Minnesota Officer Was 'Reacting to Presence of Gun,' Lawyer Says...

[jimbo]

I've only brought it up in my classes at the end when students ask.

There are some people, for reasons like the MN shooting, that dont want to disclose they are carrying unless they have to. Oregon does not require notification.

I tell them what I do. But the choice not to is legal, and its theirs. I wonder myself if its smart to tell them you are armed right off the bat.

I can tell you for certain though. If I have a gun pointed at me for some petty **** like a broken tail light, me and the officer are going to have very loud words with each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tell them. In Va and NC, the states I travel the most, the highway patrol runs your license while stopping you. The CCP is tied to the license data. The first question, may I see your license, registration, and do you have a weapon with you? I've had no problem.

 

[TurtleDude]

In Illinois, at least, not all jurisdictions sync FOIDs or CC Permits to driver's licenses. Thus my CC class recommendation to let an officer know right up front if you're carrying a weapon.

In oHio we are required to inform the officer ASAP. and he already knows it

 

[jimbo]

I'm talking about BLACK PEOPLE! They use targets of BLACK PEOPLE on the targets for target practice.



And this deliberate obtuseness and feigned ignorance is a huge contribution to the problem.

View attachment 67203975

View attachment 67203976View attachment 67203977

This is inappropriate. Jesus. TH excuses people make to justify police misconduct is out of this world.
View attachment 67203978

I get the black target. It's easier to spot in most outdoor shooting ranges. When I was in the army, all the popup targets were black. The enemy at the time would have been Russian or VC, so a racial proponent would have been unlikely.

If photos of any group are being used as targets that is wrong.

 

[Hari Seldon]

A lawyer for the suburban police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop said on Saturday that the race of the driver, Philando Castile, played no role in how his client responded, and that the officer “was reacting to the presence of a gun” when he opened fire.

“The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun,” Mr. Kelly said in an interview, noting that Officer Yanez is Latino.

Mr. Castile “was not following the directions of the police officer,” Mr. Kelly said, but he declined to provide further detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/u...o-the-presence-of-a-gun-lawyer-says.html?_r=0

Pure BS. I guess its a good strategy to keep from ending up in jail.

 

[opendebate]

That's a pretty broad statement and, frankly, I find it offensive. The idea that all cops are focused on the race of the people they are engaging is where groups like BLM go off the rails. When a cop engages a person they are focused on the circumstances of that engagement. Race, other than the possibility that the individual matches a certain suspect description, is a consideration that comes in much farther down the line if at all.

First of all i didn't say ALL cops...did I. That's exactly where conservatives go off the rails and don't actually LISTEN. No one has made the claim that ALL cops are focused on race. The message is lost to your defensive exagerations.. You can not deny that a problem exists with SOME police officers and this IMO is a perfect example of someone perceiving a threat for no obvious reason and overreacting. and your statement about race being considered much further down the line is ridiculous. No one and I mean NO ONE is capable of completely separating themselves from themselves that way.

 

[opendebate]

A lawyer for the suburban police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop said on Saturday that the race of the driver, Philando Castile, played no role in how his client responded, and that the officer “was reacting to the presence of a gun” when he opened fire.

“The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun,” Mr. Kelly said in an interview, noting that Officer Yanez is Latino.

Mr. Castile “was not following the directions of the police officer,” Mr. Kelly said, but he declined to provide further detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/u...o-the-presence-of-a-gun-lawyer-says.html?_r=0

Think about this for a minute. The need to follow directions to keep yourself alive during a traffic stop is outrageous and smacks heavily of victim blaming. Castile's mother came out after the incident and said she'd given her son instruction that to stay alive when stopped by police you must always follow the directions. WTF, seriously??!! It would never occur to me that I would need to provide MY white son this kind of instruction because that threat doesn't exist for him.

 

[Lutherf]

First of all i didn't say ALL cops...did I. That's exactly where conservatives go off the rails and don't actually LISTEN. No one has made the claim that ALL cops are focused on race. The message is lost to your defensive exagerations.. You can not deny that a problem exists with SOME police officers and this IMO is a perfect example of someone perceiving a threat for no obvious reason and overreacting. and your statement about race being considered much further down the line is ridiculous. No one and I mean NO ONE is capable of completely separating themselves from themselves that way.

So what did you say?

The issue here Magg is that the cop is often more inclined to perceive a threat based on race and THAT's a problem. THAT'S where the racism comes into play. That's why you can't use the superficial justification of a perceived threat. You have to look at whether or not the threat was real and not just perceived.

You didn't say "some cops". You didn't say "this cop". You didn't say "a cop". You said "...the cop is often more inclined to perceive a threat based on race..." and that implies all cops.

The message that is being sent out is that all blacks are at more danger from all cops just because they are black and you perpetuated that message. You also imply that the threats cops are exposed to are "perceived" and "superficial". Well, when a cop is called to a complaint that someone with a gun threatened someone else I'd suggest that the perception is much more than superficial.

I get a kick out of this crap. The gun grabbers are all amped up to take rights away from lawful citizens because they feel threatened just knowing that someone might want to buy, own or carry a gun but at the same time they want the cops to give people who are suspects in a crime a full trial before they even engage them.

Your expectations are unrealistic and if they are met will result in more crime, more violence and more death.

 

[opendebate]

So what did you say?



You didn't say "some cops". You didn't say "this cop". You didn't say "a cop". You said "...the cop is often more inclined to perceive a threat based on race..." and that implies all cops.

The message that is being sent out is that all blacks are at more danger from all cops just because they are black and you perpetuated that message. You also imply that the threats cops are exposed to are "perceived" and "superficial". Well, when a cop is called to a complaint that someone with a gun threatened someone else I'd suggest that the perception is much more than superficial.

I get a kick out of this crap. The gun grabbers are all amped up to take rights away from lawful citizens because they feel threatened just knowing that someone might want to buy, own or carry a gun but at the same time they want the cops to give people who are suspects in a crime a full trial before they even engage them.

Your expectations are unrealistic and if they are met will result in more crime, more violence and more death.

Wow, I said exactly NONE of that in my post.

 

[Aberration]

I spoke with no more authority than those who disagree with me. Funny Im not seeing any links.

Here's the one I referred to...

Https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm

No links are really needed. Its short and simple law that is easily found. From your link. "The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force."

Thats exactly what I have said. Its not what you have said.

You will note it says nothing about having to see a gun which was my original assertion. It also states that once an officer asserts he believed he or others were in imminent danger, it is then up to the state to disprove it and the jury to disagree with his take on events.

Body and dash cameras. If BLM wants to effect meaningful change, they should be hammering that home.

Of course it doesn't say anything about seeing a gun, a gun is not the only thing that can pose a deadly threat, and the simple sight of a gun does not pose a deadly threat. When it says once the officer asserts he believed, it is still referring to the reasonable person standard.

Body cams is a start. It still doesn't change the fact that law enforcement and other citizens are held to a different standard for the use of deadly force even though the law does not afford such preference. The very problem is that in these situations the lives of the police are held to a higher value than the life of other citizens. And like you, a lot of the public accept that.

For instance whenever some sort of situation happens and people complain, one of the common themes thrown out is "Well the officer has to deal with the worst of humanity every day. You don't know what he just dealt with. He could have just come from a fatal accident, and here he is responding to your noise disturbance. You just need to understand." That works both ways. When an officer pulls someone over for speeding, he doesn't know what they just went through. And rarely does it matter. Its not just the value of life. Its the value of opinion.

As I said the DA and courts seem to treat police as THE "reasonable person". Even your link says it. "The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them"

That is the court rewriting the law and affording public servants more power than the people who that power comes from. If power is not held in the hands of the people, we are not a Republic as guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is why I am not popular with a lot of Republicans I know. They have screamed to high heaven over what Obama has done, and what the courts have done for him. But they are OK with this, and this is way worse.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I tell them. In Va and NC, the states I travel the most, the highway patrol runs your license while stopping you. The CCP is tied to the license data. The first question, may I see your license, registration, and do you have a weapon with you? I've had no problem.

I always tell them as they approach my window that I have a revolver, and I keep my hands on the wheel until they are cool with it.

They always say thx for telling them.

Never had a issue with a cop. Even while breaking into abandoned properties for the asset managers, and having the neighbors call in on me.

 

[MaggieD]

No links are really needed. Its short and simple law that is easily found. From your link. "The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force."

Thats exactly what I have said. Its not what you have said.



Of course it doesn't say anything about seeing a gun, a gun is not the only thing that can pose a deadly threat, and the simple sight of a gun does not pose a deadly threat. When it says once the officer asserts he believed, it is still referring to the reasonable person standard.

Body cams is a start. It still doesn't change the fact that law enforcement and other citizens are held to a different standard for the use of deadly force even though the law does not afford such preference. The very problem is that in these situations the lives of the police are held to a higher value than the life of other citizens. And like you, a lot of the public accept that.

For instance whenever some sort of situation happens and people complain, one of the common themes thrown out is "Well the officer has to deal with the worst of humanity every day. You don't know what he just dealt with. He could have just come from a fatal accident, and here he is responding to your noise disturbance. You just need to understand." That works both ways. When an officer pulls someone over for speeding, he doesn't know what they just went through. And rarely does it matter. Its not just the value of life. Its the value of opinion.

As I said the DA and courts seem to treat police as THE "reasonable person". Even your link says it. "The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them"

That is the court rewriting the law and affording public servants more power than the people who that power comes from. If power is not held in the hands of the people, we are not a Republic as guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is why I am not popular with a lot of Republicans I know. They have screamed to high heaven over what Obama has done, and what the courts have done for him. But they are OK with this, and this is way worse.

I dont hold the life of a cop in higher esteem than an ordinary citizen. Dont know where you got that. In fact, because of their training, in my opinion they should be held to a higher standard than many others. NOBODY ,regardless of their political lean, condones cops killing or injuring people unjustly. The devil's in defining unjust.

 

[Aberration]

when someone says they are a CCW holder (which the cop should know before he even approaches the car) that should put the officer at ease.

Usually. The problem is the officer had already pegged him as a robbery suspect. We know that now. And the problem with that is, what reasonable citizen knows what the cop is suspecting? Are we now to reasonably believe we will be treated like a suspected criminal until we can convince Judge Dredd we are not? Is that what its coming to?

 

[Aberration]

I dont hold the life of a cop in higher esteem than an ordinary citizen. Dont know where you got that. In fact, because of their training, in my opinion they should be held to a higher standard than many others. NOBODY ,regardless of their political lean, condones cops killing or injuring people unjustly. The devil's in defining unjust.

You may say you don't. But based on what you believe an officer should be able to do because of very flimsy suspicion that is the result. Innocent people get shot and the officer faces no legal consequences because he was scared.

 

[MaggieD]

You may say you don't. But based on what you believe an officer should be able to do because of very flimsy suspicion that is the result. Innocent people get shot and the officer faces no legal consequences because he was scared.

The devil is defining unjust.

 

[jimbo]

I always tell them as they approach my window that I have a revolver, and I keep my hands on the wheel until they are cool with it.

They always say thx for telling them.

Never had a issue with a cop. Even while breaking into abandoned properties for the asset managers, and having the neighbors call in on me.

I've had the same experience. I carry my CCP and my license side by side.

The last time I got stopped, I showed the permit and DL. and stated that I had 3 weapons, gave the location and stated I would put them on the dash if he preferred. He told me to leave them there and there would be no need to find out who had the quickest draw.

Didn't get the ticket either.

 

[Aberration]

The devil is defining unjust.

Indeed the devil is in defining unjust. When it is just for an officer to do something, yet unjust for citizens to do the same exact thing, well thats tyranny. That is the death of the Republic. I think the devil is dancing a jig over it.

 

[Lutherf]

....

As I said the DA and courts seem to treat police as THE "reasonable person". Even your link says it. "The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them"

That is the court rewriting the law and affording public servants more power than the people who that power comes from. If power is not held in the hands of the people, we are not a Republic as guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is why I am not popular with a lot of Republicans I know. They have screamed to high heaven over what Obama has done, and what the courts have done for him. But they are OK with this, and this is way worse.

The police are not held to a reduced standard concerning use of force. They are given leeway to use force while attempting to detain or arrest a person of interest while investigating a crime or a complaint. That leeway is necessary if police are to do the job we ask of them.

People need to understand that a cop is unlikely to just walk up to someone and detain them for no reason whatsoever. What tends to happen is that a complaint is called in and then cops start investigating. For example, someone might call to complain that the stereo got stolen out of their car and they saw a black car pulling away. The cops start cruising the area and they see two guys standing next to a black car in front of a pawn shop with a bad track record of taking stolen goods. When the guys spot the cops they hustle into the car and take off. The cop perceives their behavior as being suspicious so he follows them. When he pulls them over for a minor infraction both guys are agitated and and start babbling about what they were just doing. The cop asks to ID both guys and they hesitate providing identification. Finally the cop gets their ID and begins to run a check where he finds that one of them has a warrant for something. He goes back to the car and asks the guys to get out. One does and the other just sits there trying to litigate the stop. The cop calls for backup and drags the passenger out of the car. At that point everybody in the neighborhood picks up their cell phone and starts recording the incident while the driver narrates "we were just standing there and this cop pulled us over for no reason and then he started abusing this other guy".

Backup arrives, both guys are detained and sure enough, a stereo matching the description of the stolen one is found in the back seat. However, by the time the cops get back to the station there is already a social media ****storm complete with video about how the cops abused the civil rights of two fine young men that were just hanging out on their day off.

 

[MaggieD]

Indeed the devil is in defining unjust. When it is just for an officer to do something, yet unjust for citizens to do the same exact thing, well thats tyranny. That is the death of the Republic. I think the devil is dancing a jig over it.

You're wrong. Citizens arent charged with making arrests of armed perps, returning gunfire, running toward gunfire, and pulling a carload of guys over at 2 am in the morning when the plates come up stolen.

You are wrong. And, with your attitude, if you were a cop, you'd likely be dead wrong.

 

[Aberration]

You're wrong. Citizens arent charged with making arrests of armed perps, returning gunfire, running toward gunfire, and pulling a carload of guys over at 2 am in the morning when the plates come up stolen.

You are wrong. And, with your attitude, if you were a cop, you'd likely be dead wrong.

I am not wrong. Its all irrelevant to the standard of the law. And legally the cops are NOT charged with returning gun fire or running towards it. They aren't even charged with serving or protecting. Those are all just emotional justifications for why its ok for 'your team' to break the law. Its no wonder when the 'other team' breaks the law and doesn't give 2 ****s about our uproar.

 

[reinoe]

People need to understand that a cop is unlikely to just walk up to someone and detain them for no reason whatsoever.

This is literally what "Stop & Frisk" was as advocated by the NYPD.

And absolutely police are held to a much lower standard than anyone else. Police aren't even drug tested after a firearms discharge, and yet if you take a forklift and you kill someone accidentally, you'd better believe you'd get drug tested for it. Heck, if you get into any sort of questionable accident at any sort of workplace they'd drug test you as a matter of course. Police not only don't have random drug tests, they aren't drug tested after accidents, but they ALWAYS drug test victims as a matter of course.

This is why I'd trust a McDonald's fry cook before I trust a cop with a gun. Because for all your talk about cop responsibility they are not held to a standard of accountability in any way shape or form.

 

[blackjack50]

I'm talking about BLACK PEOPLE! They use targets of BLACK PEOPLE on the targets for target practice.



And this deliberate obtuseness and feigned ignorance is a huge contribution to the problem.

View attachment 67203975

View attachment 67203976View attachment 67203977

This is inappropriate. Jesus. TH excuses people make to justify police misconduct is out of this world.
View attachment 67203978

Just slinging stuff at the wall to see what sticks? Yea. I love how the one target is a white guy in your photos. A white guy middle aged man actually. A white middle aged man in a sweat shirt and jogging shorts with pointy ears and kinda looks like Nixon.

 

[blackjack50]

This is literally what "Stop & Frisk" was as advocated by the NYPD.

And absolutely police are held to a much lower standard than anyone else. Police aren't even drug tested after a firearms discharge, and yet if you take a forklift and you kill someone accidentally, you'd better believe you'd get drug tested for it. Heck, if you get into any sort of questionable accident at any sort of workplace they'd drug test you as a matter of course. Police not only don't have random drug tests, they aren't drug tested after accidents, but they ALWAYS drug test victims as a matter of course.

This is why I'd trust a McDonald's fry cook before I trust a cop with a gun. Because for all your talk about cop responsibility they are not held to a standard of accountability in any way shape or form.

Something tells me you wouldn't call the local McDonald's fry cook if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night

And I bet you know the number to the local police department without even thinking about it. Granted it is only 3 instead of 7 digits.

Well that was fun.

 

[Aberration]

The police are not held to a reduced standard concerning use of force. They are given leeway to use force while attempting to detain or arrest a person of interest while investigating a crime or a complaint. That leeway is necessary if police are to do the job we ask of them.

Yes they absolutely are. I can find case after case after case. Police kill people who pose no deadly threat, and are routinely not held accountable. Kelly Thomas is a really good example. There is no doubt they are afforded more than just leeway. They are afforded the benefit of the doubt.

Can you quote that leeway in the law. I don't find it necessary. Many others do not find it necessary. What makes it necessary?

People need to understand that a cop is unlikely to just walk up to someone and detain them for no reason whatsoever.

There is always a reason. It doesn't mean its a good one. Its not really justification for anything else.

What tends to happen is that a complaint is called in and then cops start investigating. For example, someone might call to complain that the stereo got stolen out of their car and they saw a black car pulling away.[/quote The cops start cruising the area and they see two guys standing next to a black car in front of a pawn shop with a bad track record of taking stolen goods. When the guys spot the cops they hustle into the car and take off. The cop perceives their behavior as being suspicious so he follows them. When he pulls them over for a minor infraction both guys are agitated and and start babbling about what they were just doing. The cop asks to ID both guys and they hesitate providing identification. Finally the cop gets their ID and begins to run a check where he finds that one of them has a warrant for something. He goes back to the car and asks the guys to get out. One does and the other just sits there trying to litigate the stop. The cop calls for backup and drags the passenger out of the car. At that point everybody in the neighborhood picks up their cell phone and starts recording the incident while the driver narrates "we were just standing there and this cop pulled us over for no reason and then he started abusing this other guy".

Backup arrives, both guys are detained and sure enough, a stereo matching the description of the stolen one is found in the back seat. However, by the time the cops get back to the station there is already a social media ****storm complete with video about how the cops abused the civil rights of two fine young men that were just hanging out on their day off.

Cool story?

 

[Caine]

I really wish there was video of the shooting. There is no reason to believe one person over the other in this case. The dead guy wasn't some criminal. He was working man with a concealed carry license. Obviously someone who cared enough about the law to do things the right way prior to this.

And no cop is going to admit to a bad shoot if there is no video evidence. Hell, even if there IS video evidence. And of course the girlfriend is going to want to make her boyfriend look good. So, frankly, I don't take either the cop or the girlfriend at their word.

Sucky situation.

Dead guy was also being pulled over for suspicion of Armed Robbery. Just FYI. This sort of thing has a tendency to change how an officer reacts to someone with a gun who doesn't comply with commands to keep hands visible.

 

[Aberration]

Dead guy was also being pulled over for suspicion of Armed Robbery. Just FYI. This sort of thing has a tendency to change how an officer reacts to someone with a gun who doesn't comply with commands to keep hands visible.

No. He was being pulled over for a broken tail light. The officer did not have enough to reasonably suspect him of robbery. The dead guy is also not psychic. Maybe if he knew he was being irrationally suspected of robbery it would have a tendency to change how he reacts to an irrational officer making irrational claims.