11336 pts ยท January 13, 2017
He wasn't there after the shooting per procedure. The jury didn't seem to think there was enough of a conflict to not believe him...
apparently think that this was the case. I wonder why? 3/3
pocket, and not visible, how could Yanez describe it accurately in his testimony? The jury, who heard all of the evidence and testimony 2/
Yay, more cherry picking, 'court records' also include the testimony that it fell out. Think about it this way, if the gun was in his 1/
by Yanez disprove that assertion.Understand? Prosecution said the gun didn't fall out, as part of their argument. They are wrong. 2/2
The prosecution asserted that it was in his pocket, and that it didn't fall out. Testimony and the accurate description of the weapon (1/2
You cherry picked the parts that agree with your point of view, and ignored the rest.
the weapon, it is plausible the gun was in the waistband,etc.and fell from there. If the gun wasn't visible, how did Yanez describe it? 2/2
Also, the gun wasn't "still in his pocket". It reportedly "fell out" when they were moving him. Given that Yanez accurately described (1
he didn't say "I didn't know" he said "I don't know where it is" in regards to castille's saying he had a gun. (read the testimony)
Evidence + source. Court case + jury trial, the verdict of which was "not guilty" 'nuff said.
objective reality, video evidence, and a jury all disagree with your final conclusion. Even if that isn't the gun, Yanez still saw it.
zero people in the trial disputed that his gun is visible in the video. The same gun that the officer positively identified. Get over it.
found Yanez not guilty! I'll bet it was a conspiracy! 4/4
services so that these kind of mistakes don't happen again.And to think, an entire jury, heard all of the evidence, except for this, and /3
said something differently in court? I wonder why the prosecutors didn't argue the fact that the gun was visible? You should offer your /2
Do you think the prosecution knew all of this? If they did, I'll bet the case would have turned out much differently.I wonder why Yanez /1
split all the hairs you want, the gun is visible, in the video, and you are probably the last person saying that it isn't.
following the shooting (2/2
Even the prosecution in the case doesn't dispute that the gun is visible in that video. Yanez even described it, correctly,in a statement /1
He was referring to when castille told him he had a gun.He also said, 'I told him to take his hand off his gun', indicating that he saw it.
From the video/evidence: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mn-shooting-19.jpg
of debate. Read the court documents, and all of the evidence/testimony instead of cherry picking, and pretending there is no visible gun.
You are injecting your own reality into this and ignoring facts. Yanez said he saw the gun, and the gun on Castille isn't even a matter /1
statements that support your claim. For example, he didn't say "don't reach for it" referring to the driver's wallet. (2/2
Because I read the testimony and cross examinations of the actual court case. There is a lot more to it than some cherry picked /1
just google it
he did in fact see the gun, etc. He was also found not guilty in that case by a jury, probably for that reason. (2/2
Nobody said it was illegal, but it is a really stupid idea. What if you get pulled over for example? Also, the officer testified that /1
The entire idea of cultural appropriation is absurd, even for white people. Try not to be so racist.
He wasn't there after the shooting per procedure. The jury didn't seem to think there was enough of a conflict to not believe him...
apparently think that this was the case. I wonder why? 3/3
pocket, and not visible, how could Yanez describe it accurately in his testimony? The jury, who heard all of the evidence and testimony 2/
Yay, more cherry picking, 'court records' also include the testimony that it fell out. Think about it this way, if the gun was in his 1/
by Yanez disprove that assertion.Understand? Prosecution said the gun didn't fall out, as part of their argument. They are wrong. 2/2
The prosecution asserted that it was in his pocket, and that it didn't fall out. Testimony and the accurate description of the weapon (1/2
You cherry picked the parts that agree with your point of view, and ignored the rest.
the weapon, it is plausible the gun was in the waistband,etc.and fell from there. If the gun wasn't visible, how did Yanez describe it? 2/2
Also, the gun wasn't "still in his pocket". It reportedly "fell out" when they were moving him. Given that Yanez accurately described (1
he didn't say "I didn't know" he said "I don't know where it is" in regards to castille's saying he had a gun. (read the testimony)
Evidence + source. Court case + jury trial, the verdict of which was "not guilty" 'nuff said.
objective reality, video evidence, and a jury all disagree with your final conclusion. Even if that isn't the gun, Yanez still saw it.
zero people in the trial disputed that his gun is visible in the video. The same gun that the officer positively identified. Get over it.
found Yanez not guilty! I'll bet it was a conspiracy! 4/4
services so that these kind of mistakes don't happen again.And to think, an entire jury, heard all of the evidence, except for this, and /3
said something differently in court? I wonder why the prosecutors didn't argue the fact that the gun was visible? You should offer your /2
Do you think the prosecution knew all of this? If they did, I'll bet the case would have turned out much differently.I wonder why Yanez /1
split all the hairs you want, the gun is visible, in the video, and you are probably the last person saying that it isn't.
following the shooting (2/2
Even the prosecution in the case doesn't dispute that the gun is visible in that video. Yanez even described it, correctly,in a statement /1
He was referring to when castille told him he had a gun.He also said, 'I told him to take his hand off his gun', indicating that he saw it.
From the video/evidence: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mn-shooting-19.jpg
of debate. Read the court documents, and all of the evidence/testimony instead of cherry picking, and pretending there is no visible gun.
You are injecting your own reality into this and ignoring facts. Yanez said he saw the gun, and the gun on Castille isn't even a matter /1
statements that support your claim. For example, he didn't say "don't reach for it" referring to the driver's wallet. (2/2
Because I read the testimony and cross examinations of the actual court case. There is a lot more to it than some cherry picked /1
just google it
he did in fact see the gun, etc. He was also found not guilty in that case by a jury, probably for that reason. (2/2
Nobody said it was illegal, but it is a really stupid idea. What if you get pulled over for example? Also, the officer testified that /1
The entire idea of cultural appropriation is absurd, even for white people. Try not to be so racist.