Thankfully yes -
Michael Slager was convicted after he pleaded guilty of shooting Walter Scott. That's one case our rabid police shooting supporter Excon still doesn't want to accept. The other one I can recall without too much googling is
Sean Groubert who shot Levar Jones after asking him for his licence.
1. Stop baiting.
This topic, nor that one, is about me, but about the arguments made.
2. Everything I argued in the Slager topics is true and you certainly have not been able to refute it. His trial for that charge ended with a hung jury. The fact that the corrupt Obama/Lynch justice system came along and wrongly charged him with different crimes does not negate any of those arguments.
Slager pleading guilty to the "federal charge of deprivation of rights under the color of law" was so all other charges, federal and state, would be dismissed. That doesn't negate what I argued either.
Now if you would like to start a thread to argue those federal charges and whether he should have plead or not, please do so as I can clearly make better legal arguments based on the actual evidence than you can.
Yanez may have been given the benefit of the doubt by the jury but he's lost his job. There's a sign there that he wasn't fit for further duty in uniform with the legal power of lethal force behind him.
It's a voluntarily separation.
If he wanted his job back he could force it by legal action, but since it is a voluntary separation, I doubt he will.
If you read what the City said it doesn't sound like he was fired for cause.
The City of St. Anthony announced that it fired officer Jeronimo Yanez from the department on the day he was cleared of all counts in the killing of Philando Castile.
“The City of St. Anthony has concluded that the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city,” the statement said. “The city intends to offer Officer Yanez a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career other than being a St. Anthony officer.”
City of St. Anthony fires Yanez
2) Officer Yanez failed to listen to what Mr. Castile and Ms. Reynolds was trying to tell him. He did NOT hear Mr. Castile say, "I'm not pulling it out" likely because all he was focused on from the moment he heard that the driver of the vehicle was armed was whether or not Mr. Castile would reach for his firearm.
Failed to listen? Wut? You haven't established that.
No, Castile failed to listen and demonstrated that by failing to follow the commands given.
And the Officer does not have to listen to what a passenger says, especially as he was dealing with the driver, not her.
But had Officer Yanez took the time to listen to what Mr. Castile and Ms. Reynolds were saying to him, no shots would've been fired.
What Castile was doing is contrary to what he was saying so it would have likely ended the same way even if you could establish that the Officer had the Officer not been listening to him.
He can be heard off camera stating "he was nervous". This nervousness became apparent once Mr. Castile informed him he had a firearm.
He said he was getting nervous after he said Castile was getting hinky and just staring straight ahead.
Some people will say, "Well, Mr. Castile should have followed Officer Yanez' instructions and complied. By all accounts, he did!
iLOL No.
No by the Officer's account he did not and that is what matters.
and by his own admission immediately after being shot he clearly states he wasn't reaching for his firearm.
By his own admission? iLOL Doh!
So civilians do not lie to Officers huh?
Furthermore AND as witnessed by Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Castile was reaching for his wallet.
And yet had his hand on the gun in his front pocket while his wallet was all the way to his rear.