[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Glastonbury 2017: Johnny Depp talks of Trump ‘assassination’

Months-Long Forensic Investigation Concludes Seth Rich ‘Likely Killed by Hired Killer’

Pamela Geller: The Coming Civil War

Canadian sniper's bullet flew for ten seconds at speed of 792mph: Soldier even had to account for the Earth's curvature as he killed jihadi from two miles away with shot so powerful it can hit a target through walls

MSNBC Analyst: Supporting Trump Like ‘Hugging A Suicide Bomber’ [VIDEO]

Man fresh out of coma commits suicide after learning Trump is President

Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way

Migrant Who Frequently Visited Kindergarten May Have Given Children Tuberculosis

Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

BUSTED: Here’s How Much “Socialist” Bernie Sanders Made Last Year…

Stunning Coverup Maneuver – Obama NSC Move All Intelligence Unmasking Material To Obama Library To Avoid Sunlight…

A ' Replacement Population' Is Taking Place As Refugees Flood Into Italy

Pelosi: I Am a ‘Target’ Because I Am a ‘Master Legislator,’ ‘Politically Astute Leader’

Carrier moving Trump jobs to Mexico

BREAKING: Draft Senate bill will defund Planned Parenthood, replace Obamacare

Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media

Severed Human Toe Served in Canadian Bar’s ‘Sourtoe Cocktail’ Is Stolen

Republican Lawmaker Wants to Make It Legal to Carry a Gun in Washington DC… But Only for Congressmen

Outrage Grows Over Arrests of Hundreds of Christians in Detroit

Trump in Iowa: President calls for barring immigrants from welfare for five years

Ron Paul Interviews Edward Snowden. Deep State is Discussed and Exposed

Cop On Power Trip Becomes Internet Famous For Arresting Woman Who Said ‘Ass’

CIA Agent Busted Running a Massive Drug Smuggling Operation

Clarence Thomas Attacks Civil Asset Forfeiture, Lower Court Follows His Lead

HIT & RUN BLOG Students Hold Free Speech Events, Get Denounced as White Supremacists

Former CIA Spy Who Carried Out a False Flag Attack Talks About False Flag Terrorism

Relevent

Researchers Developing Tech to Allow Dogs to Call 911 in Emergencies

The Philando Castile shooting: Why was it reasonable for the cop to be nervous but not for Castile to be?

Ann Coulter: The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them!

16.4 Million Americans Think Chocolate Milk Comes From Brown Cows, Survey Reveals

Trinity College Professor on Congressional Baseball Shooting: ‘Let Them F*cking Die’

Exposed: FBI Director James Comey’s Clinton Foundation Connection (Old column, but even more important today!)

Broward teacher deserves 8 years in prison for alerting drug dealers about investigation, feds say

Think Twice Before Opening A Gold Or Silver IRA

US Gov’t Proves Love for ISIS as Bill to “Stop Arming Terrorists” Gets Only 13 Supporters

NRA Spokesman Colion Noir: “Castile Should Be Alive.”

“You Need to Beat this Boy!” Cops Force Grandma to Beat Disabled Grandson With Belt

Video Shows Cops Violently Attack Men for Telling them to “Slow Down”

Remember When Ford 'Cancelled' That Plant In Mexico? Well, They've Just Moved It To China

Your health may be written in the stars: How the month you were born affects which diseases you are likely to get

Graduating senior refused to read speech written by administrators, so they withheld his diploma

America’s War on Drugs Was Designed to Fail. So Why Is It Being Revived Now?

America's War on Drugs (Acid, Spies, & Secret Experiments)

Read Jeff Sessions' Utterly Illogical Defense of Tough Drug Sentences

Thank You for Your Killing

Disturbing Video Released of Fatal Police Shooting of Philando Castile

‘Laughing My Ossoff’ — Kellyanne Conway Celebrates Humiliating Democrat Defeat

Call Him “Her” And Her “Him”: Trump Admin Continues With Obama-Era Social Engineering

The Russians Do It Again: Democrats Get Crushed In Georgia Election Despite 7x Spending Advantage


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: Police officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty
Source: thehill.com
URL Source: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby ... astile-found-not-guilty-report
Published: Jun 16, 2017
Author: John Bowden
Post Date: 2017-06-16 17:09:44 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 582
Comments: 55

Minnesota police officer who was charged with manslaughter after he shot a black motorist five times during a traffic stop last year was found not guilty by a jury on Friday, according to multiple reports.

Defense attorneys said Jeronimo Yanez, the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life when he shot Philando Castile, 32, seconds after Castile informed the officer he was armed.

Prosecutors insisted Yanez never saw the gun and had plenty of options other than shooting Castile, who was an elementary school cafeteria worker.

The officer was also acquitted of two counts of discharging a firearm that endangers safety, according to CNN, which reported that several members of Castile's family screamed profanities and cried Friday after the verdicts were announced.

ADVERTISEMENT

Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer. Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times.

The video shows Yanez firing into the car but doesn't show any of Castile's actions inside the car. Some of the conversation between Yanez and Castile is unintelligible.

Yanez was charged with endangering the lives of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the car during the shooting, but found not guilty.

In November, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi argued that Yanez's use of force was unwarranted, because Castile never attempted to access his gun.

After the verdict, Castile's mother Valerie was quoted by The New York Times saying, “My son loved this city, and this city killed my son. And a murderer gets away. Are you kidding me right now?”

“The system in this country continues to fail black people and will continue to fail us," she added.

Ten members of the 12-person jury were white, while the remaining two were black. Reynolds says in the video that Castile never reached for his gun, but defense attorneys targeted inconsistencies in her story to cast doubt on her credibility.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: misterwhite (#0)

...the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life

The magic words that get cops a free pass for murder.

Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times.

Let's see - the driver had a concealed carry permit (which means he was not a gang-banger or had any criminal record).

I wonder if the cop wet his diapers when he was informed Castile had a REGISTERED and LEGAL weapon.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-06-16   20:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#1)

...the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life

You have to wonder if a police career really does attract habitual cowards who are fundamentally unfit to be police officers.

It's a question seldom raised. We just bury their victims and exonerate them.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-16   20:24:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#1)

(which means he was not a gang-banger or had any criminal record).

Well, he wasn't exactly a model citizen either, not with being stopped by the police 52 times in 14 years for minor traffic infractions.

Guess it was just a matter of time before he f**ked up and went for his gun.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-16   20:27:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#2)

"You have to wonder if a police career really does attract habitual cowards who are fundamentally unfit to be police officers."

You would also have to wonder if more people actually believed that they'd be better behaved around such volatile people. In real life it's just the opposite.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-16   20:32:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#4)

There's something very wrong with this cop. The jury were idiots.

At least they took his badge. We'll see how long before he migrates to some other PD, possibly to kill again if some chihuahua or elderly person in a wheelchair makes him "fear for his life" again.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-16   20:52:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)

There's something very wrong with this cop. The jury were idiots.

I don't know what the jury heard. Hey, maybe it was jury nullification! You support that, right? Well, there you go.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-16   20:56:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#6)

I don't know what the jury heard. Hey, maybe it was jury nullification! You support that, right? Well, there you go.

It's possible. However, real nullification happens when a jury categorically refuses to convict under a law they consider unjust or that results in more injustice than not.

Anyway, I guess we finally found a case of (alleged) nullification that you approve of.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-16   21:07:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Deckard (#1)

I wonder if the cop wet his diapers when he was informed Castile had a REGISTERED and LEGAL weapon.

I does not seem like it but it is a shit sure certainty that when Castile died, his bladder and sphincter relaxed and he let stuff flow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

On July 6, 2016, Philando Castile was fatally shot by Jeronimo Yanez, a St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer, after being pulled over in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul. Castile was driving a car with his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, and her four-year-old daughter as passengers when he was pulled over by Yanez and another officer. According to Reynolds, after being asked for his license and registration, Castile told the officer he was licensed to carry a weapon and had one in his pants pocket. Reynolds said Castile was shot while reaching for his ID after telling Yanez he had a gun permit and was armed. The officer shot at Castile seven times.

[...]

Reynolds told the officer, "You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir." Reynolds also said "Please don't tell me he's dead," while Yanez exclaims: "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand open!"

Like Uncle Drew said, "Don't reach, youngblood."

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-17   1:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Deckard, Tooconservative, (#8)

Officer Jeronimo Yanez has been acquitted of all charges related to the shooting death of Philando Castile.

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.”

The terms of the agreement will be negotiated soon, the city said, so no other details were immediately available. In the meantime, Yanez will not return to active duty.

[….]

http://www.startribune.com/city-of-st-anthony-fires- yanez/428935523/

Gatlin  posted on  2017-06-17   3:49:16 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#2)

You have to wonder if a police career really does attract habitual cowards who are fundamentally unfit to be police officers.

It's a question seldom raised.

You however chose to raise the question here.
Why?
What led you to the determination that Jeronimo Yanez was “fundamentally unfit” to be a police officer?
What do you see that the jury who acquitted Yanez on all charges did not see?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-06-17   4:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#5)

Yanez served as a police officer in St. Anthony for 4 years with no record of any disciplinary action and city records show his accomplished roles in community policing such as working in crime prevention units and helping the public with bike safety.

There's something very wrong with this cop.
hmmm …

And you determined this….HOW?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-06-17   4:22:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#0)

The moral of the story seems to be that it is dangerous to be in the presence of an armed police officer, and anyone that doesn't realize that and does something to scare the officer, even if such action is normal behavior anywhere else, can be shot and killed for doing so.

People need to be taught that an armed police officer is a dangerous police officer so they won't do stupid things like what this guy did. It's apparent this man felt safe in the presence of this officer, felt he could trust and be trusted by him, and that's what got him killed.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   4:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Pinguinite (#12)

"The moral of the story seems to be that it is dangerous to be in the presence of an armed police officer ... "

Is that the moral of the story? His girlfriend was the presence of an armed police officer and nothing happened to her. The child was in the presence of an armed police officer and nothing happened to the child.

Hmmmm. Maybe the moral of the story is that you don't ignore the lawful orders of a police officer and reach for a loaded gun in your front pocket. I think that'll get you shot every single time.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   11:03:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Gatlin (#9)

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.

I'd like to see them try. On what grounds?

I think it went more like, "How much will it take to get you to quit?" And I also agree that it's in everyone's best interest that he leave the department.

Too bad. Why should the good guy pay a price? Hell, he should be promoted.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   11:13:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)

People need to be taught that an armed police officer is a dangerous police officer so they won't do stupid things like what this guy did.

You know that's crazy, right?

Police officers are public safety employees.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-17   11:13:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#13)

Hmmmm. Maybe the moral of the story is that you don't ignore the lawful orders of a police officer and reach for a loaded gun in your front pocket. I think that'll get you shot every single time.

Yes, something everyone should know and be taught, because when you do, you get shot and killed by a public servant because he'll be in fear for his life.

Why would you be opposed to teaching this to the general public? If this guy was stupid for how he behaved, why not let it be a lesson for all?

Don't reach for anything. Including a driver's license. Maybe he should not have informed the cop he was armed as required by law, as that information scared the crap out of the cop. If he had not done that, he may have been fine.

If he really was a hardened criminal intent on shooting the cop, then why would he have told the cop he had a gun? I suppose all thugs do that, right?

Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:02:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)

"Why would you be opposed to teaching this to the general public?"

I'm not. I paid $300 for a 16-hour concealed carry class (required by the State of Illinois). The parts where I learned the most were the gun laws of Illinois (which differ from other states) and what to do when stopped by the police while carrying a weapon.

But this guy was stopped by the police 52 times in 14 years for minor traffic infractions. You'd think he'd know the drill. Yet he reached for his gun.

"If he really was a hardened criminal intent on shooting the cop, then why would he have told the cop he had a gun? I suppose all thugs do that, right?"

If he's registered, he probably figured the cop already knew that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:39:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Pinguinite (#16)

"Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so."

How can you possibly know that? The cop was screamng at him to stop what he was doing. Yet he persisted. The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:43:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#18)

The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.

No he didn't, and neither did the jury. He was just in fear for his life. That's all the justification that's required for cops to kill.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:54:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#19)

"He was just in fear for his life."

For no reason?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:55:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#20)

For no reason?

For any reason.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   13:32:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)

For any reason.

Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason. Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   14:38:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#22)

Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason.

I sure do.

Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was?

Because there was no video of the actual shooting, or the moment beforehand. And in order to convict, the jury needs evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the shooting was unwarranted. Circumstantial evidence is not enough.

For any ordinary person, shooting another is itself sufficient evidence to convict. But cops are uniquely granted the "I feared for my life" defense which ordinary people are not. And without any video of the shooting or the moment beforehand, there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life. So he walks.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   16:12:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)

"there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life."

Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting.

The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty.

Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ...

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   17:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#24)

Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting.

It's not clear if he was reaching for his wallet or the gun, but even if he had been reaching for the gun, it was pursuant to the conversation in which he voluntarily (albeit via lawful mandate) informed the cop that he had a legally owned firearm, and that he felt it prudent to allow the officer to see the gun, as a concealed gun could be considered more dangerous than one in plain view. While I'm sure you would suggest the jury believed that thugs and outlaws routinely tell cops they are armed before firing upon them, I would, in fact, disagree. I also maintain complete confidence that the same jury would, in spite of this acquittal, also say that this man did not deserve to die and that it is very unlikely that this man had any intention of firing upon the cop.

What we could agree on is that the guy should have realized his life was in danger when he first informed the cop he legally possessed firearm, and at that point, conduct himself as though he was being robbed at gunpoint. Which he pretty much was, being robbed of his life. OF course, he had no way of knowing that the real reason for the stop was probably because his car matched the description of a car used in a crime earlier in the day, and not for any infraction. So the cop was on edge, and the guy wasn't, and the guy had no way of knowing the cop was on edge.

BTW, 52 traffic stops in 14 years, and he still had his license? Apparently eitehr that number is not true, or many/most of those stops did not result in any penalty.

The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty.

Without specific evidence to the contrary, that's exactly how it happens.

Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ...

Yet what? Did he get convicted or acquitted, or is that still playing out in the courts as this old cop hopes he dies of natural causes before any trial can happen?

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-17   18:31:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Pinguinite (#25)

BTW, 52 traffic stops in 14 years, and he still had his license? Apparently eitehr that number is not true, or many/most of those stops did not result in any penalty.

A lot of cities do profile black drivers. Stats show they get stopped more. Including law-abiding blacks with spotless driving records.

The biggest Blue cities are the worst offenders on harassing black drivers excessively.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-17   19:03:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#18)

The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.

As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things. That leads to negligence.

I know you just assume things a lot. That is obvious.

For example you always 100 percent of the time assume the police are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Assuming things leads to ignorance.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-17   20:22:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)

"As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things."

Un-huh. The driver could have been reaching for the loaded gun in his pocket to clean it. Why didn't the jury think of that?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   9:13:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Pinguinite (#25)

"It's not clear if he was reaching for his wallet or the gun"

It doesn't have to be. The cop screamed at him to stop what he was doing. He continued.

"and that he felt it prudent to allow the officer to see the gun"

He felt? Prudent? It was reckless and dangerous. Keep your hands on the wheel holding your driver's licence and concealed carry permit, tell the officer you're armed and ask him how he wants to proceed. He may simply tell you to leave it there and not reach for it.

If you want to carry concealed, those are the rules that go with it. Had this idiot followed them, he'd be alive today.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   9:29:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A K A Stone (#27) (Edited)

As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things.

Police officers are trained to make assessments not assumptions.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-06-18   10:12:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#25)

In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges.

They have the surveillance video of him shooting the guy throwing the popcorn and texting to his babysitter. It didn't help that the accused told the detectives in his statement immediately after "As soon as I pulled the trigger I said, 'Oh shoot, that was stupid.' If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened," he said. "If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. I wouldn't have moved. But you don't get do-overs."

The movie was Lone Survivor. C'mon, no one should die over some crappy Mark Wahlberg movie.

The court set up a website for this case: http://www.curtisreevestrial.com/. Just don't click any of the links so you can see the PDF documents because they all crash the website. Lordy.

It's a disgrace that it takes 3.5 years to get to a pre-trial hearing in a murder case. At this may not be the last pre-trial hearing either; they've already had several of these. What happened to the right to a speedy trial (for both accused and victim)? These courts across the country and at the federal level are a complete disgrace with their indulgence of lawyers' endless stalling tactics.

Who knows when this trial will finally go to court? Chances are pretty good that the trigger-happy cop will die first. Certainly, he's already avoided a trial for at least 2 more years than is reasonable.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   10:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)

In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges.

There are two separate defenses -- stand your ground and self-defense. Even if the retired cop had a duty to retreat he couldn't. Not if he thought the popcorn was a prelude to an attack.

What he told the detectives was stupid, and he of all people should know that. But you have to wonder how many people say that to themselves after a shooting.

My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively. You or I might not have. I'm thinkng there might be enough here for reasonable doubt. Both parties acted irrationally. Unfortunately, one died. Don't pick a fight with an old man.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   10:44:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#32) (Edited)

My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively.

I assume he had advanced training on the use of lethal force against a criminal throwing popcorn at LEOs.

Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime.

Is there any cop shooting you won't defend, no matter how repulsive it is?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   10:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#33)

"Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime."

"Throwing popcorn isn't assault." Who are you? Deckard?

Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him.

"The facts in this case are sufficient to establish a prima facie claim that Reeves feared at least an imminent simple battery at the hands of Oulsen. Given that Reeves was in excess of 65 years at the time of this incident, a battery by Oulsen would constitute a third-degree felony—in other words, a forcible felony."

"Specifically, the relevant elements to be considered in determining whether Reeves’ use of deadly force was lawful self-defense are to be found in that first sentence of §776.012. It tells us that Reeves’s shooting of Oulsen was lawful deadly-force self-defense if he reasonably believed it was necessary to either (1) protect himself or another from death or great bodily harm or (2) to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

Under the language of §776.012(2), then, if Reeves reasonable feared an imminent battery by Oulsen he would be justified in using deadly force to prevent that forcible felony. If this were established by a preponderance of the evidence, Reeves would qualify for self-defense immunity under §776.032.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/order-denying-immunity-in-popcorn-shooting- riddled-with-legal-errors/

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   12:03:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#34)

You are so wrong so often. Why do you hate people so much?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-18   12:07:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#34) (Edited)

"The facts in this case are sufficient to establish a prima facie claim that Reeves feared at least an imminent simple battery at the hands of Oulsen.

What unadulterated bullshit! The guy threw popcorn at him.

... throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault.

So - the cop assumed that he was about to be assaulted when there was absolutely no evidence that was going to happen.

The ex-cop was/is a coward who is now trying to use the magic words "I feared for my life" to get away with murdering a guy because he didn't like it that he was talking on his cellphone during the previews.

Yeah - I can certainly understand why you would side with the ex-cop on this one.

If the situation were reversed, you'd be calling for murder charges against a guy who "stood his ground" - because he killed an ex-cop.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-06-18   12:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Tooconservative (#33)

Is there any cop shooting you won't defend, no matter how repulsive it is?

That's what it comes down to. Cops can do no wrong according to MW. Dishonesty at it's best.

Give him shooting scenarios without revealing which party is the cop, and he won't be picking the cop side nearly as often.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-18   12:26:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Deckard (#36)

If the situation were reversed, you'd be calling for murder charges against a guy who "stood his ground" - because he killed an ex-cop.

Absolutely.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-18   12:26:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: misterwhite (#34)

Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him.

So if you throw popcorn at an old cop, he is fully justified to just kill you?

Your badge-sniffing is some kind of a mental illness.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   12:33:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Pinguinite (#37)

That's what it comes down to. Cops can do no wrong according to MW. Dishonesty at it's best.

This goes beyond supporting LEOs. White is almost Freudian about it, like he's got some latent craving to see his daddy's peepee or something.

It's a sickness.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-18   12:35:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 55) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com