Political Crossfire Forums

Again, the other officer never saw a firearm. He was right there, looking right at the driver and his right side. He never saw anything that was dangerous and was surprised when Yanez started shooting. The inconsistencies in Yanez's statement brings into doubt his state of mind during the incident. I do not think he was rational at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't actually remember much that was genuine. He had a complete panic attack and did something that was the definition of unreasonable and anybody watching the video and familiar with the testimony of the other officer knows it.

The jurors disagreed, but I suspect they were swayed by a misunderstanding - there is, as far as I know (maybe the lawyers can chime in) no actual requirement that jurors must vote a certain way based on the ability of the prosecutors to prove a negative. Yanez said he saw a gun... fine. Does this compel the jurors to decide that any officer who claims to see a gun is acting reasonably? How? Would all reasonable officers in that condition light the guy up? Because there is an officer standing on the other side of the car witnessing the same thing happen and not even reaching for his gun.

Come on now. You know this is a gross injustice and you are deluding yourself into believing it's not.

In certain cases, having thugs in the family seems to be paying off well these days.

he's calling castile a "thug" because the family received a 3 million dollar settlement from the city

odd coincidence how every black person shot by police is a thug to you.