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?
“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.
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.