Yanez Acquitted in shooting of Philando Castile - Page 11 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
any downside to shooting plants? txprep Firearms General Discussion 22 04-25-2017 07:17 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2017, 12:59 PM
Batko10's Avatar
Batko10 Batko10 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,128
Thanks: 3,693
Thanked 3,884 Times in 885 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
I am neither liberal or anti-police. You are just too blind and obstinate to admit that it could happen to you, even when provided the perfect example of how.
And once again, despite your protestations to the contrary, you prove yourself to be an anti-police, leftist libturd.
The Following User Says Thank You to Batko10 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 01:18 PM
Adam Robinson XV Adam Robinson XV is online now
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 792
Thanks: 2,549
Thanked 3,606 Times in 664 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
Here you go Adam. Erik Scott incident.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-...rying-firearm/

"As Scott and his girlfriend fell in with other patrons flowing out of the exit door, the Loss Prevention Officer who started the whole mess pointed toward Scott and a police officer at the door suddenly began yelling “Stop! I said Stop! Drop the gun! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!”

He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time."

But, like all you experienced LEOs and lawyers in this thread have said NUMEROUS times, "It could never happen to me". This guy was a veteran, "honorable" citizen and a white guy.

What flavor do you like your crow?
From your article:

Quote:
Scott and his girlfriend had been shopping in the Costco, but had been asked to leave when an employee spotted Scott’s lawfully carried handgun. Scott had inadvertently exposed the gun when he squatted down to inspect some merchandise. He informed the employee that he was legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores. A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration on Scott’s part...
Mistake #1 on Scott's part. Regardless of his permit, private businesses have the right to restrict weapons on their premises. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the way it is. So, what he should have done, instead of arguing, was to simply remain calm, inform them that he would be taking his business elsewhere, and leave as he was asked to do. By staying and arguing about it, he put himself in the position of being perceived as a belligerent, armed person by the staff, right or not.

Quote:
That report, based on irrational fear, and perhaps some personal envy, triggered events which quickly spiraled out of control. It seems that the fear factor was taken up a notch with each description of the story to the point that responding officers believed they were going into a violent hostage situation with a heavily armed and dangerous Green Beret.

Las Vegas MPD responded with a city-wide alert, street closures, helicopter support and deployment of a Mobile Command Center. The first officers on the scene arrived as Costco employees were following telephone instructions from the police to calmly evacuate the store.
This is where the article loses me. The bias is pretty clear in the first sentence. Not only that, but it clearly leaves out some key details that might explain the drastic change from a minor altercation to the deployment of helicopters, and makes it sound like the police overreacted for no good reason.

So here's another, less biased article:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...-vegas-police/

Quote:
When Scott refused to leave, employees called police, setting off a chain of events that would end with Scott’s death.
Confirmation of mistake #1. He refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to do so.

Quote:
Scott pulled the holstered weapon out of his waistband and turned around. Officers fired seven times, striking him seven times.
This conflicts with the version in your article, so I'm not sure what to believe here. But if true, that would clearly be mistake #2.

Quote:
There were dozens of witnesses, many of them doctors and lawyers, and in the days that followed, some of them doubted whether Scott pulled out a gun. Others said they did see him pull out a gun.
Ah ha, so we see that your article left out a key bit of information there. Now I'm inclined to disbelieve your article altogether and believe mistake #2 did in fact occur.

Quote:
Scott, it was later found, had potentially fatal levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in his system. He was acting strangely inside the store.
Wait, WHAT??? Now we're seeing a pattern emerging here! Another key fact conveniently ignored by your article! So now we have a man who got into an altercation with a store employee and refused to leave (mistake #1), unholstered his weapon in front of police (mistake #2), and was high on painkillers while carrying (mistake #3).

Quote:
After an inquest jury unanimously ruled the shooting justified, the family members said they would file a lawsuit.
Ok now this is starting to sound eerily familiar...

You can keep that crow on ice for now. Again, please try to find a case where the deceased made no bad choices but was shot anyway. I won't hold my breath.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Adam Robinson XV For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 01:37 PM
IC_Rafe IC_Rafe is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,916
Thanks: 4,114
Thanked 2,456 Times in 1,128 Posts
Default

Yes, afterwards you can easily see what you or someone else shouldn't have done. Only afterwards though, unless you can actually see the future .
 
Old 06-19-2017, 01:49 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batko10 View Post
And once again, despite your protestations to the contrary, you prove yourself to be an anti-police, leftist libturd.
You caught me, I'm an anti-cop paid libtard troll from Russia
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to panoz77 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 01:57 PM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✏ ♪♫ 🔫 🔪 ♥ 🔦 🐾
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,337
Thanks: 313
Thanked 9,715 Times in 3,019 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
...blah blah blah...
1. If a murder is premeditated, is it not an execution? Is a police officer required to provide a blindfold and cigarette for you to believe such?

2. A cop has to be "on duty" for it to count? How does that work?

I'm not anti cop. I am merely stating that there have been cops, and are cops, who are violent criminals.
Old 06-19-2017, 02:00 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Robinson XV View Post
From your article:



Mistake #1 on Scott's part. Regardless of his permit, private businesses have the right to restrict weapons on their premises. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the way it is. So, what he should have done, instead of arguing, was to simply remain calm, inform them that he would be taking his business elsewhere, and leave as he was asked to do. By staying and arguing about it, he put himself in the position of being perceived as a belligerent, armed person by the staff, right or not.



This is where the article loses me. The bias is pretty clear in the first sentence. Not only that, but it clearly leaves out some key details that might explain the drastic change from a minor altercation to the deployment of helicopters, and makes it sound like the police overreacted for no good reason.

So here's another, less biased article:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...-vegas-police/



Confirmation of mistake #1. He refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to do so.



This conflicts with the version in your article, so I'm not sure what to believe here. But if true, that would clearly be mistake #2.



Ah ha, so we see that your article left out a key bit of information there. Now I'm inclined to disbelieve your article altogether and believe mistake #2 did in fact occur.



Wait, WHAT??? Now we're seeing a pattern emerging here! Another key fact conveniently ignored by your article! So now we have a man who got into an altercation with a store employee and refused to leave (mistake #1), unholstered his weapon in front of police (mistake #2), and was high on painkillers while carrying (mistake #3).



Ok now this is starting to sound eerily familiar...

You can keep that crow on ice for now. Again, please try to find a case where the deceased made no bad choices but was shot anyway. I won't hold my breath.
Painkillers? So if left out if he had a prescription, now didn't it? Tolerance various for individuals, even ones taking LEGALLY prescribed pain killers. Again, you like in every case like this, take the fallback position of blaming the victim and trying to discredit their character and morality. That is the typical pattern as has been showed in every case mentioned in this thread. You imply he was a pain pill junkie, so he deserved what he got.

"Goodman said that without the video, he didn’t feel he could overcome a qualified immunity defense for police officers, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently has bolstered. The appeals court recently ruled that even when excessive force is used by police, officers are entitled to an affirmative defense of "qualified immunity," Goodman said."

and the finale
"Scott and his girlfriend were among the customers. An employee pointed out Scott to police, and the officers gave him commands to either get down or drop the weapon — testimony and evidence has differed.

Scott pulled the holstered weapon out of his waistband and turned around. Officers fired seven times, striking him seven times."

So, if this course of events is true then....

1. "the officers gave him commands to either get down or drop the weapon" more likely it was BOTH COMMANDS, which any rational person would drop a weapon prior to getting prone.

and since he was not walking around with an unholstered gun as you try to imply he....

2. "Scott pulled the holstered weapon out of his waistband and turned around."

You see, in order to drop his weapon as ordered, he needed to remove it from said holster.

3. "Officers fired seven times, striking him seven times."

The officers gave him a direct order that he complied with and shot him for it.
Old 06-19-2017, 02:07 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SC
Posts: 6,131
Thanks: 900
Thanked 7,429 Times in 3,330 Posts
Default

Except for some predisposed agenda I see no reason the put the NRA in the middle of this. The classic definition of a "tragedy" is an unavoidable event due to human defect.

As best I can tell the victim's mistake was reaching; the officer's was being too quick to fire.

I suppose the question that trouble me most is why the officer had his firearm out for a taillight stop.

I have been stopped many times, even while carrying, with and without a CWP, not once has an officer drawn his weapon.

I did not hear all the testimony and evidence but that is one question I would be looking to understand.

The other question would be four shots a that close range. Back when I was trained by the US Army with M 16's we were taught 3 round burst but not 4 with a handgun.

I understand the officer might be terminated. The standard for termination of an employee is: "Did the employee act in the best interest of his employer?" My take on that is he did not and as I once advised a person under me, "Why don't you find a job you are more comfortable doing?" I gave him time and he moved on shortly.
Old 06-19-2017, 02:14 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
1. If a murder is premeditated, is it not an execution? Is a police officer required to provide a blindfold and cigarette for you to believe such?

2. A cop has to be "on duty" for it to count? How does that work?

I'm not anti cop. I am merely stating that there have been cops, and are cops, who are violent criminals.
You seemed to imply that is was common for police officers in the line of duty to be convicted of murder. In fact, it is as rare as hens teeth. Now, there are plenty of cases of off duty LEOs murdering someone, usually a spouse or cheater the spouse was cheating with.
Old 06-19-2017, 02:42 PM
swamp frog's Avatar
swamp frog swamp frog is online now
covfefe+maga=supernova
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: golf course
Posts: 2,373
Thanks: 18,034
Thanked 6,345 Times in 1,863 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
You caught me, I'm an anti-cop paid libtard troll from Russia
I'm pretty sure you've been a Trumpster since the primaries.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to swamp frog For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 02:46 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp frog View Post
I'm pretty sure you've been a Trumpster since the primaries.
I've been an undercover infiltrator

After two years, my grand plan is finally coming to fruition, LOL
The Following User Says Thank You to panoz77 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:02 PM
Adam Robinson XV Adam Robinson XV is online now
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 792
Thanks: 2,549
Thanked 3,606 Times in 664 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
You imply he was a pain pill junkie, so he deserved what he got.
No, I don't think you're understanding me at all. I never implied either Scott or Castile "deserved what they got." Far from it. All I'm saying is that, had they made better choices, they could have avoided the possibility of getting shot altogether, or at the very least least, drastically reduced their chances.

My point is all about personal accountability.

Let's just take a step back from the details of these cases and look at the big picture:

If, for example, I were to get a little drunk, break into a lion cage at the zoo and make what I believe to be harmless gestures towards the mama's cubs (but which she interprets as threatening), would anyone blame the lion for attacking and killing me? No.

This is the same general principle of what is going on here. You can't play with fire and not expect to get burned.

In both cases, Scott and Castile had made some poor choices which directly led to them being in situations where their lives were threatened. I'm not in any way saying they "deserved" what they got, but they could have avoided the whole thing by being a little smarter and a little wiser.

Unfortunately, some people just mess up sometimes, and occasionally it leads to their deaths. That's just the way of the world.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Adam Robinson XV For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:07 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Robinson XV View Post
No, I don't think you're understanding me at all. I never implied either Scott or Castile "deserved what they got." Far from it. All I'm saying is that, had they made better choices, they could have avoided the possibility of getting shot altogether, or at the very least least, drastically reduced their chances.

My point is all about personal accountability.

Let's just take a step back from the details of these cases and look at the big picture:

If, for example, I were to get a little drunk, break into a lion cage at the zoo and make what I believe to be harmless gestures towards the mama's cubs (but which she interprets as threatening), would anyone blame the lion for attacking and killing me? No.

This is the same general principle of what is going on here. You can't play with fire and not expect to get burned.

In both cases, Scott and Castile had made some poor choices which directly led to them being in situations where their lives were threatened. I'm not in any way saying they "deserved" what they got, but they could have avoided the whole thing by being a little smarter and a little wiser.

Unfortunately, some people just mess up sometimes, and occasionally it leads to their deaths. That's just the way of the world.
Scott was ordered to "drop his gun" which was in his holster. Can you tell me how to do that without reaching for the gun?
Old 06-19-2017, 03:25 PM
Adam Robinson XV Adam Robinson XV is online now
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 792
Thanks: 2,549
Thanked 3,606 Times in 664 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
Scott was ordered to "drop his gun" which was in his holster. Can you tell me how to do that without reaching for the gun?
Sigh... Do I really need to explain myself again?

This thread is going nowhere. Better to just close it now. All the arguments have already been made, with no effect on either side.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Adam Robinson XV For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:30 PM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✏ ♪♫ 🔫 🔪 ♥ 🔦 🐾
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,337
Thanks: 313
Thanked 9,715 Times in 3,019 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
You seemed to imply that is was common for police officers in the line of duty to be convicted of murder. In fact, it is as rare as hens teeth. Now, there are plenty of cases of off duty LEOs murdering someone, usually a spouse or cheater the spouse was cheating with.
I don't imply any such thing. That is your interpretation, and only your implication that I do so.

Furthermore and strictly speaking, a LEO is never "off duty." My senior academy instructor stated that LE is expected to be above board in all matters, both personal and professional, at all times.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Sockpuppet For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:31 PM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✏ ♪♫ 🔫 🔪 ♥ 🔦 🐾
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,337
Thanks: 313
Thanked 9,715 Times in 3,019 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panoz77 View Post
Scott was ordered to "drop his gun" which was in his holster. Can you tell me how to do that without reaching for the gun?
Was the holster in his hand too?
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Sockpuppet For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:38 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
Was the holster in his hand too?
Don't know, but I'm betting he would have been shot either way based on the reaction time of the shots.

But the good news is the police officers went home safe that day, right?
Old 06-19-2017, 03:41 PM
panoz77's Avatar
panoz77 panoz77 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 9,814
Thanks: 3,739
Thanked 15,569 Times in 5,695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
I don't imply any such thing. That is your interpretation, and only your implication that I do so.

Furthermore and strictly speaking, a LEO is never "off duty." My senior academy instructor stated that LE is expected to be above board in all matters, both personal and professional, at all times.
Then please explain what your implication was. Does that "above board" standard not apply to all civilians? Isn't everyone expected to obey the law?

Convicted of murder "during the performance of their job". Does that clarify it for you? So, care to post all the convictions of LEO's for murder during the performance of their job as an LEO? And not as a private citizen in a jealous rage over a cheating spouse.
Old 06-19-2017, 04:35 PM
CoopFrog CoopFrog is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 286
Thanks: 418
Thanked 437 Times in 178 Posts
Default

So are we saying this is a good shot? The end of the day he was a licensed ccw individual that was shot on a traffic stop. A out of service brake light was the beginning of his death. We have people on this forum that are like cool look at his history. A history of bad judgment with a bunch of traffic violations. He must be a mass murdeer in waiting. The officer freaked out and shot someone that didn't follow commands. Awesome, it doesn't mean every cop is bad but this individual made a bad decision. Doesn't meant he needs the go to jail but damn it isn't right
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CoopFrog For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 05:11 PM
BigSlick BigSlick is offline
INFIDEL
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: TN, the patron state of shootin stuff
Posts: 185
Thanks: 349
Thanked 299 Times in 105 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Robinson XV View Post
Ok, please point me to an example where it actually did happen, and I'll accept your claim.
Okay here is one, Charles Kinsey. Don't be naive to believe that it can't happen. Charles was lucky that he survived the shooting but it could have been much worse.
Old 06-19-2017, 05:18 PM
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,516
Thanks: 8,596
Thanked 11,754 Times in 3,254 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopFrog View Post
So are we saying this is a good shot? The end of the day he was a licensed ccw individual that was shot on a traffic stop. A out of service brake light was the beginning of his death. We have people on this forum that are like cool look at his history. A history of bad judgment with a bunch of traffic violations. He must be a mass murdeer in waiting. The officer freaked out and shot someone that didn't follow commands. Awesome, it doesn't mean every cop is bad but this individual made a bad decision. Doesn't meant he needs the go to jail but damn it isn't right
If that's your FALSE narrative, even I bought it originally and blamed the cop. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED, FOR THE 1000TH TIME.

Please for the sake of yourself and the rest of America, educate yourself on what actually occurred.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net