Occupy Democrats and others believe...

Yup, lotta folks still in denial about the reaction a lot of the interested parties have had to this attack...

Was Philando the guy filmed dead by his girlfriend in the car? Because I have not yet heard if they even confirmed her initial claim he had a carry permit or the other supposed contextual details. That's the only case I'm aware of at the moment where there might be any plausible question of improper use of lethal force, and it's really only because we have few verified facts to go on besides a rather useless video of the aftermath. Whole lotta wishin' by both sides as to the justification for force in all these events, though, which is why we have a legal system to hopefully sort wheat from chaff.

TCB

Did the NRA weigh in on the killings of Erik Scott or Jose Guerena at all?

Smart PR would have been to promptly issue a statement saying conditionally that that if the victim did in fact have a carry license and was shot while trying to follow instructions, it would be a matter of deep concern, and that they are standing by for verified details.

Remaining completely silent played into the hands of the antis, IMO. The NRA needs to realize that they are no longer dealing with a 24 hour news cycle.

BTW, was it in Minnesota a couple years ago that some police chief stated he was going to tell his officers to shoot CHL holders if they made even the slightest mistake? I wish I could find that article. And what state was the officer who blew his top at the CHL holder trying to notify him, and threatened to kill him?

Except do you want them advocating for the wrong horse? We don't know the guy's CCW status. We don't know his eligibility status. We don't know the sequence of events. We don't know the full facts of the case. Until then there's no point for the NRA or the SAF or any other organization to come out beating war drums.

They need to have Colion Noir on every station stating their.......errrrr...............our cause.





.

Maybe they are waiting until the full story is determined unlike the dear leader who shoots off his mouth immediately..

Iggy said:

Maybe they are waiting until the full story is determined unlike the dear leader who shoots off his mouth immediately..

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, he who speaks first controls the narrative.

They just can't get away from the PC paradigm. They expect the NRA to be part of their lynch mob? Someone needs to give them KKK white sheets.

The NRA did issue a statement concerning the Philando Castile shooting incident, and expressed "concern." It was of course ignored by most of the leftist media.

Anyway, unlike many others they clearly have no intention of taking sides before the full facts and circumstances are revealed. As of now the matter is still a continuing investigation. Those who are too quick to come to a conclusion may regret it later.

316SS said:

Unfortunately, he who speaks first controls the narrative.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the rhetoric as well.

Understand first and foremost that the object of the far left mainstream media and the far left people in the gun grabber camp have one goal and that is to destroy the NRA. After all, the NRA, the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States, stands as a barrier to their plans to disarm us all, and establih their long planned Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Fascist Police State Utopia.

Therefore, no matter what the event in which a firearm is used illegally -- and quite often legally -- they address it with their typical vitriol and rabid hatred. They must paint all of us, especially the NRA members as dirty, filthy, right wing gun crazy vermin.

That's the way they've done it for 50 years and it is not going to stop.

Our fight will continue unabated.

L.W.

The truth will eventually come out but will not be covered by the press because now it is "old news." I found this bit of information interesting. Mr. Castile apparently may not have had a CCW.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._fall_apart_in_minnesota_police_shooting.html

The article in "American Thinker" referenced above is actually taken from a more extensive review found here:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/

There is MUCH more to this story than was first reported. To begin with, the stop was NOT made due to a broken tail light. He was pulled over because he matched the description of someone who had committed an armed robbery four days earlier within a few blocks of where the stop took place. And his gun was exposed in his lap when the officer approached. Things went downhill from there.

The issue of whether or not Mr. Castile actually had a carry permit is still up in the air. The Ramsey county sheriff's office issued a tweet saying that he had not applied for one so one had not been issued. However, he also lived for a time in Hennepin county and may have obtained one there. So far, Hennepin county will neither confirm or deny the existence of a permit.

And quite frankly, he should have known how to handle himself during a traffic stop as his arrest record shows that he was pulled over AT LEAST 31 times since 2002 and charged with about 63 various moving violations many of which were either dismissed or reduced. The various charges that were convictions - including driving on a suspended license and later driving on a revoked license - were all misdemeanors so no felony convictions.

So it looks like the NRA was certainly wise to not issue any statement of support until more facts were known.

The first report is always wrong.

Start with George Zimmerman and work your way thru to today. Taking the narrative verbatim as presented by the national news is not going to lead you to the truth of these shootings. What you will get is the spin as directed by the anti gunners who are presenting their carefully massaged story that we need to be disarmed.

Of course thinking Americans aren't going to respond until all the facts are in. No one has all the facts about this incident and it's not good to take it at face value before the reports come in - it takes days of investigation and I don't expect to see the news media make any effort to correct the misperceptions they are deliberately passing on as news.

We can check sources, dispute facts, and agree to disagree, but the idea that a cop deliberately went rogue and killed a CCW carrying citizen is yet to be proven. As the details come out - then decide. What we have now is exactly what far sighted commentators have predicted will happen with the internet as a live news source - people can and will manipulate it to make it look like the bad guys are innocent and the good guys are guilty.

The first reports are always wrong - go back and see - don't jump into this without checking the OTHER side of the story. If you let inflammatory information and an emotional appeal determine who is at guilt, then you are letting those determine justice, not reasoned thinking and balanced consideration.

The NRA did the smart thing by not defending Philandro Castile. He was stopped because he fit the physical description of a armed robbery suspect.
Here is a link to all the info you need.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...do-castile-falcon-heights-mn-police-shooting/

After my Facebook feed was blown up by friends asking why the NRA was AWOL on this, I checked the NRA News feed and there was nothing at that time. There was at least a day of silence between the initial criticism of the NRA's lack of a social media statement and their social media response, at least on the FB feeds, I think.

Except do you want them advocating for the wrong horse? We don't know the guy's CCW status. We don't know his eligibility status. We don't know the sequence of events. We don't know the full facts of the case. Until then there's no point for the NRA or the SAF or any other organization to come out beating war drums.

Click to expand...

True. But putting out a statement saying that "IF it is true that the deceased had a valid concealed carry permit and was attempting to comply when shot, that would be a cause of grave concern" is not taking a side; it's merely stating what every citizen and every police officer should already believe 100%. It is a statement of fundamental legal and constitutional principles.

The alternative, remaining silent, allowed the anti's to say "the NRA doesn't care if CCW holders are shot, if they aren't white." I don't believe that's true, and I don't think the NRA made any sort of immediate statements after the shootings of Mr. Scott (white) or Mr. Guerena (Latino) either. But if you don't fill the social-media void with something, the anti's will gleefully fill it for you. This is something that police departments are learning as well.

The NRA did issue a statement concerning the Philando Castile shooting incident, and expressed "concern." It was of course ignored by most of the leftist media.

Click to expand...

Because it was way, way too late. Had a generic statement of principles been issued *immediately*, expressing support for responsible CCW by people of all races and that "we don't yet know if that's the case here but we'll be watching it closely", they wouldn't have handed the match to the anti's from the get-go. The NRA needs to be more agile; this is no longer the CNN era.

The NRA did the smart thing by not defending Philandro Castile. He was stopped because he fit the physical description of a armed robbery suspect.

Click to expand...

That is not grounds for a shooting to be ruled justified; it just means that the stop (and perhaps a Terry search) would have been justified. If it turns out that he did indeed have a CCW and was attempting to follow the officer's orders, that's not a good shoot regardless of what led to the initial stop.

the idea that a cop deliberately went rogue and killed a CCW carrying citizen is yet to be proven.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is claiming that. I think that if it does prove to be a bad shoot, it will be because the officer had been the recipient of poor training and/or fearmongering about CCW, perhaps with the ingrained mindset that "gun present = shoot", and issued self-contradictory commands, then shot the citizen for continuing to obey the initial command after it was countermanded in a panic. If so, that would have some echoes of the shooting of Erik Scott, who was white, outside of a Costco a few years ago; one officer told him to draw the gun and put it on the ground, while another told him not to move; he apparently tried to slowly comply with the first officer's command and was shot dead by the second officer. Tragic, and completely unnecessary.

This criticism is easy to counter, Colion Noir was tweeting and commenting on the Philando shooting from the beginning.

Plus watching Fauxgressives tie themselves into knots criticizing a black 2A advocate is quite entertaining. But I'm a bit of a sadist.

Neither the NRA or any of us have any business pretending to be the jury. Our justice system will discover the truth and deal with it according (unless a Clinton was involved.)

316SS said:

Unfortunately, he who speaks first controls the narrative.

Click to expand...

I would say it's they that speak the loudest and most frequently that control the narrative, and that would be The Progressives, via everything from the mainstream news and entertainment media, to government, to the schools, to the multi-national corporations, to the majority of activist foundations and think-tanks,etc.

This criticism is easy to counter, Colion Noir was tweeting and commenting on the Philando shooting from the beginning.

Click to expand...

He was. NRA should have retweeted/posted his comments immediately under their accounts, IMO.

You and I know that Colion Noir is affiliated with the NRA, but Joe/Jane Facebook don't necessarily know that.

I would say it's they that speak the loudest and most frequently that control the narrative, and that would be The Progressives, via everything from the mainstream news and entertainment media, to government, to the schools, to the multi-national corporations, to the majority of activist foundations and think-tanks,etc.

Click to expand...

The NRA was getting clobbered on social media, and that's where 5 million NRA members could probably have defused the "NRA doesn't care about CCW for nonwhites" claim if they had simply had an NRA statement to retweet/share. I know, I looked for one in order to do just that, and there wasn't one that I could find.

Our Gov Dayton declared it was racism saying that the shooting would not have occurred had the car occupants been white. That's a difficult bell to unring.

I also very much resent Trial by Social Media.

I don't think it matters any if he had a criminal record or a permit to carry. He was still a United States citizen and entitled to all of the rights and privileges we are all supposed to have.

From a couple of group e-mails I sent out (not going to modify for the forum):

I again saw the Facebook video (Castile case) on the news last night and this comment from his girlfriend got my Spidey sense tingling.

Here are her exact words shortly into the video:
He let the officer know he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet.

Now I’m sure the gal may have been in shock, and there’s a good chance if you ask her what happened five times, you’re going to get five slightly different descriptions (that’s just the nature of most witnesses), BUT just roll her statement over in your head.

He let the officer know he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet.

I’m sure lawyers will have a field day with this one?

Exactly how did he let the officer know he had a firearm (what language was used)?

Based on her quote, imagine you’re the officer and are told this:
“I have a gun” as you reach for your wallet / ID.

In her comment she says he let the officer know he had a gun, but we don’t know if he let the office know he was reaching for his wallet (could be taken either way based on her imprecise comment).

If you watched the Massad Ayoob video from my earlier e-mail, you’ll recall at the 1 minute mark the following conversation:
Ayoob: The old advice of tell the office “I’VE GOT A GUN” is going to have a very negative….
Gresham: Well what’s your reaction if… “I’ve got a gun.”
Ayoob: “ME TOO” (as he steps back and draws his).

I’m wondering if something like this isn’t exactly what occurred in the Castile case?

I tell you this not to assign blame to either party (the courts will figure that out), but simply to remind you if you carry a firearm, you need to LEARN HOW TO SURRENDER / COMPLY.

As I told you in my earlier e-mail, I NEVER mention the word GUN to an officer.

Every time I’ve been pulled over, the first thing out of the officer’s mouth when he approached was can I see your driver’s license and registration?

I don’t say a word so there’s no chance of misinterpretation or a failure to communicate.

I simply place my CHP on TOP of my DL and hand both to the officer and wait for his instructions.

AND FINALLY

With all that’s going on these days, AND comments I see from some of the pundits / activists on TV on the Sunday talk shows (I fear for their children), perhaps it’s time we all take a short refresher course on how to interact with the police from Chris Rock.

CAUTION: Language, so not for work or around your kids (although you need to pass these tips on to them)!

They say the best satire has a basis in truth – that being the case, this is some of the best I’ve seen!

How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked (or these days, shot) By The Police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA

It really is quite simple, similar thing with keeping a job, marriage, athletic field and many other situations.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk