The NRA Ad

There are many reasons why, despite being a zealous supporter for the Second Amendment, I am not a member of the NRA. There is their support for the militarization of police and their unblinking support for police in all matters — as exemplified by their total silence on the Philando Castile matter. There is their response to school shootings, which involves putting armed officers in every school. There is their willingness to crush every other Amendment in the Constitution besides the one they like — especially the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I can not abide an organization that says that the Second Amendment is necessary to prevent tyranny while happily allowing a tyrannical state apparatus to be put into place. And now there’s this, a deranged conspiratorial ad designed to make Americans feel terrified because liberals are saying nasty things about the President; an ad that seems to embrace police crackdowns on protest. These are not the words of an organization that is devoted to freedom. These are the words of an organization trying to cash in on fear. So I’ll side with them when they’re right on opposing gun control. But I can’t side with them on this nonsense.

This is one of the things that I have found bothersome about the Right Wing since about 2004. I understand being angry when your’e out of power. But the anger doesn’t seem to subside when we’re in power. If anything, it intensifies.

Comments are closed.

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    Unfortunately the NRA seems to have marginalized itself over to the extreme because they don’t have the political savvy or influence with the mainstream Republicans they once did. They’ve become all about their own cause and nothing else.

    Thumb up 1

  2. richtaylor365

     as exemplified by their total silence on the Philando Castile matter. 

    And what exactly would you have them say or do in this matter? Would not the prudent thing to do, let the process play out to conclusion, or would you prefer they shoot from the hip and spout off a fact less based  agenda driven opinion like what all the left wing media pundits did?

     And now there’s this

    So what in that ad got you all cranky, what was not factual? Was it the ,”Clinched fist of truth” that got you all constipated? I’m sure you know that the “Clinched fist” image is part and parcel of the “resist” movement. Do you feel threatened by the fist, you had no problem with the resistance using it, why now?

    a deranged conspiratorial ad designed to make Americans feel terrified because liberals are saying nasty things about the President

    That’s all you got out of that ad? Figures

    an ad that seems to embrace police crackdowns on protest

    “Protests” that break the law, destroy property and endanger the lives of those around them? Damn right. OR would you rather have them emulate Berkeley PD, give the mob what they want and allow carnage and mayhem willy nilly? I guess I have a different take on what peaceful protests involve.

    These are the words of an organization trying to cash in on fear

    You could be right here, although I think this is was more a political spot than a fund drive for members, more of a ,”Let the voices of the  decent law abiding be heard as well” push. But yes, an image of ,”You might get caught in the cross hairs of their blood lust some day, and if you do, don’t expect the cops to help, people like Hal want them to stay in their patrol cars and let the perpetually aggrieved have the streets”, that image might be subliminal.

    But the anger doesn’t seem to subside when we’re in power

    Forgive me if I recoil when you attach “we” and “Right Wing”. So decent law abiding tax paying job holding citizens should  not be angry that out of control anarchists are setting cars on fire, torching businesses and assaulting folks, or that an agenda driven media is fomenting hate through their fake news to the point of inciting the deranged to gun down their perceived political enemies at a softball charity event practice?

    OT, congrats CM on the America’s Cup win, it was a masterful performance, one for the ages. I watched a few of the races, it was men toying with boys, well done.

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  3. CM

    The head of the NRA said: “academic elites, political elites, and media elites. These are America’s greatest domestic threats”. Oh look. The NRA has become the Khmer Rouge.

    Thumb up 3

  4. CM

    Thanks Rich. A couple of weeks of severe national anxiety given what happened 4 years ago in your backyard…..big parade here this week.

    Thumb up 3

  5. Hal_10000 *

    And what exactly would you have them say or do in this matter? Would not the prudent thing to do, let the process play out to conclusion

    The process did play out to conclusion. The officer was let off. The video shows Castille did exactly what he was supposed to do.  And the officer panicked and shot him anyway within seconds.

    Thumb up 2

  6. richtaylor365

    The video shows Castille did exactly what he was supposed to do.

    Nonsense, unless you have another video that the jury did not see. Were you in that car? How the hell do you know that he ,”did exactly what he was supposed to do”? Maybe the officer was ,”let off” because there was not sufficient evidence to convict. Even the black jurors were in favor of acquittal.

    And you still did not answer my question. You slammed the NRA for their ,”total silence”, what did you expect them to do or say other than wait until all the facts are in and let the process play out?

    Thumb up 0

  7. ilovecress

    These are the words of an organization trying to cash in on fear. So I’ll side with them when they’re right on opposing gun control. But I can’t side with them on this nonsense.

    Um… I guess my assumption was that this wasn’t about politics, or the second amendment. This is for the gun manufacturers to boost sales. I’m going to guess that Gun Sales have dipped since Hillary didn’t win the presidency, and they needed the boost.

    It’s the Gun Manufacturers version of the Pepsi ad.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Hal_10000 *

    Careful, Rich. You’ll strain something stretching like that. Are you expecting me to believe that Castille, a law-abiding citizen and licensed gun carrier, suddenly decided to shoot it out with two officers with a kid in the back seat? By “did what he was supposed to do”, I mean what the law in many states and the NRA itself says CC holders are supposed to do: tell the officer they have a gun so that its revelation doesn’t cause problems.  A law-abiding licensed CC holder was shot within seven seconds of telling the cop he had a gun.  The gun was still holstered; he was reaching for his ID. If the NRA gave a shit about gun rights, they would be screaming (as most principled conservatives are). They should be calling right now for changes to officer training for how to deal with legal gun owners.

    Juries almost always acquit cops on the rare occasions prosecutors indict them. Because they are told that the law is that if the cop had any fear for his life — reasonable or not — the shooting is justified. They can jump out of cars and shoot 12 y/os.  They can shoot fleeing men in the back.  But as long as they say, “I was afraid for my life” they will be acquitted.

    That never applies to us, of course. Whenever a shooting like this happens, we’re told about how dangerous the job is and the fog of war and all that shit.  But we the citizen are expected to react perfectly in every situation. Every time someone is gunned down by a cop, apologists come out of the woodwork to say, “Well, he did this and he said that and you can’t do that around a cop”.  As if cops are rabid bears and any sudden movement might get you killed. If the cops batter down your door in the middle of the night, mistake your gun for a phone and shoot you, it’s justified. If you mistake them for robbers and shoot back, you’re a murderer.

    We are on pace for 1200 people to shot by cops this year. But, I know, every single one is justified. None are preventable.  People just have to know that when going about their business, they just might get shot because them’s the breaks.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Hal_10000 *

    “Protests” that break the law, destroy property and endanger the lives of those around them?

    Yes, that’s what all the protests are.  Like the Women’s March. Oh wait, that was entirely peaceful but folks Sheriff Clarke wanted it to be cracked down on.  Or the March for Science.  Oh, wait, peaceful too. Well, there was that play in NYC.  Oh wait, that was Julius Caesar and the play is explicitly against political violence.  Well, there’s Antifa.  Yeah, they’re violent.  I mean, granted they’re like 1% of the opposition to Trump.

    Honestly, Rich, you guys are no better than the liberal media you despise. For years, they would take pictures of some asshole with a racist sign and claim it represented the entire Tea Party. And you guys take some Antifa thugs and claim they represent everything OMG the country is being torn apart!

    Ridiculous.

    Thumb up 2

  10. richtaylor365

    Careful, Rich

    I am being careful, trying to formulate reasonable thoughtful responses based on my own  experiences in this matter and the clear evidence we have on this particular case, but you dismiss it all with ,” you guys are no better than the liberal media you despise”, thus aligning me with the comments of a group I may not totally agree with, so lazy.

     Are you expecting me to believe that Castille, a law-abiding citizen and licensed gun carrier, suddenly decided to shoot it out with two officers with a kid in the back seat?

    I expect you to park your past prejudices at the door and evaluate only the evidence in front of you. The first thing they teach you in CCW class is to 1) keep your hands in plain sight, 2) advise the officer that you have a weapon, and 3) tell the officer you have a legal license permit to carry, the evidence clearly shows Castille only did one of these.

    he was reaching for his ID

    And you know this how? Please provide some evidence of this claim.

    Juries almost always acquit cops on the rare occasions prosecutors indict them. 

    Johannes Mehserle, Michael Slager and this list of 10 other officers sitting in prison cells presently wish you were right.

    That never applies to us, of course. Whenever a shooting like this happens, we’re told about how dangerous the job is and the fog of war and all that shit.  But we the citizen are expected to react perfectly in every situation. Every time someone is gunned down by a cop, apologists come out of the woodwork to say, “Well, he did this and he said that and you can’t do that around a cop”.  As if cops are rabid bears and any sudden movement might get you killed. If the cops batter down your door in the middle of the night, mistake your gun for a phone and shoot you, it’s justified. If you mistake them for robbers and shoot back, you’re a murderer.

    Feel better now? I’ll give you a minute. Far be it for me to inject some facts to counter a rant but the sad fact is that almost one third of all cop killings result from car stops, primarily due to the confined spaces and lack of visibility. ALL police shootings are investigated, and some are deemed unjustified and reckless. TBH, I counted about half a dozen tactical/officer safety mistakes this officer made and will concede that some probably contributed to Castille’s death. But here is the bottom line Hal, whether you like it or not, if you are going to send a man to prison for a very long time, you better have ironclad irrefutable facts that comply with all of the elements of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. That high bar is necessary for everyone. It was not met in this case, even the black jurors admitted as much.

    You are so easily duped by preemptive false narratives, that even cursory due diligence is ignored. Whoever tells the first news story that fits the media’s narrative, that is the winner. “Hands up, don’t shoot”……a lie, George Zimmerman shot that poor boy for no good reason (except he was getting his ass kicked and really did fear for his life)…..a lie, letting the investigation play out, no need, we know what happened.

    “Protests” that break the law, destroy property and endanger the lives of those around them?

    Yes, that’s what all the protests are

    That dang English comprehension thingee tripping you up yet again. You do understand that  the word “that” in my comment is a qualifier, linking protests and actually do break the law? That whole paragraph was wasted since nowhere have I  claimed that ALL protests break the law.

     And you guys take some Antifa thugs and claim they represent everything OMG the country is being torn apart!

    More ridiculous nonsense. Please show how my statement of wanting a police presence when riots are taking place, how this translates anything close to ,”The country is being torn apart”, histrionics much?

    Thumb up 1

  11. Hal_10000 *

    Johannes Mehserle, Michael Slager and this list of 10 other officers sitting in prison cells presently wish you were right.

    It says right in the link that such prosecutions are rare. Those convictions span 20 years, during which 20000 people were killed by police.  So you really think the error rate is 1 in a thousand?

    if you are going to send a man to prison for a very long time, you better have ironclad irrefutable facts that comply with all of the elements of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    A standard that is not applied to citizens. Why Cory Maye thought the cops breaking into his house were robbers and killed one, he as sentenced to death w/o establishment most of the aspects of the crime. If Castille had been the one panicking and shooting someone, he’d be facing a death sentence right now. I’m sure his family appreciate your calm evaluation of tactical errors. I’d just as soon we not having panicky cops blowing people’s heads off.

    Do you not see the double standard? The cop made “tactical mistakes” and is not punished. Castille, you say — without any evidence — made mistakes in how he broached the subject of the gun. His sentence was execution.

     letting the investigation play out, no need, we know what happened.

    In the Zimmerman case, I did. In the Brown case, I admitted that the hands-up narrative was false once the DOJ report came out. In this case, the investigation is finished. We don’t need to let it play out. We know that an officer panicked and shot a law-abiding citizen within seven seconds and neither you nor the NRA think he should pay a price for that. Talk about english comprehension.

    histrionics much?

    Says the man defending an ad that is noting but histrionics.

    Thumb up 3

  12. TxAg94

    Why is it surprising that there is a disproportion between who is found to be in the wrong when it comes to cops versus “alleged” criminals?  More and more I hear this sentiment that it seems unfair that cops are “always let off”.  That seems to be what we should hope would happen.  I honestly would be so much more nervous if cops were found to be unjustified on a more regular basis.  I’m certainly not saying there’s not a (natural) bias.  I also concede that given the circumstances, and the evidence and testimony that is available and verifiable, that at the very least the cop passes the “shadow of a doubt” part.

    To me arguing that it’s unfair that cops get off way more often that not is comparable to complaining that airliners don’t crash more frequently.  That’s kinda what we expect and want, I think.

    Again, I honestly don’t get into these shooting cases because I know I was not there and can never know the totality of the event. There have been a few where I know enough to think justice was not ultimately done.  I admit that.  But it is exceedingly rare, which is why it is so glaring.  In a weird way I’m thankful for that.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

     It says right in the link that such prosecutions are rare

    As it should be, if you are going to convict someone of murder, you better have all your ducks in a row. I realize that the most dangerous situation you will face at work is a paper cut, but as my list (not a complete list BTW) provided shows, when they do stray out of policy and elements of a crime exist, prosecutions (and convictions) do occur.

     Those convictions span 20 years, during which 20000 people were killed by police.  So you really think the error rate is 1 in a thousand?

    First off, you will have to provide a link for that 20,000 number. I found this that documents about 3,000 killed in the last decade, this includes on and off duty, so an off duty drunk cop T-bones a family of four, these fatalities get lumped into the list of those killed by cops.

     I’d just as soon we not having panicky cops blowing people’s heads off.

    Except that you don’t have any proof that he did this, just more histrionics on your part.

    Do you not see the double standard? The cop made “tactical mistakes” and is not punished.

    He was fired, not punishment enough for you? The tactical mistakes part is trickier for me. This is how I look at it, did any of those mistakes in and of themselves directly lead to an unlawful killing? If the answer is yes, to any of them, then a conviction is warranted. If Castile had kept is hands on the steering wheel, if he had notified the officer that he was licensed to carry a gun and where that permit was, if he had told the officer where the gun was and made no gesture towards that weapon, if he complied with the officers commands, he would be alive today. Again, you learn all this when you take the course to apply for the CCW permit. One (of many) mistakes the officer made was that the second Castile told him he had a weapon, the officer should have alerted his partner to this fact and immediately commanded hands on the steering wheel. He then should have removed Castile from the car, hands in plain sight, and removed the weapon himself. Now it is possible that he would have done this but Castile reaching for the weapon escalated things considerably. I will admit that it is possible Castile was going for his wallet and that the officer did panic, a possibility for sure, but you can’t convict on a possibility, surely you can see that.

    Castille, you say — without any evidence — made mistakes in how he broached the subject of the gun.

    But I do have evidence, we can hear the conversation and at no time did he notify the officer that he was legally licensed to carry. And we hear the officer warning Castile not to reach for the weapon so we know  a furtive movement was made.

    We know that an officer panicked and shot a law-abiding citizen within seven seconds and neither you nor the NRA think he should pay a price for that.

    No, we don’t know for sure that he panicked and don’t presume to speak for me on whether he should “pay a price” since you never really asked me about that.

     

    Thumb up 0

  14. Hal_10000 *

    I found this that documents about 3,000 killed in the last decade, this includes on and off duty, so an off duty drunk cop T-bones a family of four,

    Holy shit, wikipedia? Try again. Even if the FBI tracks several hundred police killings a year and their database is entirely voluntary. Here is the Guardian’s database which they created because literally no one was tracking this info. They are also going back through past reports and finding roughly a thousand a year.  Over the last 12 years, charges have been brought in only 54 cases and convictions in 11.

    But I do have evidence, we can hear the conversation and at no time did he notify the officer that he was legally licensed to carry.

    Yeah. Clearly his fault. He had a whole seven seconds to do that.

    Thumb up 2

  15. Hal_10000 *

    Timeline of events:

    09:05:48 – Yanez asks for proof of insurance; Castile provides it

    09:05:52 – Castille says he has a firearm. Yanez says OK and grabs his gun.

    09:05:55 – Yanez says “don’t pull it out”. Castille says, “I’m not pulling it out.” Yanez screams “don’t pull it out”

    09:06:00 – Yanez opens fire. Castile’s gun is still holstered.

    Yep. Clearly Castile’s fault. If only he’d screamed “IMALICENSEDGUNOWNERPLEASEDONTSHOOTMESIR” fast enough while putting his hands up, he’d still be alive.

    Thumb up 2

  16. richtaylor365

    Holy shit, wikipedia?\

    holy shit, your numbers are bogus;

     Seventy-seven officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter since 2005, according to data collected and analyzed by Stinson’s research group:

    • 26 were convicted;

    • 28 were not convicted;

     

    • 23 still have criminal cases pending.

    About a 50 percent conviction rate, so much for the ,”They all walk” trope.

    09:06:00 – Yanez opens fire. Castile’s gun is still holstered.

    Here we go again, seems like a recurring theme, you making unsubstantiated claims with me asking ,”How do you know this? Please provide proof, anything at all, that this is in fact what happened.”

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365

     Yeah. Clearly his fault. He had a whole seven seconds to do that.

    Yes, as documented above, there were a number of actions on his part that if he had done differently would have prevented this tragedy. Ditto with the officer, for his poor tactics. The difference we have is that you want to convict him of murder when clearly the elements of that crime were not satisfied, as the jury (including the black jurors) enumerated in their decision to acquit.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Hal_10000 *

    You know, Rich, I love it when you link to sources that prove everything you say is wrong. That link claiming my numbers are bogus says 1000 shootings a year, compared to your 300 or less.  It shows 23 more charges and 15 more convictions than the previous report — from the same person — out of more than 10000 shootings during that time.   So good job debunking yourself.

    you making unsubstantiated claims with me asking ,

    Christ, have you not watched the dashcam video? Are you just unfamiliar with the facts of this case at all?  Go watch the video. Seven seconds transpires between when Castile says he has the gun and he gets shot, half of which is occupied by Yanez shouting at him.  The incident report specifically said Castile’s gun was still in his pocket.  You wanna keep going with your line of bullshit here?

    And he wasn’t even charged with murder. Second degree manslaughter. They couldn’t even convict him of that.

    Thumb up 2

  19. Hal_10000 *

    Here is the dacham video. You can go to 1:10 for when Castile says he has a firearm. The shooting starts at 1:16. Tell me where Castile was supposed to do all this shit you said he should do.

    Thumb up 2

  20. richtaylor365

    So good job debunking yourself

    But it was you I was debunking and nice fail yet again on English comprehension. Let’s recap, you claimed the 20,000 number as gospel (still unproven BTW), I asked for a link since all I could find was the 3000 (not 300, you couldn’t even get that right) number for the last decade (not verifying the veracity of that number, only that it was all I could find) so no, I did not debunk myself. But I certainly did debunk your crap numbers of only 54 cases with 11 convictions.

    Christ, have you not watched the dashcam video?

    Yes, that is why I was incredulous at all your bullshit assertions. Again, lets recap;

    1) You said he Castile “Did exactly what he was supposed to do” , you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    2)You said the officer panicked, you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    3)You said Castile was reaching for his ID, you don’t know that and can’t prove that (You seeing a pattern here?)

    4) Now you say that Castile’s gun was holstered with a later assertion that some incident report verified as much, provide the incident report. If you can’t then the same applies, you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    It’s real simple Hal, if you want to be taken seriously then don’t claim something you can’t prove.

    And why all the yammering about 7 seconds? If Castile went for his gun after 2 seconds I suspect the same outcome would have occurred, why is 7 second so important to you?

     

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365

    Let me try a different approach, since you still don’t grasp the claim/proof relationship. If I was to claim that Castile absolutely did not comply with ALL instructions, was not reaching for his wallet or that the officer did not panic and absolutely saw Castile going for his gun, you would have every right to question my claims and ask for proof……..and I could offer none. In all those things there is doubt, the jury saw doubt,  and no evidence existed that could address those doubts to one certainty or the other. That is why the jury acquitted, and that is why I keep pinning you down for saying stuff you can’t prove.

    Thumb up 1

  22. richtaylor365

    Since the original post had to do with your ruffled sensibilities over an NRA ad, it’s only fair to let the narrator respond;

    Thumb up 0

  23. Hal_10000 *

    1) You said he Castile “Did exactly what he was supposed to do” , you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    “Officer, I have a gun.”
    “Don’t take it out.”
    “I’m not taking it out.”
    “Blam!”

    What else was he supposed to do?

    2)You said the officer panicked, you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    Drawing your gun, firing within seconds at a man with his gun in his pocket and a child in the back seat, then screaming “fuck” for the next five minutes. Yeah, why would I assume he panicked? Calm, cool, collected. That was him.

    3)You said Castile was reaching for his ID, you don’t know that and can’t prove that (You seeing a pattern here?)

    Based on his statement before being shot and his girlfriend’s statement after the shooting.

    4) Now you say that Castile’s gun was holstered with a later assertion that some incident report verified as much, provide the incident report. If you can’t then the same applies, you don’t know that and can’t prove that.

    JFC, do I have to do your research for you? Here, Here. Here. Jesus.

    why is 7 second so important to you?

    Because you keep going back to this line of shit about Castile’s mistakes. And I keep emphasizing that he didn’t have any time to do the “right” thing. The cop shot him almost immediately … with his gun still in his pocket.

    Now, Rich, let’s properly recap:

    I provided hard evidence from people gathering precise data that we have about a thousand cop shootings a year. Over 20 years, that’s 20000 people (20 x 1000 = 20000; see how that works). You responded with a link to a poorly sourced wikipedia article then with a link that admits to 1000 killings a year. So I was right, you were wrong.

    You provided a link to a dozen police convictions over a 20 year span. I provided a link of 54 prosecutions and 11 convictions. You responded with a link from a later post, based on further research showing 77 prosecutions and 28 convictions (conviction rates in non-cop cases are generally around 90%). If you want to declare victory because the tiny number of convictions is slightly less tiny than I initially said (linking to documented research) knock yourself out.

    You then declare that is reasonable for a cop to shoot a citizen within seven seconds of finding out that citizen has a legal gun. You can’t be bothered to look at the testimony or records that confirm that Castile’s gun was in his pocket. You think it’s immaterial that his law-abiding citizen and license gun carrier had exactly seven seconds to comply with whatever order the cop screamed at him before shooting. You completely discount any testimony from his girlfriend that he was getting his ID or himself when he said he was not going for his gun. Or the testimony from other officers and paramedics that his gun was “deep in his pocket”, which is evidence that he wasn’t pulling his gun (and contradicts Yanez’s testimony that he saw the gun coming out).

    I’m done arguing this subject with you since you are clearly determined to justify the cop no matter what. If you or I shot someone in this circumstance, a manslaughter conviction would be the minimum we would get. But you think a cop can go from zero to killing in seven seconds and if he loses his job, that’s punishment enough.

    Thumb up 2

  24. richtaylor365

    What else was he supposed to do?

    Asked and answered, more than once in the above comments.

     I assume he panicked?

    Assumed? Well,  at least I finally got you off your certitude with a ,”I think this is what happened”……….baby steps. Yanez testified that he saw Castile’s hand on the weapon and was taking it out, please don’t tell me that you know for a fact (and can prove) that this did not happened.

    Based on his statement before being shot and his girlfriend’s statement after the shooting.

    Not correct. Castile never said ,”I’m reaching in my wallet to pull out my license”, don’t make shit up. Yanez asked for Castile’s license and insurance, after a few seconds Castile gives the officer some papers. Do you know what these papers were? Do you know that Castile did not provide his license with the insurance but had his license in his wallet and was reaching for that and not his weapon? No, you don’t.

    do I have to do your research for you? HereHereHere. Jesus.

    Quit whining, if you are going to make a claim, it is not unreasonable to ask you to back it up with a link. Now, let’s examine your links. The first one mentioned nothing about a holster, only that the gun was in Castile’s pocket. The second link makes no mention of where the gun was or anything about a holster. Your third link does not mention a holster either, only that a paramedic witnessed that the officer had to reach way down to retrieve the gun. This is brilliant, you claim the gun was still holstered through out the incident, then when I ask you to prove that, you give me 3 shit links, none of which prove what you claim, then whine about it on the process, just brilliant.

    Because you keep going back to this line of shit about Castile’s mistakes. And I keep emphasizing that he didn’t have any time to do the “right” thing. The cop shot him almost immediately … with his gun still in his pocket.

    Nonsense. I counted 38 seconds (using your own link of the video) from the time Castile said ,”How are you?” to the first shot. From the time Yanez asked for license and insurance to the time of the first shot was 23 seconds. Castile had plenty of time to do the right things, and besides, how much time does it take to put hands on steering wheel? Jesus, I already told you more than once that the first thing you learn in CCW class is when pulled over put your hands in plain sight on the steering wheel. So your 7 second trope is absolutely meaningless.

    If you want to declare victory 

    Not needed. Your “hard evidence” came from one source, The Guardian, which my other links linked to. Their methodology was not sourced,  that’s fine, my beef was more towards your 54/11 number, that is why I provided  a counter link.

    I’m done arguing this subject with you since you are clearly determined to justify the cop no matter what.

    Not even close. I have written many posts on police misconduct, even mentioning police errors in this post, but since reducto absurdum is your security blanket and go to tactic when losing an argument, I’m not surprised you went to it here. Funny, but you never asked me what mistakes I thought Yanez made or if I thought his actions were “reasonable”, you just assumed because I found the jury verdict as reasonable with  no clear path to satisfying all the elements of the charges filed, that I thought it was a good shoot. I think this says much more about your biases than mine.

     

     

    Thumb up 1