Coward Cop killers in Dallas

[AGBF]

MInnesota Star Tribune claims to have proof he had a permit.

I went and checked their on-line version and they do claim he had a permit. That doesn't prove they are correct, of course. (I used to teach history and never in a million years would I have allowed something as flimsy as mere mention in an article to pass as evidence that this was fact.) However, it is interesting.

Here is an excerpt form the article.

"Philando Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun when he was shot and killed by a St. Anthony police officer, a source confirmed to the Star Tribune Friday.

Castile, a 32-year-old school cook from St. Paul, was killed by a St. Anthony police officer during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights Wednesday night. His final minutes were live-streamed by his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was a passenger in the car.

In the video, Reynolds said Castile told the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, that he had a permit and was carrying a gun. Yanez shot Castile multiple times.

'He’s licensed to carry, he was trying to get his ID, his wallet out of his pocket and he let the officer knew he had a firearm and was reaching for his wallet,'Reynolds said in the video as a bloodied Castile lay in the driver’s seat dying.

Although the names of gun permit holders are not public under state law, a source confirmed Castile was issued the permit when he lived in Robbinsdale."

 

[AnnaH]

However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Happens to all of us.

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424962/2nd-amendment-southern-slavery-atlantic-essay-response

This is one of many articles and books disagreeing with the idea that the second amendment was really about protecting the institution of slavery. Interesting that Frederik Douglas advised fugitives from slavery to arm themselves for protection. Good advice.

I'm certainly no historian or constitutional expert, but there is substantial evidence that the founders considered the right to bear arms as an individual right.

As stated, I'm not the one to debate this. Just making the point that that particular idea is controversial.

I seriously doubt if our founders were alive today they would think that should include assualt rifles.

CC, I guess we'll never know. Not that I've defended assault rifles, whatever than means. I guess you are referring to semi-automatic weapons. I'm not being silly. Just don't know much about guns even though I grew up around them.

 

[redwood66]

MInnesota Star Tribune claims to have proof he had a permit.

I went and checked their on-line version and they do claim he had a permit. That doesn't prove they are correct, of course. (I used to teach history and never in a million years would I have allowed something as flimsy as mere mention in an article to pass as evidence that this was fact.) However, it is interesting.

Here is an excerpt form the article.

"Philando Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun when he was shot and killed by a St. Anthony police officer, a source confirmed to the Star Tribune Friday.

Castile, a 32-year-old school cook from St. Paul, was killed by a St. Anthony police officer during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights Wednesday night. His final minutes were live-streamed by his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was a passenger in the car.

In the video, Reynolds said Castile told the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, that he had a permit and was carrying a gun. Yanez shot Castile multiple times.

'He’s licensed to carry, he was trying to get his ID, his wallet out of his pocket and he let the officer knew he had a firearm and was reaching for his wallet,'Reynolds said in the video as a bloodied Castile lay in the driver’s seat dying.

Although the names of gun permit holders are not public under state law, a source confirmed Castile was issued the permit when he lived in Robbinsdale."

I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[Calliecake]

MInnesota Star Tribune claims to have proof he had a permit.

I went and checked their on-line version and they do claim he had a permit. That doesn't prove they are correct, of course. (I used to teach history and never in a million years would I have allowed something as flimsy as mere mention in an article to pass as evidence that this was fact.) However, it is interesting.

Here is an excerpt form the article.

"Philando Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun when he was shot and killed by a St. Anthony police officer, a source confirmed to the Star Tribune Friday.

Castile, a 32-year-old school cook from St. Paul, was killed by a St. Anthony police officer during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights Wednesday night. His final minutes were live-streamed by his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was a passenger in the car.

In the video, Reynolds said Castile told the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, that he had a permit and was carrying a gun. Yanez shot Castile multiple times.

'He’s licensed to carry, he was trying to get his ID, his wallet out of his pocket and he let the officer knew he had a firearm and was reaching for his wallet,'Reynolds said in the video as a bloodied Castile lay in the driver’s seat dying.

Although the names of gun permit holders are not public under state law, a source confirmed Castile was issued the permit when he lived in Robbinsdale."

I guess we will have to wait and see.

His girlfriend Diamond Reynolds recorded the police shooting. She remained unbelievably calm with her four year old daughter witnessing the shooting. Afterward they took Diamond out of the car and she broke down crying. You could hear her four year old daughter trying to comfort her. She was saying something like it's okay Mommy I'm here with you. It's heartbreaking.

 

[redwood66]

Any death of a loved one is heartbreaking. I am sad for the little girl.

 

[AnnaH]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

AGBF, I assume that your NRA statement is tongue in cheek. Still...

 

[Matata]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

AGBF, I assume that your NRA statement is tongue in cheek. Still...

I doubt she was speaking "tongue in cheek" and good on her.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12123040/philando-castile-nra-guns-police-shooting

 

[AGBF]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

AGBF, I assume that your NRA statement is tongue in cheek. Still...

Why would you think my statement was tongue in cheek? First one poster thinks that I am serious when I say the Israelis might become anti-semites, although I used a winking icon. Then another poster thinks that after I have been arguing for days that the establishment ignores the basic rights, including the right to life, of people of color that I am kidding when I say the NRA is prejudiced. (Is my sense of humor that off?)

The NRA didn't want to say a word about the shooting of Mr. Castile, although he was alleged to have a gun permit. But they jumped on the opportunity to condemn the killings of the Dallas police officers. That's a double standard and the only variable between the innocent shooting victims is race. The NRA should have been front and center if it heard that someone who had a gun permit had been shot. If it turned out, later, he didn't have one, they could have apologized. If the victim had been white, that's sure what they would have done.


AGBF

 

[redwood66]

Thank you DS. I appreciate it.

President Obama could help the view of him by many if he would just condemn the destructive acts of some of these protesters. He should be firm in saying it is not ok to destroy your community to make your point.

I just heard him say from Warsaw that there is "ALMOST uniformly peaceful protests happening." That was the opportunity to condemn the destructive behavior and he did not take it. This does nothing to help me think he will do anything that might lose votes for the Dems.

Sorry but that is the view of many in the US of his ability to help everyone and bring people together.

I have to say that I am pleased at President Obama's comments that I have seen this morning in Spain. Those kinds of words help those of us who think he has not done enough to help the divide. I hope he can keep that going.

I was extremely glad to see and I cried hearing the press conference recount of Shetamia Taylor.

 

[AGBF]

I have to say that I am pleased at President Obama's comments that I have seen this morning in Spain. Those kinds of words help those of us who think he has not done enough to help the divide. I hope he can keep that going.

I had not heard or read what he said in Spain, but after reading this I looked it up. I thought it was great, very healing.

Here is an excerpt from an article about the speech that I liked.

"One of the United States’ great virtues, Mr. Obama said, is its openness to protest and efforts to speak truth to power. While that process is often messy, he warned that harsh language would drive people on opposing sides to their corners, hardening positions and stalling a difficult but necessary debate over racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Obama said the Black Lives Matter movement had grown out of a tradition that dated to the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage campaign and the protests against the war in Vietnam.

In protest movements, he said, 'there’s always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid or imprudent or over-generalize, or are harsh.'

While Mr. Obama said it was unfair to characterize an entire movement by a few dissonant voices, he said inflammatory words could hinder legitimate efforts to reform the justice system.

'Even rhetorically,' Mr. Obama said, 'if we paint police officers with a broad brush — without recognizing that the vast majority of police officers are doing a really good job and are trying to protect people, and do so fairly and without racial bias — if the rhetoric does not recognize that, then we’re going to lose allies in the reform process.'"


In my opinion, what the President is doing here, domestically, is what he is doing abroad with ISIS. He is refusing to make a bad situation worse by allowing the sides to become even more polarized. At home it is obvious that we do not want civilians and police on opposite sides. It may be less obvious that internationally we cannot let the Muslim world feel that we (the West) has turned all of them into our enemies, but it really shouldn't be. We do not need all of the Muslim world turned against us simply because one handful of nuts who happen to be Muslim has attacked us. But how ISIS would love it if they could create a schism between the West and all of Islam. Thank goodness that President Obama won't be duped into parroting the words Donald Trump wants him to say, words that will incite polarization and war between Muslims and the West.

 

[AnnaH]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

AGBF, I assume that your NRA statement is tongue in cheek. Still...

Why would you think my statement was tongue in cheek? First one poster thinks that I am serious when I say the Israelis might become anti-semites, although I used a winking icon. Then another poster thinks that after I have been arguing for days that the establishment ignores the basic rights, including the right to life, of people of color that I am kidding when I say the NRA is prejudiced. (Is my sense of humor that off?)

The NRA didn't want to say a word about the shooting of Mr. Castile, although he was alleged to have a gun permit. But they jumped on the opportunity to condemn the killings of the Dallas police officers. That's a double standard and the only variable between the innocent shooting victims is race. The NRA should have been front and center if it heard that someone who had a gun permit had been shot. If it turned out, later, he didn't have one, they could have apologized. If the victim had been white, that's sure what they would have done.


AGBF

The statement seems a blanket statement that all NRA members hate black people, and I didn't think that was really your opinion. If that is what you think, then my mistake.
No interest here in being an apologist for the NRA. However I do see a difference between the MN and Dallas incidents at this point in time. The MN shooting video looks like an execution. That was certainly my thought. But we didn't see the actual shooting. We have heard that there is more video. The Dallas shooting was very public. We know more about what happened at this point. The MN shooting may turn out to be an execution, an incompetent, panicked officer making a horrible mistake, or a justified shooting, which looks the most unlikely at this point.
That's not to say that the NRA couldn't have given a better response. Again. I have no interest in defending them. My point is just that I don't think every member of the NRA hates black people.
I still don't know if you are making a blanket statement about NRA members. I try to communicate clearly, but online discussions are often difficult, by their nature.
This is an important discussion. If we only communicate with those who share our views, where does that take us? However, I don't enjoy spitting in the wind.

 

[arkieb1]

I think there are two separate issues and one doesn't negate or reduce the sadness of the other. Firstly cops, medical workers, armed guards, even some teachers who work on the front line see and experience terrible things. I've have a friend who was a nurse who was attacked and raped while at work at a hospital, I had a teacher friend who was working at the same school as me who was stalked, had her apartment broken into by a male student and had to take out a court order that he not come near her at school because he was threatening to rape her.... and I know a policeman who was shot and almost killed. These people, particularly police, put themselves in harms way doing their job every day and it IS tragic for their families when something like this occurs.

The second issue is tackling the systematic racially driven tension and violence between mostly black males and the police in certain parts of your society. It is something we have examined here too, black/Aboriginal deaths in custody in Australia is a well known and documented problem in our society that we are trying to prevent.

In both societies, yours and mine young black kids in communities where there is high crime, violence and trouble in general, are taught from a very early age to be scared of cops, they know and think of police "as the other" and know to avoid and run from them from a very early age, so when you say mothers or fathers should teach their kids to co-operate with the police, this doesn't really take into account that many black children grow up from a very young age fearing the police and institutions like jails, hospitals, in some cases schools and so on. Many young people have an "us versus them" attitude ingrained in their core belief systems because of this from a very early age. In their teens and adulthood some question why it has to be like that. And the truth is sadly it shouldn't be.

It doesn't matter if you are black or white, if you are a young black male you should not have to be fearful of being shot by cops if you are questioned or in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if you are a suspect of a crime and are in the process of being arrested. Similarly if you are young male from a wealthy white family you should not think it your right to be able to harass or rape women.

One thing doesn't negate the other, it's sad that police doing their day to day job get senselessly gunned down and it's also sad that in your country many young black men have to be fearful of the police in some communities. Police need training on how to de-escalate situations when dealing with young black men, and similarly black community leaders in areas with high crime need to also work towards programs to both help reduce crime and to ensure the safety of both parties, to encourage and foster mutual respect of both groups particularly of their children and young men and programs that foster the safety and how if you are place in a situation of being a suspect (particularly if you have done nothing wrong) how to work with rather than antagonise the police.

 

[AGBF]

The statement seems a blanket statement that all NRA members hate black people, and I didn't think that was really your opinion. If that is what you think, then my mistake.

What you had wrong was that my posting was tongue in cheek; it was not. I was condemning the NRA. However, I would like to clarify something now. I most certainly do not think that "all NRA members" hate black people. I am well aware that there are a huge number of gun aficionados and other Americans who simply believe in the right to bear arms who are not racists and who are NRA members. I was referring to the NRA organization and infrastructure.

AGBF