The Derek Chauvin Trial Thread

[SavannahMann]

As honest as I can be, watch the two body cam videos.
Floyd was combative, uncooperative and was acting/saying things that wasn't making sense - which we now know was the result of the drugs he had taken.
He was asked - "are you on something now?" - he answered no. At that point he could have said "I swallowed a bunch of drugs because I was afraid of getting caught". - Perhaps if he was honest and said that, he would have received medical care for that - and would be alive today.
When he was resisting going into the squad car, three police officers couldn't get him in the car. He was a big strong dude.
When they placed him on the ground, he kicked at the two officers... at that point... Chauvin pinned him to the ground.
Indeed, he said several times I can't breathe. But a person who can't breath, can't talk. He continued to talk, groan and shout out.
Plus you have to take into consideration - he was talking about dying, and breathing problems continuously BEFORE he was pinned.

All the officers wanted him to do was simply sit down in the squad car. That is all. And he wouldn't do it. He talked about dying, talked about not wanting to die today... BECAUSE HE KNEW HE TOOK THE HIGH DOSE... but throughout the whole time, he never mentions he did that.

It's not murder.

You forgot the fact that Floyd shouldn’t even have been arrested in the first place. The chief testified that arrests are not made for such crimes. There’s no way to determine in real time if it was done deliberately. It gets referred for investigation.
Chauvin was wrong across the board.

Chief says that criminals aren't arrested for counterfeit money? Seriously, you don't see a problem with the chiefs comments? The law isn't the law I guess.

It is a misdemeanor to knowingly try and pass counterfeit money. Simple possession is not because there is no way of knowing how you got it.

And I certainly could not account for where I got every bill in my wallet. Could you? Oh that twenty I got as cash back from the pharmacy. Yes I am sure. No. I got that twenty as cash back from the grocery store. I got that one when I paid for a 12 pack of blue moon with a fifty.

Essentially it is the equivalent of shoplifting. A petty crime. No it is not right. But it is also worth noting we aren’t talking about Dillinger here. The worst case scenario was that the cops had found a petty thief. The most likely scenario was that he had gotten it elsewhere without realizing it.

he's a career criminal......assuming he was passing a counterfeit bill and didn't know is an ignorant assumption.
Secondly, he was told that it was a counterfeit and to give the cigerattes back--he refused
Third two other counterfeit bills were found in the truck (its what he was twirling around in the truck trying to hide when the cops arrive as per the police cams)
Fourth--its a felony--a federal crime to do counterfeit money
Fifth, crime is crime--you don't allow crimes even broken windows to go unanswered or you wind up with shit holes like minnepolis where the criminals like floyd and their supporters think they rule the street leading to crime wave making everyone unsafe.

Yes..
Chauvin was doing the Lord’s work by removing this dangerous animal from society. Bless him.

What section of the Koran are you quoting out of curiosity?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As honest as I can be, watch the two body cam videos.
Floyd was combative, uncooperative and was acting/saying things that wasn't making sense - which we now know was the result of the drugs he had taken.
He was asked - "are you on something now?" - he answered no. At that point he could have said "I swallowed a bunch of drugs because I was afraid of getting caught". - Perhaps if he was honest and said that, he would have received medical care for that - and would be alive today.
When he was resisting going into the squad car, three police officers couldn't get him in the car. He was a big strong dude.
When they placed him on the ground, he kicked at the two officers... at that point... Chauvin pinned him to the ground.
Indeed, he said several times I can't breathe. But a person who can't breath, can't talk. He continued to talk, groan and shout out.
Plus you have to take into consideration - he was talking about dying, and breathing problems continuously BEFORE he was pinned.

All the officers wanted him to do was simply sit down in the squad car. That is all. And he wouldn't do it. He talked about dying, talked about not wanting to die today... BECAUSE HE KNEW HE TOOK THE HIGH DOSE... but throughout the whole time, he never mentions he did that.

It's not murder.

You forgot the fact that Floyd shouldn’t even have been arrested in the first place. The chief testified that arrests are not made for such crimes. There’s no way to determine in real time if it was done deliberately. It gets referred for investigation.
Chauvin was wrong across the board.

Chief says that criminals aren't arrested for counterfeit money? Seriously, you don't see a problem with the chiefs comments? The law isn't the law I guess.

It is a misdemeanor to knowingly try and pass counterfeit money. Simple possession is not because there is no way of knowing how you got it.

And I certainly could not account for where I got every bill in my wallet. Could you? Oh that twenty I got as cash back from the pharmacy. Yes I am sure. No. I got that twenty as cash back from the grocery store. I got that one when I paid for a 12 pack of blue moon with a fifty.

Essentially it is the equivalent of shoplifting. A petty crime. No it is not right. But it is also worth noting we aren’t talking about Dillinger here. The worst case scenario was that the cops had found a petty thief. The most likely scenario was that he had gotten it elsewhere without realizing it.

he's a career criminal......assuming he was passing a counterfeit bill and didn't know is an ignorant assumption.
Secondly, he was told that it was a counterfeit and to give the cigerattes back--he refused
Third two other counterfeit bills were found in the truck (its what he was twirling around in the truck trying to hide when the cops arrive as per the police cams)
Fourth--its a felony--a federal crime to do counterfeit money
Fifth, crime is crime--you don't allow crimes even broken windows to go unanswered or you wind up with shit holes like minnepolis where the criminals like floyd and their supporters think they rule the street leading to crime wave making everyone unsafe.

Yes..
Chauvin was doing the Lord’s work by removing this dangerous animal from society. Bless him.

What section of the Koran are you quoting out of curiosity?

What section of the Koran are you quoting out of curiosity?

It’s actually from Stormfront’s , “Little Book of Daily Affirmations”. I try to pick at least one a day to meditate on.

 

[2aguy]

I posted as this trial got under way that the video was damning. After a week, I’m not so sure that chauvin did anything wrong...I just don’t know...One thing I do know is that a fair trial may not be possible.

Have you followed Andrew Branca over att Legal Insurrection......his is the best coverage of the trial, and the last 3 prosecution witnesses essentially destroyed the prosecution case......and Branca goes through each way they did this....look up day 7 of the trial....or you can listen to it over at Law of Self Defense podcast where he also goes through each day in court.....

 

[2aguy]

As honest as I can be, watch the two body cam videos.
Floyd was combative, uncooperative and was acting/saying things that wasn't making sense - which we now know was the result of the drugs he had taken.
He was asked - "are you on something now?" - he answered no. At that point he could have said "I swallowed a bunch of drugs because I was afraid of getting caught". - Perhaps if he was honest and said that, he would have received medical care for that - and would be alive today.
When he was resisting going into the squad car, three police officers couldn't get him in the car. He was a big strong dude.
When they placed him on the ground, he kicked at the two officers... at that point... Chauvin pinned him to the ground.
Indeed, he said several times I can't breathe. But a person who can't breath, can't talk. He continued to talk, groan and shout out.
Plus you have to take into consideration - he was talking about dying, and breathing problems continuously BEFORE he was pinned.

All the officers wanted him to do was simply sit down in the squad car. That is all. And he wouldn't do it. He talked about dying, talked about not wanting to die today... BECAUSE HE KNEW HE TOOK THE HIGH DOSE... but throughout the whole time, he never mentions he did that.

It's not murder.

You forgot the fact that Floyd shouldn’t even have been arrested in the first place. The chief testified that arrests are not made for such crimes. There’s no way to determine in real time if it was done deliberately. It gets referred for investigation.
Chauvin was wrong across the board.

Chief says that criminals aren't arrested for counterfeit money? Seriously, you don't see a problem with the chiefs comments? The law isn't the law I guess.

It is a misdemeanor to knowingly try and pass counterfeit money. Simple possession is not because there is no way of knowing how you got it.

And I certainly could not account for where I got every bill in my wallet. Could you? Oh that twenty I got as cash back from the pharmacy. Yes I am sure. No. I got that twenty as cash back from the grocery store. I got that one when I paid for a 12 pack of blue moon with a fifty.

Essentially it is the equivalent of shoplifting. A petty crime. No it is not right. But it is also worth noting we aren’t talking about Dillinger here. The worst case scenario was that the cops had found a petty thief. The most likely scenario was that he had gotten it elsewhere without realizing it.

It was a petty crime until they realized he had drugs....and then he resisted arrest.........upping the problem for himself....

 

[Doc7505]

BREAKING: Chauvin Lawyer Plays Clip of George Floyd Allegedly Saying 'I Ate Too Many Drugs' (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyers played audio of George Floyd allegedly saying “I ate too many drugs,” while being detained.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyers played audio of George Floyd allegedly saying “I ate too many drugs,” while being detained.
The video clip was presented during cross examination of Los Angeles Police Sgt. Jody Stiger, a paid witness for the state, who claims that “no force should have been used” on Floyd.

​

Comment:
No matter the factual the evidence that Chauvin Did Not commit a crime in the apprehension of George Floyd, the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Left and their funded BLM are demanding blood, our Supreme Court Justices are terrified of the mob they've given America away to the Fascists Globalist pigs.
Patrolman Chauvin hasn’t got a chance. BLM is demanding the head of Derek Chauvin.
Does anyone believe that the chosen jury of 12 people will have the spinal fortitude to stand against the mob?
That remans to be seen.

 

[lantern2814]

...to a violent felon, high on 2X the lethal dose of fentanyl...

Not for nothin', but if he'd taken twice the lethal dose, why wasn't he already dead?

He was dying.....had the police not arrived, he would have died anyway.

He was dying.....had the police not arrived, he would have died anyway.

Just murdered by a cop first.
Chauvin is cooked. There is no defense when his boss says his actions were in no way compliant with their departmental policies or protocols.

Really-----you think everyone else is to stupid to think for themselves? The training videos and thousands of other cops taking down violent criminals by the same technique say otherwise.

Really-----you think everyone else is to stupid to think for themselves? The training videos and thousands of other cops taking down violent criminals by the same technique say otherwise

Derp...
There’s been at least four police witnesses including the chief and today the actual use of force training officer who say it is not an authorized technique. Try actually watching it instead of being a moron.

Try learning something instead of being ignorant your entire life dummy. That technique was taught and was in every instructional video and manual. Proven and shown multiple times. Of course being a law hating libtard, you hate the truth.

I learned it from the sworn testimony of the MPD Chief, their use of force training officer, Chauvin’s supervisor and the crisis management training officer who all said you’re dumb as shit.

And you also omit the fact that he had to admit that that technique actually WAS taught until just recently. So you’re just another dumbfuck cop hating libtard. And that pile of shit you’re eating is smarter than you.

And you also omit the fact that he had to admit that that technique actually WAS taught until just recently. So you’re just another dumbfuck cop hating libtard. And that pile of shit you’re eating is smarter than you.

Not true at all.
the use of force training officer said it’s never been an authorized hold.

Sorry dummy. Already shown it was a technique taught and shown in videos. The chief admitted it was just recently changed. Continue lying.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Nope. Look at the video again. They clearly took Floyd from the driver’s side and the SUV belonged to him. Better yet, here’s a pic of Floyd behind the wheel:

Sorry, doesn't look like he's "Driving"... He looks like he's "Sitting". You know, driving would involve the vehicle moving.

And this is exactly why I say I don’t entirely trust the findings of the MEs or the narrative of the prosecution. A lot of people looking to hang Chauvin have eschewed all objectivity in the name of social justice.

I refuse to believe that you are so fucking stupid as to not deduce that, Floyd being behind the wheel in the picture, that he DROVE to the store and that he was preparing to DRIVE AWAY.

The fuck’s the matter with you?

 

[pknopp]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

 

[pknopp]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

Sorry but, you don’t know that either.

 

[Snouter]

You Tube celebrity takes a knee to the neck and scapula for over 9 minutes, exactly like Floyd did, and he was talking the entire time. What a f*cking charade this trial is and all the bullsh*t Europhobic, anti-Western agenda associated with it such as BLM. Fast forward to an hour and 16 minutes to see the demonstration. Bottom line is Derek Chauvin should sue the state for putting him through this ridiculous witch hunt.

 

[Snouter]

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyers played audio of George Floyd allegedly saying “I ate too many drugs,” while being detained.

What is crazy is the "forensic scientist" initially missed the additional, half eaten speedball (fent combined with meth tablet) that fell out of Floyd's clothing when he was fighting with with the cops in the police SUV.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

Sorry but, you don’t know that either.

You can post as many “disagree” emojis as you want, the simple fact is, you have no clue as to what the officer’s motive was.

Also, just out of curiosity, I looked into the issue of Castile’s being pulled over so often and it appears that he was not a model motorist.

He had a bad habit of committing minor traffic infractions that included failing to signal, unlit license plate, tinted windows, broken seatbelt and letting his insurance lapse.
The insurance lapses were noticed several times during previous stops and eventually he had his license taken away for six years because of it. And I’m betting he continued to drive anyway.

None of this is to justify his death but rather, show you that these cases are almost never as cut and dried as “Racist officer shoots black man for driving while black”.

 

[pknopp]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

Sorry but, you don’t know that either.

You can post as many “disagree” emojis as you want, the simple fact is, you have no clue as to what the officer’s motive was.

Also, just out of curiosity, I looked into the issue of Castile’s being pulled over so often and it appears that he was not a model motorist.

He had a bad habit of committing minor traffic infractions that included failing to signal, unlit license plate, tinted windows, broken seatbelt and letting his insurance lapse.
The insurance lapses were noticed several times during previous stops and eventually he had his license taken away for six years because of it. And I’m betting he continued to drive anyway.

None of this is to justify his death but rather, show you that these cases are almost never as cut and dried as “Racist officer shoots black man for driving while black”.

You are unable to determine a lapsed insurance without pulling someone over for being black in the first place. All the same, what you claim to have read is worthless.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

Sorry but, you don’t know that either.

You can post as many “disagree” emojis as you want, the simple fact is, you have no clue as to what the officer’s motive was.

Also, just out of curiosity, I looked into the issue of Castile’s being pulled over so often and it appears that he was not a model motorist.

He had a bad habit of committing minor traffic infractions that included failing to signal, unlit license plate, tinted windows, broken seatbelt and letting his insurance lapse.
The insurance lapses were noticed several times during previous stops and eventually he had his license taken away for six years because of it. And I’m betting he continued to drive anyway.

None of this is to justify his death but rather, show you that these cases are almost never as cut and dried as “Racist officer shoots black man for driving while black”.

You are unable to determine a lapsed insurance without pulling someone over for being black in the first place.

Pay attention. He was pulled over for tinted windows and other minor infractions. And you know as well as I do that they always check if your insurance is current as a matter of routine on any traffic stop.

All the same, what you claim to have read is worthless.

From the New York Times:

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

 

[Superbadbrutha]

You Tube celebrity takes a knee to the neck and scapula for over 9 minutes, exactly like Floyd did, and he was talking the entire time. What a f*cking charade this trial is and all the bullsh*t Europhobic, anti-Western agenda associated with it such as BLM. Fast forward to an hour and 16 minutes to see the demonstration. Bottom line is Derek Chauvin should sue the state for putting him through this ridiculous witch hunt.

Talk about some bullshit, what's next you going to show us a guy getting shot in the heart and then claim it didn't kill him.

 

[Turtlesoup]

As honest as I can be, watch the two body cam videos.
Floyd was combative, uncooperative and was acting/saying things that wasn't making sense - which we now know was the result of the drugs he had taken.
He was asked - "are you on something now?" - he answered no. At that point he could have said "I swallowed a bunch of drugs because I was afraid of getting caught". - Perhaps if he was honest and said that, he would have received medical care for that - and would be alive today.
When he was resisting going into the squad car, three police officers couldn't get him in the car. He was a big strong dude.
When they placed him on the ground, he kicked at the two officers... at that point... Chauvin pinned him to the ground.
Indeed, he said several times I can't breathe. But a person who can't breath, can't talk. He continued to talk, groan and shout out.
Plus you have to take into consideration - he was talking about dying, and breathing problems continuously BEFORE he was pinned.

All the officers wanted him to do was simply sit down in the squad car. That is all. And he wouldn't do it. He talked about dying, talked about not wanting to die today... BECAUSE HE KNEW HE TOOK THE HIGH DOSE... but throughout the whole time, he never mentions he did that.

It's not murder.

You forgot the fact that Floyd shouldn’t even have been arrested in the first place. The chief testified that arrests are not made for such crimes. There’s no way to determine in real time if it was done deliberately. It gets referred for investigation.
Chauvin was wrong across the board.

Chief says that criminals aren't arrested for counterfeit money? Seriously, you don't see a problem with the chiefs comments? The law isn't the law I guess.

It is a misdemeanor to knowingly try and pass counterfeit money. Simple possession is not because there is no way of knowing how you got it.

And I certainly could not account for where I got every bill in my wallet. Could you? Oh that twenty I got as cash back from the pharmacy. Yes I am sure. No. I got that twenty as cash back from the grocery store. I got that one when I paid for a 12 pack of blue moon with a fifty.

Essentially it is the equivalent of shoplifting. A petty crime. No it is not right. But it is also worth noting we aren’t talking about Dillinger here. The worst case scenario was that the cops had found a petty thief. The most likely scenario was that he had gotten it elsewhere without realizing it.

he's a career criminal......assuming he was passing a counterfeit bill and didn't know is an ignorant assumption.
Secondly, he was told that it was a counterfeit and to give the cigerattes back--he refused
Third two other counterfeit bills were found in the truck (its what he was twirling around in the truck trying to hide when the cops arrive as per the police cams)
Fourth--its a felony--a federal crime to do counterfeit money
Fifth, crime is crime--you don't allow crimes even broken windows to go unanswered or you wind up with shit holes like minnepolis where the criminals like floyd and their supporters think they rule the street leading to crime wave making everyone unsafe.

Actually. The broken Windows approach has never been done correctly. At least according to the guy who came up with it. But I’ve covered that already. Studies into it have come back as inconclusive. In other words there is no proof it does anything about crime.

Federal Crimes are enforced by Federal Authorities. That is why we have Federal Agents. It is why the Sanctuary Cities have broken no Federal Law in ignoring Immigration Remainder Requests. If all cops were Federal Agents then they could enforce federal law. Thankfully that is not the case.

That is nonsense....as I have said many times----I get moved around alot thanks to my husbands career choices-

I've seen broken glass policies work in both directions----when laws are enforced, including the small ones, crimes goes down across the board especially when targetted in small high crime areas. It is the go to to clean up a neighborhood. the opposite occurs when you allow rift raft in and start to ignore the little crimes---the result is always more and more crime.

Broken window policies is a bit less enforcing than ZERO TOLERANCE which works better as criminals are treated even harsher.

When the little laws are enforced----several advantages are seen
1) One it encourages the community to get involved in stopping crime--as opposed to allow high crime areas that Floyd frequented to commit crimes like counterfeit money and doing drugs especially out in the open with racists going after the cops to support the criminal who is black.
2) One it gives an expectation to the criminal--if I commit a crime, I will expect that the cops will not tolerate it and they will come after me giving criminals two choice--do a crime and know that the cops will come, or don't do a crime to avoid the hassle of cops. This is especially so for habitual criminals on probation who will then chose to not commit a crime.
3) It gets cops familiar with the criminally inclined in their area-----criminals typically do not start off with large crimes--they kinda work their way up.

Broken Windows Policing - The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP)

What Works in Policing? What Works in Policing? Review of the Research Evidence Seattle Police Case Study Resources Broken Windows Policing Resources What is Broken Windows Policing? Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety (George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, Atlantic Monthly) What...

cebcp.org

 

[pknopp]

That’s your right of course. But I don’t entirely trust that they were not just caught up in the anti-cop mania and felt pressured by this to say what they thought people wanted to hear.

I know what you’ll probably say to that but let me say first that people have already proven themselves to be less than objective in these matters.

It has already happened that officers have been demonized for what turned out to be justified shootings. What’s more, some are still demonized after being officially cleared.

That's because our system is geared towards acquitting them no matter how guilty they are. Like the guy who shot Philandro Castille. Castille was cooperating, informed the officer he had a CC permit (Silly Darky, Rights are for White people) and was shot with his girlfriend and baby daughter feet away.

Castile was shot because he was reaching for something. He told the officer he had a firearm and the officer simply said “Okay”. But then Castile moved like he was maybe going to show the officer the gun or the permit. The officer then told Castile not reach for it but Castile insisted (“I just need to...”) and that’s when the officer fired.

Castile was not shot for being black nor was he shot for owning a firearm. He was shot for not heeding the officer’s command not to go for the weapon.

It was tragic and unnecessary and he did not deserve to die. But his race had nothing to do with it.

He had been pulled over for having a "wide set nose". How do you argue that had nothing to do with race?

Dispatch Call Reveals Cop Pulled Philando Castile Over For 'Wide Set Nose'

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.

newsone.com

Don’t be an idiot. The article says the officer said they looked like a pair that had just committed a robbery. I’m assuming the remark about the wide set nose was referring to a description of the robbery suspects.

C’mon man.

And by the way, the officer was Hispanic.

Castile and many others driving by that day. If you really believe they were "suspects" you don't have to make a ruse about a broken tail light and he had been pulled over so many times, a quick radio transmission would have stated who he was.

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Mr. Castile’s death from a police shooting during a traffic stop is seen by many as an illustration of the disproportionate risks black motorists face.

www.nytimes.com

They were clearly simply targeting certain people.

Question: Was the tailight broken?

It was clearly an excuse. I have no idea if it was. He was fishing.

So you don’t know. You chose to condemn the officer based on less than all the facts that you never bothered to verify.

Given that you were not interested enough about the case to verify your assumptions, I can only conclude that you chose to condemn the officer because he’s a cop and because Castile was black.

49 times in 13 years. The police were targeting minorities.

Yet you can’t even tell me whether the taillight was actually broken or not in THIS case.

Also, we’re discussing the shooting incident, not the traffic stops. For the purpose of this discussion about whether the shooting was justified or whether it was because Castile was black, the previous stops are irrelevant.

Having said that, when Castile told the officer he had a gun, the officer was not ruffled one iota. All he said was “Okay.” It wasn’t until Castile made to reach for something that the officer told him not to reach for the gun and then fired when Castile didn’t comply.

An example of the hysteria that takes hold in these kinds of cases comes from the article you cited. Castile’s uncle is quoted as saying:

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” Clarence Castile said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

Problem is, the officer did not say “flared nostrils”, he said “wide set nose”, which is something else entirely.

It's also not likely he saw a "wide set nose". He just used that excuse because it was a black guy.

You don’t know that.

Pulled over 49 times. He actually had a valid concern to be carrying.

His owning and carrying the firearm was not the issue and never was. The officer did not display any tension, anxiety or defensiveness when Castile told him he had a gun. All he said was “Okay”. He didn’t fire until it appeared Castile was reaching for it.

He freaked out. Scared of the black man.

Sorry but, you don’t know that either.

You can post as many “disagree” emojis as you want, the simple fact is, you have no clue as to what the officer’s motive was.

Also, just out of curiosity, I looked into the issue of Castile’s being pulled over so often and it appears that he was not a model motorist.

He had a bad habit of committing minor traffic infractions that included failing to signal, unlit license plate, tinted windows, broken seatbelt and letting his insurance lapse.
The insurance lapses were noticed several times during previous stops and eventually he had his license taken away for six years because of it. And I’m betting he continued to drive anyway.

None of this is to justify his death but rather, show you that these cases are almost never as cut and dried as “Racist officer shoots black man for driving while black”.

You are unable to determine a lapsed insurance without pulling someone over for being black in the first place.

Pay attention. He was pulled over for tinted windows and other minor infractions. And you know as well as I do that they always check if your insurance is current as a matter of routine on any traffic stop.

All the same, what you claim to have read is worthless.

From the New York Times:

Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions (Published 2016)

Minor infractions 49 times. He was being targeted.