Philando Castile case. Officer charged

[BigBlue]

If someone is denied a permit because they use a class 1 drug, they aren't also shot on the spot. Philando's drug use does not excuses Yanez from killing him.

Are you a proponent of constitutional carry? If so, does it really matter if Philando's permit is technically invalid? He went through the channels to obtain a permit, yet he is still a criminal in the eyes of so many.

So ... much... garbage...

Of course they aren't shot on the spot. Because in that situation they aren't the subject of a high-risk felony stop and doing things to raise the risk level by not listening to instructions by an officer. Now if they were...

And the constitutional carry comment is equally bunk. Even if there was constitutional carry there would still be limits, such as not being drunk or high at the time. Or not being previously convicted of a felony. Violate any one and, again, you're not legally carrying. That said, this situation was NEVER about legally carrying. It was about doing risky things that looked suspicious.

Listen, pretty much nobody likes what happened in this situation. But to use all the race and "didn't deserve to die" arguments I'm seeing all over is intellectually dishonest. He was not killed because he was black. He was not killed for a broken tail light. He was not killed because he was a robbery suspect. He was killed because his actions were viewed as a threat. You can debate the validity of that threat all day long but a jury of citizens listened to all the evidence and acquitted. They know more than any of us do.

[xd ED]

If someone is denied a permit because they use a class 1 drug, they aren't also shot on the spot. Philando's drug use does not excuses Yanez from killing him.

Are you a proponent of constitutional carry? If so, does it really matter if Philando's permit is technically invalid? He went through the channels to obtain a permit, yet he is still a criminal in the eyes of so many.

So ... much... garbage...

Of course they aren't shot on the spot. Because in that situation they aren't the subject of a high-risk felony stop and doing things to raise the risk level by not listening to instructions by an officer. Now if they were...

And the constitutional carry comment is equally bunk. Even if there was constitutional carry there would still be limits, such as not being drunk or high at the time. Or not being previously convicted of a felony. Violate any one and, again, you're not legally carrying. That said, this situation was NEVER about legally carrying. It was about doing risky things that looked suspicious.

Listen, pretty much nobody likes what happened in this situation. But to use all the race and "didn't deserve to die" arguments I'm seeing all over is intellectually dishonest. He was not killed because he was black. He was not killed for a broken tail light. He was not killed because he was a robbery suspect. He was killed because his actions were viewed as a threat. You can debate the validity of that threat all day long but a jury of citizens listened to all the evidence and acquitted. They know more than any of us do.

Well said.

If any good can come from this it will be a dialog and education (for those who don't understand how) to negotiate and survive a traffic stop.
That cannot happen if the focus remains on appearances as opposed to behaviors.

[FJ540]

What part of shall not be infringed is qualified by all the other feel-good statist crap you piled on after it?

Freedom of Speech is protected, but the misuse has consequences. Merely being in possession of a dangerous object when incapacitated to use it safely is not criminal; if it were, it would be illegal for an alcoholic to own a car.

[crbutler]

"Except by due process of law."

[FJ540]

We went to war with England over an unjust tax (valid law for a colony). What's your point about the law, and due process?

When does a free person relinquish their inalienable rights?

Nazi's followed the law too, didn't work out so well for the undesirable people there. What about their rights?

[crbutler]

Point is that there has been a long list of acts that have rights removed for committing them.

You said the first part, but the constitution does state "except by due process of law" for removing rights.

Felons being the classic example. Felons can't vote (well, that is changing.)...but until recently, poll taxes were considered legal...can't pay, can't vote. Now days, people who are legally incompetent are allowed to vote (that is what being
Court committed or having a guardian really means... you are incompetent...)

Although admittedly, back in the 1780's no one was disbarred most rights...because we executed them quickly once they were convicted of felony level crimes. Most murderers got the drop.

Near as I can tell, Castille should never have had a gun with him, and frankly, he lost all pity from me when he and his GF got all toked up and drove around with a young child.

You bring up the Nazis and what all...

Pray tell, can you name a functional anarchist society? (I.e. No restrictions on bad actors by the community?)

Oh, and an alcoholic can't buy a car if he does not have a license. Try buying one without a drivers license. It can be done, but folks are ignoring some laws and rules by so doing....

[FJ540]

The nanny state you embrace is a more recent development of human history. We made it thousands of years without it. What you deem is wrong might not be wrong for me and until I violate you somehow, you have no say in what I can do. That's what inalienable rights are.

Our justice system that you love so much makes long term outcomes out of potentially spontaneous behaviors as an intended deterrent, yet we still have all the crime. It's not working is it? All of your "need a permit" and "restricted persons" BS hasn't stopped anyone who's determined to acquire a firearm and use it for illegal purposes. It has removed the God Given Right of the individual to defend themselves though. Two wrongs make a right?

Here's an interesting piece which is relevant to the discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mulle ... 71434.html

[wasfuzz]

Merely being in possession of a dangerous object when incapacitated to use it safely is not criminal; if it were, it would be illegal for an alcoholic to own a car.

Again maybe I am looking at it differently than others, but by law he is not allowed to posses/use/own a firearm if he is an illegal drug user, so it would be illegal for him to have it in his possession if he is high or not!

[FJ540]

Donn, the current law is arbitrarily applied to firearms because some of you seem to think it's ok for people to need to ask Big Brother's permission to exercise your 2A rights and have made the laws of the land read as such. I'm arguing that the behavior is the illegal part and what you do it with is irrelevant (baseball bat, cleaver, woodchipper; etc - all are potentially lethal objects).

Legally speaking, he was a prohibited person. I do insist that law is unjust, with 2A backing that contention.

[crbutler]

Now you think I'm a nanny stater? That's rich....

Tell you what, as soon as folks accept responsibility for their financial actions or lack thereof, we can start talking about allowing felons to arm themselves against aggression, or legalizing mind altering substances.

Start with small steps, then we can see.

All rights are subject to restriction (prison is a violation of several of the bill of rights). Your arguement seems to be that it's ok to drive drunk until you kill someone

Castile was a legally prohibited person who had not had his rights taken from him... he brought his gun. He had a permit.

He got killed by bad behavior in the wrong place which seems to reinforce that the restrictions on drug users may not be that foolish.

[FJ540]

Alcoholic's can still own and be in possession of cars and alcohol, as long as they're not driving them while intoxicated. Not the case with drug users and firearms. Thus it's arbitrary enforcement based on a group of people's exertion of force over the rest of us.

How can you support this?

[FJ540]

These are 5mg straight oxycodone. Probably more potent than whatever Castile/Reynolds had in their jar (total volume considered, not individual dose), and while I would be wrong to be in possession of a firearm IF I had side effects from my prescription, it's not a federal offense which invalidates my permit to carry.

MN law says possession and use of cannabis is not illegal with doctor's permission (same reason my schedule 2 narcotics aren't illegal for me), federal law contradicts that.

In this instance the state/feds have outsourced their decision making to a 3rd party to validate which of us is lawfully in possession. The doctor is the only thing between me being legit and a felon.

Arbitrary.

[yukonjasper]

The ghost of Ayn Rand walks...........pure Liberatarian principles are as untenable as communism both assume total equity of intellect and purity of motivations. Naive and unrealistic.

[FJ540]

The ghost of Ayn Rand walks...........pure Liberatarian principles are as untenable as communism both assume total equity of intellect and purity of motivations. Naive and unrealistic.

It's ironic, they give me all the pain pills I want and I don't like taking them which is why I have so many left.

We can't have pure anarchy, but we can take a few steps back away from totalitarian rule.

We punish possible intent as possession of the means in select circumstances but not others. The objects aren't the problem, and we cannot premeditate justice to prevent crime without committing a violation in the attempt.

The state (our government as a whole) says certain people cannot have dangerous objects because they might use them to force another to act against their will: while using dangerous objects to force another person to not do something which they otherwise might. That's hypocrisy.

[xd ED]

This has become a thoughtful, and interesting to read conversation.
Nonetheless, it remains that the overarching component of events that got Castille shot was self destiny; short term ignorant/ stupid behavior brought on by long term ignorant/ stupid behavior, which no amount of law, or lack thereof can fix.