• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philando Castile’s Killing

MickeyW said:
There is a segment of agitators, nationwide, who are trying to start a race war. I saw it in the 60s and early 70s.

Many who think they have been wronged, haven't been ...........and they are pawns of the agitators.
Click to expand...

had a strong hunch that you would be aware of some group of citizens interested in initiating a race war

curious about your own experiences as a cop during that 60-70s era relative to interactions with persons of color, both as members of the public and as LEO coworkers

and how are we referring to latinos - such as the shooter - today; are they white/hispanic or minority/hispanic?
have not seen anything that tells us when those persons are in one or the other category

the passenger's calm demeanor when others around her are being shot or doing the shooting seems very tiny basis in which to allege a conspiracy which would include shooting someone with a tot in the back seat
 
Caine said:
The vehicle was stopped not for a tail light but because Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect from July 2. So of course they were going to check him.
Click to expand...

Would the people in the car have necessarily known that stop was to investigate the robbery? I'm wondering if the woman knew the tail light was broken and assumed that was the cause of if the cop potentially told them it was for a tail light.

I'd also be curious to know what description was being used. I saw a pic of the robbery suspect - looked like it was taken from a camera in the store that was robbed - and they looked superficially similar, as in skinny black dude with a beard. But in the store pic the guy's wearing a hat so I couldn't really make out much of his face.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
No, the vehicle WAS stopped for a tail light: that was probable cause to pull him over.
Click to expand...

Then why does the dispatch audio of the officer calling in the stop to the dispatcher clearly prove that the officer pulled the vehicle over because Castile looked like the robbery suspect?
 
Gaius46 said:
Would the people in the car have necessarily known that stop was to investigate the robbery? I'm wondering if the woman knew the tail light was broken and assumed that was the cause of if the cop potentially told them it was for a tail light.

I'd also be curious to know what description was being used. I saw a pic of the robbery suspect - looked like it was taken from a camera in the store that was robbed - and they looked superficially similiar, as in skinny black dude with a beard.
Click to expand...

Yep, there were alot of similarities.
Skinny black guy, beard, similar hair style, glasses......although the video didn't show Castille wearing the glasses he was known to wear them, whether or not they were on before the shooting, I couldn't say, and certainly the officer wouldn't have had such knowledge of Castille to know he wears glasses regularly if they weren't on him at the time of the stop.

The officer specifically mentioned the appearance of the subject's nose. Of course people will attempt to make claims of racism from that, but a physical attribute is a physical attribute to law enforcement, they don't give two ****s about the "political correctness" of noses.
 
Caine said:
Yep, there were alot of similarities.
Skinny black guy, beard, similar hair style, glasses......although the video didn't show Castille wearing the glasses he was known to wear them, whether or not they were on before the shooting, I couldn't say, and certainly the officer wouldn't have had such knowledge of Castille to know he wears glasses regularly if they weren't on him at the time of the stop.

The officer specifically mentioned the appearance of the subject's nose. Of course people will attempt to make claims of racism from that, but a physical attribute is a physical attribute to law enforcement, they don't give two ****s about the "political correctness" of noses.
Click to expand...

To me it's not a matter of political correctness. It's more "how many people have that kind of nose." If a particular shape of nose is common among black people is it really identifying enough to justify pulling someone over? Or is it more of fishing expedition to see if they can get something else on the guy?
 
Caine said:
Then why does the dispatch audio of the officer calling in the stop to the dispatcher clearly prove that the officer pulled the vehicle over because Castile looked like the robbery suspect?
Click to expand...

The tail light was the necessary probable cause to check him out. THAT was the "pull over probable cause".

I think that - "probable robbery suspect", "gun in the car", "fast movement" = the cop freaked out.

It'll all come out in the wash. I still there's something funny about this thing.
 
This guy has been stopped 51 times!

He was no innocent virgin ...by any means!

Just another little turd, disrespecting authority.
 
Caine said:
The vehicle was stopped not for a tail light but because Castile looked like an armed robbery suspect from July 2. So of course they were going to check him.
Click to expand...

See below.

jet57 said:
No, the vehicle WAS stopped for a tail light: that was probable cause to pull him over.
Click to expand...

For the 51st time!
 
justabubba said:
had a strong hunch that you would be aware of some group of citizens interested in initiating a race war

curious about your own experiences as a cop during that 60-70s era relative to interactions with persons of color, both as members of the public and as LEO coworkers

and how are we referring to latinos - such as the shooter - today; are they white/hispanic or minority/hispanic?
have not seen anything that tells us when those persons are in one or the other category

the passenger's calm demeanor when others around her are being shot or doing the shooting seems very tiny basis in which to allege a conspiracy which would include shooting someone with a tot in the back seat
Click to expand...

Prior to the Communist agitators that infiltrated our college campuses in the early 60s, law enforcement had little problem in the Black Community where I worked in the SF Bay Area. There is always an element that don't like/don't trust the police, and vice versa....but it was small and rather isolated, depending on what city a LEO worked in. We all got along pretty good, and mutual respect went both ways. It was a good time in America.
But, once those agitators got people riled up, the Black Community took on a whole different dimension and were all fired up for perceived wrong doing. That spilled over into racial tensions on both sides and racism on both sides escalated. It went downhill from there. The riots of '68 were real bad and tensions were very high.

Most departments stopped using one man patrols and went to two officers with riot helmets on while driving or walking. In '68, that was increased to 4 officers in each unit with helmets, long batons, flack jackets and .............with many gas canisters, full auto Thompsons, and lot of extra ammo in the trunks. The average citizen seeing that level of equipment, made them even more fearful.
People were on edge, everywhere surrounding Oakland, Berkeley, SF and LA.

The first time that I was shot at as a LEO, was in Berkeley, Ca. from a rooftop. I ducked for cover behind a tree and my partner was able to draw a bead on the perp and nail him, while the guy was trying to hit me with several shots from a.22 rifle.

As for working relationship with Black officers. My department only had one at the time and he was great guy and very critical of the Black agitators. Working mutual aid with other departments, I saw some tension with the Black officers, but they still did their jobs and were professional and by the book.

Oakland at times in the 60s, was total chaos, same for SF. When I went to LA to assist, during the Rodney King riots, the situation was far worse and many police were outgunned. Thanks to the well armed Korean communities and other armed civilians, the police got lots of civilian help and it was well appreciated, but not widely reported, by the anti-gun MSM.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
To me it's not a matter of political correctness. It's more "how many people have that kind of nose." If a particular shape of nose is common among black people is it really identifying enough to justify pulling someone over? Or is it more of fishing expedition to see if they can get something else on the guy?
Click to expand...

He looked alot like the suspect... have you seen the photo?

I wouldn't call this a "fishing expedition" by any means... but then again, Im not busting veins looking for any and all reason to condemn officers either.
 
jet57 said:
The tail light was the necessary probable cause to check him out. THAT was the "pull over probable cause".

I think that - "probable robbery suspect", "gun in the car", "fast movement" = the cop freaked out.

It'll all come out in the wash. I still there's something funny about this thing.
Click to expand...

And yet, when he called in to dispatch informing them that he was stopping the vehicle, he stated that he was stopping the vehicle because the subject looked like a suspect from the robbery.....

But hey, what does the cop know... im sure you know better.
 
It's mirrored because she's using the front facing camera, and iPhones do that.
 
Caine said:
He looked alot like the suspect... have you seen the photo?

I wouldn't call this a "fishing expedition" by any means... but then again, Im not busting veins looking for any and all reason to condemn officers either.
Click to expand...

I saw one photo of the robbery suspect, in profile, from above. He was wearing a hat and the best I could do is say that they looked similar. But I don't do facial recognition for a living.

Not looking to condemn them either but on the other hand if the cop overreacted and an innocent guy got killed because of it there should be consequences same as if you or I overreacted and killed someone.
 
How can gun-rights advocates defend this atrocity and disgusting abuse of power? By doing so you're the ultimate hypocrite and partisan hack, just a drone - a manufactured personality and one of many hundreds of thousands just like you. A construct designed to disseminate misinformation and turn people against each other, further legitimizing the police state we currently live under...

If anyone needs gun control legislation its the police departments.

WAKE THE **** UP!
 
Abbazorkzog said:
How can gun-rights advocates defend this atrocity and disgusting abuse of power?
Click to expand...
Calm down. There was no abuse or atrocity here.


Abbazorkzog said:
By doing so you're the ultimate hypocrite and partisan hack, just a drone - a manufactured personality and one of many hundreds of thousands just like you. A construct designed to disseminate misinformation and turn people against each other, further legitimizing the police state we currently live under...
Click to expand...

Your whole post is nothing but nonsense.
 
Caine said:
And yet, when he called in to dispatch informing them that he was stopping the vehicle, he stated that he was stopping the vehicle because the subject looked like a suspect from the robbery.....

But hey, what does the cop know... im sure you know better.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding. The guy in the car "matched a description". It was the cops job to check him out. As always, something failing on a car, in this case a tail light, is probable cause (for a fix it ticket) and the cop could pull the car over.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
How can gun-rights advocates defend this atrocity and disgusting abuse of power? By doing so you're the ultimate hypocrite and partisan hack, just a drone - a manufactured personality and one of many hundreds of thousands just like you. A construct designed to disseminate misinformation and turn people against each other, further legitimizing the police state we currently live under...

If anyone needs gun control legislation its the police departments.

WAKE THE **** UP!
Click to expand...

Gun rights advocates would all agree that when law enforcement tells you not to reach for your weapon, you don't reach for it.

But hey, what the hell do I know about law enforcement, I only did it for 7 years.
 
Caine said:
Gun rights advocates would all agree that when law enforcement tells you not to reach for your weapon, you don't reach for it.

But hey, what the hell do I know about law enforcement, I only did it for 7 years.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt he didn't reach for it without good reason. Just because he was a law enforcement officer doesn't automatically mean he wasn't abusing his power.
 
jet57 said:
You're misunderstanding. The guy in the car "matched a description". It was the cops job to check him out. As always, something failing on a car, in this case a tail light, is probable cause (for a fix it ticket) and the cop could pull the car over.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that you don't have to have a traffic reason to pull a vehicle over. Period.

You need to reach the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion". Matching a suspect identification meets the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion" to stop a vehicle.

"Probable cause" is NOT the legal standard necessary to stop a vehicle. Probable cause is the legal standard needed to make an arrest on a subject, not an investigative detention.

The officer stated to dispatch he was stopping the vehicle because an occupant looked like the suspect. The officer stated nothing at any time to dispatch about a broken tail light. We hear that from the female after the fact, the same female who seems calm and collected while her boyfriend breathes his last breath next to her and she is too busy pimpin' for the Race Grievance Industry.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I highly doubt he didn't reach for it without good reason. Just because he was a law enforcement officer doesn't automatically mean he wasn't abusing his power.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you are a robbery suspect, and you reach for a gun when told NOT to reach for a gun, the changes of you getting shot are 99%.

Just because he was a law enforcement officer doesn't automatically mean he was wrong and he is an evil murderous racist. But some people will never understand.......

b8be3a306b404835fbfb18d48aaa1a2b.jpg
 
Caine said:
Yes, but if you are a robbery suspect, and you reach for a gun when told NOT to reach for a gun, the changes of you getting shot are 99%.

Just because he was a law enforcement officer doesn't automatically mean he was wrong and he is an evil murderous racist. But some people will never understand.......

b8be3a306b404835fbfb18d48aaa1a2b.jpg
Click to expand...

But then we come back to the reason we have Citizens who are armed with guns as per the 2nd Amendment, which is to keep political/police corruption in check.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
But then we come back to the reason we have Citizens who are armed with guns as per the 2nd Amendment, which is to keep political/police corruption in check.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
This is a citizen who was armed, suspected of armed robbery, and didn't follow police orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom