Stefan's response to recent police shootings and his emphasis on I.Q...

[labmath2]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8368197/walter-scott-police-shooting

 

This is certainly such a case. The standard seems to be that you need hard evidence clearly showing the police shooting someone who poses no threat. I look forward to seeing if he actually gets convicted. 

 

I wonder if there were no hard evidence or it was not clear that his life was not in danger, would the jury have indicted? I wonder if this is the same standard for prosecuting civilians for crimes (hard evidence and clear violation of law)?

[EclecticIdealist]

The thing that bothers Steph about your thread and discussions on the news is how 1 sided they are.

That's ironic considering how one-sided Steph's monologues on these discussions tends to be. It seems he's against state violence (cops) except when it comes to these kinds of scenarios where the victims have a criminal history and are not complying with the Police's escalation of the use of force.

 

You didn't notice, but that is almost entirely the point of him making those videos.

I Noticed. I suspect they did too.

 

What is very rare is every fact that doesn't support the poor helpless black man and evil cops narrative.

What's equally rare is every fact that doesn't support the official police narrative in such instances that don't get pointed out by people who are claiming to be "fair and balanced" with their one-sided narratives.

 

A civilian wouldn't be in a shooting in which he/she is trying to arrest an allegedly armed man committing what is legally defined in most places in the US as "assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, you pull out a gun and threaten anybody and that's what it is.

There's no indication he pulled out the gun and threatened the man harassing him. In most cases, a person simply lifts a shirt flap and the point comes across not to press one's luck. Some particularly aggressive pan-handlers don't respond to anything but threats of violence.

 

Regarding Sterling, a cop had to be there. A cop had to talk to a guy that somebody said had a gun and committed a violent felony immediately prior to that cop showing up. A cop had to show up and protect everybody from a guy thought to be committing a very serious and potentially deadly crime. The guy was legally detained and for damn good reason at this point.

Completely agree up to this point.

 

Everything a cop tells you to do while detained is a legal order until a court later decides that it wasn't.

That is factually incorrect. Which is not to say that it is not generally a good idea to even obey an armed hostile's orders whether they're legal or not.

 

He disobeyed orders. He was tazed, reasonably because he would not obey lawful orders.

Again, his is not necessarily reasonable. Cops using tasers as means of obtaining compliance is a highly controversial topic. Not everyone will agree that escalating the use of force to violence by utilizing a taser is reasonable and justified.

 

He then resisted arrest and was perceived by the arresting officer to be reaching and touching both his pockets and the police's own gear.

I have found that many officers who aggressively utilize force to obtain compliance assert "resisting arrest" and "he was reaching for a gun" when other officers involved in the same scenario tell a markedly different story. I simply do not trust anyone who is demonstrably aggressive in their "policing tactics" to be unquestionably honest, especially when a substantial portion of their job involves them lying convincingly to the public.

 

He was reasonably believed to possess a firearm. He was reasonably believed to have been trying to reach for a firearm

That would be a fact not in evidence and merely hear-say on the part of the officer. At least one witness on the scene disputes the officer's claim.

 

after 1. committing assault with a deadly weapon against the person that called 911,

Again, facts not in evidence. There is merely a claim that an assault was made. A reasonable claim of self defense could also have been made had Mr. Sterling lived.

 

2. disobeyed lawful orders,

Agreed

 

3. had to be tazed,

Facts not in evidence. Nothing shows Mr Sterling was aggressing on the officers necessitating the use of a taser. 

 

4. resisted arrest,

Agreed

 

5. was reaching for his gun.

Facts not in evidence/Hearsay disputed by at least one witness on the scene

 

You don't blink. You don't hesitate. You shoot that mother fucker so that you can go home to your family instead of going home to see god and another officer on the scene has to put him down like a rabid dog anyway.

If that's not indicating prejudicial bias, I don't know what is.

 

The cop had to be there. That was his job. He had to protect everybody else and for plenty of good reasons he was of the belief that he had to also protect himself right there, right then.

The cop did not have to be there. The cop chose to be there. The cop chose his job knowing the risks involved and the burden of responsibility laid upon him by society if he accepted the job. He certainly had good reason to believe that Mr. Sterling was a potential threat, believing him to likely be armed and dangerous based on a 911 call. Nevertheless, It appears that Mr. Sterling engaged in passive resistance to the officers who then assaulted him with a potentially lethal taser, and when that did not result in Mr. Sterling's incapacitation as expected, they engaged in an even more dangerous take-down assault of a potentially armed individual. This HIGHLY DANGEROUS move of a man presumed to be armed and dangerous not only needlessly endangered the officer's life, but the lives of his partners and that of the bystanders to the scene as well. At the very least, the cop should lose his job for displaying a inexcusable lack of good sense and judgment.

 

Keep in mind that until Mr. Sterling was on the ground on his back, they officers had not even confirmed that he was armed and dangerous. If the report was false, the police officer would have been engaging in a violent and unnecessary escalation of the use of force against a man passively resisting arrest, Perhaps that's something you're perfectly okay with. I am not; and anyone on this forum who believes in minimizing violence, including state sponsored violence should not.

 

At best, Alton Sterling was a complete fucking moron and died for it. At worst, a cop got a little too anxious and accidentally killed a man that was just too scared and was taught from too young an age that police are the enemy always.

No, at worst, the cop is guilty of homicide due to an unjustified escalation of force which also endangered the lives of his fellow officers and bystanders.

 

The fact that this guy has a union doesn't matter.

Agreed

 

Everything Sterling did was 100% wrong.

Debatable. But irrelevant. The question is whether the cop did anything wrong.

 

I would have given him orders.

That's fine.

 

I would have tazed him.

Then you have no business being a police officer.

 

maybe I would have kept tazing him 'til he put the cuffs on himself and apologized.

Then you are woefully ignorant of what tasers do, or you have no business being a member of society allowed to ever possess any potentially lethal weapons. As you seem to be ignorant of this fact, tasers are deemed "less lethal", not "non-lethal", in other words, police who use them in order to obtain compliance with their directives are using potentially lethal force, especially if they are misused in the manner you suggested. 

 

If I felt he was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I would have shot him before he got a chance to draw.

Agreed, which despite my disagreement with the events leading up to the officer shooting Mr. Sterling, I cannot NECESSARILY fault him for doing in the moment IF such in fact occurred. As there is no video evidence proving such did not occur, I am forced to accept the officer's assertion that his life was reasonably in jeopardy at that point because there is insufficient evidence to contradict his assertion. That does not change the fact that I consider him largely responsible for his death due to his unjustified escalation of the use of force. In short, I could not convict him of Murder, but I could definitely justify calling for his permanent expulsion from public service.

 

We don't have video of the whole Philandro Castile stop; if I'm convinced enough, just as a jury might be that he was reasonably believed to be a suspect of a previous crime, as was specifically stated prior to the shooting, then they had all the reason to stop and detain him.

Agreed

 

Reasonable suspicion, that's all and it becomes a completely legitimate detention.

Not so fast. It becomes a legitimate stop, but not a legitimate detention and arrest. That would require probable cause.

 

In fact, police are told that they can make up shit to stop people and question them. It's their job.

Which is total Bullshit and should not be put up with by the public. Imagine the average citizen doing this to other citizens. If you can't, then you should see the problem. If the average citizen does not have the right to do it, then neither do the cops.

 

Apparently, the "suspect" then claimed to have a gun in a specific location. He also claimed to have his identification in an immediately adjacent position.

That is my understanding as well.

 

STOP. You don't reach for a damn thing.

Agreed. It would be unwise to do otherwise.

 

You don't even twitch funny.

If a cop is so nervous that they will fire their weapon at you for twitching funny, they have no business whatsoever EVER handling a firearm. PERIOD. Some people have involuntary nervous twitches due to medical conditions. Should the public at large live in fear that they will be shot by nervous, trigger-happy police officers who believe that at the end of the day ONLY BLUE LIVES MATTER? I don't think so.

 

You will be told what to do and you will obey slowly and to the letter. You are not going to reach for or grab anything.

Agreed. It would be unwise to do otherwise.

 

You will be told to exit your vehicle slowly and you will do so.

On what basis? You only have reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Unless you have probable cause, everything you do after this point will be under my verbal and explicit protest of an unlawful search and seizure. Yes, of course I will comply. It would be unwise to do otherwise, but it will be involuntary and under protest. Any search of my person or possessions will be involuntary and under duress of being threatened with grave bodily harm or death if I do not comply. 

 

You will be told to keep your hands where they can be seen and you will do so.

Agreed. It would be unwise to do otherwise.

 

You will then be told that you will be disarmed and searched and you will allow it.

Agreed. It would be unwise to do otherwise; but it will be involuntary and only under duress of being threatened with grave bodily harm or death if I do not comply.

 

You now pose no threat and you will continue to do exactly as you are told.

Agreed. It would be unwise to do otherwise; but it will be involuntary and only under duress of being threatened with grave bodily harm or death if I do not comply.

 

If no crime is found to have been committed, you will be given your firearm and other articles.

Already at this point, a crime will have been committed, in this case by the officer violating the civilian's rights to liberty, property, and privacy.

 

Your firearm will have been unloaded and you will be allowed to load it after the encounter has ended completely.

Too bad civilians are not in a position to demand the same of police officers.

 

Obviously if you are found to have committed a crime, you may be charged based on your politeness and severity of the crime.

Again, this is nothing but a Bullshit double-standard that the Public should not have to put up with and only goes to prove we live in a police state.

 

STOP. I both open and conceal carry.

Irrelevant. You have no respect for Individual Rights. 

 

I know this dance and I have been through it. You might want to take my word for it.

This is like taking the advice of a rape victim about how one should submit to a rapist. Much of the advice will be sound and if followed may even preserve one's life, but some of it will be of dubious value.

 

All that said, if you are reasonably thought to have committed a prior felony, for which you WILL go to prison, then it is fair to assume that you don't want to go and may be likely to resist.

That's certainly a reasonable assumption; but it is only an assumption and should only prepare a police officer for possibilities, not determine the course of action he or she takes in initiating or escalating the use of force.

 

If a cop believes you committed a violent felony, you will be considered a threat and the likelihood that you will resist to deadly effect is considered to be very high.

This is only reasonable and grounds for caution in approaching and interacting with such a suspect. It demands the officer make intelligent decisions which do not unnecessarily jeopardize his own life, the life of his fellow officers, any bystanders, or the suspect's life and well-being.

 

You put your hand near your gun and you will be shot.

Again, this should not be the case and is not reasonable. Putting your hand on the weapon would justify being shot. Moving too quickly might also justify being shot, but simply putting one's hand near the weapon is not sufficient justification to be shot, especially if one is ostensibly reaching for something else near the weapon. Caution, and very slow and deliberate actions are warranted, but being shot is not necessarily warranted. Again, with respect to the Philandro Castile case, we did not see what occurred, so to second-guess the officer without such evidence may be unfair. It is quite possible that the officer was fully justified in shooting him, but is is also quite possible that the officer failed to act responsibly. We may never know, and we cannot convict the officer without such evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

At this point, you only have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?"  The facts you want to know are "did the cop actually have reasonable suspicion?"

No, this is irrelevant

 

and "did he reach for or immediately near where he was thought to have a gun?"

This is relevant, but insufficient.

 

If yes to both, the cop should 100% have shot him.

No. It is never 100% that the cop should have shot him unless the officer actually sees the person actually intentionally put their hands on the weapon or cannot reasonably tell whether the person is putting their hands on a weapon believed to be in the car or on their person. Such may indeed have been the case.  We cannot tell the vantage point of the police officer and what they were able to see or not see.

 

If just yes to the latter, then the cop probably should have shot him. If the cop knew he had a gun and told him not to reach for it or his ID, but he did so anyway, once again, the cop should have shot him 100%.

Again, I disagree. That is not reasonable unless the cop cannot see where the person is reaching.

 

The only times in which the cop would not have been completely justified in shooting him is if he had no reason to believe he was the suspect

Irrelevant

 

and had no reason to believe that he had a gun that he was reaching for

correct

 

OR he knew he had the gun, but actually for some insane fucking reason told him to reach for his wallet that he told the cop was literally right next to his gun.

correct

 

Fact is, he said he had a gun and he reached toward it.

No. the fact is, he said he had a gun and a concealed carry permit and was reaching in a manner which the cop may or may not have been unable to see. It is reasonable to suspect that the cop was not able to see where he was reaching and for what.

 

Unless you have it on video, I don't believe for a second that a cop told a guy with a gun that wasn't a super white likely rich guy with an ultra friendly attitude to reach for his wallet. A cop might talk like that to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. A cop will not say that to baggy clothes thug johnson.

Again, this is irrelevant and prejudicial.

 

As far as the type or severity of the crime, if you are guilty you want to get away, and you certainly might try. If you then have a gun and for any reason also reach toward it, you're going to get shot.

Again, this is irrelevant and prejudicial.

In short, I'm not suggesting that the cop who shot Philandro Castile wasn't justified. We simply don't know and likely will never know with any reasonable degree of certainty; but it is PROBABLE that the cop WAS justified if he was unable to see where and to what he was reaching, knowing that Philandro Castile had a weapon in the car, despite claiming to have a concealed carry permit for it. The cop would be justified regardless of the race of the person, how they were dressed, how wealthy they appeared to be, or even how friendly they happened to be.

[shirgall]

That's ironic considering how one-sided Steph's monologues on these discussions tends to be. It seems he's against state violence (cops) except when it comes to these kinds of scenarios where the victims have a criminal history and are not complying with the Police's escalation of the use of force.

 

...

 

In short, I'm not suggesting that the cop who shot Philandro Castile wasn't justified. We simply don't know and likely will never know with any reasonable degree of certainty; but it is PROBABLE that the cop WAS justified if he was unable to see where and to what he was reaching, knowing that Philandro Castile had a weapon in the car, despite claiming to have a concealed carry permit for it. The cop would be justified regardless of the race of the person, how they were dressed, how wealthy they appeared to be, or even how friendly they happened to be.

 

I don't think Stefan's presentations are one-sided on these topics. Not complying with Police instructions requires the police to escalate. This is risky behavior for a subject. The criminal history aspect is included to speak to the state of mind of the subject, because the subject is no longer available to articulate his state of mind. Stefan is trying to help us understand what might have happened. The criminal history aspect may be tangential to some, but without being there or having perfect recording, we have to recreate the situation in our mind.

 

Castile may have been innocent, but I don't think the police officer is going to get indicted either.

 

When I get pulled over by police (it happened on the rare occasion) and I'm carrying (the last three times I was pulled over) I'm really really clear on what I am doing and why and I give the officer no reason to escalate or rush what is going on. To date, I have never been shot by a police officer, but that's anecdotal.

[AncapFTW]

I don't think Stefan's presentations are one-sided on these topics. Not complying with Police instructions requires the police to escalate. This is risky behavior for a subject. The criminal history aspect is included to speak to the state of mind of the subject, because the subject is no longer available to articulate his state of mind. Stefan is trying to help us understand what might have happened. The criminal history aspect may be tangential to some, but without being there or having perfect recording, we have to recreate the situation in our mind.

 

Castile may have been innocent, but I don't think the police officer is going to get indicted either.

 

When I get pulled over by police (it happened on the rare occasion) and I'm carrying (the last three times I was pulled over) I'm really really clear on what I am doing and why and I give the officer no reason to escalate or rush what is going on. To date, I have never been shot by a police officer, but that's anecdotal.

Just playing devil's SJW's advocate here for the lols.

 

 

It couldn't possibly be that you weren't a threat to them.

[shirgall]

Just playing devil's SJW's advocate here for the lols.

 

 

It couldn't possibly be that you weren't a threat to them.

 

And I wasn't a threat to them because I pulled way over to give them room to approach, turned off my car and radio, rolled down my windows, turned on my interior lights, put my hands on the steering wheel, looked the cop in the face when I talked to him, and was slow and deliberate in my speech, too.  If everyone did this things would be a lot smoother for the second most dangerous activity for police (traffic stops). The most dangerous? Responding to a domestic violence call.

 

Being a past parliamentarian for ASLET (American Society for Law Enforcement Trainers) doesn't hurt either.

[EclecticIdealist]

I don't think Stefan's presentations are one-sided on these topics.

I certainly don't expect to find many who agree with me on this point.

 

Not complying with Police instructions requires the police to escalate.

Does it? I can see how someone escalating violence themselves would require escalation, but you're going to have to make a case why failure to comply requires an escalation on the part of the police. That sounds like the same justification parents use for spanking their children. Are you also excusing parents spanking their non-compliant children?

 

This is risky behavior for a subject. The criminal history aspect is included to speak to the state of mind of the subject, because the subject is no longer available to articulate his state of mind.

A person's criminal history, especially if they're a minority, may not be reflective of their criminality, especially if the history is for a long litany of minor, non-violent statutory or regulatory offenses or crimes which are so often used in order to defame the victim and exonerate the officer's behavior.

 

Stefan is trying to help us understand what might have happened. The criminal history aspect may be tangential to some, but without being there or having perfect recording, we have to recreate the situation in our mind.

Maybe. But more often, it seems he is less interested in helping us understand what might have happened and more interested in justifying the anti-victim narrative of what happened. If he were truly interested in helping us understand what might have happened, we would see more information about the police officers involved, all the negatives in the officers' lives going back ten or more years to their childhood and what experiences or traumas might have influenced their decision to become cops and how that might have informed their actions. But I've yet to see him do that to the same degree he does the victims of police escalated violence.

 

Castile may have been innocent, but I don't think the police officer is going to get indicted either.

 

When I get pulled over by police (it happened on the rare occasion) and I'm carrying (the last three times I was pulled over) I'm really really clear on what I am doing and why and I give the officer no reason to escalate or rush what is going on. To date, I have never been shot by a police officer, but that's anecdotal.

I agree it's anecdotal, and I also don't disagree at all with those who are critical of how many Black people have been shown on video to behave resulting in an escalation of police use of force (justified in my opinion in most of those cases, incidentally).  As stated previously, there are prudent ways to behave around armed gang members dressed in blue, some of which (and you'll rarely know who they are beforehand) who have a penchant for violence and a wanton disregard for anyone else's life but their own. Just as a girl who acts slutty and gets drunk at a frat party is engaging in behavior that raises her chances of getting raped, even though such behavior certainly wouldn't ever justify it; people, including a disproportionately large number of young black and hispanic men, engage in similarly dangerous and foolish behavior that is likely to result in police behaving in a manner the police never should and doing things to them, whether or not they are guilty of the crimes suspected of them, that cannot rationally be justified.

 

To be clear, I'm not condemning cops defending themselves with lethal force when it becomes necessary or prudent to do so. I'm only condemning their propensity for escalating the violence of a situation and having a tendency to act in a biased manner that makes it more dangerous to be a minority, especially a Black man, than any other race, when all other factors (the age, appearance, mannerisms, drsss, etc.) are equal.

[shirgall]

Does it? I can see how someone escalating violence themselves would require escalation, but you're going to have to make a case why failure to comply requires an escalation on the part of the police. That sounds like the same justification parents use for spanking their children. Are you also excusing parents spanking their non-compliant children?

 

 

I've only got a few moments, so I'm going to cut to the chase. In the execution of a detention or arrest or any other legal duty, police use ever-rising levels of force to counteract and overcome resistance until they can continue with their detention or arrest. If you fight them, they escalate. This is the model that has been in police doctrine (and backed up by law) since the 1980s. There is no equivalent for parents and children.

 

Here's an example of the end game from Washington law (where I live):

 

RCW 9A.16.040

Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

© When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)© of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

[ 1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

[jrodefeld]

I don't have facts and evidence immediately in front of me. However, is it perfectly plausible that it has happened? Yes. Have police gone to jail for it? Also yes. Doesn't mean that they did it, just that they were convicted. The single and only standard for "proving" anything in a court of law is that either the jury or the judge believe to be what they themselves consider to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" or at least a good enough display of evidence, that it is proof. If the jury said it happened, then it happened.  

 

So far as written law, you must have "reasonable belief" that a person is going to, right now, cause you "severe bodily harm or death." Convince the judge  or jury of said reasonable belief. This isn't a case law thing. This is every assault, battery, etc, law in the United States. If somebody comes at you with a knife and all you have is an rpg-7 and you shoot him, all you have to do is argue that he was in fact going to fuck you up with his knife. The fact that you blew somebody in half with a rocket propelled grenade is a separate matter of being in possession of a destructive device per federal regulation. You can look up your own state's assault laws, firearms and discharging laws, and self-defense laws. That's what they are going to come down to ( except they likely say nothing about rocket launchers, that's federal and to my knowledge, citizens may not own any destructive device ever)

 

 

The thing that bother's Steph about your thread and discussions on the news is how 1 sided they are. You didn't notice, but that is almost entirely the point of him making those videos. You are beating a dead horse and we have heard your points on every news channel are web site. What is very rare is every fact that doesn't support the poor helpless black man and evil cops narrative. I'm not trying to say you are being a dick or anything, I'm just saying that you missed the point and this is what it is.

 

A civilian wouldn't be in a shooting in which he/she is trying to arrest an allegedly armed man committing what is legally defined in most places in the US as "assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, you pull out a gun and threaten anybody and that's what it is. Regarding Sterling, a cop had to be there. A cop had to talk to a guy that somebody said had a gun and committed a violent felony immediately prior to that cop showing up. A cop had to show up and protect everybody from a guy thought to be committing a very serious and potentially deadly crime. The guy was legally detained and for damn good reason at this point. Everything a cop tells you to do while detained is a legal order until a court later decides that it wasn't. He disobeyed orders. He was tazed, reasonably because he would not obey lawful orders. He then resisted arrest and was perceived by the arresting officer to be reaching and touching both his pockets and the police's own gear. He was reasonably believed to possess a firearm. He was reasonably believed to have been trying to reach for a firearm after 1. committing assault with a deadly weapon against the person that called 911, 2. disobeyed lawful orders, 3. had to be tazed, 4. resisted arrest, 5. was reaching for his gun. You don't blink. You don't hesitate. You shoot that mother fucker so that you can go home to your family instead of going home to see god and another officer on the scene has to put him down like a rabid dog anyway. The cop had to be there. That was his job. He had to protect everybody else and for plenty of good reasons he was of the belief that he had to also protect himself right there, right then. At best, Alton Sterling was a complete fucking moron and died for it. At worst, a cop got a little too anxious and accidentally killed a man that was just too scared and was taught from too young an age that police are the enemy always. The fact that this guy has a union doesn't matter. Everything Sterling did was 100% wrong. I would have given him orders. I would have tazed him. maybe I would have kept tazing him 'til he put the cuffs on himself and apologized. If I felt he was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I would have shot him before he got a chance to draw.

 

We don't have video of the whole philando stop, if I'm convinced enough, just as a jury might be that he was reasonably believed to be a suspect of a previous crime, as was specifically stated prior to the shooting, then they had all the reason to stop and detain him. Reasonable suspicion, that's all and it becomes a completely legitimate detention. In fact, police are told that they can make up shit to stop people and question them. It's their job. Apparently, the "suspect" then claimed to have a gun in a specific location. He also claimed to have his identification in an immediately adjacent position. STOP. You don't reach for a damn thing. You don't even twitch funny. You will be told what to do and you will obey slowly and to the letter. You are not going to reach for or grab anything. You will be told to exit your vehicle slowly and you will do so. You will be told to keep your hands where they can be seen and you will do so. You will then be told that you will be disarmed and searched and you will allow it. You now pose no threat and you will continue to do exactly as you are told. If no crime is found to have been committed, you will be given your firearm and other articles. Your firearm will have been unloaded and you will be allowed to load it after the encounter has ended completely. Obviously if you are found to have committed a crime, you may be charged based on your politeness and severity of the crime. STOP. I both open and conceal carry. I know this dance and I have been through it. You might want to take my word for it. All that said, if you are reasonably thought to have committed a prior felony, for which you WILL go to prison, then it is fair to assume that you don't want to go and may be likely to resist. If a cop believe you committed a violent felony, you will be considered a threat and the likelihood that you will resist to deadly effect is considered to be very high. You put your hand near your gun and you will be shot. At this point, you only have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?"  The facts you want to know are "did the cop actually have reasonable suspicion?" and "did he reach for or immediately near where he was thought to have a gun?" If yes to both, the cop should 100% have shot him. If just yes to the latter, then the cop probably should have shot him. If the cop knew he had a gun and told him not to reach for it or his ID, but he did so anyway, once again, the cop should have shot him 100%. The only times in which the cop would not have been completely justified in shooting him is if he had no reason to believe he was the suspect and had no reason to believe that he had a gun that he was reaching for OR he knew he had the gun, but actually for some insane fucking reason told him to reach for his wallet that he told the cop was literally right next to his gun. Fact his, he said he had a gun and he reached toward it. Unless you have it on video, I don't believe for a second that a cop told a guy with a gun that wasn't a super white  likely rich guy with an ultra friendly attitude to reach for his wallet. A cop might talk like that to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. A cop will not say that to baggy clothes thug johnson.

 

As far as the type or severity of the crime, if you are guilty you want to get away, and you certainly might try. If you then have a gun and for any reason also reach toward it, you're going to get shot.

 

Can you point me to a single video Stef has done within the last year where he specifically criticizes police misconduct, militarization, the legal double-standards that police are subjected to and so forth?  I don't mean comments made in passing on other videos, but specific videos dedicated to criticizing police.

 

I don't listen to all of Stef's videos, but I keep an eye on the type of content he is putting out.  I haven't seen such a commentary.

 

Personally, the primary purpose for a philosopher should be to seek truth and disseminate that truth.  Therefore, Stef's commentaries should reflect an honest attempt at getting to the truth of a subject.  Getting to the truth regarding police shootings, and addressing the broader resentment that many feel towards law enforcement is not possible without adequate time being spent criticizing the militarization of the police, the grotesque un-accountability for improper actions, and the undue power of the law enforcement lobby.  Will Grigg does a brilliant job critiquing law enforcement and documenting police abuses.  

 

Focusing solely on the Alton Sterling and Philando Castille shootings, especially when we don't have all the facts, is only part of the problem.  Since I started this post, another prominent incident was captured on film:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/

 

Charles Kinsey was a black man who worked at a care facility which helps people with mental disabilities.  He was in the middle of helping an autistic kid who was sitting in the middle of the street with nothing but a toy truck.  Spectators presumably called police because they noticed the kid sitting in the street and were unfamiliar with the symptoms of autism.  When police arrived, Mr. Kinsey calmly identified himself, told the officers that the kid had only a toy truck, lay on the ground with his hands raised.  One of the officers fired three shots, with at least one hitting Charles in the leg.  Fortunately he survived the incident but each of these individual incidents have to be viewed in a larger context.

 

The relationship between civilians and police has fundamentally changed over the past decade.  We have to recognize that there is an inherently problem in the way police are being trained to respond to incidents like this and accountability is lacking.  The officer who fired the shots is being placed on administrative leave, which means he's getting a paid vacation at the moment.

 

We'll see if there is ANY criminal penalty for his actions.  If the past is any indication, he won't be charged.  

 

 

So if we are to accept the notion that we have to view these police shootings with the understanding that blacks commit more crimes, have lower I.Q.s, and this makes police suspicion towards them rational, by the same token we have to view police action with at least as much suspicion if we look at the number of recent incidents of police misconduct.  

 

Here are some of the titles of Stefan's recent videos that are in any way related to this subject over the past month, from most recent to least recent:

 

Inside the Black Community:  What They Won't Tell You

 

Black Lives Matter:  Aftermath

 

Black Lives Matter:  Truth and Consequences

 

All Lives Matter:  Interview with Trump supporters Diamond and Silk

 

The Truth About the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile Shootings

 

An Honest Conversation About Race:  Interview with Jared Taylor

 

Race, Genetics and Intelligence:  Interview with Richard Lynn

 

An Honest Conversation with a Police Officer

 

Genetics and Crime:  Interview with Kevin M. Beaver

 

 

The commentary contained in recent videos is almost entirely pro-police and critical of blacks.  I'm not saying that each individual argument contained in these videos is invalid, but a lie by omission is still a lie.  A person who only got his news about recent incidents from Stefan Molyneux would be considerably misinformed because so much important information is being withheld.  

 

My personal view is that the recent tone and focus of FDR seems geared towards appealing to the alt-right.  I have serious mis-givings about the alt-right and I don't think that we can expect Donald Trump to be significantly better as president than Hillary Clinton.  I side with Jeffrey Tucker, who has warned about the dangers of right-wing authoritarianism.  

 

Your response was detailed and well-written, which I appreciate, but I think you miss the point.  We don't have all the evidence for either case so both of our analyses and impressions of the event involve some degree of speculation.  What I want is for an independent agency unaffiliated with the police station where the officer worked to be tasked with overseeing any incident of officer-involved shootings.  I want the officer in question to have a high burden of proof to overcome to prove that the shooting was justified.

 

Another course of action would be to require ALL police officers to maintain $500,000 in private liability insurance.  This would incentive police officers to use discretion when doling out lethal force, since it would hurt them greatly financially.

 

This is one recommendation of Will Grigg:

 

 

Although there is no state licensing requirement, the Private Investigators Association of Idaho (PIAI) has introduced a “Certified Private Investigator” program intended to establish professional standards in the industry.

 

The first requirement to become a CPI would be to carry, and maintain, at least $500,000 in errors and omissions or general liability insurance.

 

“Anybody looking to hire a reputable and reliable investigator should require him to have at least a half-million in liability insurance,” PIAI President Dan Landis told me in a telephone interview. “If someone gets hurt through an act or oversight, or gets arrested for the wrong reason, the investigator needs to be covered.”

 

Every day, police injure and kill people through bad acts or culpable omissions, and arrest people without legitimate cause – and those responsible generally suffer no personal consequences because of their supposed authority. Police are not required to carry personal liability insurance to cover such contingencies. On those rare occasions when fault is found, the financial consequences are socialized, which means that they are ultimately absorbed by the tax victims within a given political jurisdiction.

 

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/04/does-fantasy-cop-package-include.html

 

 

It's also important to distinguish between what a cop has the legal right to do, and what he SHOULD do.  Police may have had the right to stop a person in their car if they matched the description of a suspect, but should they with a women and young girl in the car?  Police have the right to shoot, under current law, if they "fear for their life" or if the suspect reaches for their waste-band, but this doesn't mean they should.  Police are trained to protect officer safety at all cost.  This means that if there is even a 5% chance that a police officer could be injured, police will often use force, even deadly force, to ameliorate even that small risk to officer safety.

[jrodefeld]

Do you find that there is a massive lack of police criticism these days?

 

After somebody is beat down in a gang assault, do you make it your highest priority to run over and kick them in the ribs for good measure? I don't.

 

Put together a great collection of legitimate police criticisms that is well sourced, send it my way and we'll do that show in between the everyday riots and terrorist attacks.

 

If being pro-facts and believing that people are innocent until proven guilty is being pro police - you don't understand anything about philosophy.

 

If you think discussing the dangers of this anti-police bias is anti-black people, then you certainly haven't read Heather McDonald's book or looked at the massive pile of black bodies that has been left in the wake of the Ferguson effect and police being terrified to do their jobs.

 

Then again, thinking is hard and emotional hysteria is easy.

 

You're right.  There isn't a lack of police criticism, but most of it falls into the category of "emotional hysteria" and I am partial to the well-reasoned, level-headed criticism that I read from good libertarian reporters like Will Grigg and Radley Balko.

 

Just so I am clear on who I am speaking to, you work with Stefan on the show?  

 

 

I try hard not to succumb to emotional hysteria.  My views on the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings are based on my best attempts at judging the facts that we have available and forming a conclusion based upon those facts.  I concede that under current law, the officers who fired the fatal bullets will probably not face criminal prosecution even if they are indicted and charged in a court of law.  Current precedent is that if an officer is believed to be legitimately in fear for his or her life, then their use of lethal force is legitimate.  I'm not arguing current precedent or even current law.  I am arguing what is ethical.

 

I understand that Stefan cannot cover all topics all the time.  I also understand if he is focusing on tamping down the anti-police emotional hysteria and race-baiting tactics of the Left which might preclude him focusing on police misconduct and other takes on this issue that I might prefer.  But I reject the idea that Stefan shouldn't voice an opinion because it is a popular opinion.  Many communities are getting fed up with the conduct of police and I think they are largely right to feel this way.  The way the police are trained is flawed.  The mindset of police (Balko calls it the "warrior cop" mentality") is problematic to put it mildly.

 

I think it's perfectly valid to offer the unpopular opinion as a counter-argument to the prevailing wisdom.  I recall when the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting was in the news and the media was portraying Martin as a perfect boyscout and model citizen, which was clearly not true.  I don't mind having these fabrications refuted.  Shedding light on the lies told by the media is always a noble endeavor.  

 

But I admit to feeling a bit angry hearing Stefan comb through the past of Philando Castile and Diamond Reynolds.  The purported purpose of detailing the criminal history of shooting victims and assessing their character based on their past actions is to establish whether they were likely to have reacted in such a way as to cause an officer to fear for his life, which would make the lethal shooting defense and thus lawful.  

 

But by the same token, can't you look into the record of the police officer and form judgments based on recent trends in policing behavior?  I don't see the same care and diligence being taken to shine the light of criticism at the boys in blue.  

 

We don't have a full video of the actual shooting of Philando Castile, so we have to fill in the gaps with (hopefully) informed speculation.  The evidence in this case leads me to believe that, as with so many recent events, the police over-reacted to the revelation that the suspect had a gun and used lethal force in haste.  In both the Philando Castile and Alton Sterling shootings, could the police have used non-lethal force?  Supposing that a reasonable person would judge Mr Castile and Mr Sterling to be reaching for their gun to unload at the officer(s), why could they not have shot them in the leg or in the arm?  Did they really have to shoot five times at point blank range in the chest, shooting to kill?

 

To my mind, it seems like all this is ripe for criticism, especially from a libertarian perspective.  

 

 

You said "If being pro-facts and believing that people are innocent until proven guilty is being pro police - you don't understand anything about philosophy".

 

I am certainly pro-facts, but I take issue with your second statement.  I agree with Stephan Kinsella when he said that "innocent until proven guilty" is merely a legal standard that is required of the State before they lock a person up or impose legal punishment upon that person.  It is not a standard that the rest of us are bound by.  We don't have to claim that O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder because a jury's interpretation of the facts judged him to be innocent.  We would all say that the preponderance of the facts in that case indicate that O.J. murdered Nicole Brown-Simpson.  We are completely within our rights to regard O.J. Simpson as a murderer who happened to get away with it.

 

We should go where the facts lead us, and not journey into wild speculation.  But that hardly means that we have to judge these police officers to be innocent until a jury convicts them of a crime.  That is a burden of proof that is rightly required of the State, but it doesn't bind the rest of us.  If we honestly believe that the preponderance of facts indicate that a person committed an immoral action, we shouldn't be afraid to say so.  

 

 

I haven't read Heather McDonald's book but it seems like you're beating up a straw man.  I never said that there isn't a danger to anti-police hysteria.  I know full-well how the Left can intimidate and harass people into not doing what they ought to be doing.  I don't want to conflate the hysteria of Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Warriors with the sort of legitimate police criticism that comes from principled libertarians.

 

If we must have State-monopolized police, then their sole mission should be to protect person and property from aggression.  To the extent that police are afraid to do this due to intimidation and/or threats from the Left, that is unconscionable and I don't support any of it.

 

The fact remains however that there is a great deal of justifiable anger towards law enforcement in many communities that is informed by actual experience dealing with the police.  I'd like to explain to these people that they ought to be opposing the State.  If people start to realize in a visceral way that their experiences with police harassment exemplify the very nature of the State, then they could start to view the world in a more libertarian way.  What I don't want these people to do is to buy into the nonsense of the Left, join Black Lives Matter, advocate for nationalization of our local police and then vote for Hillary Clinton!  Talk about a wasted opportunity.

 

Not that it necessarily need be said, but it might be worth remembering that I agree with Stef on 90-95% of what he says.  I'm just vigorously arguing over the remaining 5% to better refine my own thinking.

[labmath2]

That was a whole lot of words to say basically nothing.

 

Police training needs to be improved! There are terrible cops, no question. Training can always be improved, so unless you get very specific and include data driven point-by-point explanations, it's a non-argument. There is not enough information known about either of the shootings to say if "training failure" was a major problem.

 

If the police have bad records you should talk about those too. Yeah, no problem.  If you have videos of any of these cops hot-boxing their four year olds, please let me know. The suggestion that we should have included stuff in the presentations which doesn't exist is unbecoming of an intelligent discourse.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is legal, nobody considers OJ innocent. That is because there has been a full investigation and the facts are out there regarding the OJ case - such is not the case with these shootings.

 

Seems like a straw man... yawn. Seems like... is not an argument.

 

Instead of just talking about it: Why don't you spend the year trying to change Black Lives Matter activists into libertarians and come back with a status report showing your success/failure?

 

 

You jump to conclusions without facts - emotional hysteria/bias case and point.

 

Would you care to set up the standard for what counts as an argument?

 

The presentation presented facts about not just the incidents, but the individuals involved in the incidents. Philando Castile's traffic record was presented along with some of his activities on his social media page. How many positive information did you find about him that you did not present? How long did you spend looking into the officers record (complaints filed against him on the force, his social media activity, possible traffic tickets)? 

 

Here is an interesting link about police misconduct.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

Read the section titled "prosecuting police misconduct."

[jrodefeld]

That was a whole lot of words to say basically nothing.

 

Police training needs to be improved! There are terrible cops, no question. Training can always be improved, so unless you get very specific and include data driven point-by-point explanations, it's a non-argument. There is not enough information known about either of the shootings to say if "training failure" was a major problem.

 

If the police have bad records you should talk about those too. Yeah, no problem.  If you have videos of any of these cops hot-boxing their four year olds, please let me know. The suggestion that we should have included stuff in the presentations which doesn't exist is unbecoming of an intelligent discourse.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is legal, nobody considers OJ innocent. That is because there has been a full investigation and the facts are out there regarding the OJ case - such is not the case with these shootings.

 

Seems like a straw man... yawn. Seems like... is not an argument.

 

Instead of just talking about it: Why don't you spend the year trying to change Black Lives Matter activists into libertarians and come back with a status report showing your success/failure?

 

 

You jump to conclusions without facts - emotional hysteria/bias case and point.

 

I'm not jumping to conclusions without facts.  We have facts to form judgments with, we just don't have all the facts.  This would be true even if the case went to trial.  I explicitly stated that I reached my conclusions based on an honest appraisal of the facts and that if and when new information comes to light, I will change my conclusions if necessary.

 

Let me give some clear facts that I think are relevant to this discussion that Stefan has failed to mention:

 

1.  The officer who shot Philando Castile, Jeronimo Yanez, attended a seminar called the "The Bulletproof Warrior".  This program has been heavily criticized by many journalists, including libertarians, as imparting a militaristic mindset to police.  They are taught to view the public as the enemy and especially that hesitation can kill you.  The program explicitly advocates the use of lethal force if the officer involved fears for his safety.  Critics of the program contend that this sort of training encourages the use of excessive force when it was not necessary.

 

I haven't heard Stefan mention this bit of information, but it certainly seems relevant.  The central question in this entire debate is whether or not Mr Yanez had reason to fear for his life and to shoot and kill Mr Castile.  The fact that he attended training courses that have been roundly criticized for encourages premature use of force is about the most relevant fact one could bring up.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.startribune.com/officer-in-castile-case-attended-bulletproof-warrior-training/386717431/

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-castile-bulletproof-warrior-training/

 

A short excerpt from the above link:

 

 

Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Officer who fatally shot Philando Castile, underwent “Bulletproof Warrior” officer survival indoctrination that imparts what one police trainer calls a “paranoid” and“militaristic” mindset.

 

In May of 2014, reports the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Yanez underwent a 20-hour seminar on “Street Survival” taught by Illinois-based Calibre Press, which teaches courses on the subject to police officers nationwide. The company’s “Street Survival Seminar” overview displays a monomaniacal focus on that most important of all policy considerations, “officer safety.” It treats every police encounter as a combat situation in which only one life truly matters – that of the government’s armed emissary, not that of the citizen who is supposedly being protected and served by him.

 

Although Calibre co-owner Jim Glennon has written that viewing “police as the enemy is not a healthy or helpful position for a society to take,” the courses presented by his company relentlessly teach officers that the public is their enemy. As one instructor summarized the course for the benefit of his students,  “We’ve got to survive this job!”

 

“The goal and purpose of the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar is twofold: Keep officers alive and give them the tools to enjoy a successful career in law enforcement,” explains the company’s promotional literature. “In order to accomplish this mission we need to tackle the realities and complexities of policing today for officers on the street … while placing the responsibility for winning right where it belongs – with the individual officer.”

 

A brief video excerpt from a “Street Survival” course shows a presenter lecturing officers about the need to visualize shooting someone as part of the “Psychological Game” necessary to “win” encounters with what trainees are told is an implacably hostile public.

 

“That’s winning, ladies and gentlemen,” he declares.

.....

William Czech, who attended a two-day Bulletproof Warrior class at a Bloomington, Minnesota Ramada Inn, described himself as “horrified” by the course. Czech is a private citizen, not a police officer, and he attended the class following encounters between police and a relative who suffers from mental illness. The second day of the class was devoted to videos of shootouts between police and citizens, with narration by Calibre co-owner Glennon.

 

“Every time a video came up where the officer hesitated, he would stop and he would say, `This is a point where there should have been a reaction, he should have engaged,” Czech recalls.

While he admits that his course teaches officers that “hesitation will get you killed,” Glennon insists that Czech’s perception was “totally inaccurate.”

 

“That’s why we don’t let the press in” to the training seminars, Glennon added.

Michael Becar, executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement, agrees with Czech’s supposedly untutored assessment of Calibre’s “officer survival” training.

 

“Everything they were doing made the police officers very paranoid,” he points out. “At some point, they wouldn’t even stop a car without three backups.”

 

So, when I claim that the officers involved in these recent shootings likely reacted prematurely and used lethal force for no legitimate defensive reason, it is not based on "emotional hysteria/bias" as you have claimed.

 

 

2.  The other reason I believe that Mr Yanez used excessive and unnecessary force is how he behaved in the video that Diamond Reynolds streamed onto Facebook.  If you listen to his tone of voice and behavior following the lethal shooting, he sounds hysterical and irrational.  He sounds like a man who is not in a reasonable state of mind to make a rational judgment.

 

Listen for yourself:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/07/485066807/police-stop-ends-in-black-mans-death-aftermath-is-livestreamed-online-video

 

 

3.  It turns out that Philando DID have a valid legal carry permit.  Granted, that this information was probably not available when Stefan released his initial video, but now that it is an important factor to consider.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/philando-castiles-family-releases-copy-gun-permit/story?id=40555856

 

4.  There is considerable controversy over what constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over and detain them if they are suspected of a crime.  A broken taillight would provide a valid pretext for detaining someone, but it seems that the taillight was not broken and the sole reason they were pulled over was because Jeronimo thought Philando matched the robbery suspect.

 

The audio of the police revealed the following statements:

 

“The two occupants just look like people who have been involved in a robbery,” the man continued. “The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ’cause of the wide-set nose.”

 

Clarence Castile, Philando's uncle, responded with what I think is a fairly reasonable impression of this pretext:

 

“I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils,” he said. “It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”

 

Having seen the video of the robbery, the suspect is wearing baggy clothes, a hat and sunglasses.  While Philando looks somewhat similar, it would be extremely difficult to make an accurate assessment if you are in a moving vehicle and you are looking into another moving vehicle.  

 

5.  I think it's important to consider motive.  What motive would Philando have to reach for his gun with an armed officer at his window?  Philando didn't have any history of violence.

 

The obvious reason that Stefan spends time looking over the history and criminal record of people like Philando and Sterling is that establishing a history of behavior can indicate whether or not they were likely to react in a manner that would reasonably cause the police officer to fear for his life, thus excusing the use of lethal force.

 

By that standard, the lack of a violent history from Philando would lend credibility to the notion that he didn't reach for his gun and he wouldn't pull a gun on a police officer.

 

On the other hand, everything we know about "The Bulletproof Warrior" training seminar that Mr Yanez attended would indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood that he would react in haste, using unnecessary lethal force.

 

This is not proof of course.  But many credible commentators have stated that this, and other similar police training programs actively encourage such behavior.

 

 

As for Sterling, his past behavior clearly indicates that we WOULD use lethal force against a police officer.  I don't have as emphatic an opinion about this shooting as I do with the Philando shooting, but from the videos I have seen, the multiple officers who were trying to subdue Sterling seem to be capable of subduing him to the point where he wouldn't have the capacity of reaching his gun or actually harming the officers.

 

Again, based on what we know of the training procedures that police go through, there is reason to suspect that police took lethal force before it was genuinely necessary.  The question again needs to be raised:  Why are police training to use lethal force in situations like this?  A non-lethal shot could have subdued Sterling, or a Taser.

 

Police officers know that there is very little chance of them facing any real punishment for using lethal force, so they don't hesitate when common sense might dictate that they should.

 

 

 

Further, officers who engage in these activities, from killing unarmed men to excessive abuses, are practically never prosecuted or are found not guilty by the judicial system. Only 41 officers out of over 6,700 cases in a seven year period from 2005 through 2011 were ever charged with any crimes. The State itself has shown little interest in understanding what its own agents are doing, with the most recent major study of police misconduct covering just 5% of all jurisdictions and 26,000 offenses and last performed 14 years ago. A mere 8% of them were involved any form of discipline.

 

https://mises.org/blog/consequences-militarized-police-forces

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955

 

 

I may be wrong in my conclusions, but I don't think you can fairly say that I am "jumping to conclusions without facts" or that I am succumbing to "emotional hysteria and bias".

 

It is one thing to say "don't jump to rash conclusions without all the facts".  But the content of Stef's videos on these recent police shootings encourage just that.  I've laid out a number of facts in this post that are relevant to how we ought to judge these shooting incidents.

 

How is it that statistics about the un-accountability for police officers in general, "The Bulletproof Warrior" training program which encourages certain behavior patterns, and many of the other points I raised here any less relevant to this discussion than musings on Philando's minor traffic violations, his marijuana consumption and the fact that he once made a pro-Crip statement on his Facebook page?