Friday, June 16, 2017

Yanez Castile Verdict and Protests

Well apparently the protesters are back after the police officer was found not guilty. Here are a couple of comments from my more liberal FB friends.
"Well that's a shame, although not unexpected. Pray for peace."
"Just not right. Not Guilty. Really. Wow.
"He didn't deserve to die for that traffic stop."
SFGate Officer Acquitted
CNN Officer Who Shot
CNN Protests follow verdict


And here are some of my responses.
"So let's summarize, an investigation was held, the officer was charged, a trial was held and he was found not guilty by a jury of our peers and you think it is shame. Do you think he should have been found guilty because the victim was a black man? The victim regardless of race had been smoking pot, had pot in the car and was carrying a gun on him. (ie high risk lifestyle) If the victim was a white man would see the verdict as a shame?" G2A

" I never said he deserved to die, this iis a tragic situation for all involved. One young man is dead and another has spent a year being tormented by crowds of people and likely by his own mind. Again, would people be marching tonight if this was a young high gun toting white man? What do the marchers want beyond an investigation and trial?" G2A
Thoughts?

98 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

Once again we see the hierarchy of victimhood. The officer was Hispanic, the guy shot was black. Had the officer been gay, his acquittal wouldn't have raised near the fuss.

Anonymous said...

Do you think he should have been found guilty because the victim was a black man?

No. The better question is Should he have been found guilty because the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime?

The fact is, it is next to impossible to convict a police officer for alleged offense related to actions involving the use of force undertaken during the course of his duties. This case probed the outer limits of that proposition, but after five days of deliberation the proposition held.

==Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The only thing that might have led me to a different decision in the case-- and that would be an administrative matter rather than a criminal one-- was why he fired off seven shots. If he simply feared for his life and intended to "stop" the person threatening him, he could have fired two or three shots, and during that time calmly assessed that the threat was ended. He didn't, but kept on firing. That to me says panic and you don't want panicky officers on the force.

What is NOT justified in this case is the rioting by those who do not accept any verdict but their own, not based on facts but on prejudice.

John said...

Hiram, I am okay with giving officers the benefit of the doubt. I don't want them having any doubts that the public has their back as we ask them to undertake a very dangerous job that most of us never would. I want them pulling over cars with potential killers in them. I want them helping injured girls at a house party.

Demanding perfection from workers in a chaotic environment is irrational.

Jerry, Excellent summary.

John said...

So I think we all agree that Yanez was scared and lost it. And since he does not have ice running in his veins I hope he is getting some really good counselling or he will likely have emotional problems for the rest of his life.

The marchers want to punish a public employee who was trying his best when this accident happened by throwing him in jail. Happy I don't have that job...

As I worked on my Saturday projects, I was wondering how the police can do a better job of weeding out people who will lose it in a very scary situation like this?

I mean training and drills help, but ultimately how does a person test someone to see what they will do when terrified? Will they err towards fight or flight? Will they keep calm and professional, will they get angry, will they curl up in a ball, etc?

It seems that the protesters want police officers to have ice in their veins...
And have the nurturing ability to counsel the mentally ill, injured and violated...
Ability to sit in idle for hours on end and then act with immediacy at times...
And the ability to calm themselves back down ASAP...
And to never make mistakes under threat of being imprisoned...

It is some very special people that they want. Thoughts?

jerrye92002 said...

Don't you think it would go a long way towards reducing these unfortunate incidents if the "war on police" would get curbed? We already know that when police are threatened just for doing their job, crime goes up markedly, e.g. Baltimore.

John said...

Well since the problems started before the "war on the police" and questionable police shootings and suspects being beaten caused the "war" to begin... I kind of doubt it

Somehow we need to reduce the violent crime rate / gang membership in those communities.

and

Ensure only qualified trained police are in the field.

Laurie said...

One of the papers today had an opinion piece that Yanez should have been charged with a lesser crime. If I was on the jury I would have found him not guilty as charged but maybe could have found him guilty of a lesser crime. At least in this case he will not return to his job or hopefully any other police job. Also Castille's family will get some measure of justice by winning a civil suit for probably some large amt of $

Anonymous said...

I am okay with giving officers the benefit of the doubt.

If it were me that had been gunned down in my car, I don't know if I would have been as generous as to think that it as the cop, not me who got the doubt benefit.

"I don't want them having any doubts that the public has their back as we ask them to undertake a very dangerous job that most of us never would."

Want or not, they do. The fact is, what happened to Castile quite reasonably tells us that cops can kill the people they encounter and still receive public support. That too, has consequences. When people speak about the toxicity of our culture, something like that certainly plays a role.

"Demanding perfection from workers in a chaotic environment is irrational."

I don't demand perfection, but I do want to make it pretty clear I don't want them to shoot me.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that the NRA hasn't been all that visible in their support of Castile. It does seem to me that if you are in favor of arming American citizens, you should also be against police gunning down citizens who are armed. Or can we have it both ways?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

In this case, I think common sense is on the side of the NRA. Remember that "when every second counts, the police are only minutes away." Proactive policing, the kind that actually reduces crime, is exactly the opposite of what this "war on cops" accomplishes. There seems to be this attitude that the police are racist and that this causes them to over-react in such encounters. Studies show the OPPOSITE is true, and as has been mentioned elsewhere here, "all things being equal" in the behavior of suspects towards police may have a lot to do with the result. More training, absolutely, but it would help if there were a clear set of rules, accepted by the general populace, for how to respond to police so as to avoid such confrontations. THEN "victims" of real police brutality, when it occurs, would have a clear cause of action.

John said...

What I find strange about Castile's behavior is that for a person who had been pulled over many times and had a container of pot in the car... Why didn't he hand the Yanez both his registration and license when the officer first approached?

My goal if I was in his seat would have been to have everything ready so the officer would not smell the pot... But maybe Castile was a little high and not thinking too clearly.

As for it being legal to carry a gun... I think it is legal for me to juggle juggle running chainsaws, and yet to do so is dangerous... So conceal and carry at your own risk...

John said...

By "pro-active policing" are you talking about "stop and frisk"?

As I said above:
Somehow we need to reduce the violent crime rate / gang membership in those communities. and Ensure only qualified trained police are in the field.

The unfortunate reality is that as long as gang membership and violence rates stay astronomically high among the Black and Hispanic youth the police will keep focusing their efforts on this community and innocent people of those races will be pulled over.

To do otherwise is just wasteful and ineffective. To do so is not racism as I see it but just playing the probabilities. This is why Black and Hispanic officers also target these population groups.

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

John said...

I remember when the girls were younger and the best practice was to teach them that if they got lost they should approach a woman to ask for help.

Being a rational man, I did not scream that this is sexism at its worst. I mean how dare people infer that men are not able to be trusted to be nurturing, caring, helpful, safe, etc.

I accepted the probability that the girls had a much better chance with women...

John said...

Therefore my reasoning that the protesters should be camped out in front of every gang member's home if they truly want to end the intense scrutiny by others in the USA.

In stead they choose to attack the people who are trying to help them fix their communities. It is very puzzling.

Anonymous said...

I think common sense is on the side of the NRA.

Sure, we all pretty much know that anyone with a gun is in danger of being shot by cops, no matter what the second amendment says. It's a risk NRA members take.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Here is a question: Why do 90% of the "Black Lives Matters" protesters here in Minneapolis have Nordic complexions? If we took a poll of everybody in the black "community," how many would like more gangs and fewer cops, and how many would prefer the opposite?

Sean said...

"To do so is not racism as I see it but just playing the probabilities. "

If we go all the way back to Ferguson, remember that the arrest and finding contraband rate among white drivers was higher than among black drivers, yet it was black drivers that got pulled over at the disproportionate rate.

Black people shouldn't have to collectively prove anything to earn their individual civil rights. This case is just yet another example of one where a police officer blundered themselves into a horrible situation, but we've decided to let them off the hook for their malfeasance. (Well, except for the taxpayers of Falcon Heights and St. Anthony, who are going to end up paying a multi-million dollar settlement on the civil case because they will lose and pay even more if it goes to trial.)

John said...

Sean,
The cities paying wrongful death settlements is as it should be. They hired Yanez and are responsible for his training and job performance.

Yanez made an error while trying to do a good job as an employee and that error had terrible consequences. One does not throw a civil servant in jail unless they intentionally broke the law.

That is unless you want to make it harder to hire good candidates for these difficult positions and you want to encourage them to avoid any complicated situations.

Anonymous said...

What we know is that Yanez was acquitted. We don't really know if he was trying to do a good job or not. That wasn't an issue that was decided at the trial.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, I think you are attributing to bigotry that which is adequately explained by behavior. That is, blacks commit crimes at several times the rates of whites. And if you confine your statistics to people ages 18-25, it goes up to like 20-25 times the crime rate. stats

If blacks are disproportionately "targeted" by police it is their own fault for not policing their own communities, and because activists (mostly white) keep demanding that real police be called off the job. And even that results in FEWER arrests and incarcerations, per criminal act, than for whites.

Sean said...

Trying to tie this (and other incidents) to gang activity is missing the point. Philando Castile driving home after dinner. Tamir Rice was playing in the park. John Crawford was shopping at Wal-Mart. Charleena Lyles reported an attempted burglary at her own apartment. Jonathan Ferrell was looking for help after a car crash. Sandra Bland didn't signal a lane change. Sam DuBose was missing a front license plate. Eric Garner had just broken up a fight. Akai Gurley was walking down the stairs in his apartment building.

These tragedies were about police behavior, not gangs.

jerrye92002 said...

And the number of blacks killed by police pales into insignificance compared to the number of blacks killed by other blacks. Trying to prevent blacks from being shot by police will result in FAR more blacks being shot by other blacks-- we already see it happening. These few tragedies are the unfortunate collateral damage of the war on crime. How, pray tell, does the Rule of Law fare when law enforcement is effectively told to stand down?

John said...

Trying to ignore the bad behaviors of a significant number of people within a population and blame the police makes no sense either.

The bad actors within that population are poisoning the well for all the others... It is unfortunate but true. Now when are the good actors going to stand up and take their streets and communities back?

John said...

Now I am happy to improve police training and qualification testing.

Are you willing to start fighting against public employee unions who seek to protect questionable performers?

And to start pressuring high risk communities to change their behaviors?

jerrye92002 said...

My guess is they are scared witless. We've all seen the cop shows where the minority "community" is "deaf, dumb and blind" when they witness a crime. Meanwhile, these mostly white activists breaking the law in the street want to make the problem worse. Feh.

Sean said...

If you want to demand accountability, then it needs to go both ways.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps if we had fewer guns in this country, the police wouldn't need to be trained and work as para-military forces.

Moose

John said...

Sean,
Your last comment leaves me very puzzled.
You are usually against holding baby mamas, baby dadas and public employees accountable... So please clarify.

Moose,
I am pretty sure that bad guys are not giving up their guns no matter what laws you support passing.

Sean said...

"You are usually against holding baby mamas, baby dadas and public employees accountable... So please clarify."

Stop turning my positions into your stupid stereotypes. Either accurately reflect what I believe or don't try to speak for me.

John said...

Well then how about you clarify this vague comment...

"If you want to demand accountability, then it needs to go both ways."

Sean said...

It's not difficult -- if you're going to hold black folks accountable for their mistakes, then police officers need to be held accountable for their mistakes as well.

Lack of police accountability "poisons the well", too.

John said...

I am fine with firing incompetent employees when they screw up on the job... And I am fine with civil payouts by their employers so they improve. It is the union who fights it...

So let's get rid of the Public Employee Unions and start holding baby mamas and baby papas accountable no matter their race.

jerrye92002 said...

I'm not happy turning the issues between police and folks like BLM into a union issue. It isn't the union fighting against having police officers doing their jobs and being effective. It is folks like BLM and the politicians that listen to them.

John said...

Now isn't this ironic... The guy who swears Monopolistic Public Systems full of Unions drones is terrible for the customers / pubic is now defending that terrible system... Really?

Sean said...

Conflating the issue of police behavior with those of other public employee unions is not helpful or relevant.

jerrye92002 said...

I have not seen the police union defending the officer from prosecution and trial, nor from being dismissed. Teachers and other public employee unions routinely work to keep bad employees on the payroll, and the only difference is that, when a police officer does a "bad job" somebody gets killed, whereas a bad teacher only cripples a few dozen kids for life.

No, I think we need to see this as a case of a political narrative-- that "law and order" is somehow racist oppression-- being actively destructive of the public good. The question in Latin is "qui bono."

John said...

Jerry,
You have to be kidding me... The Union always fights for questionable policemen...

The young officer who accidentally shot the black man in the projects called his union steward before calling 911.

jerrye92002 said...

Thank goodness they do. These days, it is good that SOMEBODY is trying to get justice for the people trying to do their job of enforcing the law. There is a price to be paid for making a mistake in the job, but sending them to jail for crimes that they do not commit is FAR too high a price and creates some terrible side effects. I claim the prosecution greatly over-charged in this case, and that is what the jury found.

Sean said...

"I claim the prosecution greatly over-charged in this case, and that is what the jury found."

Second-degree manslaughter and intentional discharge of a firearm that endangers safety is overcharged? What should he have been charged with, then?

Anonymous said...

My old friend Marshall Tanick had an op ed piece on the various charges that were possible. Not getting a conviction is one way a jury can tell the prosecution that they didn't bring the right charges.

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry, The idea that you support Police Public Employee Unions meddling and their protecting poor officers made me smile. People are so interesting.

Sean and Hiram,
Here is the OP ED. ST Yanez Outcome Predictable due to Wrong Charges

Personally I don't think public employees should be convicted of a crime unless some kind of an evil or self centered motive can be proven, or for instance the officer shoot someone in the back... But I guess that is why we have prosecutors and the judicial system.

Sean said...

I don't think a misdemeanor reflects what happens here. And seeing the video only reinforces it.

I am heartened to see that some conservatives seem to understand, though.

Erick Erickson: The Dignity of Being Black or Hispanic in America

David French: The Philando Castile Verdict Was a Miscarriage of Justice

John said...

Well here is the video.

What keeps puzzling me about this is that if Castile had been pulled over so many times... Why didn't he have both the license and registration ready when the office approached the car?

I always have my license in easy reach, where as my registration is buried in the glove compartment somewhere. And if I / my car smelled a bit like pot I would want to have everything ready when the officer showed up.

John said...

MN Man Slaughter 2 Statute

MN Deadly Force Statute

Sean said...

"What keeps puzzling me about this is that if Castile had been pulled over so many times... Why didn't he have both the license and registration ready when the office approached the car?"

Yes, I suppose he didn't have his "Black Man Police Interaction Kit" ready, so he deserved to be shot.

Let's review what happened here:
* Castile was identified as a "potential robbery suspect" by Yanez on the basis of a thinly-veiled racial stereotype -- his "wide nose"
* Yanez didn't follow police procedure and proper positioning during the stop
* Yanez gave confusing instructions to Castile -- "give me your license" and "don't reach for it [the gun]" within seconds of each other. Both Castile and Reynolds said to the officer that they were complying (which, in fact, it turns out he was trying to do).

This was a cop that made multiple errors and Philando Castile paid with his life.

jerrye92002 said...

I still am missing something, apparently. "Multiple errors" do not rise to the level of manslaughter, as a criminal matter. Little doubt in my mind that the officer should have been dismissed, following proper procedure, for those "errors." I don't want to blame the victim, but I also have little doubt that he contributed somewhat to the unfortunate situation.

John said...

An Interesting Summary

The BLM supporters keep wanting to deny that Castile's behaviors contributed to the escalation. Here is something from the link above.

"TOXICOLOGIST'S STATEMENT

The defense also called its own toxicology expert to the stand Thursday to weigh in on the evidence of marijuana use found in Castile's system during his autopsy.

The former forensic scientist for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension testified that the THC levels were "very high" and that Castile was undoubtedly under the influence of marijuana at the time of the shooting.

However, a toxicology expert for the state previously testified that scholarly articles indicate THC found in postmortem blood samples cannot accurately determine the time the person last used marijuana because of the way the body's tissues start decomposing at death.

Upon cross-examination by prosecutors, the defense expert said he didn't rely on such literature to render his opinion.

He acknowledged that postmortem samples are not as reliable as live samples."

John said...

If Castile was somewhat high driving around with a 4 yr old in the back seat...

That would easily explain his:
- not having pulled out the license sooner
- not telling Yanez that he had a conceal and carry permit
- fumbling at his waste
- not stopping the fumbling when Yanez said "don't reach for it"

And who in the world leaves his gun in his pocket while driving? That would have to be uncomfortable...

jerrye92002 said...

I need to clarify that last. The officer should have been able to deal with the "mistakes" made by Mr. Castile. That is, whatever Mr. Castile did should have been "within the range" of behaviors the officer should have been trained to deal with, without resorting to deadly force.

John said...

I think most people agree that Yanez screwed up big time and likely does not have the correct personality for the job. The question is did he break the law. (intentionally or unintentionally)

Sean said...

"That would easily explain his:
- not having pulled out the license sooner
- not telling Yanez that he had a conceal and carry permit

None of these are things that Castile is required by law to do.

"not stopping the fumbling when Yanez said "don't reach for it""

If "it" is the gun (which Yanez said in his testimony was the case), then Castile going for his wallet is within compliance with the officer's order. Yanez gave a vague command.

Sean said...

"The question is did he break the law. (intentionally or unintentionally)"

I think the multiple mistakes Yanez made in this case rise to a level of negligence sufficient to support 2nd-degree manslaughter charge the DA sought.

The real answer, though, is that we need to change the law. When police make preventable mistakes that lead them into a scenario where they end up using deadly force, we need to be able to take that into account when determining if their fear was rational or not. How many more black folks need to be added to the list above before we make some changes?

jerrye92002 said...

Well, not as many as the number of white folks killed by police, or white folks killed by black folks, or black folks killed by black folks, or police killed by black folks. We're letting political narratives drown out the realities, here, and it is harmful to our society in general when we do that.

Yes, police should be subject to dismissal for serious "mistakes" in procedure, and even to criminal charges where negligence or malice can be proven. Since most of these cases turn out NOT to be of that nature, it makes no sense to condemn the whole system of law and justice, just because the outcome is "politically incorrect." Again, qui bono?

jerrye92002 said...

"The question is did he break the law. (intentionally or unintentionally)"

A fundamental question at trial is "mens rea." Did the defendant have a criminal intent? Usually expanded to include willful disregard or gross negligence, none of which was proven in this case, and thus the acquittal. "Shoddy performance of ones lawful duties" is NOT an element of the statute and, as I read it, is more or less specifically excluded for police officers. Second-guessing -- what he SHOULD have done-- doesn't count.

Sean said...

"Well, not as many as the number of white folks killed by police"

Raw numbers, sure. But on a per capita basis, an unarmed black person is much more likely to be killed by police as an unarmed white person.

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, and a black person is, per capita, about 12 times more likely to be killed by a black person as is a white killed by a white. I am very concerned that, as unfortunately tragic as these things are, they are being escalated and promoted far beyond any reasonable response and actually causing great harm to our civil society and the rule of law. It's all political and it's dangerous.

John said...

Well on the upside, all of the high risk people killing each other and/or dying from over doses lately should be doing wonders for law and order over time...

Freakonomics Abortion and Crime Rate

Overdoses per Year

Gang related Murders

It is too bad the innocents are harmed in the wars... Both by the gangs and the police.

"Gang/Drug Violence Driving Force of Gun Deaths?

According to the FBI, almost four in ten homicides are classified as "unknown" while arguments are, predictably, the top cause of known homicides. It is unclear what percentage of gun deaths are gang-related nationally and even from one city to the next. So while Detroit logs some 350 homicides annually, there is no hard statistic to grasp the exact percentage that is gang-related or involving gang members. In New Orleans, between 35-55% of homicides are classified as gang-related. In Chicago, an estimated 80% of homicides are gang-related. And in Baltimore, the police commissioner states that 80% of homicides are drug-related.
(But again, most of this depends on methods of keeping records, and, often, personal opinions.)

When comparing cities plagued by gun violence and looking at "the most dangerous" cities in the United States, the most commonly cited cause of violence is gangs. It is no coincidence that the murder rate and gun violence rate spikes in large cities with large gun populations.

Solve the problem of gang violence, and a huge chunk of the gun homicide and violence problem is solved. And what national gun control measures would slow the gang violence problem, when local gun control laws have failed in cities like Chicago? If politicians were really worried about gun deaths, wouldn't they be specifically targeting where a majority of the problems exist?"

John said...

This is Very Interesting.

"The truth is that the raw statistics can't tell us whether the police are treating African Americans differently from white people. To understand that, we'd need to look at more details about what happened in each incident. There's a big difference between a case where someone was shooting at the police, and a case where someone was passive and unarmed.

One person who has tried to do that is an economist from Harvard University called Roland Fryer, the first ever African American to win the prestigious John Bates Clark medal in economics. This month Fryer released a preliminary study examining records from 10 cities and counties, with the best data coming from Houston - it's not yet peer-reviewed, but it has received a lot of attention in the press.

Fryer's research suggests that African Americans and Hispanics are substantially more likely to experience force in their interactions with the police - such as having a gun pointed at them, being handcuffed without arrest, or being pepper-sprayed or hit with a baton. This racial difference is reduced, but doesn't completely disappear, when Fryer adds all sorts of statistical controls such as whether the incident was indoors or outdoors, in a high-crime area, took place at night, and so on.

However, Fryer doesn't find any racial difference in the cases where police offers actually shoot someone.

The debate over this continues, both on the streets and in academia."

John said...

And if you like to read the details.

Fryers Paper

Fryer is Wrong
Snopes Fryer Study Incomplete
VOX Different Data

Sean said...

I think your VOX link makes the appropriate rejoinder:

"In other words, Fryer and company found that there weren’t big racial disparities in how often black and white suspects who’d already been stopped by police were killed. But they deliberately avoided the question of whether black citizens are more likely to be stopped to begin with (they are) and whether they’re more likely to be stopped without cause (yup).

Avoiding those issues makes sense for the question Fryer was trying to answer. He wanted to know what happens between the moment a police officer stops someone and the moment he pulls the trigger — and how those sequences of events vary by race.

But when people talk about racial disparities in police use of force, they’re usually not asking, Is a black American stopped by police treated the same as a white American in the same circumstances? They’re making a broader critique of the “greater structural problems” in society in general and the criminal justice system in particular. They’re saying that black Americans are more likely to get stopped by police, which makes them more likely to get killed.

Eric Garner was killed in 2014 when police tried to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes. Philando Castile had been pulled over 52 times on misdemeanors (including for driving without a muffler and not wearing a seatbelt) before he was shot and killed last week. Michael Brown was stopped by Darren Wilson for walking in the middle of the street.

Maybe it’s possible (maybe) that those encounters would have been just as likely to escalate to the point of lethal force if each of those men had been white — but it kind of misses the point to say that, because if they’d been white, the encounters probably never would have happened."

John said...

You might like Politifact Analysis"

"You can't talk about risk without talking about population size," Fox told PunditFact. "There are many more whites than blacks so it makes sense that the number of crimes will be high."

Using the homicide count (again, the only crime where we can separate on both race and gender) whites and blacks were arrested in about equal numbers. But cast as a rate, the results shift. For 2013, Fox calculated that black men were about seven times more likely than white men to be arrested for murder. That would be a rate of 33 murders for every 100,000 black men, compared to 4.7 for every 100,000 whites.

Drawing on the 2012 figures, whites were arrested for over 275,000 violent crimes. For blacks, the number is about 170,000. So while whites were arrested more, the arrest rate for blacks is nearly four times that for whites.

Does that mean that from the point of view of the average citizen that blacks pose a greater threat?

Not necessarily."

John said...

ITO 75 percent murdered

John said...

Personally I think Don Lemon has the better plan for ending Racism against Blacks

John said...

Or David Webbs Ideas

Sean said...

Your notion, which amounts to that the black community has to "earn" its civil rights is deeply offensive and un-American.

Whatever problems exist in portions of the black community (or any other community, for that matter) do not give the police carte blanche. Period.

jerrye92002 said...

The police have rules. One of them is that criminals get harassed or stopped from committing crimes. When crime occurs in a certain area, REGARDLESS of cause, that are should receive enough police attention to bring that crime rate down to something more like the surrounding area. Unless you can prove that black people-- especially in large cities or through involvement with gangs and drugs-- commit FEWER crimes than white folks (per capita), you need to let the police do their jobs without fear of /unwarranted/ criminal charges.

John said...

Sorry I don't think of it as them earning their civil rights.

I simply understand that if there are a lot of criminals who look like me in the community, it is more likely that I will be pulled over because I may be them.

Thankfully for me the ~50 year old white guys wearing a polo shirt and driving a basic Suburban are a very low crime group of folks. Our only gang would maybe be AARP, and our only crime is likely driving 8 mph over the speed limit...

Why would anyone bother to pull us over?

I am tempting fate though because my summer car is now a 2010 Mustang convertible like this... Though staying with the old guy theme... Mine only has the v6.

John said...

Since my 16 year old daughter is more likely to be pulled over when she is driving my sporty car than I am... Does that mean we have to stop the police from being guilty of age-ism?

Or is simply that teen drivers are more likely to be up to something.

Sean said...

"Thankfully for me the ~50 year old white guys wearing a polo shirt and driving a basic Suburban are a very low crime group of folks. Our only gang would maybe be AARP, and our only crime is likely driving 8 mph over the speed limit..."

Based on who is dying of opioids, I wouldn't be so confident in that assertion.

John said...

Well if I start getting pulled over I will need to practice what I preach.

John said...

Maybe if it is the old folks over dosing... The medical costs in America will go down sooner than later... Kind of like euthanasia for the foolish... Who needs Physician Assisted suicide when there is fentanyl?

John said...

By the way, what are the gang colors for AARP?

Apparently Red and White

jerrye92002 said...

I keep coming back to the question of who benefits. Who benefits if the police are forced to pull back for fear of being charged with racism, or worse? Who benefits if the black "community" (aka loudest activist voices) believe that leftist politicians are seen to believe their fanciful tales of systemic racism?

John said...

Seems to me it is the gangs and the Democratic politicians who want to keep these people in fear and dependent.

John said...

Hiram Said...
Watching the Philandro Castile tape and then coming down on the side of the cop is a problem for us. I truly admit that. Why the cop was the good guy is a small part of the larger "it" we don't get. And I don't really have a solution for that. --Hiram
June 22, 2017 at 7:00 AM

John said...
Who said Yanez was the "Good Guy"?

I think we have all agreed that he made a terrible mistake and likely does not have the necessary nerve to be a policeman. My question was how would one test employees with... "You are about to die... How will you respond?"

Because I am not sure how one would do that.

Yanez truly saw Castile's fumbling for his wallet and refusal to stop doing so as a threat on his life. Do you disagree?

And Castile sure didn't help his situation by continuing to reach for his wallet. I know if I was there, had a gun on me, and the officer started yelling at me "don't reach for it" my hands would have gone straight up in the air.
June 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM

John said...
The unfortunate reality is that both of these gentlemen contributed to the disaster.

Yanez read Castile and his actions way wrong and severely over reacted.

Castile read Yanez and his actions way wrong and died.

Thinking of this from Castile's side, he was likely pleasantly high driving with his family. Life is good. He is pulled over like so many times before. To him this was just an annoyance and could be taken lightly.

Thinking of this from Yanez's side, he had just pulled over a robbery suspect who was armed, and he was reaching at his waist.

Yes, it is a disaster and a waste. One man is dead and another is traumatized.
June 22, 2017 at 8:12 AM

Anonymous said...
The unfortunate reality is that both of these gentlemen contributed to the disaster.

I don't think the cop will be suing Castile's family, let's just put it that way.

--Hiram
June 22, 2017 at 8:32 AM

Sean said...
"Thinking of this from Yanez's side, he had just pulled over a robbery suspect who was armed, and he was reaching at his waist."

If he truly thought Castile was an armed robbery suspect, Yanez should have handled the stop as a high-risk stop. But he didn't. Why?

Sean said...

No one is asking for the police to "pull back". All folks are asking is for some accountability when a police officer is grossly negligent and it results in the death of someone.

John said...

Sean,
I think that is NOT what you have been saying...

From my view it seems that you want Police to stop pulling over Black people at a rate higher than White people.

You seem to want them to be pulled over at the same rate, incarcerated at the same rate, incarcerated for the same length of time, etc.

Even though the gang membership levels and crime statistics are very different.

John said...

Hiram,
Probably not much money there to sue for...

But I am betting that the Castile family and Diamond are going after the city for BIG BUCKS... And they will likely get it since juries often feel the need to pay out when bad things happen.

On the upside it sound like Yanez will get a severance package as his employer kicks him to the curb. Hopefully it includes a fair bit of counseling.

jerrye92002 said...

I read Sean's comment as a perfectly reasonable request. When an officer kills someone because of gross negligence (or racial animus) they should be held criminally liable. What is NOT perfectly reasonable is assuming that every time a cop shoots somebody, it fits neatly in one of those criminal categories, and then not accepting a jury verdict when a police officer is acquitted of such charges.

I am still curious as to why all the faces I saw in that post-acquittal march were white? Something not right about that.

John said...

He didn't know he was the robbery suspect. However it was in his mind that he may be the suspect. Or do you think he lied to the Dispatcher?

Yanez was trying to treat a potential suspect who did have a tail light out with respect. For Castile's sake maybe it would have been better if they had been rougher with him. He would have been more serious and possibly he would still be alive.

But then again people would complain that the officers over reacted because Castile was Black... The officers sure walk a fine line...

John said...

Jerry,
Maybe you were suffering from confirmation bias...

I saw plenty of Black faces in the crowds...

Sean said...

"You seem to want them to be pulled over at the same rate, incarcerated at the same rate, incarcerated for the same length of time, etc."

When the other underlying circumstances are the same, yes. There are lots of studies that show that driving habits between black and white drivers are similar, yet black people are pulled over more frequently. There are lot of studies that show that when you adjust for criminal history, severity of crime, etc., that blacks get heavier sentences than whites. The notion that just because in some areas blacks commit more crimes than whites mean that any black person should just accept that the cops might choose to pull them over at any time for any reason is nonsense.

John said...

Photos From Protests

Sean said...

"He didn't know he was the robbery suspect. However it was in his mind that he may be the suspect."

You literally just said Castile was "a robbery suspect".

"Yanez was trying to treat a potential suspect who did have a tail light out with respect."

Do you even believe that? Come on...

"But then again people would complain that the officers over reacted because Castile was Black... The officers sure walk a fine line..."

The officer had no good reason to think that Castile was the armed robbery suspect. If you read the transcript of the Yanez interview, he couldn't even recall the description of the armed robbery suspect with any specificity other than he was black, with a "wide-set nose" and shoulder-length hair (but couldn't remember if it was straight, cornrows, or dreadlocks).

John said...

So why do you think Yanez pulled Castile over?

Do you truly believe that he just felt a desire to pull over an innocent Black man because he was bored and looking for some entertainment?

John said...

Other confounding factors...

Pulled over more often: Drive older cars with more problems?

Blacks get heavier sentences: Few options available to judge due to defendant having a weak family support system and no money to pay restitution? Defendant communicates poorly or with attitude, and could not afford good legal representation?

Do your studies correct for these "non-race" factors?


John said...

Now I have no doubt that Blacks are bothered by police more often than Whites are. And I have no doubt that there are power hungry bigots on our police forces. I mean what fully sane person would want to approach cars in the dark, step into violent family disputes and breakdown the doors of armed criminals... :-)


I just think it is less prevalent and systemic than you do.

And I think the negative consequences that may occur by making big changes may be much worse than the current situation, especially for the unfortunate people living in high crime areas.

Sean said...

"I just think it is less prevalent and systemic than you do."

Have you read *any* of the Department of Justice reports done on racial discrimination by various police departments? There are currently 24 police departments around the country that are either under consent decrees or are under investigation.

John said...

If they evaluate the situation as you do and Eric Holder did, no wonder.

CNN Why Consent Decrees

John said...

More on CDs

Sean said...

"If they evaluate the situation as you do and Eric Holder did, no wonder."

So you're OK with what was going in say, Newark, where 75% of pedestrian stops didn't meet constitutional muster? You're not arguing facts, you're making an ad hominem argument.

John said...

More on Newark Tweaking Policy

As I said, stop and frisk may not be perfect. However I am interested to see how stopping crime in certain areas will be done without some of these techniques.

Sean said...

"As I said, stop and frisk may not be perfect. However I am interested to see how stopping crime in certain areas will be done without some of these techniques."

In NYC, crime was dropping before stop-and-frisk started and has continued to fall since it was ended.

John said...

MJ Police Stops by Race

John said...

WP Stop and Frisk vs Crime Rates

I liked his last line, it seems accurate.

"In fact, there are competing theories as to why crime rates fell. Based on the data at hand, however, it's safe to say that the role of stop-and-frisk in that dip is far from proven."

Theories Why Crime Rate is Dropping

John said...

It would be interesting if we could get the data for just the gang neighborhoods.

I mean now people should be able to carry contraband relatively free of any concern of being searched. (ie drugs, guns, stolen property, etc) Where as they had to be pretty creative during "stop and frisk".

Sean said...

How about the story from St. Louis yesterday, where a stolen car was crashed near an off-duty officer's home. The off-duty officer comes out his home to help with his weapon, where he encounters two officers. The officers order him to the ground and confirm he's an off-duty cop. The two cops give him the OK to stand up and a third cop, just arriving on the scene, shoots him.