George Floyd Murder Trial

The problem is a) that is not the argument I was criticizing in the Toledo shooting and b) that is not the argument I was challenging here. In the Toledo shooting thread, jigglyfly said Toledo was shot 3 seconds after dropping the gun. I posted timestamped screenshots from the bodycam (which was posted in the same thread) showing that he was actually shot less than 1 second after having the gun in his hand and he said that I was posting the screenshots out of order and they did not show what I said they showed. With regard to the knee on neck picture, he said I was making stuff up. Clearly the picture is proof I was not making stuff up when my claim was the existence of the picture. I appreciate your attempted neutrality, but posting a single image is proof that the claimed image exists, posting time stamped screenshots from a video is proof of the time between the events shown in the screenshots. These are just verifiable facts.

Yes.

Sure. I am not arguing that Castille was pulling his gun or intending to shoot officer Yanez. I simply said it is arguable that he is not 100% complying with the officers admittedly contradictory orders.

Aren't they? "So, if the police tell you that you did something wrong and you don't think you did, you're just going to listen?" "Authority never respected us and it is more evident now that we have cameras with us to film when they are out of line.

I respect everyone, but at the same time, I don't believe in allowing cops to infringe on my rights just because they feel like it. The cops need to know their limits and not disrespect us either. I sure as hell don't want to enable them to continue having the same power just because I should comply to avoid confrontation. That's ****ing stupid." Those both seem like arguments against just complying.

The onus is on the suspect. The suspect is required to follow the lawful orders of the officer. Not doing so subjects the suspect to arrest. Not complying in a manner that represents a threat of deadly force gives the officer authority to shoot and kill the suspect. That is the way the law is set up. The officer has limits, of course. They can't walk up and shoot you because you were speeding. The onus is on the officer not to shoot you until and unless you represent an imminent threat of great bodily injury or death. I have said the same previously with regard to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, but people seem to think that one was okay.

 

So one one hand you are arguing that people should obey the orders of LEO and 2 people who were shot actually complying with LEO's orders get shot and killed and its there fault but Ashli Babbit who was with a mob and disobeyed orders not to breach a barricade is a victim?

Really?

Man you are all over the place.

So using your logic both the shooters in the Toledo and Castille cases should have made sure they were not actually in jeopardy since you think the Capitol officer should have done the same.

 

I don't think you know what an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury is. If you are chasing someone who has a gun that was just being shot at passing cars, you see the gun in their hand, and then they start to turn around to face you, that is an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. If someone says they have a gun, then starts reaching into an area you cannot see and doesn't stop when you say, "Don't reach for it, don't pull it out, don't pull it out." That is an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. When a person with no visible weapons is climbing through a window 6 feet away from you and you are holding your gun on them while your tactical team is 10 feet behind that person, in full body armor with assault rifles the window climber is not an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. There is no making sure someone is not a threat, you have to have a reason to perceive they are a threat to begin with. Reasons like you know they have a firearm and now you can't see their hands and they are moving.

 

Ok prosecutor.

You have no idea what the mindset was of the officers behind the barricade or what his training was since you like to bring up training so much.

Like I said you are all over the place, did he know that that person did not have a grenade or bomb or was suicide bomber?

See how I can create scenarios out of whole cloth to fit my argument.

 

I always thought it was very daming as well.

 

That's why we rely on evidence, not speculation. The evidence is that she was unarmed. The video doesn't show any indication that she was armed. If she was a suicide bomber, surely shooting her in a crowd of people is not the best course of action. That is why I don't create scenarios out of whole cloth. The whole thing is on video, you can watch it, from multiple angles even.

Yes, and it unfortunately put Castille in a deadly predicament. He cannot comply with both orders. I would say the order related to the gun trumps the order related to the run of the mill license and registration for a traffic stop. In that situation, his best bet would have been freeze and then very slowly show his hands and say he was showing his empty hands, but that is very tough. Sometimes tragic situations are created by police interactions. Yanez was acquitted, so apparently a jury did not find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to convict him of manslaughter. It was just a tragic situation.

Those were direct quotes from other people which I considered their arguments against automatic compliance. You said no one was encouraging people not to cooperate, I was providing what I thought of as counter examples. Yanez was arrested, tried, and acquitted. A jury excused him. Sometimes contradictory orders are appropriate if the situation changes. Sometimes officers order someone to give them their license and registration, but then when they open the glove compartment to get their registration, the officer sees a gun. Then they order them not to reach in the glove compartment. These are contradictory orders, but both are totally appropriate. It was very unfortunate what happened to Mr. Castille. His is the type of edge case where someone is in a very tough spot and can end up dead without doing anything wrong. A catch 22. It is sad. It is a tragedy. It is also the one in a million case where compliance doesn't keep you alive.

She was not complying, I agree. She was also shot and killed. That certainly supports my argument that you should comply.

Yes. Both the Officer and the suspect have duties in police interactions. I never said otherwise. The suspect's duties are to obey the lawful orders of the officer. The Officer has a duty of care not to use unreasonable force and to provide you with aid should it be required.

Well, I already explained the difference in the very post you quoted. There is no "make sure they are not actually in jeopardy," whatever that means. They don't have a Dr. Strange time loop to let it play out millions of times to see if there is a danger in some scenario. You go by what you can perceive. Toledo had a gun in his hand and turned toward the cop. Imminent threat of great bodily injury or death. Castille said he had a gun and then reached behind him, out of view of the officer. Imminent threat of great bodily injury or death. Ashli Babbitt had empty hands and was climbing though a window. Not an imminent threat of anything. Obviously Babbitt should have complied as well. She ended up getting shot and killed, so that hardly seems like it is an argument in favor of not complying.

 

Think about this for a minute in regards to our justice system. George Floyd was cuffed, pinned to the ground, and suffocated to death over a $20 bill. Twenty dollars!!!

On July 28, 2015, a state grand jury indicted Paxton on three criminal charges: two counts of securities fraud (a first-degree felony) and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators (a third-degree felony). Our Texas Attorney General hasn't even gone to trial yet to face his charges. He hasn't even been removed from his duties. Sue, sue, sue all those you want you hypocrite, all in the name of your so called law and order.

 

Your argument about Babbit is extremely reductive and ignored context. Babbit was behind a mob of people who trampled over multiple officers. You let Babbit through, you let the entire mob through. Therefore the mob needed to know there was a a consequence for crossing that threshold and that threshold was important because US federal legislators were nearby.

 

Not to mention that Babbit was in the middle of felony trespass along with a thousand other people, while Castille was detained under a civil violation.

 

Context is everything. Taking one piece out of the puzzle to make a point is what he likes to do.

 

And here you go trying to drown me in words again.

What does the video have to do with the officer on the other side of the barricade.

That officer did not know she had empty hands he just saw a person breaching a barricade that was a part of an angry mob.

You continue to contradict yourself more and more and then try and write an essay hoping people will lose the plot along the way.

I am on to your game.

 

Yanez probably does not get acquitted today. The guy should be in prison because he really messed up.

The fact he got off plus 50k is pretty ridiculous.

 

He could see she had empty hands, she was climbing through a window right in front of him less than ten feet away and he shot her before she set foot on the other side. The video shows everything, why would it not be important in showing if she was a threat or not?

Where did I contradict myself?

That doesn't make her an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. The officer could have easily told one of the nearby SWAT guys to grab her, or just arrested her when she set foot in the hallway. There is no indication that she was even told that setting foot in that hallway was a death sentence.

The reasonable officer standard is the only standard that applies, so that doesn't really change anything.

I think either interpretation is reasonable, but as you will.

 

How could he see she had empty hands he was warning other people to stop trying to smash in the door which they were doing at the time and then he saw her crawling in at another point.

He probably did not know if she was a female or not or if she had a weapon or not.

This is what I am talking about you spreading disinformation.

Watch the video.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...ting-of-woman-during-capitol-riot-99171397641

You are just making **** up.

It's humorous that you have been in here for 2 weeks claiming that all you need to do is follow orders but then this person did not follow orders and should have seen the police with his gun out and giving orders but yet in this instance its the officers fault.

You sir have zero credibility.

This is what actually happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sullivan provided the video to the The Post. On Jan. 14, after this story and video were published, federal authorities charged Sullivan with obstructing law enforcement, knowingly entering a restricted building and engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct on the Capitol grounds.

Another man, wearing a red Trump hat, told the officers, “We backed you guys in the summer. When the whole country hated you, we had your back.”

At this point, one officer guarding the door said to the others, “They’re ready to roll,” and gestured to them to come with him, the video shows. The officers stepped away from the door together and moved to an adjacent wall.


With the door clear of law enforcement, some of the rioters renewed their efforts to break through. One used a helmet, and another tried with a flagpole.

About 20 seconds after the officers stepped aside, a loud scream is heard on the footage. One man shouted three times that an officer on the other side of the door had a gun. An officer with a gun can be seen at the edge of the video’s frame. The warning was repeated by another man, but other rioters continued trying to smash through the doorway.

Around this time, the departing officers were met by colleagues wearing helmets and armed with rifles, who had arrived from a stairwell behind Babbitt and the rioters, according to other video posted to social media. These officers began evacuating the officers who had guarded the door down the stairs.

With help from someone who hoisted her up, Babbitt began to step through a portion of the door where the glass had been broken out. An officer on the other side, who was wearing a suit and a surgical mask, immediately shot Babbitt in the neck. She fell to the floor.

 

Will this debate ever end between you two? Just wondering.

 

The debate between us is what is bothering you?

Really?

Have you read this thread? There are a lot more people giving him way more oxygen than me.

But I do understand your pain.