Officer Jeronimo Yanez will be charged for shooting Philando Castile

[Frisco85132]

You only call it a "semantic" argument because it is inconvenient to your point of view.

"...people who are given unlimited and unaccountable power over others" So...the fact that he was charged and tried makes him a person possessed of unlimited and unaccountable power? How do you make that leap in thinking? That he was charged and tried, albeit unsuccessfully and incompetently, shows that he WAS held accountable for his actions and demonstrates the mendacity of your assertion and the fallacy of your thinking.

That the triers of the facts found him not guilty (which I still can't believe), is proof that he did not possess the level of power you claim, and in fact no officer does.

He was called to account for his actions by an authority outside the department, and a jury of citizens from the community found him not guilty. Oddly enough, no reports of cops with guns to the heads of jurors demanding a not guilty verdict has surfaced so you can't claim that they were coerced. They made their decision based on the presented evidence and the presented defense. The law, if not justice, was served by the 12 jurors. They were wrong in my opinion, but they aren't co-conspirators in some cover up.

I seriously doubt any department will re-employ Yanez as an officer. I damned sure wouldn't want to work with him. I would also be willing to bet that he will be in federal court facing civil rights violations charges before too long. No, it's not what it should be...but at least it will be something that will keep him off the job and never again in a position to kill someone because he was scared and incompetent to do the job.

 

[BluesStringer]

You only call it a "semantic" argument because it is inconvenient to your point of view.

Absolutely wrong. I call it semantics because it doesn't matter to Philando Castile or his family and friends that some technical argument exists amongst wonks over his killing. He's dead, the person who unjustifiably killed him is free, and therefore, by definition, unaccountable, and you want to argue legal semantics over the intentions of the killer. Who cares about those intentions? Another killer cop got off. That's all that matters to me. His intentions don't matter a wit unless and until he says publicly that he was wrong, shows some requisite amount of remorse, asks forgiveness before his employers (The People) and before God, and goes on to make something out of his life while living it in a way that demonstrates that he's imminently grateful for the chance to do it without ever paying any legal penance for his crime.

"...people who are given unlimited and unaccountable power over others" So...the fact that he was charged and tried makes him a person possessed of unlimited and unaccountable power? How do you make that leap in thinking? That he was charged and tried, albeit unsuccessfully and incompetently, shows that he WAS held accountable for his actions and demonstrates the mendacity of your assertion and the fallacy of your thinking.

My thinking is that it is the system which protects killer cops that is the crux of the problem(s). It goes well beyond "incompetence" coming from the prosecutor's office, and right on into corruption that is exercised in varied and subtle ways that nearly always end with the killer walking free. It's a giant pile of abused authorities and usurped rights of citizens from Yanez-level cops, through the prosecutor's office, into the judge's rulings on evidence and admissability, and all the way up to appeals and Supreme Courts that adds up to the predictable and ubiquitous circumstance that killer cops are rarely held to account for their kills, or bad shoots, or physical abuse not resulting in death, all the way down to simple rights violations. He wasn't "held to account" just because he went through a Kabuki Theater process where the prosecutor was always on his side. I know you'd like to keep that little factoid a secret from the rest of your fellow citizens, but it's objectively demonstrable that it's a fact of the American justice system.

That the triers of the facts found him not guilty (which I still can't believe), is proof that he did not possess the level of power you claim, and in fact no officer does.

No, the triers of the virtually unopposed fantasy that the prosecutor's office knew ahead of time would be pushed by the defense is what allowed the jury to conclude with a not guilty verdict. He's free after an unjustifiable killing. That proves he always had the power I claim. Any other argument is just acquiescing to semantics, fantasy, and slamming one's eyes shut to the obvious Kabuki Theater the system gives us our daily rations of.

He was called to account for his actions by an authority outside the department, and a jury of citizens from the community found him not guilty. Oddly enough, no reports of cops with guns to the heads of jurors demanding a not guilty verdict has surfaced so you can't claim that they were coerced. They made their decision based on the presented evidence and the presented defense.

The prosecutor presents the evidence. It was a foregone conclusion by everyone who pays attention that Yanez would get off, if he were ever "prosecuted" to begin with. How could that be so if the paying-attention public trusted the "prosecutor" to actually go against a cop the way he would go after a non-badged citizen under similar circumstances?

The law, if not justice, was served by the 12 jurors.

Well, see, I care more about justice than I do law, so I don't waste time arguing over semantics that are steeped in statutory distractions that don't address the real problem here - an innocent man is dead at the hands of the state, and no justice will be forthcoming addressing that fact towards either the killer who pulled the trigger, or the state that created the environment in which he could get away with it. If a public "servant" (cop, prosecutor, judge, whomever) isn't as obligated to serve justice as they are to serve law, then there can never be justice in this land.

They were wrong in my opinion, but they aren't co-conspirators in some cover up.

Nope, never accused the jurors of anything. People can be duped without being stupid or conspiratorial. That's more than likely what happened here, and it's more than likely also that a weak prosecution was part and parcel of the duping process.

I seriously doubt any department will re-employ Yanez as an officer. I damned sure wouldn't want to work with him. I would also be willing to bet that he will be in federal court facing civil rights violations charges before too long. No, it's not what it should be...but at least it will be something that will keep him off the job and never again in a position to kill someone because he was scared and incompetent to do the job.

I have lived in Alabama for 26 years. 22 of them, Jeff Sessions was one of my Senators. I can just about guarantee that Yanez won't be facing charges from his DOJ. For all of his gentlemanly Southern charm, Sessions is not likely at all to put the rights of one dead citizen above his belief in, and long record of, holding government authority above all other considerations. Yanez is free to do as he pleases. Castile will come back to life before Sessions does anything to change that fact.

Blues

 

[Frisco85132]

I'm sorry you could never measure up and earn the badge you so clearly envy.

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm sorry you could never measure up and earn the badge you so clearly envy.

Actually, I could never measure down to qualify for a badge. It's been publicly known for close to two decades that many, if not most, if not all, cop-shops recruit to a median IQ level, and outright reject applicants who test above it. Congratulations. You were accepted because of your average IQ level, which is demonstrated in spades by your brain-dead conclusion that I envy you or any cop in any way, shape, manner or form.

Blues

 

[bofh]

A long but interesting read: Link Removed.

 

[Frisco85132]

A long but interesting read: Link Removed.

Great read and a great take on the incident. I never saw the testimony on the marijuana. Further reinforces my opinion, stated earlier, that this was a bad shoot by an officer who was scared shitless and not in control of the situation. But hey, what do I know...I only did the job for 27 years.

I still don't believe it was an "execution" as so many have screamed, but it was definitely a negligent homicide and the endangerment was spot on, if not an up-charge to reckless endangerment of a child.

 

[bofh]

NRA Continues to Go Full Retard

The NRA's response to the Philando Castile shooting seems to be an ad for the NRA Carry Guard program. From Link Removed:

At long last, someone from the National Rifle Association has spoken up about Philando Castile. Sort of. During a CNN segment, NRA spokeswoman and pundit Dana Loesch said this:

I think it’s absolutely awful. It’s a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided. I don’t agree with every single decision that comes out from courtrooms of America. There are a lot of variables in this particular case, and there were a lot of things that I wish would have been done differently. Do I believe that Philando Castile deserved to lose his life over his [traffic] stop? I absolutely do not. I also think that this is why we have things like NRA Carry Guard, not only to reach out to the citizens to go over what to do during stops like this, but also to work with law enforcement so that they understand what citizens are experiencing when they go through stops like this.

As Jacob Sullum points out at Reason, this is pretty weak stuff. A law-abiding gun owner was shot and killed by a cop after doing everything he was supposed to do. It then took more than a year for anyone from the nation’s largest gun rights organization to comment, and when she did, she offered a vague, heavily qualified, quasi-criticism of the cop while implying not only that Castile contributed to his death but also that he might be alive if only he were carrying an NRA Carry Guard card.

This is about par for the course for the NRA. This is the group that claims to be the only thing preventing the government from obliterating the Second Amendment, yet they’re noticeably quiet about the people doing the most violence to the Second Amendment — the armed, badge-wearing government employees we call law enforcement officers. For all the NRA’s dire warnings about government gun confiscation, the real, tangible threat to gun-owning Americans today comes not from gun-grabbing bureaucrats but from door-bashing law enforcement officers who think they’re at war — who are too often trained to view the people they serve not as citizens with rights but as potential threats. Here, the NRA just doesn’t want to get involved.

...

It is worth reading the entire article. Note that this was not the first time an NRA spokesperson has said something about this shooting. Colion Noir's open letter was just universally ignored.

 

[niceshootintex]

The NRA's response to the Philando Castile shooting seems to be an ad for the NRA Carry Guard program. From Link Removed:



It is worth reading the entire article. Note that this was not the first time an NRA spokesperson has said something about this shooting. Colion Noir's open letter was just universally ignored.

The below statement by Loesch says it all. I have more than a few organizations that will never see my money anymore and the NRA is on it anyway. Reprehensible.


Do I believe that Philando Castile deserved to lose his life over his [traffic] stop? I absolutely do not. I also think that this is why we have things like NRA Carry Guard,

The Place To Be