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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
They just make crap up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
They just make crap up.
You don’t know that. For sure you don’t know that in this case. Besides, it would be kinda hard to get away with stopping motorists for non-existent infractions such as broken taillights that aren’t broken.
You’re going to have to provide evidence or some kind of documentation to support your claim that the police in that city harass black motorists or that Yanez did not have a legitimate reason to pull Castile over. Otherwise you just look like someone who’s looking for any excuse to accuse someone of racism.
In today’s parlance that’s called virtue signalling. I myself call it moral posturing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
They just make crap up.
You don’t know that. For sure you don’t know that in this case. Besides, it would be kinda hard to get away with stopping motorists for non-existent infractions such as broken taillights that aren’t broken.
You’re going to have to provide evidence or some kind of documentation to support your claim that the police in that city harass black motorists or that Yanez did not have a legitimate reason to pull Castile over. Otherwise you just look like someone who’s looking for any excuse to accuse someone of racism.
In today’s parlance that’s called virtue signalling. I myself call it moral posturing.
Touching white highway line isn’t valid reason for traffic stop, Ohio Supreme Court rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
They just make crap up.
You don’t know that. For sure you don’t know that in this case. Besides, it would be kinda hard to get away with stopping motorists for non-existent infractions such as broken taillights that aren’t broken.
You’re going to have to provide evidence or some kind of documentation to support your claim that the police in that city harass black motorists or that Yanez did not have a legitimate reason to pull Castile over. Otherwise you just look like someone who’s looking for any excuse to accuse someone of racism.
In today’s parlance that’s called virtue signalling. I myself call it moral posturing.
Touching white highway line isn’t valid reason for traffic stop, Ohio Supreme Court rules
1.) This article does not say whether Turner was white or black.
2.) Turner successfully had the charges dropped which supports my earlier comment that it would be difficult to get away with stopping someone for non-existent infractions.
That said, like I mentioned before, it is law enforcement’s job to notice these things and enforce the law in the interest of public safety.
I’ve been pulled over a few times for minor infractions myself. The first case was the officer did not see my inspection sticker. The windshield had just been replaced and the shop had cut out out the sticker for me to keep on the dash. It was still current but was not affixed to the new glass. The officer let me go.
The second case was a non-working driver’s side headlight. An egret had flown into the front of my truck some minutes earlier but I was not aware it had broken the light. Sure enough, when he pulled me over and I got out to look, the cover was cracked and there were white feathers jammed in the crack. The officer let me go.
The other two cases were speeding and running a red light, both of which I was guilty of and earned me citations.
My point is twofold: One, the officers were doing their job and two, I haven’t been pulled over very often because most of the time I do not speed; I do not drive in an unsafe manner; my insurance is always current and all my lights and accessories are working at all times.
Where is the prosecuting digging up these slightly less than credible "experts?" Floyd was fucked up on speedballs one of which fell out of his ass (seriously, addicts do that for quicker absorption of the fent/meth, etc. apparently) in the police SUV. According to the prosecution "experts" that is like having a beer. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if they’re minor, it is law enforcement’s job to police traffic and notice these things. Why? For YOUR safety.
They just make crap up.
You don’t know that. For sure you don’t know that in this case. Besides, it would be kinda hard to get away with stopping motorists for non-existent infractions such as broken taillights that aren’t broken.
You’re going to have to provide evidence or some kind of documentation to support your claim that the police in that city harass black motorists or that Yanez did not have a legitimate reason to pull Castile over. Otherwise you just look like someone who’s looking for any excuse to accuse someone of racism.
In today’s parlance that’s called virtue signalling. I myself call it moral posturing.
Touching white highway line isn’t valid reason for traffic stop, Ohio Supreme Court rules
1.) This article does not say whether Turner was white or black.
2.) Turner successfully had the charges dropped which supports my earlier comment that it would be difficult to get away with stopping someone for non-existent infractions.
That said, like I mentioned before, it is law enforcement’s job to notice these things and enforce the law in the interest of public safety.
I’ve been pulled over a few times for minor infractions myself. The first case was the officer did not see my inspection sticker. The windshield had just been replaced and the shop had cut out out the sticker for me to keep on the dash. It was still current but was not affixed to the new glass. The officer let me go.
The second case was a non-working driver’s side headlight. An egret had flown into the front of my truck some minutes earlier but I was not aware it had broken the light. Sure enough, when he pulled me over and I got out to look, the cover was cracked and there were white feathers jammed in the crack. The officer let me go.
The other two cases were speeding and running a red light, both of which I was guilty of and earned me citations.
My point is twofold: One, the officers were doing their job and two, I haven’t been pulled over very often because most of the time I do not speed; I do not drive in an unsafe manner; my insurance is always current and all my lights and accessories are working at all times.
So you've been stopped twice. Get back with us when you have been stopped 47 more times.
This is gonna get crazy when the defense gets their chance to explain what really happened.
