1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Falcon Heights] Woman goes live on Facebook after boyfriend is shot by police

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by RV6, Jul 7, 2016.

  1. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    You are trying to play semantic games now that you've been embarrassed. I get it and I forgive you for it.
     
  2. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    It isn't a "game". It was me repeating and clarifying a point I made much earlier which you seemingly missed or confused for something else. Also, there is no embarrassment on my end. If you believe the officer was reasonable to believe Castile was going to pull a gun on him, that's not for me to be embarrassed about. We just disagree on what constitutes a reasonable reading of the situation.

    I said I wouldn't continue the conversation, but if you're going to make assertions on my motivations or personal feelings, I am forced to correct it even if I'd rather not engage you any further on this topic. Carry on.
     
  3. pahiyas

    pahiyas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    556
    "I wish this town was safer"

    It will be safer if there are less nervous trigger-happy cops enabled by stupid interpretation of a law.
    And the sooner those cops and enabler realize that "Protect and Serve" mean the citizens, not the cops.

    Really sad that the 4-year old child involved in this case has a more adult sense than at least one participant in this thread.

    Heartbreaking.



    btw, why was the girlfriend handcuffed?
     
  4. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,708
    Likes Received:
    18,485
    LOL, that's typical Bobby. Most folks are honest in their opinion and genuinely consider others opinions. Therefore, there is a real back and forth. That's not possible with Bobby.

    Your opinion aren't valid.
    Facts aren't facts.
    My opionion are facts.
     
  5. amaru

    amaru Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    9,729

    That poor child. She'll probably never trust police officers again. Who could blame her? Fortunately I've never been in a situation like that and I still don't trust them.
     
  6. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Fair enough, it wasn't a "game", it's that you apparently really are a bit slow. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as I'm wont to do. If you truly believe that there's a massive difference between your life being threatened and your life being endangered (before you get shocked, yes endangered is the same thing as something being "in danger") then you probably shouldn't be attempting to discuss these types of things in the first place. That said, despite the two being synonyms, typically people consider "endangered" to be a bit more serious than "threatened" which is the opposite of what you were trying to suggest....so your entire premise is flawed even if we forget that they are synonyms.
     
  7. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    Bobby, I'm attempting to be patient. If you're truly convinced that the officer's belief that Castile was about to pull a gun on him and shoot him was reasonable, then any argument I was making about the distinction between "life in danger" versus "life being threatened" is moot. You never clearly answered in the affirmative to that question, but I assume at this point that you are convinced of this. I myself highly doubt it, but the way the law works doubt is not enough to say he's guilty. Our judicial system gives officers who kill innocent people the benefit of the doubt. That's less of a criticism than it is an acknowledgement that it's an imperfect system for people seeking justice against bad cops.

    I still maintain that a person's life being "in danger" has broad meaning, which may or may not rise to the level of their life actually being threatened by someone else. That's why I questioned your initial characterization of the law as if there was reason to believe their life was in danger, they're allowed to kill. Again, I now consider that point moot, but since you insist on dwelling on it ...

    They are not, as I've already explained.

    1. When one's life is threatened, from a legal standpoint, that means there is a person or persons who is actively committing the threat.

    2. If your life is being threatened by someone, your life is in danger. ["life is being threatened" implies "life is in danger"]

    3. If your life is in danger, it may or may not be the case that it is being threatened by someone. It is enough to say your life is in danger if there is some probability that someone is or will soon be threatening your life. ["life is in danger" does NOT imply "life is being threatened"]

    4. Hence, they are not synonymous.


    Oh dear. Your tacit referral of the endangered species versus threatened species list as an argument for "life in danger" being more serious than "life is threatened" is strange, putting it mildly. "Endangered", in that context, means the species is "in danger" of going extinct. "Threatened", in that context, means the species population is "under threat" of becoming endangered.
     
  8. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Well it's fine if you personally doubt it, but that doesn't mean that there is rational reason to doubt it. For the record, I've stated many times that the circumstances surrounding the shooting CLEARLY gave the officer a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or threatened or whatever other synonym you decide to use. Due to that, the shooting is legally justifiable despite the fact that it is a tragedy and an innocent man lost his life.


    LOL that's kind of hilarious. You are actually arguing that synonyms are not synonymous....and you are trying to argue that your life being in danger is different than your life being threatened. That's seriously awesome.

    Perhaps you don't understand what words mean and that's why you are failing so hard right now. When someone says that your life is in danger or endangered, it's suggesting that your life is "in danger" of ending or "going extinct".

    Anyway, I guess this was a fun semantic argument, but I'm not sure I can spell things out any more clearly to help you understand so we should probably end this here. I was always fine with you thinking that this was some miscarriage of justice despite the obvious fact that it wasn't and that's perhaps where we'll have to leave it.
     
  9. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    I don't agree that the circumstances that are documented "clearly" gave the officer reasonable cause to think he was in imminent danger ("imminent"/"immediate" danger are the words used in the instructions given to the jury -- those qualifiers are significant). In fact, according to a jurist interview I listened to, their opinion was that it wasn't clear one way or the other if his belief of imminent danger to his life was reasonable, since they can't know whether he really saw Castile reaching for his gun or if he just panicked. And since the burden of proof in our system is on the defense, they found him not guilty.

    In my view, he had no good reason to think that his life was being threatened or in imminent danger, unless he actually saw that Castile was reaching for his gun or it was otherwise obvious that he was reaching for his gun. I doubt very much that happened (but, again, the burden of proof goes in the other direction in a criminal case). More likely, he was in a hightened state of panic for a variety of reasons, and he made an irrational decision in that state. You yourself admitted that cops get super jumpy when they come to know that someone is carrying in the car at a stop, so your confidence that this guy was acting in a rational manner bewilders me.

    You: X is true.
    Me: No its not, and here's why.
    You: Hilarious, X is true and you're arguing its not.
    Me: ...

    Well, sure. But it doesn't mean that your life is in imminent danger of ending or "going extinct". Being threatened with a gun, however, would mean that.

    Here are the instructions that were given to the jury (emphasis mine):

    The defendant does not have to show that he was actually in danger. It is enough if the defendant believed he was in imminent danger and a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have had the same belief. The defendant has the right to act on appearances even though the defendant’s beliefs may have been mistaken. It is for you to decide whether the defendant’s fear of immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable and would have been felt by an ordinary person in the same situation.​

    Perhaps you don't understand what words mean, but removing the words "imminent" or "immediate" from those instructions changes the meaning.
     
  10. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Today we found out that synonyms mean completely different things when people need them to in conversation. Thank you D&D for that!
     
  11. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    What you may consider to be "synonymous" in an informal, non-legalistic context is sort of irrelevant. The actual instructions given to the jury illustrate that "life was in danger" was not a sufficient standard for use of lethal force. It must be "immediate" or "imminent" danger. Those words carry meaning, especially in a court of law.
     
  12. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    The words are synonyms. the "threat" must be "imminent" just like the "danger" must be "imminent" for it to mean anything. In fact, the actual law uses neither word, I just used them to convey the message that you can use force to prevent imminent bodily injury or death. When someone is facing imminent bodily injury or death their life is in danger....or threatened if you choose to use that synonym instead. They mean the same damn thing and neither are legal terms when it comes to justification in that neither appear in the statute either in Minnesota or in Texas.....well that's not 100% accurate, the word "threat" does come up in the Texas statute in the part where it says that a threat does not justify use of force in certain instances....so you could argue that "threat" is used as a legal term, but not in the way you were using the word, not in the manner in which it is synonymous with danger.

    I think what matters is not the semantic nonsense that this boiled down into, but what was originally being said and that is that (now using the exact legal terms so that there will be no confusion) the peace officer reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary to protect the peace officer from apparent death or great bodily harm. This reasonable belief was based on a potential (at the time) armed robbery suspect who was known to be armed with a frearm ignoring multiple police commands and continuing to reach for what the officer rationally believed was his firearm this was seen as a hostile act which could reasonably lead to the imminent death of or great bodily harm to the peace officer or others.

    This is why the peace officer committed no crime. This is why the peace officer was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
     
  13. pahiyas

    pahiyas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    556
    "the shooting is legally justifiable despite the fact that it is a tragedy and an innocent man lost his life."

    It is justifiable because the victim DID NOT FOLLOW HIS ORDER to "stop pulling it out". The victim is INNOCENT because HE IS NOT PULLING OUT anything which is the premise of the legal justification. How can one wrap his head around this argument is beyond me.

    What else did we find out today? Being repetitive is being repetitively wrong.
     
  14. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    It may seem odd to some, but things like this happen. It's the difference between what is actually happening and a reasonable misunderstanding of that reality. Castile was an innocent man not trying to pull out his gun, but in the eyes of the police officer it was reasonable to think he was based on how things happened. It's a situation where no one is guilty of a crime despite a terrible thing happening. They happen.

    I mean, it's not what a lynch mob wants to hear, but sometimes it really isn't anyone's fault that bad things happen.
     
  15. omgTHEpotential

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    7,383
    Likes Received:
    5,887
    Wtf is going on in America... :eek:
     
  16. pahiyas

    pahiyas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    556
    I agree **** happens.

    Consequence for the innocent man = DEAD
    Consequence for the cop's wrong assumption = NOTHING (i.e. jail time)

    Are you honestly OK with that in this case or going forward?
     
  17. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Yes. I don't support imprisoning people who haven't committed a crime merely because something bad happened and there is a desire to find someone to blame and get revenge against.

    The consequences for the cop are that he lost his job and will for the rest of his life have this case hanging over his head. The consequence for the department is that they'll be sued and the family will win millions (and rightfully so) in a wrongful death suit. In situations like this where there was no criminal wrongdoing, you settle things in civil court.
     
  18. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    I thought I was clear from the beginning, but apparently not clear enough, that by "life was being threatened" I was referring to the officer's belief that Castile was reaching for a gun to shoot him, which would constitute immediate danger/threat to his life. Not a non-serious verbal threat. Not a "threat to become endangered".

    Here, I will quote from my first several posts which led us down this path to emphasize the point I was making:

    The distinction I was drawing is hopefully clear now, if it wasn't then. Him believing his "life was in danger" is not enough -- hence the instructions to the jury using the words "immediate" and "imminent".

    As I said already, the point is now moot, since you've since stated that you think it was rational for him to believe Castile was reaching for a gun. If it helps you move past this, I should have communicated my point more clearly. Clarity of communication is especially important when dealing with people whose inclination is to be unreceptive and dismissive of any point countering their position (as is frequently the case on the Internet), so that's my bad. The focus should not have been on the words "life in danger" vs "life being threatened", but rather "life in danger" vs "life is under attack or imminent attack."

    And here lies the problem. You actually believe it was clear from the circumstances that he "rationally" concluded Castile was reaching for a firearm -- despite Castile insisting he was not, despite him responding in a respectful, calm tone, despite a 4-year old kid sitting in the backseat, despite the officer himself not delivering clear instructions that he should put his hands up. You are ignoring all those things by insisting that he "CLEARLY" acted reasonably. Even a conservative columnist at the National Review, David French, concluded that this officer committed an unreasonable act given the circumstances:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-shooting-police-must-display-reasonable-fear

    At most, we can conclude it wasn't clear one way or the other and it depends on what he actually saw as he was peering into the car (which we don't have a visual on). This was, in fact, the rationale behind the jury's decision to find him not guilty.

    Note, I'm willing to accept that you think the verdict was the correct one. I'm not accusing the cop of being a malicious murderer, or accusing the jury of being a bunch of racially-biased idiots. But what I simply can't stand is someone stating, over and over like a mantra, that this officer "clearly" did the right thing given the circumstances, and just dismissing all the ways in which that isn't at all clear. It is an insult to the person who was killed and the community of people who care for him to insist that the victim was solely at fault for his own death.
     
  19. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Your lack of reading comprehension skills continue to set this conversation back. The fact that I said "but not in the way you were using the word" apparently just got skipped over. You are simply going to have to do a better job. I fully understood that you were using the version of "threatened" that is a synonym of "endangered"....I spelled this out to you though somehow not clearly enough.



    I do admit that while it was clear to me, clear to every member of the jury, and is likely clear to most people fully informed as to the events that took place, that does't mean that it would be clear to just anyone. I acknowledge that there are people out there who would be incapable of seeing it clearly either due to some kind of bias such as emotion, desire for this incident to fit a narrative, or simply due to a failure for them to analyze the information properly.

    That doesn't however, change the facts and the facts are that given the circumstances, the officer's actions were legally justifiable as they were a reasonable reaction to what was going on. That doesn't make it any less tragic that an innocent man is now dead, it's just how it is. Civil courts exist for exactly this kind of circumstance where there is fault but not criminal liability.
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,658
    Likes Received:
    41,544
    Yesterday I heard some comments from one of the jurors and his comments give some more insight into the verdict. What it basically came down to was that the jurors couldn't see the POV of the Officer Yanez and at that point accepted his argument that he saw Castile reaching for the gun. They felt that Yanez did overreact and might've been willing to convict him on a lesser charge (although they acquitted him on charges of reckless use of a firearm and child endangermet) but otherwise felt he was honest. One big unanswered question that I have is in a debriefing with the Bureau of Criminal Aprehension (BCA) following the incident Yanez said that he didn't see the gun. Further it was clear that when Castille's body was removed he didn't have the gun in his hand or his hand on it. Yanez's comments to the BCA were not admitted has evidence and it's not clear what evidence regarding the position of the gun and Castile's hand was made available to the juror. Given that the juror's might not have gotten that evidence I can see why they chose to acquit.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now