http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-spawn-cities-across-u-s-over-police-shootings-black-n605686

4 dead

4 dead

Hopefully the suspect/s will be soon dead instead of captured.

Hopefully the suspect/s will be soon dead instead of captured.

I would hope that as a civilized nation with a constitution the presumes innocence for all her citizens until proven guilty, even the lowest scum of the nation, that we would still give them the same rights to due process that all of us aare guaranteed. This includes accused rapists, child molesters and cop killers.

I would hope that as a civilized nation with a constitution the presumes innocence for all her citizens until proven guilty, even the lowest scum of the nation, that we would still give them the same rights to due process that all of us aare guaranteed. This includes accused rapists, child molesters and cop killers.

I totally agree. Any reasonable person would never hope for a suspect to be dead soon. I've already been seeing reports of a person who was seen to be open carrying on the Dallas streets being reported as a suspect and that has been debunked. You just can't just go around killing people who are suspects.

Looks like this was a coordinated attack that used the peaceful protest to triangulate fire on the officers, and you both are right as long as Texas has the right perp/s in custody Huntsville will take care of the rest{eventually}.

I would hope that as a civilized nation with a constitution the presumes innocence for all her citizens until proven guilty, even the lowest scum of the nation, that we would still give them the same rights to due process that all of us aare guaranteed. This includes accused rapists, child molesters and cop killers.

Child molesters though? What if it was your kid?

Child molesters though? What if it was your kid?

The author clearly said 'suspect,' not 'shooter.'

Plenty of kids have made false accusations or indicated the wrong perpetrator.

I would hope that as a civilized nation with a constitution the presumes innocence for all her citizens until proven guilty, even the lowest scum of the nation, that we would still give them the same rights to due process that all of us aare guaranteed. This includes accused rapists, child molesters and cop killers.

The legal system has to presume innocence, I don't.

The last thing we need are vigilantes running around trying to serve justice. I'd be scared for my life if I was the guy whose picture was flashed around all the news sites.

Probably would be better if the suspect wasn't killed so the PD could gather more information.

Child molesters though? What if it was your kid?

What if it was your child that was accused of being the molester? Yes, if it was my child that was molested, I would want the offender punished but I would also want to be sure that the right person was punished.

The last thing we need are vigilantes running around trying to serve justice. I'd be scared for my life if I was the guy whose picture was flashed around all the news sites.

Especially since it's come out he had nothing to do with it. What if he had been killed like some people here were hoping for?

Has anyone heard of a police force using a remote controlled robot with a bomb on it to take out a suspect before?

Has anyone heard of a police force using a remote controlled robot with a bomb on it to take out a suspect before?

Not specifically that, but Christopher Dorner comes to mind - where police set fire to the place he was hiding.

They keep saying "shooters" and "suspects" but now it may turn out there was only one shooter?

Has anyone heard of a police force using a remote controlled robot with a bomb on it to take out a suspect before?

I think it makes sense though, when you've got someone claiming to have explosives/IEDs.

Has anyone heard of a police force using a remote controlled robot with a bomb on it to take out a suspect before?

It was my understanding that the robot detonated an explosive that the suspect had/brought/wore. I may be mistaken.

Police killed the suspect with an explosive device after a standoff that lasted for hours, Chief David Brown said.
"We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," Brown said. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html

It was my understanding that the robot detonated an explosive that the suspect had/brought/wore. I may be mistaken.

No. It was a police bomb the robot carried to take out the guy before he did any more harm.

No. It was a police bomb the robot carried to take out the guy before he did any more harm.

Just seeing that clarification on the news too. Thanks.

I'm not sure how I feel about police using explosives on a suspect, fwiw.

Just seeing that clarification on the news too. Thanks.

I'm not sure how I feel about police using explosives on a suspect, fwiw.

Why are you troubled? Because he may be "more dead" with an explosive than by gunshot?

Why are you troubled? Because he may be "more dead" with an explosive than by gunshot?

Nah, just that once you start using high explosives in a law enforcement capacity, where does it end? In this specific case, that was probably the best means to ensure officer safety.

The author clearly said 'suspect,' not 'shooter.'

Plenty of kids have made false accusations or indicated the wrong perpetrator.I'm saying if you saw it happening. . .

What if it was your child that was accused of being the molester?That's a good point.

Nah, just that once you start using high explosives in a law enforcement capacity, where does it end? In this specific case, that was probably the best means to ensure officer safety.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dallas-police-bomb-robot_us_577fbed9e4b0c590f7e8fc62?section=

Nah, just that once you start using high explosives in a law enforcement capacity, where does it end? In this specific case, that was probably the best means to ensure officer safety.

I get your concern. But I don't think the DPD would ever just start hurling explosives indiscriminately. I'm sure if there was even the most remote chance that their could have been any further injuries caused by this course of action, they wouldn't have done it.

My wife and I were extremely depressed last night watching the news. We are raising are young children in a society that seems to be slipping into some dark places. It's scary.

I hear people this morning clamoring that congress needs to do something. What, make murder illegal? It's about time people stop looking to false idols for leadership. They are just men (and women) like everyone else.

Police killed the suspect with an explosive device after a standoff that lasted for hours, Chief David Brown said.
"We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," Brown said. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html

Ok so the shooter asked for a cell phone and they disguised a a bomb as a cell phone and drove it right up to him. That is some improvising.

I get your concern. But I don't think the DPD would ever just start hurling explosives indiscriminately. I'm sure if there was even the most remote chance that their could have been any further injuries caused by this course of action, they wouldn't have done it.

My wife and I were extremely depressed last night watching the news. We are raising are young children in a society that seems to be slipping into some dark places. It's scary.

I hear people this morning clamoring that congress needs to do something. What, make murder illegal? It's about time people stop looking to false idols for leadership. They are just men (and women) like everyone else.

I just worry about any possibility of automating the ability of security forces to kill citizens. This isn't war, regardless of the rhetoric on either side. Security forces should only ever kill to protect life (which I 100% agree was the motive in this case), not out of convenience or a desire to mitigate all risk. Regardless, this is very isolated and probably not the beginning of a trend.

To your second point, I agree.

I'm saying if you saw it happening. . .

But, that's not what you DID say. Seeing your child being victimized is completely different than identifying a suspect.

Ok so the shooter asked for a cell phone and they disguised a a bomb as a cell phone and drove it right up to him. That is some improvising.

Really hope to know more about this... do police departments across the country stock exploding cell phones to be used on citizens? Or, was this an explosive device police already use in their bomb squads to detonate suspicious packages and looks nothing like a cell phone and police simply took that opportunity (cell phone request) to drive the robot in close and take him out? Did police have eyes on the suspect to know for certain he didn't have a hostage? Lots of info to come out in the near future I suspect. Really hard to have an informed opinion one way or the other at this point.

^^^^^^^
Agree. And as much as this seems like an excellent use of this tactic on the surface, it's a pretty slippery slope.

The latest info on the killing of Philando Castile in Minnesota is getting interesting..... Waters are getting a bit muddied with the latest info that Castile may have been an armed robbery suspect. To me its still too soon to declare anything other than tragic at this point. The clarity of whose to blame won't be known for awhile IMO.

The latest info on the killing of Philando Castile in Minnesota is getting interesting..... Waters are getting a bit muddied with the latest info that Castile may have been an armed robbery suspect. To me its still too soon to declare anything other than tragic at this point. The clarity of whose to blame won't be known for awhile IMO.
That dog doesn't hunt. Armed robbery suspect? Puhleeze, it was driving while black.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/stopped-52-times-police-racial-profiling-40453378?yptr=yahoo
When Philando Castile saw the flashing lights in his rearview mirror, it wasn't unusual. He had been pulled over at least 52 times in recent years in and around the Twin Cities and given citations for minor offenses including speeding, driving without a muffler and not wearing a seat belt.

He was assessed at least $6,588 in fines and fees, although more than half of the total 86 violations were dismissed, court records show.

That dog doesn't hunt. Armed robbery suspect? Puhleeze, it was driving while black.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/stopped-52-times-police-racial-profiling-40453378?yptr=yahoo
When Philando Castile saw the flashing lights in his rearview mirror, it wasn't unusual. He had been pulled over at least 52 times in recent years in and around the Twin Cities and given citations for minor offenses including speeding, driving without a muffler and not wearing a seat belt.

He was assessed at least $6,588 in fines and fees, although more than half of the total 86 violations were dismissed, court records show.

No idea what point you were trying to make beyond your bias. My stance was one that this is a tragedy and that more information is coming out that may make things more clear one way or the other. There was no 'dog' I was trying to 'hunt.' I was merely stating facts -- some people get annoyed by those.

He was pulled over on average of 2x a year with a couple of years 3x on average. That's not glaring proof of anything. As for the tickets and fees - no idea how you or I can make much of that without knowing all the charges and the norms for that municipality.

IMO this is a case of... Officer thought Castile was a suspect from an armed robbery (which is clear from the police radio traffic), stopped Castile and Castile was shot..... either because he refused to not touch his gun or because the cop was unsuited for the job of patrol officer and is deserving of criminal charges.

I simply can't take a side at this point because I can see two viable scenarios. One where the officer was wrong and one where Castile was wrong. Its the details that have not emerged that will probably form my opinion.

The point I was making is that this individual had been cited numerous times with over half of these dismissed. I drive a sedan over 20, 000 miles a year in my vocation. I have been stopped 3 times in the last 5 years. No matter the norms or practices that is excessive when over half are dismissed. Hell even you have self cited multiple stops for speeding w/o getting cited. The cop shot this guy 5 times after the cop asked him for his id and he reached into his pocket to retrieve same. Cop then goes into full blown rationalization why he shot him. Then contrary to accepted practices, cop never renders any aid. Under what scenerio was Castile wrong? What point are you trying to make? Even if he thought he was an armed robbery suspect (even though he was pulled over for a "broken tail light') does a suspect get shot routinely 5 times when complying to show id? Then again I don't know the practices and procedures there.

The point I was making is that this individual had been cited numerous times with over half of these dismissed. I drive a sedan over 20, 000 miles a year in my vocation. I have been stopped 3 times in the last 5 years. No matter the norms or practices that is excessive when over half are dismissed. Hell even you have self cited multiple stops for speeding w/o getting cited. The cop shot this guy 5 times after the cop asked him for his id and he reached into his pocket to retrieve same. Cop then goes into full blown rationalization why he shot him. Then contrary to accepted practices, cop never renders any aid. Under what scenerio was Castile wrong? What point are you trying to make? Even if he thought he was an armed robbery suspect (even though he was pulled over for a "broken tail light') does a suspect get shot routinely 5 times when complying to show id? Then again I don't know the practices and procedures there.

Again, neither you nor I have enough details to know what, if anything, his number of tickets has to do with anything.

In reality, Castile was ticketed, on average, of just over 3x per year. Is that a lot? Depends on the person, the location and the offenses cited.

More than half dismissed. Lets say that left him with 20 valid tickets (probably conservative). That's roughly $330 per ticket. Is that excessive? Probably not. Even though I virtually never get a ticket, I know they can be expensive and the most recent one I got (not using a blinker within so many feet of my turn) was not cheap.

So, what does that really mean? To me, nothing - simply because I don't have enough information to draw a real conclusion. Could mean something, could mean nothing.

"The cop shot this guy 5 times after the cop asked him for his id and he reached into his pocket to retrieve same." You nor I have any idea if that is true, false or somewhere in between.

The video starts AFTER that all is said to have occurred. I'm not saying his girlfriend is not 100% on point, I'm simply saying we don't know and we need to stop writing history until we do know for certain - or have at least examined all possibilities.

My point should be obvious. We don't yet have all the facts and you are filling in blanks with things that are not known yet. They may prove to be true or they may not.

He didn't pull them over for a tail light. He clearly pulled them over because he thought he was a suspect. He used the tail light excuse to keep things calm. Again, you are choosing to ignore facts already known.

You have ZERO idea if he complied when/if told to shown ID. You are simply bias and its very obvious.

The latest info on the killing of Philando Castile in Minnesota is getting interesting..... Waters are getting a bit muddied with the latest info that Castile may have been an armed robbery suspect. To me its still too soon to declare anything other than tragic at this point. The clarity of whose to blame won't be known for awhile IMO.

you sure about that? the way i heard it was that castile matched the description of an armed robbery suspect, not that he himself was a suspect. -M

you sure about that? the way i heard it was that castile matched the description of an armed robbery suspect, not that he himself was a suspect. -M

Driving while black with a wide nose, apparently.

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer continues. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.”

http://rare.us/story/this-audio-recording-shines-a-totally-new-light-on-philando-castiles-death-and-its-not-good/

you sure about that? the way i heard it was that castile matched the description of an armed robbery suspect, not that he himself was a suspect. -M

Sure about what? "may have been an armed robbery suspect" - That is certain. We just may be defining 'suspect' differently. The cop thought he resembled the armed robber that he had a BOLO for and that is why he stopped him. So, to the cop, Castile was indeed a suspect at that moment. You could also call him a person of interest, etc. It seems the officers intent was to keep the situation calm, get his license info and see if anything supported his suspicion.

Of course, the cop may also have been a racist a-hole. I have no idea. I haven't read if this officer has any questionable professional/personal past or any complaints.

Regardless, that does provide some additional insight. At least as to the motive of the stop. Does it make it right or even professional and civil? Maybe not. I don't have enough information.

What does seem concerning is the words the officer used when communicating with dispatch. Seems he based the validity of the stop on the width of Castile's nose. However, I'm basing that solely on the few words he said to dispatch. More may come out to justify the stop, OR, to condemn it.

I get that the 'wide set nose' comment may inflame those sensitive to this case. But I've listened to a lot of police radio traffic and read lots of reports and it really didn't shock me that much because I've seen similar justification given in cases involving non-blacks. The only thing that got my attention was how it would be interpreted by a public who doesn't have training or spend time trying to identify suspects of crimes.

Again, I won't be shocked either way this case turns out and no additional information will make it less tragic for all involved and their families.

Speaking in general here on related subject matter but not specifically to Mr. Castile's case...

This wouldn't be the first time a PD tried to use a "person matching the description of a suspect in the area" excuse. And I'll use that term "excuse" because that's what I believe it is. That detail usually comes out well after the situation occurred in an attempt to cover themselves, obviously.

Cops are taught to shoot first and ask questions later because they've been given de facto authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. The many cases and trials dismissed and cops seen "not guilty" proves this.
Cops need to be held responsible for their actions and they need to be re-trained and have psych evaluations quarterly AT MINIMUM. These are people on the taxpayers dime that are going around and shooting, maiming, and killing innocents of all ages and races (notice I said innocents as the actual criminals is another aspect that can be debated).

sure about what? "may have been an armed robbery suspect" - that is certain.

maybe this is a bit of a communication breakdown as it seems that i parse that sentence differently than you do. when i read "castile may have been an armed robbery suspect", that statement implies to me that castile was being sought by name in connection with an armed robbery... no news agency i've seen is reporting it this way, but if castile was specifically being sought that would certainly change the circumstances of the interaction which is why i wanted to clarify your statement to see if you had read something different than me. -M

This is one of the most cancerous things in American media--that some people, in an effort to confirm their biases, distrust the "lame stream media," in favor of garbage like The Conservative Tribune or Breitbart--sources which unabashedly just make up bullisht which their supporters gobble up as God's truth. I'm going to post a Snopes link, and most assuredly, someone will tell us about how biased Snopes is.

Snopes isn't biased, facts are biased.

This is why the claim Castile may have been an armed robbery suspect is false, and that anyone who reposted something without thinking needs to internet better:

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

This is one of the most cancerous things in American media--that some people, in an effort to confirm their biases, distrust the "lame stream media," in favor of garbage like The Conservative Tribune or Breitbart--sources which unabashedly just make up bullisht which their supporters gobble up as God's truth. I'm going to post a Snopes link, and most assuredly, someone will tell us about how biased Snopes is.

Snopes isn't biased, facts are biased.

This is why the claim Castile may have been an armed robbery suspect is false, and that anyone who reposted something without thinking needs to internet better:

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

I think this again comes down to which details in the article you referenced above people give weight to and how you want to define certain terms - like 'suspect.' I agree, 99% of what they wrote is speculative BS - which is why I never referenced it. What isn't BS is that the cop pulled them over and did so under the guise of Castile possibly being the person in their BOLO. Did he really have just cause to do this? That's just going to depend on who you ask.

Do we call Castile an armed robbery suspect? I'd say 'no, not really' At least not how most of the public would define one. I've seen nothing that names him, his tag number, etc. as possibly being involved. That said, to the officer at that moment he was a 'suspect' or 'a person of interest.'

Reports go out all the time that read something like this.... "suspect is a black male, approximately 6' tall with a thin build, and armed with a handgun." I see this in police reports, I hear this on radio calls and I see it aired on the news. I often think - well, that just narrowed it down to half the population. What good was that? But, it was still treated as suspect information.

Again, there are different degrees of being a suspect. I'd certainly say Castile was at the lowest level (meaning of little of no significance) of that measure.

Did the cop just use that as an excuse to pull them over - quite possibly. But just not enough information to make that jump at this point.

Another reason all cops should be required to wear body cameras.

That said, citizens basically do because we whip our phones out without hesitation. Maybe we need a citizen body cam movement. I'd rather see people with those then guns on their hips and they'd probably have a measurable deterrent factor when it comes to crime.

But back to Midtowner's post: I agree 100% that the re-posting of the article referenced would be a disservice to anyone who seeks the truth.

I'm assuming the officer was in possession of two pieces of information--that there was a BOLO for a black male and that said black male had a wide-set nose. Race is often, bordering on always an identifier used in descriptions of a person. It's certainly a useful identifier.

Simply by stating in a BOLO that the subject is a black male screens out 96% of the population. That's got to be pretty useful for law enforcement and it sounds great unless you are a black male.