maxresdefault

“We are cognizant of the racial overtones arising from Mr. Castile’s death. The concerns of our members, and honest gun owners everywhere, go even deeper. Exercising our right to bear arms should not translate to a death sentence over something so trivial as a traffic stop for a broken tail light, and we are going to watch this case with a magnifying glass.” – Alan Gottlieb in a press release [via saf.org]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

  2. ALL police involved shootings should be the subject of “independent investigation.”

    The cops investigating themselves and working with the prosecutors in their own home jurisdictions is part of the problem.

    But, then again…Hillary. Comey. Obama.

    So long as different sets of rules apply to different people, things will continue to get worse and can never get better.

    • The federal apparatus was meant to have oversight from the state governments, not the beast itself. A dispute where the judge is biased is not a dispute, but a mere inconvenience to the offenders.

  3. Maybe wait for all the facts to come in. Castille was a known criminal, known drug user, and known (Crips) gang member, who doubtfully could lawfully purchase or possess a firearm, regardless of thus-far specious claims that he had a CCW. He also fit the description of a BOLO for one of two suspects of an armed robbery of a recent convenience store in the vicinity of where the car was pulled over.

    • Really? According to Guns.com, Mr Castille had 31 various traffic violations and misdemeanors, most of which were dismissed and no felonies. These are facts and I really think your comments were out of line. What’s your source for the BOLO report?

    • I think we need some sources on that. Cause you’re literally the only person mentioning these things.

      • He’s not the ONLY one mentioning them.

        I saw a non-TTAG reference to him being in the Crips yesterday. I don’t recall the source, but it is out there.

        I ain’t saying I believe it. I don’t know what to believe at this point.

        Obfuscation is a weapon used by the propaganda machinery. That much I do know.

        • Yeah, I saw that too, and it was pure conjecture because he happened to be wearing a blue shirt. What, are you guys *trying* to validate the BLM narrative?

          The dude worked with kids every day at a school. The only “facts” we have is that he had a bit of a lead foot and drove a sh*tty car – and got tickets for that. BFD.

          Every “fact” indicates he was a rather regular guy if only maybe a crappy driver – who had a CCW permit and a job that most likely required him to keep a clean nose and get a background check.

          But no, here we’ve got the (albeit minor) OWFG slash backyard SoF contingent here who jump right to “thug gang member”.

          Keep it up, boys. Makes us look great.

    • I believe you may be confusing the shooting of the CD salesman in the bright red shirt with the murder of Mr. Castile during a traffic stop. In the first case he was in fact a known criminal and a member of the Crips. In the second place he was a law-abiding citizen with a good job and a clean record who obtained a legal (if unconstitutional) permission slip to carry a concealed weapon, which would not have occurred if he had the sort of criminal record you allude to. Also, no criminal with that sort of record is going to state to an approaching officer, “I have a gun.” while reaching behind himself.

      Check your facts, please.

    • Did he have a CCP or not? You can buy a gun illegally but how do you pass the BR check for a CCP if you are a criminal? And for what it’s worth, most police officers I know are, understandably, withdrawn to a certain extent and concentrating on getting home after their shift. Kind of like shoot first and lawyer up later.

      • Pretty sure he had a CCP. And I saw a copy of it. I don’t think Mr. Gura would jump in without knowing THAT…

    • Hahahaha, mangling the facts here just like you do with the Zimmerman case. Good one. 🙂

      See link another person already posted to refute your lies.

      • Except that Zimmerman was innocent of the charges against him, as every piece of forensic and eye-witness testimony fit only his story. Not simply found “not guilty,” but was innocent.

        • Zimmerman was found “not guilty” of murder (or innocent of murder, there is no difference, why do you say it like there is?).

          But Chippy here went well beyond this and made a variety of claims regarding the motions and actions of Trayvon Martin that is supported by absolutely no evidence other than Zimmerman’s testimony (if you can call that evidence), as well revising Zimmerman’s words and actions to whitewash Zimmerman’s self-admitted stalking of Martin.

          My stance has always been that Zimmerman is very likely guilty of manslaughter and there is plenty of evidence to support this, but Chippy (being the legal expert that he is) apparently thinks being innocent of murder is the same as being innocent of manslaughter.

          Anyways, his post here proves yet again his lack of veracity. 🙂

        • A clarification: when I say there is no difference between not guilty and innocent, that is only true consequentially. Zimmerman was found “not guilty” of murder, not “innocent”, because the prosecution failed to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether he is “innocent” was never decided by the jury and is a matter of personal opinion, a fact which Chippy refuses to understand for whatever reason.

          No matter, I never attempted to claim that Zimmerman was guilty of murder but Chippy literally loses his mind when his self-perceived expertise on the Zimmerman case is challenged. A literal personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is quite amusing. 🙂

    • Jesus dude. Looks like you know everything. Part of the investigation, huh? Otherwise how would you be so intimately familiar?

      I’ve been defending us to the left every day, but after reading some of the comments from the brain trusts on here, I’m wondering if they aren’t right and most gun owners are racist hick assholes.

      Chip, you sure you aren’t confusing Castile with the Baton Rouge shooting? Or do “they” look all the same to you?

      Shameful.

      • There is no mistake, the conjecture that Philando Castile robbed a convenience store shortly before being killed is making the rounds in bootlicker circles. The basis of this is a handful of low-resolution photographs which prove absolutely nothing.

        The additional implication here is that merely being a suspect is a death sentence, never mind being the actual perpetrator.

        Chippy here is a well-known sheepdog fantasist, so these views are hardly unexpected.

        • There isn’t any implication from anyone here but you that merely being a suspect is a death sentence in the first place.

        • Really? Then why even bring it up? Why are the pigster cheerleader obsessed with something that has absolutely zero relevance to the shooting, other than as attempted justification?

  4. The USA is going to “hell in a hand basket !” If theses and the recent Dallas police incident is a sign of the times. Then things can only get worst! I can almost hear the ” powers that be” rushing to Institute Martial Law, and a suspension of The Bill of Rights! And then….The Globalists power grab…Goodnight USA—‘Hello NWO re-education camps……All using ” Exigent Circumstance”.

    • dont forget your tinfoil hat and put a towel over your TV so they cant watch you. lol

      • If you can’t grant what he’s saying the merest possibility, you simply are not paying attention.

        The Rule of Law has broken down (cf, Hillary Clinton as but one example) in the US, and Clarence Thomas has said as much. A member of the US Senate said, “Due Process is what’s killing us now.”

        The breakdown of “social order” here opens the door to possibilities like he described.

        Maybe the frog is not completely dead, but that water sure is getting mighty hot. To ignore that is to ignore reality.

  5. God bless Alan Gottlieb and SAF. They took Chicago black man Otis McDonald to the Supreme Court with attorney Alan Gura. When SCOTUS took up the McDonald appeal, NRA hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to barge into the case and steal 10 minutes from Gura’s 30 minute oral argument time. Thanks to Alan Gottlieb, Alan Gura, and Otis McDonald, gun owners in ALL 50 states have a recognized right to bear arms outside the home.

    When the U.S. Federal Court in Chicago overturned Illinois’ ban on citizen carry outside the home in a surprise decision in Dec. 2012, it was NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde who put Duty to Inform with criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill, not “Chicago Machine’ Democrats. The ONLY Reps. who opposed DTI were Chicago Democrat Black Caucus Reps. LaShawn Ford, Will Davis and Chris Welch. Phelps and Vandermyde knew Duty to Inform was only designed to be used against blacks, that’s whey they put it in their carry bill. Great job! Duty to Inform, the gift that keeps on killing!

    • “Thanks to Alan Gottlieb, Alan Gura, and Otis McDonald, gun owners in ALL 50 states have a recognized right to bear arms outside the home.”

      Unless I’m seriously mistaken, this is incorrect. The McDonald case simply extended the individual right recognized in Heller to be enforceable against the states under the 14th Amendment (which is certainly something to be thankful for!). Neither Heller nor McDonald recognized a right to bear arms outside the home; otherwise, the 9th Circuit’s recent ruling upholding a de facto ban on concealed carry would mean that everyone in California who was denied a CCW now has the right to open carry. Alas, that is not the case.

      • Just so you know Chief Master demo boy is a troll who only posts to bitch about Todd Vandermyde. And folks who live in central/southern Illinois. Maybe Todd owes him money…

  6. Good for Alan Gottleib. The SAF is supposed to stick up for legal carriers like Castile. And me.

    • What does SAF say about telling a cop you have a gun as you reach behind your back?

      How do they suggest you handle a traffic stop with carrying?
      Did Mr. Castile follow their suggestions?

      • SAF doesn’t know and no one knows for sure what was said before shots were fired. That’s why they asked for an independent investigation. As far as I am concerned being asked for your ID and reaching for it on you person in a short amount of time you were asked for it without any provocation of aggression should not result in your death. But we will see….

      • ST, isn’t that the entire point of an investigation…to find out what actually happened?

  8. Correct me if I am wrong but, rules of engagement for the police is you must be shot at first before shooting at or killing anybody. There should be a rule for engagement or else the police could go out and say ” sorry I shot him/her, I just panicked”…… I would like to say, from what I seen, the cop was wrong for what he did but on the other hand the guy should have listened to the cop. The thing is in all actuality, we only seen only part of what happened which in fact made the cop look guilty. I could also say the passenger only recorded what she wanted to record just to make the cop look guilty just because the folks don’t like the police, who knows. Since we only seen part of what happened no one can maturely say the cop or the driver was in any wrong. Only further investigations can clear this up.

    • “Correct me if I am wrong but, rules of engagement for the police is you must be shot at first before shooting at or killing anybody.”

      That is simply wrong.

      Not sure where you heard or read that, but please, wipe them from your sources of information.

      • Call me insensitive but that ought to be their rules of engagement. I mean our military is hamstrung by that rule and those boys are in a freaking war zone.

        • “I mean our military is hamstrung by that rule and those boys are in a freaking war zone.”

          Are you kidding? The Pentagon admitted to using baiting tactics to shoot unarmed civilians in Iraq.

          • They shouldn’t have to use such tactics because out soldiers should just be allowed to shoot them.

        • “that ought to be their rules of engagement.”

          I disagree; as citizens, they have every natural right to defense of self as we do. If you open that door for them, others will call for it to be thus for us.

          Bad idea. Baby – bathwater bad.

          There are certainly problems with the deadly force is used by cops these days, and very much problems with the aftermath (investigations and lack of prosecutions or firing when warranted), but your suggestion does not address that and creates new ones.

          “I mean our military is hamstrung by that rule and those boys are in a freaking war zone.”

          Two wrongs don’t make a right.

          If a war is moral and worth fighting, it’s worth winning. Beyond that, no holds barred, no rules…this kind of “Rules of Engagement” stuff is crap, especially as the last 40-50 years of civilian leadership has applied it.

          If you are going to hamstring the military to that degree, maybe, just maybe, they should not be there at all.

          The military is not a ‘police force,’ not a Meals on Wheels’ or other “humanitarian” program and is not for “optics” and “politics.” The role of the military is to kill people and break things.

          Until our civilian leadership realizes the pressing reality of that, crap like you describe will continue. But that does not mean doing the same to police is the ‘right’ answer.

          • You may be correct on the slippery slope angle.
            The point i was driving at was that to “Protect & Serve” you don’t get to behave like a normal citizen. You took the job, wear the badge, get paid the exorbitant amount, no you don’t get to guarantee going home at night because that’s the job description.

            My thoughts on Military Rules of Engagement see above.

            I brought it up to illustrate a point. One that in a warzone we societally don’t have an issue putting such a restriction on our soldiers so the police who operate in a much less hostile environment have no excuse for not adhering to the same if not more stringent rules.

Comments are closed.