MN - Philando Castile, 32, shot by police officer, 6 July 2016 #1

[animlzrule]

Yes denial in the face of facts is a funny thing;

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/louisiana_house_protest.html

You need to read a little more carefully. The ultimate owner of the property may not have wanted the protestors there. The owner does not live on the premises, and now has asserted his right to ban protestors from his property. (I'm assuming, from his comments. It seems he also has a bias against people's constitutional rights to free speech and congregation) But, at the time, the tenant supported the protestors and describes these disturbing details: "They were pushing people I didn't even know into my house," she said of the police. "I addressed them (police), but they didn't answer me back."

"Batiste considers a few local police officers good friends. She respects law enforcement so she had asked all protesters who were taunting or cursing at the police to stop while standing on her property. And she said they agreed and were "very, very respectful" of both her and the officers.

So she was a little surprised when officers in protective vests and military-type outfits moved onto her property and started taking people into custody. Only one officer -- a personal friend who she recognized -- even talked to her during the confrontation. " Batiste and three other people living on the street said they didn't see any rocks being thrown at law enforcement by demonstrators. No video or pictures have surfaced of rocks or concrete being tossed by the protesters either" "And still other neighbors said they weren't so bothered by the protesters standing on their lawns, but more by the police being on their property. Judy Adams, who has lived in the neighborhood since the 1960s, said she wasn't comfortable with the officers milling about in her yard."


So yes, it does appear that the police instigated this incident, in an attempt to prevent people from peacefully congregating and protesting. It seems the witnesses reports are almost exclusively on the side of the protestors, and in direct contrast to police claims.

 

[drjones]

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/0...t-yard-is-not-a-sanctuary-from-police/490814/

“The police can’t charge into your house without a warrant, even if they have reason to believe that you have committed a crime,” says Esman. “There are guidelines to follow for reasonable suspicions, but that’s to make stops, not to make arrests. For arrests, they have to see you breaking the law in real time and then arrest you right when you are doing it. If they don’t and you leave, they can’t just walk onto someone’s property to make the arrest. Because it’s this woman’s [Batiste’s] property, and now her property rights have been violated. She certainly wasn’t suspected of any crime, and they didn’t arrest her.”


^i guess it isnt surprising that many people dont seem to understand the issue here, even ACLU lawyers and supposedly informed media consultants dont seem to understand it.


the protesters were not peaceful and legally assembled, and they had been told that many many times - it was declared an unlawful assembly and they were told to disperse, the police actually showed restraint and patience for most of the time and slowly tried to keep the protesters moving and give them chances to disperse.


they were blocking traffic, they were allowed to do this for quite a while, and then enough was enough.


they were not assembled on this property by invitation of the home owner, the police didnt just come by and start harassing them. they were ignoring the police order to disperse and only moved when forced to, when they went past this house a woman who lives there told them they could be on the property. somehow that is supposed to magically protect them from obeying police orders? they were not there with permission of the owner, the owner is actually quite upset that they were allowed onto the property.


what if this was your property and a tenant of yours invited 100+ people onto your property and it was damaged, would you be happy to hear the police stood by and watched it happen? regardless, your answer to that question does not even matter, because these people were actively breaking the law, and it was being tolerated by the police in hopes that things could end peacefully.


they were given countless chances to disperse, a legal order whether any individual likes it or not, and they did not do so, then they went onto private property and tried to say "cant touch us now".


wrong.

 

[animlzrule]

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/0...t-yard-is-not-a-sanctuary-from-police/490814/

“The police can’t charge into your house without a warrant, even if they have reason to believe that you have committed a crime,” says Esman. “There are guidelines to follow for reasonable suspicions, but that’s to make stops, not to make arrests. For arrests, they have to see you breaking the law in real time and then arrest you right when you are doing it. If they don’t and you leave, they can’t just walk onto someone’s property to make the arrest. Because it’s this woman’s [Batiste’s] property, and now her property rights have been violated. She certainly wasn’t suspected of any crime, and they didn’t arrest her.”


^i guess it isnt surprising that many people dont seem to understand the issue here, even ACLU lawyers and supposedly informed media consultants dont seem to understand it.


the protesters were not peaceful and legally assembled, and they had been told that many many times - it was declared an unlawful assembly and they were told to disperse, the police actually showed restraint and patience for most of the time and slowly tried to keep the protesters moving and give them chances to disperse.


they were blocking traffic, they were allowed to do this for quite a while, and then enough was enough.


they were not assembled on this property by invitation of the home owner, the police didnt just come by and start harassing them. they were ignoring the police order to disperse and only moved when forced to, when they went past this house a woman who lives there told them they could be on the property. somehow that is supposed to magically protect them from obeying police orders? they were not there with permission of the owner, the owner is actually quite upset that they were allowed onto the property.


what if this was your property and a tenant of yours invited 100+ people onto your property and it was damaged, would you be happy to hear the police stood by and watched it happen? regardless, your answer to that question does not even matter, because these people were actively breaking the law, and it was being tolerated by the police in hopes that things could end peacefully.


they were given countless chances to disperse, a legal order whether any individual likes it or not, and they did not do so, then they went onto private property and tried to say "cant touch us now".


wrong.

I'll trust my own eyes and ears, and the many, many eye witnesses who directly contradict the police claim.

 

[bluesneakers]

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/0...t-yard-is-not-a-sanctuary-from-police/490814/

From your link, BBM:

“The police can’t charge into your house without a warrant, even if they have reason to believe that you have committed a crime,” says [ACLU lawyer Marjorie] Esman. “There are guidelines to follow for reasonable suspicions, but that’s to make stops, not to make arrests. For arrests, they have to see you breaking the law in real time and then arrest you right when you are doing it. If they don’t and you leave, they can’t just walk onto someone’s property to make the arrest. Because it’s this woman’s [Batiste’s] property, and now her property rights have been violated. She certainly wasn’t suspected of any crime, and they didn’t arrest her.”

If that’s the case, then what happened may yet be another case of African Americans facing indignities on their own front yards and porches—a sacred and culturally significant gathering space for black women across the South, as researched by the New Orleans-based group Women With a Vision.

 

[drjones]

From your link, BBM:

exactly, thats why i quoted that section and included it in my post, to show how clueless the person who made that statement was and to point out how it didnt apply here. not to mention that it is partially incorrect regardless of the context.

 

[galiuro]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...-protests-draining-police-resources/87194986/

“We have both expressed strong concerns about the serial killer plaguing our city as he continues to victimize our Hispanic and African-American communities,” the statement said. “We have both raised concerns with the Phoenix Police Department about the amount of resources being devoted to these marches and protests when those resources should be focused on protecting all of our citizens.”

 

[human]

http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120205phoenix-area-sports-games-security-cost.html

Diamondbacks contract with police who direct traffic and provide some security outside Chase Field. The team reimbursed the city for less than a quarter of related costs over five years, leaving Phoenix with about a $3.3 million bill.

Phoenix police offer support to the Suns but spent about $830,000 after reimbursements from the NBA franchise.

Phoenix firefighters who provide emergency medical support and Maricopa County sheriff's deputies who work inside Chase Field get a better deal. Public records show both agencies are fully reimbursed by the Diamondbacks. Neither work for the Suns, who largely contract with private providers.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...sports-games-security-cost.html#ixzz4EdBGhnlq

 

[KaaBoom]

Yes denial in the face of facts is a funny thing;

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/louisiana_house_protest.html

The person quoted in that video wasn’t even a witness to what happened. :facepalm: But you are going to believe what you want anyway.

 

[drjones]

The person quoted in that video wasn’t even a witness to what happened. :facepalm: But you are going to believe what you want anyway.

i dont "want" to believe anything, and these discussions will probably go better if you leave those sorts of comments out.

i believe what the evidence supports, im not sure how to respond to your comment since there are multiple videos and multiple comments in them, and on them, in the link.

maybe if you can be more specific i can reply.

 

[KaaBoom]

i dont "want" to believe anything, and these discussions will probably go better if you leave those sorts of comments out.

i believe what the evidence supports, im not sure how to respond to your comment since there are multiple videos and multiple comments in them, and on them, in the link.

maybe if you can be more specific i can reply.

Important parts of the article.

Batiste, 49, hadn't even realized a protest was taking place Sunday night until she saw the streets around her house had been blocked off while she was out running errands. But Batiste and her daughter wanted to help the demonstrators once she realized what was going on.

That's how her house -- specifically her lawn and porch -- came to be plastered across local and national news reports for the next several hours.

Batiste estimates around 100 people took to her lawn and porch when law enforcement officers charged onto her property in riot gear. The demonstrators thought being on private property might keep them from being arrested. They were wrong.

"They were pushing people I didn't even know into my house," she said of the police. "I addressed them (police), but they didn't answer me back."

So she was a little surprised when officers in protective vests and military-type outfits moved onto her property and started taking people into custody.

Baton Rouge police didn't respond to an email or phone from a reporter for comment about why officers started arresting people on Batiste's property.

That is the only important information in the article. Other comments in the article made by someone who was not at the demonstration, and who was not present on the property that night, and didn’t see what happened, are not relevant to anything. Those comments wouldn’t be admissible in a court of law.

 

[drjones]

Important parts of the article.











That is the only important information in the article. Other comments in the article made by someone who was not at the demonstration, and who was not present on the property that night, and din’t not see what happened are not relevant to anything. Those comments wouldn’t be admissible in a court of law.

aha yes, thank you for making your thoughts clear. nothing i mention relies on the owner of the property being there at the time of the incident.

 

[galiuro]

http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120205phoenix-area-sports-games-security-cost.html

Diamondbacks contract with police who direct traffic and provide some security outside Chase Field. The team reimbursed the city for less than a quarter of related costs over five years, leaving Phoenix with about a $3.3 million bill.

Phoenix police offer support to the Suns but spent about $830,000 after reimbursements from the NBA franchise.

Phoenix firefighters who provide emergency medical support and Maricopa County sheriff's deputies who work inside Chase Field get a better deal. Public records show both agencies are fully reimbursed by the Diamondbacks. Neither work for the Suns, who largely contract with private providers.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...sports-games-security-cost.html#ixzz4EdBGhnlq

From 2012..

 

[bluesneakers]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...-protests-draining-police-resources/87194986/

“We have both expressed strong concerns about the serial killer plaguing our city as he continues to victimize our Hispanic and African-American communities,” the statement said. “We have both raised concerns with the Phoenix Police Department about the amount of resources being devoted to these marches and protests when those resources should be focused on protecting all of our citizens.”

It sounds to me like they just don't want to cover the protests. If they scaled back a little I'm sure no one would mind.

Maupin disagreed. He said Saturday that a connection between protests and a lack of police resources in Phoenix is a "fantasy." He said the city spent $200,000 to police each protest, which did not affect the serial-shooter investigation. Pointing to "government waste" as the culprit for any perceived lack of resources in the police, Maupin said the city should reassess its priorities.

"It's a fantastical thing. You can't blame non-violent protesters for the problems with policing in this city," Maupin said. "We should be diverting as many resources to it as possible, but $200,000 is not making or breaking catching the killer."

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Hmmm, I'd say being stopped without cause, under false pretenses, murdered, and then denied life saving basic aid pretty much qualifies as being treated like garbage. YMMV. As for false statements, I did not make erroneous/false claims about the value/proper use and or initiation of CPR. I'm not sure what the benefit is to anybody to pile on this victim for a situation he did nothing to provoke. Is this not a victim friendly site?

I have learned that on Websleuths, any time there is a shooting by police, the majority opinion seems to be that the police officer is the victim, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[Woodland]

I have learned that on Websleuths, any time there is a shooting by police, the majority opinion seems to be that the police officer is the victim, no matter what the circumstances.

A year ago I would have agreed with you. Today - not so sure. Imo, there has been a shift or, more are speaking out on their displeasure with shootings that do not appear justified.

The most positive change in my observation is, many have stopped making the 'accusation' that standing up to a bad or unjustified shoot does not equate to anti LE. That was a big hurdle.

 

[Trino]

http://www.startribune.com/blm-st-p...e-shopping-center-sunday-afternoon/386891321/

A 'Day of Rage' yep that's gonna help a whole lot...dont even listen to the Urban League's advice.

Police are shot and this movement's answer has been to ratchet up their rage...while even more cops are shot.

You can think you are 'writing history' but you have no freaking idea how this will be viewed 'in the future'...for now, these protests are NOT changing people's minds in the way you want them to. They are NOT bringing people to see 'your side' in a positive light at all.

Day of Rage seems to have fizzled.

 

[Dogface]

Day of Rage seems to have fizzled.

It may have fizzled, but I definitely felt some rage that day. I live really close to the church where services were held Friday for one of the murdered DPD officers. And on Fridays I always go to the sonic drive in over there to get my little one a milkshake for having a good week in school. Anyways, as I was driving, there was a small group of protestors, with signs saying "no justice, no peace" a guy in a black hoodie embroidered with black lives matter, and they were shouting chants at the group of officers in place to help manage traffic. I couldn't believe it. An officer who died protecting these protestors, and they had the nerve to show up with that agenda at his funeral? Yeah. I was pretty enraged.

 

[human]

It may have fizzled, but I definitely felt some rage that day. I live really close to the church where services were held Friday for one of the murdered DPD officers. And on Fridays I always go to the sonic drive in over there to get my little one a milkshake for having a good week in school. Anyways, as I was driving, there was a small group of protestors, with signs saying "no justice, no peace" a guy in a black hoodie embroidered with black lives matter, and they were shouting chants at the group of officers in place to help manage traffic. I couldn't believe it. An officer who died protecting these protestors, and they had the nerve to show up with that agenda at his funeral? Yeah. I was pretty enraged.

Some weird group like Westboro. They give Christians a bad name. Luckily people are saavy enough not to lump them in with all Christians

 

[Trino]

Protest Sunday at Rosedale Mall 1:00p, Roseville, MN. Protesters won't say exactly where in the mall, but it's not going to be difficult to figure out. The protest has been publicized so regular shoppers will, undoubtedly, stay away. The mall owner also said shops may close. If the purpose is to get people on their side, I just don't think this is the way to go.

 

[Woodland]

It may have fizzled, but I definitely felt some rage that day. I live really close to the church where services were held Friday for one of the murdered DPD officers. And on Fridays I always go to the sonic drive in over there to get my little one a milkshake for having a good week in school. Anyways, as I was driving, there was a small group of protestors, with signs saying "no justice, no peace" a guy in a black hoodie embroidered with black lives matter, and they were shouting chants at the group of officers in place to help manage traffic. I couldn't believe it. An officer who died protecting these protestors, and they had the nerve to show up with that agenda at his funeral? Yeah. I was pretty enraged.

Fwiw, in my life experience, rage creates deafness and blindness. You were enraged? So was the protester you were enraged about. You can't see or hear that? It's possible that the protester can't see or hear your rage above their rage.

You can't see or hear the point of the 'other' side? 'They' can't see yours. The beat goes on. Different choices will create different results.

Jmo.