He cant…hes making ■■■■ up to paint it in the best possible light for the officer, as he usually does.
Commom sense, paying attention to what is actually going on in the video and a little logic applied completely dismantle his assessment of the situation.
The cop could have simply asked Castile to exit the vehicle and it probably would have turned out totally different.
By watching both videos, the dash cam and the one his GF shot during the incident.
I posted the dash cam video as it shows he’d already handed his paperwork to the officer.
What did the jury find in this case?
He handed him one thing …the registration he pulled out of the glove box.
Unless hes some sort of super weirdo who keeps his drivers license in the glove box that is.
You do realize that juries ■■■■ up, right?
I realize you’re allergic to the facts.
What did the jury determine in this case?
They ruled it a good shoot.
Doesnt make them right.
By that rationale, im assuming you also think OJ was actually innocent too, right?
Did they have all the facts?[quote=“bullseyelqcs, post:27, topic:4493, full:true”]
They ruled it a good shoot.
Doesnt make them right.
[/quote]
I think you are missing my point here…let me attempt to clear it up for you.
Just like there are many people out there who think that the OJ jury made a huge mistake, there are people like me who believe that even in the face of all the evidence, the jury in this case made a mistake as well.
I have never argued what the verdict of this case turned out to be…I have simply stated that I believe that they ■■■■■■ up.
Yet you cant’ answer a simple question can you?
Did the jury have all of the evidence? Where they instructed as to the relevant law? Did they hear the case? What was their verdict?
Deflecting to a case of clear jury nullification isn’t helping your case, it’s showing the weakness of your arguments.
Let me spell this out for you…
Yes, they had the evidence. I’ve never said anything about that. Not sure why you keep bringing it up. Hell, I even went so far as to say that I acknowledge what the verdict was…I simply stated that I disagreed with the verdict and explained why I felt that way.
As for the case of jury nullification…I’ll ask you the same question you asked me…did they have the evidence and did the recieve instruction on the relevant laws?
And there you go again showing the weakness of your argument by deflecting back to OJ.
All of the evidence in this case showed he acted lawfully and you have nothing but your own prejudices to argue he should have been convicted.
All of the evidence said to that particular group of people that he acted lawfully. Had that evidence been presented to a group that saw it the way I do, he would have been convicted.
Its not a prejudice…its how I saw what happened on the video. Nothing more, nothing less. None of the actions of the victim said to me that the officer should have reacted in the manner he did.
I feel cops should be better than this officer was on that day. That is my opinion and my choice to see it that way, just as it is yours to somehow never find fault with the actions of the police.
Of course it’s prejudice because neither the facts nor the law support convicting him of anything.
Best case scenario for him if I had been on the jury would have been a mistrial and do it over again. I would have voted to convict based on what I saw in the video. That isn’t prejudice, its my interpretation of what I saw.
To me, the video shows a cop who reacted poorly and should be held accountable for it.
Of course you would because of your own bias.
Was Castile armed with a handgun? Yes, was he told repeatedly not to reach for it and did he continue doing so? Yes.
That makes the shooting lawful period and you can only argue otherwise based on prejudice.
was the police officers life ever in danger? of course he was not. The officer simply needed to rotate behind Philando to have cover. Jury was nullified because the officers name was American Indian related.
Not a crime.
“Wide set nose”
