which link described Castile's actions as "sudden movements" like you claimed earlier?
which link described Castile's actions as "sudden movements" like you claimed earlier?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-23-2017 at 03:02 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
He told the cop he had a gun, he was told not to reach for it, he replies that he's *inaudible* reaching ... At that point ideally he could have told the cop he had a gun and then held his hands still rather than reach into his pocket. He shouldn't have been shot for reaching into his pocket though.So this was all done in seven seconds. Seven seconds elapsed between Castile saying he has a gun, the officer putting his hands on his own holster after being told that, then the suspect reaching for something while the officer repeatedly shouts "don't reach for it" "don't pull it out" "don't pull it out!" and fires all of the fatal bullets. The final bullet being fired during that seven second window. Not minutes of deliberation but a snap action within seven seconds.9:05:52-9:05:55 — Castile tells Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Castile interrupts to say "OK" and places right hand on holstered gun.
9:05:55-9:06:02 — Yanez says, "OK, don't reach for it, then." Castile says, "I'm ... I'm ... (inaudible) reaching ... Yanez interrupts to say, "Don't pull it out." Castile says: "I'm not pulling it out." His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, says, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez shouts: "Don't pull it out!" Yanez draws his gun with right hand while reaching inside driver's window with left. Yanez removes left arm from car, fires seven shots, the last at 9:06:02.
I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation but I'd think if I was in the suspects position and I'd been pulled over and said that I had a gun and was told not to reach for it that I would keep my hands damn still and make no sudden movements until told to do so. Not sure why he chose to say that then start reaching for his pocket.
So... there were no sudden movements like you claimed?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Define sudden.
The transcript describes him putting his hands in his pocket after saying he has a gun and the officer telling him not to reach for his gun and then shooting him all within seven seconds.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sudd...define:+sudden
Pretty much the opposite of what happened. This should be common sense seeing how not a single article or writeup described Castile's actions as "sudden movements" and you completely pulled that claim out of your ass, as I described above, as a form of justification and victim blaming.
Or does it usually take you 7 seconds to reach into your pocket?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It didn't take seven seconds for him to reach into his pocket.
It took seven seconds to have him reach into his pocket, be shouted at not to, all the subsequent shouting and then all the fatal bullets to be fired. Yes that seems to have all occurred or done quickly.
I don't love trigger happy cops, I empathise for cops who have been shot at or seen friends shot at why they may be trigger happy.
You are claiming it is self-defense so long as the cop feels fear because others on the force may have been shot, and therefore he shouldn't be convicted of anything. I take it you're willing to grant the same rationale and defense to every black man who is stopped by a cop and shoots them first? Because if anything has been shown, it's that THEY are the ones who should be in fear of their lives in such situations, not the cops.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'd like to see some numerical evidence for that.
You have already been shown that evidence. In any given encounter between a cop and a black man, the black guy is more likely to die.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The cop is far more likely to die than any random black man is. Though indeed innocent people have far fewer interactions with the police.
According to that well-known cop-loving fanatical right-wing Murdoch paper the Guardian, there were 6.64 blacks per million killed by the US Police in 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...oung-black-men
There were 62 fatal shootings of law enforcement officers by the public from a population of 900,000 officers. That makes a total of 68.89 cops per million killed by the public in 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hootings-2016/
Worth remembering that many of the shootings by the Police are undeniably justifiable shootings. The Washington Post has an interesting archive where you can read about each of the shootings and skimming through them a very large proportion seem justified. If we take out the justified shootings then the proportion would be even further different.
If you've got maths that shows anything different then please demonstrate the working out.
First flaw. You're counting only black men shot by all police but you're counting all police shot by anyone. Except I'm looking at your links and I'm not finding even THAT claimed statistic in it. There are all sorts of flaws with the ways you're massaging your data besides the fact that you're leaving it completely unsourced and apparently made up, of course.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Apologies I copied and pasted the wrong link. The WaPo link was meant to be on the next paragraph, the link for that paragraph was here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...d-2016-average
You mean the one that has almost 1/3 of those deaths coming from "ambush-style" attacks like the Dallas sniper that don't bear the slightest resemblance to the situations we're talking about? And let's note that you're also including friendly fire incidents in that total too. The total death rate from police shootings is close to 1 in 1000 US citizens. That's significantly higher than your claimed statistic. You want to compare the black men to the total population of the US for some reason. That says more about how many African-Americans there are in the US population than what you're trying to claim.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
One third are ambush style but two thirds are not. And 2016s figures despite the inclusion of so many ambush styles are below the long term average.
I'm not including friendly fire. Total deaths were 64, 2 were friendly fire so I used the number 62. I took the friendly fire out of the total already.
Let's see a source for your 1 in 1000 US citizens please.
No I didn't compare black men to the total US population. The black death rate is per million blacks not per million Americans.
Especially since we know a large number of police officers are killed by far right (white) extremists.
Your apologetics for just about every scenario in which a black man gets killed by a cop borders on racism, Rand.
Hope is the denial of reality
Incidentally you're wrong on the flaw. We're counting all people shot by all police (regardless of race) then that is getting broken down into by race do differentiate between how that affects blacks and whites shot. But the Police aren't shooting at only blacks, they're shooting at suspects. Some of those suspects are white, some are black. Most are white, a disproportionate amount are black. So the corollary of suspects shot by cops is cops shot by suspects. The fact that only some of those suspects are black is neither here nor there since the cops aren't shooting only at black suspects.
The appropriate statistic to look at is the risk for any given person in any given encounter. Cops have many encounters per day and yet only 45 cops per million were shot to death by the public, in 2016.
Incidentally, it is distasteful to see you continually ignore the fact that innocent black people are more likely than white people to be targeted by cops, and that cops are more likely to use inappropriate--and especially lethal--force on black people than on white people.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm just going to be an ass and say it - most people killed in police shootings have criminal records. Hardly the definition of 'innocent' even if the act in question shouldn't have resulted in death.
No that is a completely inappropriate statistic to use, there is no reason to use that at all. Besides the cops are supposed to survive their encounters while again given so many fatal encounters are due to murderers going on a rampage until they're taken out by the Police those people effectively are not supposed to survive.
In an ideal world the survival rate should be basically 100% with virtually all encounters and then falling where a shoot is justified.
I don't ignore it. I've said that those using inappropriate force should be dealt with.Incidentally, it is distasteful to see you continually ignore the fact that innocent black people are more likely than white people to be targeted by cops, and that cops are more likely to use inappropriate--and especially lethal--force on black people than on white people.
But here is where your logic conflicts with ... your logic.
How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?
Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.
You should read the methodology section more closely.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not seeing a methodology section on the link I provided and you've not provided one but here is a summary.
Versus 68.89 deaths per million cops in 2016. On a comparable per million basis there are ten cop deaths for each black death.Black
2016 6.64
2015 7.69
White
2016 2.9
2015 2.95
Hispanic/Latino
2016 3.23
2015 3.45
Asian/Pacific Islander
2016 1.17
2015 1.34
Native American
2016 10.13
2015 5.49*
*In 2015, there were fewer than 20 Native Americans killed by police. Source: The Counted
That's without even taking into account the fact that many of the deaths inflicted by cops have stories like this:
EDIT: Video here showing a kill in a very different light as it saves the hostage. But its included in these black lives matter statistics as a black man killed by cops, while I'd class it as a mother saved by cops. http://abcnews.go.com/US/dramatic-vi...ry?id=36711677Christopher Michael Dew, a 29-year-old black man armed with a gun, was shot on Jan. 29, 2016, in a store in Irving, Tex. Irving police responded to a report of a robbery in progress at a check cashing store. Dew was armed with a shotgun and holding a female employee hostage next to a vehicle.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/2...9L8a01b6bu&s=1
A jury of your RandBlades.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The cop should have allowed himself to be crushed to death by a moving vehicle instead.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...rial/93199114/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-arrest-aclu
More great policing for Lewk and Rand. Though they'd be disappointed to know this guy wasn't killed.
Hope is the denial of reality
So... which statistic does this fall under?
But seriously everyone, try to imagine how many industries would be utterly and completely destroyed if employees were justified to go all Judge Dread because they may heard a story about some other guy getting hurt or (gasp) killed while on the job.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Friendly Fire.
How many other industries have employees legally allowed to kill? Only alternative I can think of is the military and they have even worse levels of friendly fire and collateral damage.
Zoos, park rangers, pretty much anything that works around firearms, wildlife, or explores. Self defense goes a long way in the US. We've had people attacked and hospitalized in our libraries, should I start mowing people down?
Rand's current argument:
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Zoo Rangers will generally kill an animal before letting themselves die. As much as it is a last resort.
Anywhere I've worked the advice was always not to tackle an offender, that's the Police's job not yours. The counter to that is that it IS their job. If you were to take down someone in self defence you would be able to use that defence though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote