I know next to nothing of US laws, but

i) It sure looks like Yanez was in fear for his life
ii) It sure looks like it was unreasonable for him to be afraid for his life

I do not know if this is enough to convict him if we follow US law. If it is not, then the law should be changed.

Also, at no point in my life has anyone pointed a gun at me (I live in a normal country, after all) but if someone did, I would probably be extremely nervous.

It seems unreasonable to require that civilians behave calmly and rationally while having a gun pointed at them (in order not to make the cop nervous, you see) or get shot, while (presumably trained) police officers can shoot someone because they unreasonably be afraid for their lives, and then get away with it.

Oh, that one.

Excuse me, I understand that race played a part, just not as if the cop sees black man, 'knows' black man is a dangerous felon, and is scared. It was cop associates black man with a specific crime, and jumps to a conclusion. This doesn't happen with white people.

But I ain't deleting anything. Why'd I delete a post on a forum talking with random people.

legal system is easier on cops. there's more leniency when it comes to what is reasonable i think.

no lawyer. just observing other comments on the web and a lot of them seem to say something like that.

And whenever interacting with the police or prosecutors or judges. The only place black folks can safely be black is in prison.

Admittedly I do want to think better of this cop because I can sympathize with what was going on in his head.

And I probably need to know more about him before I can reform my opinion. I'm not defending him at this point, just defending the idea of the cop I had in mind.

white parents should make their kids wear blackface

nah

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hootings-2017/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hootings-2016/

we're on a similar pace

You guys get it.

Like when they give kids a baby doll for a weekend that poops and cries and needs to be fed every two hours. This weekend you're black, enjoy! Next weekend you're gay and after that you start losing limbs and senses.

His posts jump too quickly to that conclusion, yes

Slight preference for whites for my results.

Please list the stop(s) for which reasonable suspicion was clearly lacking, and explain why it was lacking. Otherwise this remark about "continuously harassed" is improper.

You can't know that. In fact, the jury unanimously decided that he did something quite more dangerous than merely "odd." Otherwise, they would not have been able to decide the way they did.

Race was not the reasonable suspicion the officer articulated to try to rule out this man as one of the robbers for which the police were looking. The Supreme Court has long ago given its seal of approval to pretextual stops that are designed to ferret out the real crime.

That is a completely different case and set of facts and should not be held in favor of the defendant nor against him. Said defendant permanently enshrined in a cloak of innocence by our criminal justice system, the best in the world. In fact, that's the only sure fact that unites these cases--both shooters are innocent.

Twelve people of diverse race and gender agreed with the officer that it was reasonable.

No, the acquittal is predictable because the officer obviously did not wake up that day with murder on his mind or heart, and certainly not with any desire to kill the man he, in fact, did end up killing. Jurors know that police insert themselves into these tough calls because we demand it of them, and so the reciprocity is that unless you really **** it up, you are going to get the benefit of the doubt. Notice this analysis is free of racial implications. The same thing that happened in this case could have happened if the deceased had been Native American and the shooter had been black.

It most certainly is not limited to being reasonable only to those who are prejudiced against black folks, especially considering an entire jury found it reasonable, two of whom were black!

The libertarian in me would love to agree with you on this, but the fact is the police were doing their job in stopping for a traffic violation and keeping in mind that two robbers are on the loose. There was a reason for this stop, just as there was a reason for the other stops you mentioned, and it wasn't merely to harass, let alone to harass on the basis of race.

I think Senator Rand Paul himself would join me in disagreeing with your assertion here.

It certainly would have taken the edge off given that nobody in the vehicle could have been the robbers, but who really knows how it would have ended up? If after being told to stop you keep reaching and grabbing with a grip that comports with a gun and sure enough the gun is in your pocket, you can't expect the officer to wait and see if they are shot first before shooting to stop the imminent threat.

Thank you for a good post opening the discussion in a logical, clear way. I hope to engage in a friendly way with you again in the future, and I invite others to join our civil discourse here within the rules of this site.

He left out a black juror.

Oh, do I love this...Let's investigate the investigators...

I forgot, which side is James Comey allegedly on now?

It occurs to me upon reading his posts that Zorkman is quite unfamiliar with many of the important facts of the case being discussed.

I think you might want to steer clear of suggesting that the police are justified in being frightened of black people to the point of shooting them for no reason if you want people to think you're not a racist.

They also offed a woman in her own home who had called them out for a burglary incident. They knew she had mental health issues; she was well known to them.

She is said to have been wielding a knife, probably convinced she was facing dangerous intruders. She wasn't wrong, hey?

Thank **** white people never commit any crimes or we'd truly be living in a dystopia.

Believe me, that's abundantly clear.

The only thing worth responding to in Zorkman's post is this:

This paragraph is chockers with lies.

1. He told the policeman he was not reaching for a gun but getting his wallet.
2. He was not "reaching and grabbing" for anything.
3. His gun was not "in his pocket". It was in the small of his back. He never touched a gun, certainly never "grabbed" one.
4. The policeman gave him no opportunity to respond to his demand he not pull out his wallet but shot him as he was shouting it.

lol

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-st...black-officer/

Can i make the very obvious point: withput legalised handguns, the police will still be racist but not as deadly scared in routine civic duties.

I left out two. I was showing the other ten to make a point. Your post was a complete lie. 10/12 being white is not diverse.

Yeah

They could also not pull over as many people or without better PC if they can't do routine policing without shooting