"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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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/

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.

There's something very wrong with this cop.

And you determined this….HOW?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"He was just in fear for his life."

For no reason?

For no reason?

For any reason.

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?

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.

"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 ...

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?

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.

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.

"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?

"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.

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

Police officers are trained to make assessments not assumptions.

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.

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.

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?

"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/

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not a sickness if he's paid to be here. I've voiced that possibility in the past. To doggedly take the same side all the time, never once conceding that your preferred side is ever wrong is certainly a sign of a paid troll.

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

I merely cited the state law. Under the state law I cited, it appears as though the old guy qualifies for self-defense immunity.

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

You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me.

You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me.

Why not?

When being pelted with popcorn, maybe there should be a usual police 22' rule for knives: if they are throwing popcorn at less than 22', they can close the distance and assault you before you can draw and shoot.

Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher? Admittedly, he was a creepy old dude.

Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher?

Jiffy Pop. I was certain it would explode and kill everyone in the kitchen.

It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous.

"It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous."

Teach that in school and around the 'hood, and maybe we'd have fewer shootings like this.

"It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous."

And here we have the video of the easily frightened pussy-boy cop who pulled out his gun and started shooting because something made them a little nervous.

Jazz Shaw, HotAir:

But, of course, this is LF where a suicidal medicated teen girl sending a text message is involuntary manslaughter if some other depressed medicated teen kills themself but a nervous-Nellie spic cop can just pull out his gun and blast a black man with no regard for the safety of the woman or toddler in the vehicle.

So an iPhone is a deadly weapon but a Latino cop can shoot a black man to death for no good reason other than he was armed and people on this forum will defend it.

Despicable.

But, of course, this is LF where a suicidal medicated teen girl sending a text message is involuntary manslaughter if some other depressed medicated teen kills themself but a nervous-Nellie spic cop can just pull out his gun and blast a black man with no regard for the safety of the woman or toddler in the vehicle.

An interesting contrast indeed.

but a Latino cop can shoot a black man to death for no good re reason other than he was armed

He didn't shoot him because he was armed. The driver told the cop he was armed and the cop replied very calmly that it was OK as long as he didn't reach for it. I mean, that's on the video, right?

But you're claiming that as soon as the driver said he was armed the cop drew his gun and shot him?

(Nervous- Nellie spic cop?)

(Nervous- Nellie spic cop?)

I was trying to avoid to much long prose.

Would you prefer "pussyboy Hispani-cop"?

The driver told the cop he was armed and the cop replied very calmly that it was OK as long as he didn't reach for it. I mean, that's on the video, right?

Watch the video:

Castile, a licensed firearm owner, informs Yanez he has a gun. "Okay," Yanez says. (1:37) "Don't reach for it then. Don't pull it out."

1:40 - Yanez opens fire while Castile tells im "I'm not pulling it out," His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, also says, "He's not pulling it out."

Three effing seconds!

Teach that in school and around the 'hood, and maybe we'd have fewer shootings like this.

I would agree that teaching the general public that cops are dangerous and that people need to act differently around them than they do other ordinary people.