- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 47,494
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
No, the vehicle WAS stopped for a tail light: that was probable cause to pull him over.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No, the vehicle WAS stopped for a tail light: that was probable cause to pull him over.
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
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?
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.
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.
Calm down. There was no abuse or atrocity here.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...
Calm down. There was no abuse or atrocity here.
Your whole post is nothing but nonsense.
I am glad you recognized what you provided.Unsupported claims and mindless partisan hackery dully noted.
I am glad you recognized what you provided.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.......
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?