|
|
|
|
|
|
by qjdn
3281 days ago
|
|
|
Hi, thank you for responding. I too commented against my better judgement. I was curious whether you had a working definition of "criminal record". For example, perhaps you reasonably exclude "petty misdemeanors", a category of offenses which is not punishable by jail time in Minnesota; many traffic offenses fall under that category in the state. However, as mentioned, Castile's record goes beyond petty misdemeanors. As part of my research into the topic, I found that the New York Times is not willing to say "no criminal record", presumably because they believe it is false. "Law-abiding" includes more than just convictions. For example, I was curious whether your definition excluded drug offenses, as the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law in the United States. (Possession of sufficiently large amounts remains a felony in Minnesota as well.) Instead my clarifying question was called "shitty demeaning racist trolling". Besides being unproductive, I believe your comment violates the site guidelines. I encourage you to assume good faith in your fellow commenters. I in fact support the criminal punishment of officer Yanez in this case, and my judgement suggests that the outcome of the jury trial is unjust. However, I am strongly opposed to attitudes and comments such as your own, which I feel make sincere discussion of facts impossible. I hope that you come to agree on some of these meta points. |
|
|
Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. It is misdirection to put the blame on anyone who is murdered by a cop for having crimes in their past. It does not matter. Cops can't just murder anyone they want, even people who have committed crimes.
Every article I've read on the subject says Castile had "minor traffic violations". That was what I've been basing my assertions on. If it's more than minor traffic violations, I don't know about it...but, don't really care, unless the violations showed a history of violence. You're not asserting it is a history of violence, either, so why does it matter to this case, or any other, when an officer loses their cool and murders someone?
The officer clearly had no idea about Castile's past in the video, because they don't even know who he is. They're asking for ID, and then shoot him within seconds of asking. So, no matter how many crimes he did or didn't have, it can't have played any role in the officer's behavior. Again, it does not matter. Cops shouldn't be able to murder people with impunity.
If Castile smoked pot and got caught, I don't blame him for it. Black folks are multiple times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than white people, even though white people use drugs more. I've smoked pot in places where it was illegal. I've never been busted for it; probably partly because I'm a white middle-class man. I'm not willing to call him a criminal over that.
"Possession of sufficiently large amounts remains a felony in Minnesota as well."
Why mention this? Are you saying Castile had a felony in his past? Or, is this just another way to make vaguely ominous noises about the criminality and dangerousness of a black man who was, by all accounts, a gentle dude just trying to get by? It's the little things like this that make me doubt your sincerity and good intentions in this conversation. You keep making vague noises about, "I've looked at his record and I see many things." Say what you mean. Don't raise the specter of criminality in Castile's past and make scary noises about felonies and the NYT not saying "no criminal record". That feels like the dog-whistle that sites like Breitbart use all the time to demonize people of color.
My point all along in this conversation and others is that a black man is presumed guilty in the US, by police and the white general public. Your comments are proving that point. So what if he smoked weed? Does that mean everyone who's smoked weed deserves to be executed in the street? I mean, I hate Seth Rogan as much as the next guy, but he doesn't deserve to be murdered by a cop. So what if he had some vehicle violations? I've already admitted to enough crimes to be executed under that rule.
I really do try to assume good intent, particularly on HN. But, man, you're making it hard.
If I'm wrong about him having no criminal record say so in plain language. The articles I've read said he had minor traffic violations. Your comment was an intentionally vague, "Well, actually..." and I find that obnoxious and misleading. It looks like a dog-whistle, to me. If it wasn't intended that way, you should try to be more clear in the future.