differences? Might cultural mismatches and/or officers’ perceptions of cooperation be influenced by residents’ race? There is some suggestive evidence that there are racial disparities in resistance based on research by Smith and colleagues for the National Institute of Justice. They find that the rate of officer injury is lower when arresting a White suspect than a suspect of another racial group (Smith et al., 2009). However, this finding should be taken only as suggestive, since suspect resistance was not measured in a robust manner and a number of circumstances could have contributed to this finding.

Our local police department was the subject of a similar study that the city commissioned a couple of years ago. It looked at traffic stops. As a side note, the consulting firm that produced the study also is in the business to sell their customers "sensitivity" training classes to try and remedy any racial bias that they might uncover. That apparent conflict of interest didn't seem to bother the city officials that paid for the study. The study was completed and found that blacks were stopped by police disproportionately to non-blacks when compared to local demographics. Again, no context as to WHY a stop was initiated was examined. The study did however look at two metrics to determine if it was a "good" stop or a "bad" stop. Those two things were: was a ticket given, and was anything found if a car was then searched. The study found that black drivers that were stopped were less likely to be given a ticket than non-black drivers and searches of the cars of black drivers yielded a lower "success" rate than the search of the cars of non-black drivers. Another irony was lost here too. If a police officer stopped a black driver for, say, playing their stereo at a level that violated noise ordinances and only gave them a verbal warning (to quote a Chris Rock video) of "Turn that ____ down!", then this study deemed it a "bad stop" that was evidence of racial disparity. So, letting people off with only a warning painted their department in a bad light. Another assumption of the studies was that all races exhibited driving behaviors that might have gotten them stopped equally. For example, blasting music from their cars. The reason I use this example is that it was a news story of a stop of a black youth for a loud car stereo that escalated into a confrontation that resulted in a driver's arrest that was part of the impetuous for the city to commission the study. Past studies have indicated that there may be racial differences in driving habits that could explain at least some of disparities, and I'm not claiming that the same is true when it comes to things like operating a vehicle with a burned out taillight or headlight, but until you look at such factors I think they can get skewed results.

In regards to the subject of racial disparities in police shootings, here's some recent research by Washington State University that's interesting in that it seems to point to the notion that police may actually be more hesitant to fire on black suspects. Though the WSU study used simulations, they can provide insight. Another great example of this was from Phoenix last year when a local minister, who had previously organized protests against local police for the shooting of an unarmed man latter accepted the invitation of the county Sheriff to go through some use of force scenarios. This experience very much changed the minister's understanding of the complex nature of such things:

 

[mnrose]

Well, if the report of "thinking he was a robbery suspect" is true (and I believe it is from the police radio reports which have been released), then the officer believed him to possibly be a person who robbed a convenience store at gunpoint. So. he's nervous, perhaps, as he approaches the vehicle. I don't for one minute believe he INTENDED to execute the victim, but that he overreacted to the situation at hand. He didn't give the guy the benefit of any doubt. Again, until the lawyer explains (or someone else) what he meant by "presence of a gun" being the reason he pulled the trigger 4 or 5 times, we don't know.

 

[ASchwa]

And perhaps you shouldn't paint with such a broad stroke. I'm not a BLM cheerleader but they have been plenty of completely peaceful demonstrations around the country.

As for Wikipedia, pictures can be photo shopped. Finally, saying someone is right because others agree with him isn't a convincing argument.

I listen to the leaders and spokespeople for BLM. Cornel West, who Bernie Sanders nominated to make The Democratic Party position, is Antisemitic, and anti police. Listen to the hate he spews and the non factual rhetoric that he repeats. He is one of the leaders of BLM. I don't paint things with a broad stroke, but continuing the lie hands up, don't shoot is incitement and is disgusting. Your the one with your head in the sand. Just because there were some demonstrations that were peaceful, still doesn't make it right that 5 officers lost their lives.

I didn't say that someone was right because others agree with him, I said that there were parts in Wikipedia that were consistent with what the poster had said. Not every picture is photoshopped.

Maybe your not a BLM cheerleader, but you believe them hook, line and sinker.

 

[sunshinehighway]

That's the part of her recollection of events that rings the least true - or at least seems the least likely - without some other factors not mentioned being involved.

You're almost to the point that you'd have to believe that it was the officer's intent to flat out execute him if you are going to believe that he was instructed to do something and he immediately, and accurately complied to what was asked - then was shot anyway.

I don't think so. I don't see it like that at all.
My thinking about that happening would be more along the lines of being jumpy and/or requiring more training.
I think that's where do much disagreement comes in. I don't think most people are thinking police are racist as in they dislike people of a certain race and so much so that they are just out to execute them.
Its more about some races being looked at more suspiciously because of systematic problems.
So using this shooting as an example, i could see a police officer being more jumpy and making a huge error in judgement when pulling over a black man carrying a gun.

 

[Bluestars]

Interesting generalizations in your post. I recall a long ago example of a protest that would've easily fit your description of a group using aggression and intimidatin over another. But, I suspect you may not refer to the protesters as a hate group. Do you remember a little incident in our history now referred to as the Boston Tea Party?

Well, I am referring to what is happening now. I think aggressively approaching people to make them fearful of you is not productive. You may be fine with it. Attempting to shut down freeways, chanting about killing people, trying to close down roads, storming areas where people are peacefully studying, or intimidating someone who is just walking to their vehicle, is not something I support and it does absolutely nothing to gain the support of the people they are trying to intimidate. When a person tries to limit the rights of another person, that's where freedom of speech crosses the line.

 

[Poohforyou]

I have an honest question, what are standard police procedures in a carry state for someone pulled over who is carrying? I live in nj so I have no idea. I would think this would be a very complicated situation.