I undoubtedly have a net positive to society so I don't have to worry about that.

I highly doubt that, but we'll see over the next couple weeks, I like taking a deep dive into people's lives and getting to know their family members. You never know what you'll find out. I look forward to our future encounters

Go watch the video of philandro castile complying and tell me he had no reason not to comply to these psychopaths.

I think he just got an ego issue, like most cops.

Go watch the movie Office Space and tell me what that has to do with this situation. Absolutely nothing, same as Castile's situation. There are plenty of situations in this country where cops do things wrong. The one linked in this thread is not a good example. The cops performance was not perfect, but it was nothing to get upset about. If people are going to be unhappy that cops sometimes make minor mistakes (the phrase "you should be" was not a great choice of words) then they are never going to be happy.

THEY LITERALLY HAVE GUNS DRAWN AND AIMED AT HIM AND ARE YELLING AT HIM AND HARASSING HIM!
What video are you watching?
They are pointing DEADLY WEAPONS at a soldier who KNOWS the danger they present better than the cops do..
Over a MINOR traffic stop..

What video are you watching?
Because it ain't this one.

In my country both cops would be security guards the moment the tape hit the news.
Literally, in australia if you pointed your gun at a guy during a traffic stop without any kind of provocation you would be fired end of story.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 11 2021 12:42am

That video didn't reveal the context of the stop. So if you are watching a video that showed it was a "minor traffic stop" then you are watching a different video than that one.

per the article:



The cops report directly conflicts with your claim. I'm not saying that the cop was right or wrong (it's likely that he was making up some bs after the fact to justify) but my main point is that the video doesn't show the context of the stop, which is true.

Regardless the context, my previous comment was insisting that the driver did not comply. This is 100% true, no matter his justification for non-compliance.

According to Crocker's bodycam, the officer immediately drew his weapon and said it was a felony traffic stop. The bar for that is quite high and there was no reason for the officer to believe that. According to the precedent in Graham, cops are not required to use the least intrusive means available but they have to use objectively reasonable force. From a legal standpoint, the cops will probably be okay because it's objectively reasonable to see him as a threat and violence has a high likelihood of occuring. I don't think anyone here is arguing from a legal standpoint though because it's extraordinarily difficult for cops to be found of legal wrongdoing. In Philando Castille's case, the cop was found to have not been legally culpable. We're arguing from an ethical standpoint.

The military hero complied with the initial requests (vehicle, hands, occupants, etc.). However, he did not comply with the request of getting out of the vehicle because he was scared. Instead, he asked the officer to explain the situation because the gun was drawn and the situation was obviously pretty confusing to him. Why would a gun be drawn the entire time if you haven't done anything wrong? It is the officer's fault for escalating the situation so much. There's a reason that the two cops in the video act the way they do once the supervisor gets involved. They KNOW they fucked up by not deescalating the situation and threatening the man who bleeds for this country.

You say that we can't have a productive conversation, but I disagree. If you agree with everything they did, that's fine. That's the society you want to live in and more power to you. If you think the actions should have been different, then that means you want the officers to be accountable. What does accountability look like to you? I think that's where the discussion should be.



I think you'll find out that I'm an upstanding citizen and that I'm a net contributor to society. I'm telling you in advance so that you don't need to waste your time being edgier than a teenager who just got his first pube.

He took 1 minute 36 seconds to pull over because he wanted to do it in a well lit area so if they murdered him it would be visible.
He indicated the pull over so they knew he was doing it.
They lied because they are low lives.

Windsor Police Officer Daniel Crocker radioed he was attempting to stop a vehicle with no rear license plate and tinted windows. He said the driver was "eluding police" and he considered it a "high-risk traffic stop," according to a report he submitted afterward and which was included in the court filing.

Arthur said Nazario explained at the time that he wasn't trying to elude the officer, but was trying to stop in a well-lit area "for officer safety and out of respect for the officers."
Another officer, Joe Gutierrez, was driving by when he heard Crocker's call, saw him attempting to stop the SUV and decided to join the traffic stop. Gutierrez acknowledged that Nazario's decision to drive to a lighted area happens to him "a lot, and 80% of the time, it's a minority," Arthur said, quoting the officer.

The lawsuit says by the time the two officers reached Nazario's SUV, the license plate was visible in the rear.

Yes a minor traffic stop, it was a brand new car and he had not fit his plates yet but he had them visible.
Now does the "crime" of not having your brand new plates on but having them clearly displayed mean you should be accosted at gun point by angry dickheads? I say no.
HE said he considered it a high risk stop?
Now what reasoning could he have..
Hmm..


This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 11 2021 01:01am