NRA Shuns Second Amendment Martyr

[Belsnickel]

http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/21/the-nra-shuns-a-second-amendment-martyr

Quote:Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun. Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a "wide-set nose."

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanez's mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castile's proof of insurance and driver's license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Yanez interrupted him, saying, "OK, don't reach for it, then."

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

"Don't pull it out!" he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, per Yanez's instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead man's shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanez's actions were "objectively unreasonable." The officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a "voluntary separation agreement," pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been curiously reticent about the case.

A day after the shooting, the NRA said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You'd think "the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization" would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/21/the-nra-shuns-a-second-amendment-martyr

Yes Matt but we don't know "everything" that happened and we don't have an angle inside the car showing "exactly" what happened so maybe the officer was right.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 01:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes Matt but we don't know "everything" that happened and we don't have an angle inside the car showing "exactly" what happened so maybe the officer was right.  

I know, only us liberal types would have any problems with this sort of...oh, wait.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-22-2017, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know, only us liberal types would have any problems with this sort of...oh, wait.

From a neither liberal or conservative type, I do have a problem with this.  While the facts show that the officer lacked the comportment and composure required to perform his job well, at least I can see that this was done out of panic and not some sort of malfeasance.  The NRA's silence, well, says a lot unfortunately, IMO.

[xxlt]

(06-22-2017, 02:30 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: From a neither liberal or conservative type, I do have a problem with this.  While the facts show that the officer lacked the comportment and composure required to perform his job well, at least I can see that this was done out of panic and not some sort of malfeasance.  The NRA's silence, well, says a lot unfortunately, IMO.

And his panic driven actions resulted in a death. Maybe it was a murder (maybe there was intent, maybe there was a plan to shoot the "robbery suspect" all along) but there weren't facts to support that charge. However sentence one of my post is more or less the definition of manslaughter. There were facts to support that charge, and the acquittal is ridiculous.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-22-2017, 02:40 PM)xxlt Wrote: And his panic driven actions resulted in a death. Maybe it was a murder (maybe there was intent, maybe there was a plan to shoot the "robbery suspect" all along) but there weren't facts to support that charge. However sentence one of my post is more or less the definition of manslaughter. There were facts to support that charge, and the acquittal is ridiculous.

I don't know the standard for manslaughter when judging a cop, so I don't have a response for whether the acquittal is ridiculous or not from a legal standard.  I do believe that a cop should be held to a higher standard so there is a deterrent for not following his training other than "well you killed a guy, and we know you're not fit to be a cop, but good luck in your next career in civilian life".  

The point was about the silence of NRA speaking volumes, and I will reiterate it.

[Au165]

What I found weird was his reaction compared to the other officer you can see on video. When he pulls his gun our and starts shooting the other officer backs away not drawing his gun, and when he returns into frame he doesn't have his weapon drawn. If it was a threat, even if he shot the threat, his back up should have had his gun drawn when he approached the car again. The back up seems calm during the whole thing, but the officer who fires is screaming and escalating quickly.

I work with police and have been told often times they always stay back and over your shoulder on purpose during a traffic stop in the event someone does pull a gun you have to turn to shoot them and they can back peddle into your blind spot while they pull their weapon. This guy was up on the window in plane view and when he perceived a weapon may be drawn he immediately went towards the person to shoot rather than retreating.

Everything about this thing just seems off to me. I am no expert but it definitely appears this officer was not trained well.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 04:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: What I found weird was his reaction compared to the other officer you can see on video. When he pulls his gun our and starts shooting the other officer backs away not drawing his gun, and when he returns into frame he doesn't have his weapon drawn. If it was a threat, even if he shot the threat, his back up should have had his gun drawn when he approached the car again. The back up seems calm during the whole thing, but the officer who fires is screaming and escalating quickly.

I work with police and have been told often times they always stay back and over your shoulder on purpose during a traffic stop in the event someone does pull a gun you have to turn to shoot them and they can back peddle into your blind spot while they pull their weapon. This guy was up on the window in plane view and when he perceived a weapon may be drawn he immediately went towards the person to shoot rather than retreating.

Everything about this thing just seems off to me. I am no expert but it definitely appears this officer was not trained well.

And he was "nervous".

[*michaelsean*]

I wasn't on the jury so obviously I'm not privy to all the testimony, but that sure looked ridiculous. Even though acquitted, the man should never be a police officer again.

[xxlt]

(06-22-2017, 03:21 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I don't know the standard for manslaughter when judging a cop, so I don't have a response for whether the acquittal is ridiculous or not from a legal standard.  I do believe that a cop should be held to a higher standard so there is a deterrent for not following his training other than "well you killed a guy, and we know you're not fit to be a cop, but good luck in your next career in civilian life".  

The point was about the silence of NRA speaking volumes, and I will reiterate it.

I didn't disagree with your point. I also didn't realize the discussion was confined to the response of the NRA to the exclusion of what the thread title refers to as a "second amendment martyr" and the man who killed him. I'll try to stay more on point next time. A thousand pardons.

[GMDino]

Actually it's probably proof of a well trained officer who isn't "nervous" and is trying to deescalate the situation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2017, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/21/the-nra-shuns-a-second-amendment-martyr

I read several firearms related site, The Truth About Guns is one of them.  They are off base as often as they are correct and the comments sections make me cringe at times.  That being said I think this guy nailed the Castille situation and the NRA's reactions to it.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/bruce-krafft/philando-castile-nra-isnt-black-white/

Quote:So no, the NRA has many flaws, but their lack of support for Philando Castile and his family had less to do with the fact that he was black and much more to do with not wanting to piss off their LEO and former-LEO membership or upset their cozy relationships with cop-shops across the country.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2017, 02:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read several firearms related site, The Truth About Guns is one of them.  They are off base as often as they are correct and the comments sections make me cringe at times.  That being said I think this guy nailed the Castille situation and the NRA's reactions to it.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/bruce-krafft/philando-castile-nra-isnt-black-white/

I can understand that reasoning, but I'm not sure how much I buy it. The bread and butter of the NRA is the gun industry. Their money funds them, and they lobby on their behalf over that of their individual members. I don't know the motives of the NRA in this situation, but I don't know how correct that particular reasoning is, either.

[Benton]

(06-24-2017, 02:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read several firearms related site, The Truth About Guns is one of them.  They are off base as often as they are correct and the comments sections make me cringe at times.  That being said I think this guy nailed the Castille situation and the NRA's reactions to it.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/bruce-krafft/philando-castile-nra-isnt-black-white/

So... 2nd amendment rights extend to law enforcement?

I don't know what the NRA thinking is these days, but if it's that the 2nd only extends to agents of the state then what's the point of the 2nd? And why should members keep pumping money into that lobby if they're only stance is to protect law enforcement officers behaving irrationally?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-24-2017, 02:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read several firearms related site, The Truth About Guns is one of them.  They are off base as often as they are correct and the comments sections make me cringe at times.  That being said I think this guy nailed the Castille situation and the NRA's reactions to it.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/bruce-krafft/philando-castile-nra-isnt-black-white/

Who does the NRA think is going to show up on their doorstep to take away their guns if not the law enforcement officials of the fascist state they claim are going to take away their guns?

[xxlt]

(06-25-2017, 02:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who does the NRA think is going to show up on their doorstep to take away their guns if not the law enforcement officials of the fascist state they claim are going to take away their guns?

I think they call them jack-booted communists but the point is well taken.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To the bold: except they don't just take up progressive causes.

As for the post overall, this is funny considering this is from a publication that is more conservative than you. But don't let facts get in your way.

They ignored this blatant freedom of speech. https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/california/2017/04/24/coulter-lawyer-berkeley-college-republicans-slams-aclu-ignoring-free-speech/amp/

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2017, 01:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They ignored this blatant freedom of speech. https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/california/2017/04/24/coulter-lawyer-berkeley-college-republicans-slams-aclu-ignoring-free-speech/amp/

And I could provide dozens of examples of them supporting conservatives and/or conservative policies. But I am not going to bother getting into that back and forth with you, not worth the time.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2017, 01:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They ignored this blatant freedom of speech.   https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/california/2017/04/24/coulter-lawyer-berkeley-college-republicans-slams-aclu-ignoring-free-speech/amp/

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/330776-aclu-defends-coulter-we-must-protect-speech

Quote:ACLU defends Coulter: ‘We must protect speech’

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Ann Coulter Wednesday after the conservative pundit cancelled a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, citing security concerns.

Coulter announced earlier Wednesday that she would no longer appear at Berkeley after conservative group sponsoring her remarks withdrew their support.

“There will be no speech,” she told Reuters. “I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team.”

“It’s a sad day for free speech,” Coulter told The New York Times. “Everyone who should believe in free speech fought against it or ran away.”

Young America’s Foundation, the group that had sponsored Coulter’s planned speech Thursday, said, “Berkeley made it impossible to hold a lecture due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators."

“Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere,” the group added in a statement, noting the school police’s “stand-down” policy.

The Berkeley College Republicans, another sponsor of Coulter’s visit, also reportedly voiced fears about the event’s atmosphere.

Officials at Berkeley initially cancelled her planned speech last week, citing dangers over protesters.

The decision followed massive protests that erupted at the school in February, when the same GOP college group invited far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

Coulter vowed to speak, however, leading the school to reverse its decision and offer a day in May as a potential alternative date.

The conservative firebrand rejected that, calling it “not a suitable offer” as it fell during the school’s final exams period for students.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-ann-coulter-speech

Quote:ACLU STATEMENT ON ANN COULTER SPEECH
April 26, 2017

NEW YORK — Following news that Ann Coulter cancelled her appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Director David Cole had this reaction:

“The unacceptable threats of violence that have led to the ‘hecklers’ veto’ of Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley are inconsistent with free speech principles that protect us all from government overreach. Hateful speech has consequences, particularly for people of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and others who have been historically marginalized. But if the government gets to decide which speech counts as hate speech, the powers that be may later feel free to censor any speech they don’t like.

“For the future of our democracy, we must protect bigoted speech from government censorship. On college campuses, that means that the best way to combat hateful speech is through counter-speech, vigorous and creative protest, and debate, not threats of violence or censorship.”

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/330776-aclu-defends-coulter-we-must-protect-speech



https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-ann-coulter-speech

Nice to see they came around after being called out. The ACLU are scam artists.