18 arrested for blocking Minnesota freeway after Philando Castile verdict - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]At least 18 people were arrested in Minnesota overnight during a protest that shut down a major highway, following the acquittal of the police officer who fatally shot Philando Castile. Thousands of protesters gathered at the Minnesota State Capitol and marched through the streets of St. Paul on Friday night to decry the not guilty verdict returned by a jury in the manslaughter trial of former St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez. An estimated 2,000 people participated in the march, part of which shut down a major highway, according to the St. Paul Police Department.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/18-protesters-arrested-blocking-minnesota-freeway-philando-castile/story%3Fid%3D48102160[/url] Worth the read. This wasnt covered much in the mainstream media. Defineitly sliding with the protesters on this one.

It really does baffle me how the Philando Castile case received so little exposure, despite being a phenomenal example of cops getting dangerously antsy around black people reaching into their pockets for innocuous things.

[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;52380279]It really does baffle me how the Philando Castile case received so little exposure, despite being a phenomenal example of cops getting dangerously antsy around black people reaching into their pockets for innocuous things.[/QUOTE] The thing is, he was reaching in his pocket because the officer told him to show him his ID. Then he shoots him [B]8[/B] times infront of his girlfriend and young daughter. All in the span of 72 seconds. It was clear manslaughter. Later in the trial the defense and officer blames the victim's weed usage because he has weed in his system, even though the officer wouldnt have known that after the fact and it was completely irrelevent. He told the officer immediately in the beginning that he has an legally owned firearm(in the glove department I believe). He followed every command. He did everything right yet he still gets shot up and the officers walks free. What kind precedent does this give? Should legal gun owners still alert cops that they have a weapon in the gun? If they do they might get killed anyways? This verdict is bullshit.

What precedent does it give? That protectors need to prove their case to the jury better. This isn't some judge making a ruling, it's a full jury.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52380308]The thing is, he was reaching in his pocket because the officer told him to show him his ID. Then he shoots him [B]8[/B] times infront of his girlfriend and young daughter. All in the span of 72 seconds. It was clear manslaughter. Later in the trial the defense and officer blames the victim's weed usage because he has weed in his system, even though the officer wouldnt have known that after the fact and it was completely irrelevent. He told the officer immediately in the beginning that he has an legally owned firearm(in the glove department I believe). He followed every command. He did everything right yet he still gets shot up and the officers walks free. What kind precedent does this give? Should legal gun owners still alert cops that they have a weapon in the gun? If they do they might get killed anyways? This verdict is bullshit.[/QUOTE] His gun was in his shorts

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52380315]What precedent does it give? That protectors need to prove their case to the jury better. This isn't some judge making a ruling, it's a full jury.[/QUOTE] Except the prosecutors was denied to show key video evidence during the trial of the officer interview with BCA after the shooting that apperently contradict the officer. Even then the only case the defense made was him having weed in his system and that he was a little slow to follow a command. The officer told him to stop reaching for his ID in midst of him reaching for his ID because the cop asked him for his ID, which is fucking dumb as hell. The jury were also duds. Did you actually follow this case or read anything about it or are you just walking in here after the fact and choosing sides for something you have no idea about. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52380325]His gun was in his shorts[/QUOTE] Regardless, he wasnt reaching for it and even told the officer before hand. He followed all his commands, still gotten killed. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52380325]His gun was in his shorts[/QUOTE] Actually going back There was an interview after this happened with the BCA and he apparently said he didn't know where the gun was. But when he testified, he said he saw it. The prosecutor tried to enter the interview as evidence at that point, but the judge denied it. It must have been mentioned in court because the jury asked a couple times to hear the interview or see a transcript, but the judge denied those requests as well.

Ruling on the shooting aside, the protesters on the highway deserve to be arrested. I completely support nonviolent activism and understand the rationale, but that does not mean that endangering the public by blocking a vehicle freeway [I]at night[/I] is OK at all.

If you protest on a highway you should go to jail. It's extremely dangerous and puts other peoples lives at risk. I don't feel the least bit sorry for these idiots when they get run over by people on the highway. Don't be a dumb ass.

I agree, it dumb as hell to protest on a highway. But for those of you who think that was a fair trial lets check our the jury: [url]http://www.startribune.com/the-yanez-jurors-a-snapshot/428447093/[/url] [QUOTE]I'm curious as to how you reconcile this article with your perception of "an unbiased jury" The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page. One of those posts was heavily critical of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling during national anthems last year to protest police shootings. She said she had forgotten about the posts. Or He said his father was a fire chief and he grew up around law enforcement, and also has a nephew who’s a police officer. He said it would be difficult for him to be unbiased. He has permit to carry and said he knew to keep his hands visible during a traffic stop. “That’s what they teach you,” he said.[/QUOTE] It seems several members of the jury were biased, so I can see where it could have gone wrong. But... there are also other jurors whose opinions are unknown. And again key video evidence of the officer contradicting himself when he previous said he didn't see a gun to him saying he did during the case being denied during the trial. You cannot expect people to behave rationally when a rediculous verdict such is this happens. I'm surprised there wasn't rioting honestly. This was literally as textbook as you can be in "just comply and go home" rulebook as you can be. And yet...

That seems like a pretty diverse jury tbh. Loads of blue colar workers and people critical and supportive of the justice system. [URL="http://live.mprnews.org/Event/The_trial_of_officer_Jeronimo_Yanez/970456316"]And an interesting tidbit regarding the jury, it was initially 10-2 in favor of acquittal but two white jurors held out[/URL] [URL="https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/06/19/yanez-trial-evidence-castile"]And tomorrow they plan to release the dash cam footage and "other evidence" to the public[/URL]

[QUOTE=Sky King;52380413]I agree, it dumb as hell to protest on a highway. But for those of you who think that was a fair trial lets check our the jury: [url]http://www.startribune.com/the-yanez-jurors-a-snapshot/428447093/[/url] It seems several members of the jury were biased, so I can see where it could have gone wrong. But... there are also other jurors whose opinions are unknown. And again key video evidence of the officer contradicting himself when he previous said he didn't see a gun to him saying he did during the case being denied during the trial. You cannot expect people to behave rationally when a rediculous verdict such is this happens. I'm surprised there wasn't rioting honestly. This was literally as textbook as you can be in "just comply and go home" rulebook as you can be. And yet...[/QUOTE] They had their strikes and used them. The jury was fine. The prosecution is responsible solely for the outcome. They only slightly convinced two and even then those two changed their mind after breaking down what the elements of the crime were

blocking highways is stupid i hit a deer on the highway imagine if that was a person jesus christ the deer was annihilated(there's still chunks under my car) and i spun off the road

[QUOTE=Sky King;52380308]The thing is, he was reaching in his pocket because the officer told him to show him his ID. Then he shoots him [B]8[/B] times infront of his girlfriend and young daughter. All in the span of 72 seconds. It was clear manslaughter. Later in the trial the defense and officer blames the victim's weed usage because he has weed in his system, even though the officer wouldnt have known that after the fact and it was completely irrelevent. He told the officer immediately in the beginning that he has an legally owned firearm(in the glove department I believe). He followed every command. He did everything right yet he still gets shot up and the officers walks free. What kind precedent does this give? Should legal gun owners still alert cops that they have a weapon in the gun? If they do they might get killed anyways? This verdict is bullshit.[/QUOTE] This case really showed that full cooperation isn't good enough. It reminds me of another video where a kid was at a gas station, outside his vehicle, cooperating with a cop, and when asked for ID he reached back into his vehicle and was immediately shot multiple times, because he didn't explain what he was doing and they assumed (for some reason) that this guy was running six feet to open his car and grab a gun, instead of maybe complying with their orders and grabbing his ID. If you're pulled over you basically have to narrate [I]exactly[/I] what you're doing and make incredibly slow and deliberate movements unless you want to risk a trigger-happy cop freaking out and ending your life because they're trained to use deadly force as a first response. You have to make it so that the cop never has to feel remotely uncomfortable enough to consider escalating anything. If you're too casual, even when cooperating fully, you could end up like Philando. Cops have dangerous jobs and I understand why they're fearful when a passenger admits to having a firearm. But this cop in particular deserves to be in jail for a long while. I'm at least happy he got fired, even though he'll just move to Iowa and get another job as a cop again, despite being totally unfit.

Jesus Christ, they were protesting on I-94. 94 is imo one of the most dangerous freeways in all of Minneapolis/St. Paul, because people, regardless of the time of day, are going 70 miles through all of these sharp twists and turns ([URL="http://i.imgur.com/mgPTTsw.jpg"]imagine going 60-65 in this during rush hour.[/URL]) It's akin to a F1 racing track if it were garbage and full of shitty cars. What an idiotic place to protest. Totally justified I think. I'm 100% for protests, but not if it's going to put people in danger, yourself included. Be safe and smart out there, folks.

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;52384776]Jesus Christ, they were protesting on I-94. 94 is imo one of the most dangerous freeways in all of Minneapolis/St. Paul, because people, regardless of the time of day, are going 70 miles through all of these sharp twists and turns ([URL="http://i.imgur.com/mgPTTsw.jpg"]imagine going 60-65 in this during rush hour.[/URL]) It's akin to a F1 racing track if it were garbage and full of shitty cars. What an idiotic place to protest. Totally justified I think. I'm 100% for protests, but not if it's going to put people in danger, yourself included. Be safe and smart out there, folks.[/QUOTE] that's the best description of i-94 ive read