Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion

[Craig Arko]

The only factors critical to that investigation is if he grabbed in the direction of his gun.  That investigation will happen.  As long as people are going to say those stops shouldn't happen that correction needs to be made.  Doing drugs with a kid in the car, it's all on video she put it on the internet.

By 'that correction' you mean shoot someone dead? I don't get you at all. Take your time and craft a response with some thought applied to it, please.

[mikecgrimes]

 

By 'that correction' you mean shoot someone dead? I don't get you at all. Take your time and craft a response with some thought applied to it, please.

 

No I mean the correction that you shouldn't be allowed to pull over black people for any reason if in hindsight it didn't end well.

[Bark's Lounge]

Too charged to comment.

 

Where is Chuck D. when you need him?

[Craig Arko]

No I mean the correction that you shouldn't be allowed to pull over black people for any reason if in hindsight it didn't end well.

Who is proposing this?

[TheLeviathan]

A lot of people are saying officers shouldn't be allowed to make stops.  Clearly in this case it was important that she be stopped for the childs sake.  The aftermath of a legitimate stop will be investigated and they should be able to look at enough factors to put everything together.

Make stops, just be self aware of why. Dude got stopped 52 times. 52! I'm not even opposed to a degree of profiling but that is out of whack.

 

The other half of that is that holding anyone in law enforcement accountable is nigh impossible. Do you share the insane hypocrisy about unions the rest of the political right has?

 

Pointing our her parenting is, at best, incredibly insensitive and, at worst, condoning a senseless death. You should reconsider your contribution if you aren't comfortable with that.

[nicksaviking]

No I mean the correction that you shouldn't be allowed to pull over black people for any reason if in hindsight it didn't end well.

He got pulled over because he had a big nose.

 

That's cool with some people?

[formerly33]

 

I don't know ask the 2 year old in North Minneapolis

I'd report this for ... I don't know; I'd think of something - broken taillight? .... but I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.

[biggentleben]

One of my wife's friends is the mother to a mixed race child who takes very strongly the color of her father. They were driving down the street, and as an officer happened to drive the other direction, her daughter asked, very frightfully, "Mom, are our tail lights okay?"

 

That's a level of fear of the police that I've never experienced in all my life, let alone before I reached the ability to drive and actually be responsible for the ticket that could happen.

[biggentleben]

Wow. My wording in my previous post was not good. I meant to state that my wife's friend's daughter physically takes to her father's color. She's quite dark, so much so that you'd have trouble believing she's of mixed race. The way that was put in the previous post was unfortunate, and I do apologize if anyone mistook the way that was written!

[Shane Wahl]

Some quite troubling comments here and there in this thread. I have said a lot about his case on FB, but I wanted to only share one of those things here, given some sick comments about the character of the girlfriend/mother here.

 

"It's okay, I'm right here with you."--a little girl to her mom after her mom's boyfriend is savagely killed by those who serve and protect.

 

As parents, we all have some rough times and our kids suddenly rise to the occasion to soothe us, even little kids. When it happens, we are amazed by them and feel a bit horrified that they feel the need to soothe. Now think about this barbaric act by the Blue and the resilience of that little girl.

 

And my son has said something like that to my wife a few times when work was raising a ruckus for her . . . and why did he do it . . . because we model that for him. We have said it to him numerous times.

 

So I have to imagine that this mother has also comforted her child in this way in order to generate this sense of empathy in her little girl.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Make stops, just be self aware of why. Dude got stopped 52 times. 52! I'm not even opposed to a degree of profiling but that is out of whack.

 

 

He was driving without a license for most of those, they get to do the job they are required to do.

[Mike Sixel]

 

He was driving without a license for most of those, they get to do the job they are required to do.

 

Which justifies shooting him how?

 

Typical blame the victim. So sad. Truly sad.

[TheLeviathan]

He was driving without a license for most of those, they get to do the job they are required to do.

Unless he was driving around with a sign that says "I'm unlicensed", you totally missed the point. I'd have quite the list of violations too if I'd been pulled over 52 times. That's overzealous.

 

And that's with acknowledging that most calls go to police about black suspects and all that data. It's still over zealous.

[PseudoSABR]

 

He was driving without a license for most of those, they get to do the job they are required to do.

Part of the police mentality that is so problematic is the notion that the Ends justifies the Means -- which you simply keep echoing without even assessing how problematic those Means really were.   The notion, which you keep implying, is that these people some how deserve to get busted by law enforcement (and if death happens, well, its probably their fault because they are bad criminals) is EXACTLY the kind of dehumanization that breeds reckless police authority.   

 

We need to stop with this barbaric concept that some people are bad and deserve what's coming to them.  That's predicated on a judgment without any due process of law, with scant facts, and lots of assumptions, which is a kind of mentality that is shared with bigots and racists.  It's not simply not up to you, or the cop to make such a profound and life-affecting judgment.)

[Willihammer]

 

He got pulled over because he had a big nose.

That's cool with some people?

There are two suspects in the Jul 2 armed robbery at the station store on Larpenteur & Eustis. Both young black males with shoulder length hair and facial hair. Philando clearly isn't one of the suspects, but there's not a good security cam-photo of the 2nd suspect, not one that's public anyway. Perhaps "wideset nose" was a description given by the station store clerk in lieu of a better security photo?

 

Castile (RIP) was a young black male with shoulder length hair, facial hair, a fairly wideset nose, and he was driving on Larpenteur, a few days after the robbery.

 

Are you okay with the police not pulling that guy over?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There are two suspects in the Jul 2 armed robbery at the station store on Larpenteur & Eustis. Both young black males with shoulder length hair and facial hair. Philando clearly isn't one of the suspects, but there's not a good security cam-photo of the 2nd suspect, not one that's public anyway. Perhaps "wideset nose" was a description given by the station store clerk in lieu of a better security photo?

 

Castile (RIP) was a young black male with shoulder length hair, facial hair, a fairly wideset nose, and he was driving on Larpenteur, a few days after the robbery.

 

Are you okay with the police not pulling that guy over?

The robbery was 4 days prior.  I don't mind them pulling him over for the taillight if it helps them get some more information about a potential suspect, but there was no real sense of urgency.  They could have just noted the car and followed him for a bit too if that was their goal.  I'm probably not comfortable with them taking him into custody at that traffic stop, based on the vague-ness of the suspect description, and the time elapsed since the robbery (suggesting a minimal danger to the public if the potential suspect wasn't apprehended immediately).  If they do decide to stop him, I think having the first officer approach unarmed, with the second officer waiting nearby, could be a good way to prevent the situation from escalating beyond what's appropriate for the circumstances.

 

Serious question: are police ever trained to back away from a situation?  We're still not exactly sure what happened in the build-up to this shooting, and we may never be, but no one's life ever seemed to be in danger other than the victim (obviously) and the officer.  If he was really concerned about the victim's gun, and he no longer considered his position safe, should the officer have backed away to re-group, call in backup, etc. rather than fire?  Can police do that?  I really don't know, but it seems preferable to lethal force in situations like these.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Are you okay with the police not pulling that guy over?

So you're okay with pulling over everyone who matches however vague a suspect's description is? 

 

The value of catching robbers days after the crime does not supersede the fourth amendment rights that establish the need for probable cause/reasonable suspicion before pulling someone over.  If wideset nose, or black guy, is enough to establish such probable cause, well that's a problem for me.  The rights of look-a-likes should not be abrogated in the name of tracking criminals down. 

 

(I wonder what the statistics suggest about random pull-overs based on suspect descriptions days after a crime.  My bet is such a strategy produces pretty low results.)

Call me cynical, but I tend to believe cops look for 'excuses' to pull a person over, hoping to discover indications of other crimes than what initially led the cop to pull someone over.  And such behavior is in part what predicates unnecessary police engagement.

[Shane Wahl]

Can anyone here tell me that they can actually tell details about a stranger's nose while driving in a car, especially if a significant amount of the time . . . you are following the person?

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The robbery was 4 days prior.  I don't mind them pulling him over for the taillight if it helps them get some more information about a potential suspect, but there was no real sense of urgency.  They could have just noted the car and followed him for a bit too if that was their goal.  I'm probably not comfortable with them taking him into custody at that traffic stop, based on the vague-ness of the suspect description, and the time elapsed since the robbery (suggesting a minimal danger to the public if the potential suspect wasn't apprehended immediately).  If they do decide to stop him, I think having the first officer approach unarmed, with the second officer waiting nearby, could be a good way to prevent the situation from escalating beyond what's appropriate for the circumstances.

 

Serious question: are police ever trained to back away from a situation?  We're still not exactly sure what happened in the build-up to this shooting, and we may never be, but no one's life ever seemed to be in danger other than the victim (obviously) and the officer.  If he was really concerned about the victim's gun, and he no longer considered his position safe, should the officer have backed away to re-group, call in backup, etc. rather than fire?  Can police do that?  I really don't know, but it seems preferable to lethal force in situations like these.

This is all good stuff.

 

But continuing on the whole no sense of urgency thing...if they have plate numbers, they can track the persons registration, and thereby his driver license and corroborate identification issues without the need of the officer ever interacting with the person.  (My sense is again, that the 'suspect' stuff, along with the broken taillight are just 'excuses' and not 'reasons' for the pull over.  The cop doesn't so much believe he's found a suspect as he is looking for a reason to meddle and hopefully detect some ticktable/arrestable offenses in the course of the meddling.)

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Can anyone here tell me that they can actually tell details about a stranger's nose while driving in a car, especially if a significant amount of the time . . . you are following the person?

Well that's why you got to pull him over so you can check his nose?  

 

Heck we should have police check points where black people have to step out and get their nose measured, so we can really be sure to get this one suspect of this one crime days ago.  

 

(The crazy truth is that there's enough suspected persons out there that look like each and everyone else to provide justification for police engagement with each and everyone of us.)

[DaveW]

The whole nose and robbery "suspect" BS is so ridiculous. In most big cities there is so much violent crime etc that "robbery suspects" are hardly the most wanted people. It's doubtful they had the force actively looking for this guy.

 

If they legitimately thought he was a murder suspect or rape suspect, then perhaps randomly pulling him over would make a little sense. But "oh hey, he's a black guy, maybe he is a robbery suspect" is nothing but 100% racism.

 

Both of those cops need to see jail time, the one who pulled the trigger needs at least 15 to life.

[Willihammer]

 

The robbery was 4 days prior.  I don't mind them pulling him over for the taillight if it helps them get some more information about a potential suspect, but there was no real sense of urgency.  They could have just noted the car and followed him for a bit too if that was their goal.  I'm probably not comfortable with them taking him into custody at that traffic stop, based on the vague-ness of the suspect description, and the time elapsed since the robbery (suggesting a minimal danger to the public if the potential suspect wasn't apprehended immediately).  If they do decide to stop him, I think having the first officer approach unarmed, with the second officer waiting nearby, could be a good way to prevent the situation from escalating beyond what's appropriate for the circumstances.

 

Serious question: are police ever trained to back away from a situation?  We're still not exactly sure what happened in the build-up to this shooting, and we may never be, but no one's life ever seemed to be in danger other than the victim (obviously) and the officer.  If he was really concerned about the victim's gun, and he no longer considered his position safe, should the officer have backed away to re-group, call in backup, etc. rather than fire?  Can police do that?  I really don't know, but it seems preferable to lethal force in situations like these.

I don’t know the answer to those questions, I would be curious to know. But I’m not arguing the outcome, it was tragic obviously. The traffic stop itself however wasn’t just some 1930s throwback level racism of see black guy, stop black guy. The officer had a specific reason for stopping him, that being he fit the general description of a suspect in an armed robbery that had occurred 1.5 miles down the road 4 days prior. Checking that person’s ID seems like justifiable police work, unless you don’t want the police to pursue these sort of crimes at all I guess.

[Willihammer]

But continuing on the whole no sense of urgency thing...if they have plate numbers, they can track the persons registration, and thereby his driver license and corroborate identification issues without the need of the officer ever interacting with the person.

Do you think people who are inclined to commit armed robbery are the types to follow through with transferring the title on their vehicles and keeping registrations correct and up to date? I mean, call me prejudiced but I think you might have a self-selecting sample here of people that are more inclined to be driving someone else's car. And if the car is theirs, the title/registration not current.

[Mike Sixel]

A man was shot for trying to get his ID out of his pocket.......because he was pulled over for a broken tail light......and people are trying to somehow justify this? Or, what is the purpose of all this other stuff, rather than the facts of what happened?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don’t know the answer to those questions, I would be curious to know. But I’m not arguing the outcome, it was tragic obviously. The traffic stop itself however wasn’t just some 1930s throwback level racism of see black guy, stop black guy. The officer had a specific reason for stopping him, that being he fit the general description of a suspect in an armed robbery that had occurred 1.5 miles down the road 4 days prior. Checking that person’s ID seems like justifiable police work, unless you don’t want the police to pursue these sort of crimes at all I guess.

Not sure who you are responding to -- I don't think anybody here at least is suggesting the officer was a closet Klansman.  (Although you don't have to go back to the 1930s to find examples of "see black guy, stop black guy" -- Minneapolis still had official racial covenants in housing later than that, I can imagine that black motorists got stopped much more recently than that too.)

 

Again, I don't care if the officer really wanted to check an ID in this situation.  But given the result, it does seem like the officer applied more urgency to it than that.  It will be interesting to hear detailed accounts of the incident.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Do you think people who are inclined to commit armed robbery are the types to follow through with transferring the title on their vehicles and keeping registrations correct and up to date? I mean, call me prejudiced but I think you might have a self-selecting sample here of people that are more inclined to be driving someone else's car. And if the car is theirs, the title/registration not current.

Indeed.  If they ran the plates and found that it was registered to a person who fit the description of the person actual in control of the car; well, they've found another way to eliminate unnecessary engagement.

 

Either 1) the person is actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his identity can be corroborated through driver's license. (And more caution can be taken in engagement)

2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed.  (And no engagement is necessary.)

3) the person in question is not the person the vehicle is registered to, and more caution can be taken to corroborate identity. 

 

Checking the plates and comparing suspect description to driver's license may not actually CATCH the bad guy, but it would corroborate an INNOCENT person.

 

What really bothers me, is that you too, are starting with the presumption that person-is-the-suspect, rather than that the person-is-innocent.   We should value protecting the rights and LIVES of innocent people, more than we should value attempts to catch supposed criminally-liable persons.  The goal should be: how do we disencourage unnecessary engagement, rather than bending-over-backwards justifying that engagement. 

 

Even if the person was actually a suspect of the crime, he too, has not yet been found guilty, and deserves the presumption of innocence (i.e. not a cop death sentence).  

 

[TheLeviathan]

What presumption is the cop allowed? Since, it would seem, some of Willihammer questions are hinting at. It would seem some of you also aren't holding that principle for all.

[Willihammer]

Indeed.  If they ran the plates and found that it was registered to a person who fit the description of the person actual in control of the car; well, they've found another way to eliminate unnecessary engagement.

 

Either 1) the person is actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his identity can be corroborated through driver's license. (And more caution can be taken in engagement)

2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed.  (And no engagement is necessary.)

3) the person in question is not the person the vehicle is registered to, and more caution can be taken to corroborate identity. 

 

Checking the plates and comparing suspect description to driver's license may not actually CATCH the bad guy, but it would corroborate an INNOCENT person.

 

What really bothers me, is that you too, are starting with the presumption that person-is-the-suspect, rather than that the person-is-innocent.   We should value protecting the rights and LIVES of innocent people, more than we should value attempts to catch supposed criminally-liable persons.  The goal should be: how do we disencourage unnecessary engagement, rather than bending-over-backwards justifying that engagement. 

 

Even if the person was actually a suspect of the crime, he too, has not yet been found guilty, and deserves the presumption of innocence (i.e. not a cop death sentence).

For starters, drivers licenses can be years old. So using outdated photos to eliminate possible suspects for a crime committed 4 days ago seems like a great way to let the perp fall through your fingers. I know that's no great loss in your mind, but that's more of a legal debate. Today the police are still charged with pursuing criminals to the fullest extent the law allows. And a broken tail light is an offense they can legally stop you for (I should know, its happened to me).

 

What do you mean "2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed. (And no engagement is necessary.)"

Do you think the police already know the IDs of the perps?

 

And I don't presume Castile was the perp. I do think its impossible to 100% rule him out, based on the information we're aware of, and stopping him seemed justified, because like a lot of people, I want the police pursuing armed criminals.

[TheLeviathan]

 

A man was shot for trying to get his ID out of his pocket.......because he was pulled over for a broken tail light......and people are trying to somehow justify this? Or, what is the purpose of all this other stuff, rather than the facts of what happened?

 

C'mon.

 

No one is justifying it, but those sorts of questions are worth asking.  How do we have cops pursue fugitives if not, basically, harassing people to varying degrees.  Sometimes that's by netting informants, sometimes by random stops, or probably a host of other strategies I'm not aware of.   They also might inform us of the cop's mindset, which could also be valuable in revising police policy.

 

Was this cop's reasoning pretty strained?  Seems that way, but I don't think there is an easy answer to this question.  Those answers get even harder to find if you can't at least entertain an honest question in an honest way.

[Mike Sixel]

 

For starters, drivers licenses can be years old. So using outdated photos to eliminate possible suspects for a crime committed 4 days ago seems like a great way to let the perp fall through your fingers. I know that's no great loss in your mind, but that's more of a legal debate. Today the police are still charged with pursuing criminals to the fullest extent the law allows. And a broken tail light is an offense they can legally stop you for (I should know, its happened to me).

What do you mean "2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed. (And no engagement is necessary.)"
Do you think the police already know the IDs of the perps?

And I don't presume Castile was the perp. I do think its impossible to 100% rule him out, based on the information we're aware of, and stopping him seemed justified, because like a lot of people, I want the police pursuing armed criminals.

 

Do you expect to be pulled over for a broken tail lite? How about shot for reaching for your ID?