A lawyer for a suburban Minnesota police officer who killed a black driver says his client pulled the man over in part because he believed he resembled a suspect in a robbery.
i.e. 1. He wasn’t white. 2. He had a nose, mouth, eyes, and ears.
The officer also vaguely remembered something on the bulletin board about how driving a '98 Buick was a capital offense.
That is a complete load of crap. Just as was the premise for pulling him over.
Funny how the story is slowly changing now. This is a man that had been pulled over something like over 50 times, and for what other than DWB?? I thought the reason the car was pulled over this time was for a broken taillight or some such shit. I guess they can’t justify that seeing how it was broad daylight and a taillight wouldn’t be seen as a problem using that excuse, unless it was a broken brake light. But that’s not what they said initially.
I heard this argument (i.e. his car resembled that of a robbery suspect) start to circulate late yesterday. Even if Castile were found guilty of robbery, it’s not a crime that carries the death penalty. Every one of us could be driving a vehicle that resembles one involved in a traffic accident or could resemble a possible suspect or . . . . . I guess we should all justifiably expect to be shot by police at any time.
I thought the capital offense was having a broken taillight.
didn’t this lawyer say that the gun did it? he shoulda stayed with that. it was just a bad gun.
This begs a few questions: When did the police officer actually see a gun? Did he actually see a gun or did he imagined seeing a gun when Castile he had a permit for one? I read on Facebook that Castile had a gun on his lap, which I find hard to believe but it couold be possible.
This seems to be the process we see happen all the time when a trigger happy cop pulls over a person of color resulting in their fatality. The process of criminalizing the victim begins in earnest. Next up they’ll be showing some Facebook picture, where he’s seemingly flashing a “gang sign” or something that looks equally menacing to justify the cop’s suspiciousness after-the-fact. They don’t have a mugshot because to my understanding he didn’t have a criminal record…so obviously they can’t go there. But you know they would have put up some mugshot if they could have, just to show he was a potentially dangerous character. This is the PR shit these cops pull with the press to get their side out to try to excuse their unjustified actions. We see this shit all the time.
My, my, but the story does evolve doesn’t it? Pretty soon we’ll be hearing about the howitzer that he was pulling out of his wallet.
He did shop at Walmart. That at least merits getting winged in the calf or something.
dude. you just winged me.
I expect some serious mugbook diving to precede the pointing-to of the precise actual suspects.
And, yes, there’s a chance all said actual suspect will indeed share those characteristics.
There is, so far as I know, not punishable prohibition against raising in defense something phrase one might encounter on a Drudge page hyperlink.
And at what point was it that the image of that “robbery suspect” entered his consciousness?
The “I just reacted” defense isn’t available to anyone outside law enforcement.
on wednesday the lawyer will offer the “afraid for his life” thing. on friday the lawyer will offer…
NRA: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Cop who shot Castile: I didn’t shoot him, it was the gun.
The inability to square those is a national tragedy.
All together now: “Bullshit!”
Not quite: SUSPECTED of driving with a broken tail light.
This, of course, is a step en route to COULD have been suspected of driving with a broken tail light. Any grounds more concrete would have justified calling for back-up.
ACTUAL driving with a broken tail light is when he calls into Special Forces for an armored unit.
This is interesting:
The bored/casual tone of the of the officers indicates they really did not think he was a robbery suspect. Listen to the KARE 11 video for yourself.