I just looked up, "Stop and Identify" states, Florida and Texas. Florida has such a law, but it only becomes effective after probable cause of a crime. Texas is said to NOT be a, "Stop and Identify" state, but the Texas Statute looks almost exactly the same as the Florida Statute.
Methinks the difference is either legal semantics or very small.

Wiki with map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Fla Statute 901.151:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.151.html

Texas Statute 38.02:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=29336

 

While not actually pertaining to the WOC, thing it involves it. And before my 'detractors' call BS, I'm a life long NRA member.

Why is it that in the past the NRA has called out every time a concealed carry permit holder was taken to court, and in many(most?) cases went to their defense with lawyers and lawyer payments. But in the Philando Castile killing they have never even said one thing. Why? Is the reason their desire to defend 'law and order' and 'bad policing' at any cost over riding their so called concealed carry support?

 

Why?

Because the client is already dead? I don't see much PR value in drawing attention to a concealed-carry incident that ended with the death of the carrier.

 

If Castile had a license, he was instructed to follow the police instructions during his course to get that license. In the released dash cam video, one clearly hears the officer tell him do not reach for the weapon, after the officer was informed he had a weapon, yet, Castile made a sudden move to reach for something.

How many times did the officer say "F&%k"?

 

I just looked up, "Stop and Identify" states, Florida and Texas. Florida has such a law, but it only becomes effective after probable cause of a crime. Texas is said to NOT be a, "Stop and Identify" state, but the Texas Statute looks almost exactly the same as the Florida Statute.
Methinks the difference is either legal semantics or very small.

Wiki with map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Fla Statute 901.151:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.151.html

Texas Statute 38.02:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=29336

I find it ironic that the colors red, white, and blue stand for freedom until they are flashing behind you.

 

If Castile had a license, he was instructed to follow the police instructions during his course to get that license. In the released dash cam video, one clearly hears the officer tell him do not reach for the weapon, after the officer was informed he had a weapon, yet, Castile made a sudden move to reach for something.

How many times did the officer say "F&%k"?

He told the cop he had a permit and was reaching to get the permit not his gun.

 

The killer's story is different today. He says he "feared for his life" because he smelled marijuana and that meant Castille was the kind of cold blooded killer that would expose a child to second hand smoke or shoot a police officer.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/06/22/philando-castiles-audacity-to-smoke-mari

Hang on. This isn't news. This has been the killer's story all along, but it was hidden from the public until today.

A transcript released Tuesday by Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reveals that former officer Jeronimo Yanez originally told investigators he shot Philando Castile seven times because the smell of marijuana made him fear for his life.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/cop-wh...ell-of-pot-made-him-fear-for-his-life/229158/

 

D.C. cops used ‘rape as punishment’
"grabbing their testicles and then inserting a finger into their anuses while “other officers laughed,”
https://thinkprogress.org/aclu-sees-dc-cops-over-inauguration-arrests-971b821c9480

Probably deserved it for being neutral observers at a protest event (according to JJ).
Or they said horrible things like, "I'm a lawyer." or, "I'm a news reporter."

Update: Lawsuit filed against police rapists:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/inauguration-protesters-sue-police-rectal-probes/229212/

 

He told the cop he had a permit and was reaching to get the permit not his gun.

I didn't know you were in the vehicle, at that moment, witnessing the event. Thanks for clearing that up.

The ONLY person knows exactly what Castile was reaching for is Castile. Not you, not me, not his GF, and not the COPS. How did Castile get a permit? His actions are not congruent with what is being taught in concealed carry classes.

 

The killer's story is different today. He says he "feared for his life" because he smelled marijuana and that meant Castille was the kind of cold blooded killer that would expose a child to second hand smoke or shoot a police officer.

Are you embellishing something? The word "cold" does not appear in the transcripts.

 

A good cop makes his case:

 

I didn't know you were in the vehicle, at that moment, witnessing the event. Thanks for clearing that up.

The ONLY person knows exactly what Castile was reaching for is Castile. Not you, not me, not his GF, and not the COPS. How did Castile get a permit? His actions are not congruent with what is being taught in concealed carry classes.

So it's down to who to believe. An eyewitness reporting in the moment, as it's happening, or a cop who is testifying after months of figuring out how to say things to save his a$$? And who knows if the dashcam video has been altered, being it was in the police custody until after the trial, not in public view like the girlfriends video. I know, no cop has ever perjured himself on the witness stand. You guys defending this stuff are just too unbelievable to people that interact with others every day, owith all different views and really look at the big picture of what is happening.

 

Because the client is already dead? I don't see much PR value in drawing attention to a concealed-carry incident that ended with the death of the carrier.

What about the PR value of going after the cop? They pick and chose to only do things that promote their agenda. When I first joined the agenda was the good of the members. Now the agenda is the promotions of (in no particular order) the police state, the conservative/tea party movement, the gun manufacturers, themselves. And if your not with most of the ideas your an enemy of the NRA.

 

So it's down to who to believe. An eyewitness reporting in the moment, as it's happening, or a cop who is testifying after months of figuring out how to say things to save his a$$?

The dash cam video was "as it happened" from the time the cop approached the vehicle till a period of time afterwards. Her video did not have any gunfire evidence and she provided the narrative post shooting.

[quotes]I know, no cop has ever perjured himself on the witness stand.[/quote]

I guess all witnesses are immune to perjury in you eyes. Anyone on the stand can commit perjury. Are you saying Yantz committed perjury?

And who knows if the dashcam video has been altered, being it was in the police custody until after the trial, not in public view like the girlfriends video.

I'm sure the dash cam video had a chain of custody. Do you have evidence of tampering or are you throwing out BS and hopes some of it sticks. The GF's video was streamed live, post shooting with her narrative. Maybe the police can release her interview transcripts so it can be compared against the video.

At the time, I supported due process. I still support due process. You are free to talk in the moment with disregard of the constitutional rights of those involved.

The transcript of the BCA interview was taken on July 7th, the same day of the shooting, not months. Months later was the adjudication.

You can believe what you want. There is no evidence of what he was reaching for. The home made video was post shooting. You have the cop shouting don't move ... and yet Castile did not comply.

The case has been adjudicated. Support appealing it you wish.

 

@12

Nice video. The author admits the timeline may not be set properly. The author does choose his words to illicit the response he wants. The author also states he "fixed" some of the officers responses and his own responses. He sounds more like a politician who wants the rights to revise and extend his comments. He is his own news promoter, in my opinion.

Don't believe everything you see on the internet. Use source documents.

The problem with laws is they are "created" and "voted up" by the citizens duly elected representatives. As such, the collective we approve the all the laws, even the one's we don't like, and the ability of the police officers to enforce those laws without prejudice.

Without prejudice in this case is no pre-judging the laws. Enforce them all equally.

 

This one is news, even to me. Can you be convicted of DUI if you do not sit in the driver's seat, do not put the keys in the ignition, do not start the engine, and do not drive?

Yes.

Perfect example of how our government has degenerated into a cash flow generator with no regard for truth, justice, or even the definition of, "driving". And, of course, it started with a LEO writing a ticket for DUI after checking the engine to find that there was no sign it had been running and neighbors confirmed the car had not moved all night.

For the first time, I will copy a comment from Youtube:
Jim Nesta1 year ago
This is absurd, it's so obvious that there was no intent on his part to drive while intoxicated. It is evident now that the criminal injustice system has degenerated to the point where the real intent of the law is to punish and control, rather than correct and protect. And we're supposed to have respect for a system like this?

 

this has instructions to jury - so why have police at all? all I get from them is perceived threat...

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-case-were-in-favor-of-acquitting-cop-report/

I am actually still trying to understand the verdict based on this definition of negligence and how they determined that he was not responsible... Is it that they deemed the officer to not be a reasonable prudent person perhaps? He is certainly not guilty of that...

How can this even be defended? If the officer smelled pot , he certainly did not mention it at the scene. The whole sequence is less than 3 min in total. He hands the cop his license and obviously reaches for his registration which is prob in his glove compartment where the officer would see a gun that he tells him about. The officer freaks. He does not give him further instructions, but just goes ahead and shoots the guy.

To the comment that Castile failed to follow what they teach you, I am sure he did, and so would 90% of the people in his situation.

Ever been pulled into a secondary at an airport and asked "why are you nervous"? oh, I don't know, because I am in a caged white room with armed people? Do you think I have anything to be nervous about, cause I think I do - I am not in control of my life, someone else is. And how my day goes depends on what they had for breakfast.

 

I can't remember where I said, "The war on drugs is just a business model", but here is more evidence. The FBI just busted the CIA smuggling drugs, some of which were "destroyed" California marijuana.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cia-agent-busted-running-massive-drug-smuggling-operation/

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/20...onvicted-of-lurid-crimes-that-never-happened/

Here's an article elaborating on that case and similar:
https://www.opednews.com/articles/1...lict_Justice-Denied_Siegelman-170623-847.html

 

This one is news, even to me. Can you be convicted of DUI if you do not sit in the driver's seat, do not put the keys in the ignition, do not start the engine, and do not drive?

Yes.

Perfect example of how our government has degenerated into a cash flow generator with no regard for truth, justice, or even the definition of, "driving". And, of course, it started with a LEO writing a ticket for DUI after checking the engine to find that there was no sign it had been running and neighbors confirmed the car had not moved all night.

For the first time, I will copy a comment from Youtube:
Jim Nesta1 year ago
This is absurd, it's so obvious that there was no intent on his part to drive while intoxicated. It is evident now that the criminal injustice system has degenerated to the point where the real intent of the law is to punish and control, rather than correct and protect. And we're supposed to have respect for a system like this?

I know this happens first hand. A friend from work had it happen to him. There was a retirement party held in a bar across the road from our plant, he attended it, but left his car parked in the plant parking lot and walked to the bar. He got too drunk to drive so he walked back across the street to sleep in his car. Being a FRI night his was the only car in the lot, private property after all. Cops on routine patrol decided to "investigate" the "suspicious" vehicle. When they woke him up to talk to him and found he had been drinking he was arrested on the spot, not driving, car not running, on private property. There reason to convict was he had the car keys in his pocket, so he possibly could have woke up and drove off. Protect and serve at the finest.