Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Charged With Manslaughter

ashurbanipal · Nov 19, 2016

Excon said:
Deflection noted.

No deflection. Your response was unclear, which was more or less my point.

Excon said:
Stop with the absurdity.

Why do you think it's absurd? What specific reason should I have to think it's absurd?

Excon said:
No the video doesn't say otherwise,

Yeah it does. The video shows no evidence of a drawn weapon, and if Castile had drawn his weapon, it'd probably be in his hand or near his hand, and frames from the video show his lap pretty clearly. No gun.

The video also shows the immediate reactions of the people who were right there. The officer's reaction is immediately defensive--and why would he be offering excuses for why he shot Castile unless he knew he had done something wrong? Castile was in the car with his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter. The notion that Castile would reach for his pistol under such circumstances is not logically impossible, but it's unlikely, which means the standard of proof of the counter-claim (i.e. that Castile was reaching for his weapon) has to be pretty high. But there's no evidence to back the counter-claim.

Excon said:
and she lying ioon video doesnt; make her a credible witness.

I can't tell exactly what you're saying, since "ioon" isn't a word (do you mean "ion"? "loon"? "lion"?), and since your unusual use of a semicolon appears to split a principle verb. I assume you're trying to say Castile's girlfriend is somehow not credible. Her reaction looks genuine to me. I've had the misfortune of seeing people in the moments when they learn they've just lost someone violently, and her reaction is in line with my experiences and what I know of the psychology of shock.

Excon said:
The Officer clearly told him not to reach for it and then told him to get his hand off it.

No one disputes that the officer told him not to reach for his gun. What is in question is whether Castile actually did reach for his gun.

Excon said:
We can then see in the video that the gun ended up on his lap and then fell outside the vehicle when they took Castile out for medical attention.

Can we? Prove it. I've reviewed the video frame-by-frame. There's no gun anywhere. The video doesn't show Castile being taken out for medical treatment. Furthermore, the Times article disagrees:

NY Times said:
Paramedics eventually found the weapon, a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, in the pocket of his shorts as they were positioning him on a backboard. There was no round in the chamber.

Excon said:
And the Officer made it clear he was responding to the "presence" of the gun he saw "displayed".

Of course he would say that. And perhaps he is even telling the truth...in which case, he will have the chance to tell his side at trial.

Excon said:
Did the Officer tell him to take his hand off it? Of course he did.

That's hardly proof. That's not even evidence. That's your claim, and even if it's true, it's irrelevant, since Yanez' telling Castile to take his hand off his gun doesn't mean Castile's hand was anywhere near his gun, or even that Yanez thought it was. So again: provide some evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is on the side of the shooter, not the victim.

Excon said:
Why would a police officer hear a man say "I carry a gun, it's legal," and more or less "please don't kill me sir" and promptly kill him.

I can think of any number of reasons. Maybe Yanez was unusually angry. Maybe he was genuninely scared. Maybe he was hallucinating. Maybe he's a sociopath who thought he could get away with shooting a man in cold blood in front of his family. Plenty of people make reasonable remarks to their murderers right before they are killed. Nice words won't stop deadly malice.

I've known plenty of cops. Many of them are as moral as anyone else--that is, they're reasonably nice (I can't say I've ever known a police officer who was a paragon of moral behavior). Some of them are absolute psycho scoundrels who live for the day they can draw their weapons and squeeze off a few rounds at a live target, and who in the meantime revel in their power and authority over others.

Excon said:
It was the girlfriend who said he was licensed to carry, not Castile. The Officer told the guy not to reach for it and then told him to get his hand off it.

I don't know whether any of that is true or not. Suppose it is. So what?

Excon · Nov 19, 2016

TurtleDude said:
BS-did you not know that the cops gave two different excuses for the stop

Yes everything you just said is bs in regards to this incident.
Clearly you didn't pay attention to what I said. I clearly indicated I knew the difference between the reason for the stop and what the driver was told.
You thinking that somehow matters to the elevated risk Castile presented by not following orders is ridiculous.

TurtleDude said:
1) broken tail light

2) the guy matched a felony suspect (which is belied by how they approached the car)

No they did not use two different excuses. The stop was because he looked like the description of an armed robbery suspect.
What he told that driver is irrelevant to that. That is not a contradiction that somehow makes the Officers actions inappropriate.

And no. it is not belied by how they approached the car.

TurtleDude said:
3) when cops stop cars they run the plates. In states that issue CCW licenses the cops know that fact when they run the plates

The cop ought to be in jail

#3. iLOL Show that is what occurred. I will grantee that you can't.

The Officer should not be charged as Castile elevated the danger by not listening to the orders he was given and thus causing the Officer to reasonable be in fear of his life.

TurtleDude · Nov 19, 2016

Excon said:
Yes everything you just said is bs in regards to this incident.
Clearly you didn't pay attention to what I said. I clearly indicated I knew the difference between the reason for the stop and what the driver was told.
You thinking that somehow matters to the elevated risk Castile presented by not following orders is ridiculous.

No they did not use two different excuses. The stop was because he looked like the description of an armed robbery suspect.
What he told that driver is irrelevant to that. That is not a contradiction that somehow makes the Officers actions inappropriate.

And no. it is not belied by how they approached the car.

#3. iLOL Show that is what occurred. I will grantee that you can't.

The Officer should not be charged as Castile elevated the danger by not listening to the orders he was given and thus causing the Officer to reasonable be in fear of his life.

horsecrap-if their real reason was that they thought he was a felon they would have approached the car completely differently

I suspect you will defend any cop who shoots a black no matter what the circumstances

Mustachio · Nov 19, 2016

Excon said:
Your narrative is off.
It was the girlfriend who said he was licensed to carry, not Castile.
The Officer told the guy not to reach for it and then told him to get his hand off it.

You are incorrect. You probably don't remember the story because it's been a long time since it happened, but I remember it because it was so close to home for me. The story was that he was pulled over, and HE (not the girlfriend) told police he had his registration with him and was licensed to carry. He had been pulled over 52 times, by the way, all for minor traffic infractions. But the police don't profile, it's a coincidence that he had been pulled over 52 times.

Anyway, he was pulled over for the 53rd time because he looked like a suspect from a robbery (meaning he was black - "just because of the wide set nose" is what the officer actually said, it's on the recording) 4 days prior and it would make no sense that the girlfriend, who was the passenger in the car, would be the one talking with the officer. That's completely illogical especially considering that there was no female involved in the robbery he was pulled over for. Again, from Minnesota Public Radio's news site:

Castile handed over his insurance card and "calmly" told Yanez that he had a firearm. Yanez said, "OK, don't reach for it then." Castile told Yanez he wasn't pulling out the gun. Yanez screamed, "Don't pull it out," and took his firearm out of the holster. He fired.

"Officer Yanez pulled his left arm out of the car and then fired seven shots in rapid succession into the vehicle," Choi said. "Philando Castile moaned and said his final words, 'I wasn't reaching for it.' "

Castile had not committed any crime. Obviously, he wasn't going to kill a police officer the 53rd time he had been pulled over. Tragic story and even more tragic that anybody defend the police officer. But if anybody would defend him, it would be you. Thankfully, the Ramsey County attorney (Choi) made a very reasonable judgement by avoiding a grand jury who could have fudged it by overreaching or ignoring the facts. I think it was murder but a cop dealing with a black man who has a gun? Nah, these are the charges you can get him on.

I don't understand why you think the girlfriend/passenger was the one who said he had a gun that he was licensed to carry. I think you're saying that because she's the one who made the audio recording of him bleeding to death. Either way, it's clear that you're not familiar with this story and are a perfect example of why this country is still racist. Black man? Police officer? Must have been justified unless video footage shows the man being shot in the back.

Khayembii Communique · Nov 19, 2016

The absurdity is that this officer was charged with manslaughter of all things. He should be getting 25 to life.

Mustachio · Nov 19, 2016

Thank you. I'm a liberal and support the right of Americans to own guns, but I would be more vocal about my support if more people had a head on their shoulders like you do.

Khayembii Communique said:
The absurdity is that this officer was charged with manslaughter of all things. He should be getting 25 to life.

I think it was murder, very plain and simple. But to get him in prison is the top priority and juries here have convicted only 1 in 3 officers charged with murder. I understand why. There was one witness in this case, it was the girlfriend, and she lied on the recording (said he was pulled over for a tail light, it was because he was black, and that he had received no first aid when he had. The child in the back seat who watched his father get shot 7 times probably wouldn't be used as a witness. That leaves the cop's word against a discredited witness and a man who was murdered for no reason other than he was black and had a gun. Very sad story, I think the charges are a good move to at least get a felony on record for Yanez.

Excon · Nov 27, 2016

TurtleDude said:
if their real reason was that they thought he was a felon they would have approached the car completely differently

Speculative nonsense is what is horse crap.

I really wish you would deal with the known evidence as it pertains to the written law regarding this issue, but apparently you do not want to.

He was confronted with a person who looked like he matched the description of an armed robbery suspect, happened to be armed and did not follow the Officer's instructions in regards to reaching for, and taking his hand off said firearm. Such a situation would elevate the risk and would cause a person to reasonably be fearful of loss of life.
When he wouldn't follow the given orders while reaching for and then with his hand on the gun, it was more than reasonable to shoot first.

TurtleDude said:
I suspect you will defend any cop who shoots a black no matter what the circumstances

iLOL Irrelevant nonsense, and once you avail yourself of the totality of my posts on DP, I suspect you would know otherwise.

Excon · Nov 27, 2016

Mustachio said:
You are incorrect.

Wrong.

Mustachio said:
You probably don't remember ...

iLOL Stop with the bs.
My memory is just fine and I find it functions better than most others and allows me to be able to point out how people like you are wrong (which I will attend to shortly).
For instance; Back in May I was able to point out to another poster that I had already addressed their concern four years earlier. So yeah, unless my memory has deteriorated to a great degree in such a short time, it is just fine.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...-topic-zimmerman-comments.html#post1065866320

Mustachio said:
... the story because it's been a long time since it happened, but I remember it because it was so close to home for me.

You thinking it hit close to home for you does not speak to your memory of things. And depending how it hit close to home, it may actually indicate a bias.
Regardless. What you have said you remember is simply incomplete and false information.

Mustachio said:
The story was that he was pulled over, and HE (not the girlfriend) told police he had his registration with him and was licensed to carry. He had been pulled over 52 times, by the way, all for minor traffic infractions. But the police don't profile, it's a coincidence that he had been pulled over 52 times.

No.
The account as obtained from the video was that she told police he was licensed to carry.
She clearly said, and even reiterated, that as he reached for his wallet he told the Officer that he had a gun. It was at that time she yelled out that he had a license to carry.
So what you had was an Officer investigating someone who matched the description of a armed robbery suspect reaching and telling the Officer he was armed.

Mustachio said:
Anyway, he was pulled over for the 53rd time because he looked like a suspect from a robbery (meaning he was black - "just because of the wide set nose" is what the officer actually said, it's on the recording) 4 days prior and it would make no sense that the girlfriend, who was the passenger in the car, would be the one talking with the officer. That's completely illogical especially considering that there was no female involved in the robbery he was pulled over for. Again, from Minnesota Public Radio's news site:

You are not making any sense here.
1. Would be the one talking to the Officer? Clearly you do not know the evidence. She clearly indicated that she is the one who told the Officer that he was licensed to carry.

2. You thinking it is illogical is hilarious. That, in no way, shape or form, says she was the only one speaking to the Officer.
Nor does his matching the description of one of the two males preclude her from being involved.

3. You are citing a report of the Prosecutors theory of the case. Doh! Not evidence.
What a Prosecutor alleges is not evidence. Do you really not know that?

Mustachio said:
Castile had not committed any crime. Obviously, he wasn't going to kill a police officer the 53rd time he had been pulled over.

1. You do not know that.
2. What you think in this regard is irrelevant, especially as you have no idea what he was actually thinking.

Mustachio said:
Tragic story and even more tragic that anybody defend the police officer. But if anybody would defend him, it would be you. Thankfully, the Ramsey County attorney (Choi) made a very reasonable judgement by avoiding a grand jury who could have fudged it by overreaching or ignoring the facts. I think it was murder but a cop dealing with a black man who has a gun? Nah, these are the charges you can get him on.

iLOL More absurd irrelevancies.

Mustachio said:
I don't understand why you think the girlfriend/passenger was the one who said he had a gun that he was licensed to carry. I think you're saying that because she's the one who made the audio recording of him bleeding to death. Either way, it's clear that you're not familiar with this story and are a perfect example of why this country is still racist. Black man? Police officer? Must have been justified unless video footage shows the man being shot in the back.

Wow.
Clearly your knowledge of the evidence is incomplete and confused, and it has been shown that I am far more familiar with the evidence than you are.

That you do not know it was she who told the Officer that he was licensed to carry just speaks volumes to your ignorance of the evidence.

Excon · Nov 27, 2016

Mustachio said:
and a man who was murdered for no reason other than he was black and had a gun.

Your narrative is false.
He was not murdered. What happened does not in any way shape or form meet the requirements of murder.
And your "for no reason other than" is absurdly ridiculous.
The evidence shows it had nothing to do with his color and had everything to do with him not following the orders given.

Excon · Nov 27, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
No deflection. Your response was unclear, which was more or less my point.

Your reply was deflection as the reply was very clear.

You absurdly and ignorantly made a false claim that it was because he was exercising a "right" when the evidence says it was because he didn't follow the officer's orders.
Saying that it depends on what is meant by "reason" was deflection as the reason for shooting was being discussed.

ashurbanipal said:
Why do you think it's absurd? What specific reason should I have to think it's absurd?

Suggesting it is likely true that he would have been shot whether he had a gun or not, is absurd and not in accord with the evidence.

ashurbanipal said:
Yeah it does. The video shows no evidence of a drawn weapon, and if Castile had drawn his weapon, it'd probably be in his hand or near his hand, and frames from the video show his lap pretty clearly. No gun.

Video, eyewitness testimony say otherwise.
The video recorded what the Officer said and that was that he told him to get his hand off it.
Do you really not understand that is an indication that the Officer saw his hand on it?
Drawn weapon? iLOL
We have evidence of an object on his lap. The object we see looks like a portion of a gun. The only thing that got carried outside the car with him that has the same coloration is the gun.

Proof that it was a gun? No.

Evidence suggesting that it was a gun? Absolutely.

Do you have evidence to show it was something else? Of course you do not.

ashurbanipal said:
The video also shows the immediate reactions of the people who were right there. The officer's reaction is immediately defensive--and why would he be offering excuses for why he shot Castile unless he knew he had done something wrong?

That is your interpretation. He is clearly correcting her incomplete assertions.

ashurbanipal said:
Castile was in the car with his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter. The notion that Castile would reach for his pistol under such circumstances is not logically impossible, but it's unlikely, which means the standard of proof of the counter-claim (i.e. that Castile was reaching for his weapon) has to be pretty high. But there's no evidence to back the counter-claim.

Doh!
He was told not to reach for it and then was told to get his hand off it. He failed to follow orders. That is the evidence.
His doing this while a young child is present is irrelevant to his not following those orders.

ashurbanipal said:
I can't tell exactly what you're saying, since "ioon" isn't a word (do you mean "ion"? "loon"? "lion"?), and since your unusual use of a semicolon appears to split a principle verb. I assume you're trying to say Castile's girlfriend is somehow not credible. Her reaction looks genuine to me. I've had the misfortune of seeing people in the moments when they learn they've just lost someone violently, and her reaction is in line with my experiences and what I know of the psychology of shock.

Yeah. That sentence got screwed up badly. It should have read as the following. "..., and her lying on video doesn't make her a credible witness."
My comments have absolutely nothing to do with her demeanor immediately after the shooting, or that she is a really horrible person who should loose custody of her child. It has to do with the lies she is known to have made.

ashurbanipal said:
No one disputes that the officer told him not to reach for his gun. What is in question is whether Castile actually did reach for his gun.

Do you have evidence showing that he didn't? I am going to guess you don't because you haven't provided any.
And again. Telling someone to get their hands off the gun is an indication that their hand was on the gun.

Excon · Nov 27, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
Can we? Prove it. I've reviewed the video frame-by-frame. There's no gun anywhere. The video doesn't show Castile being taken out for medical treatment. Furthermore, the Times article disagrees:

1. The times article disagrees? iLOL The article is referring to what the Prosecutor has said. Do I really need to tell you that what a Prosecutor says is not evidence?

2. My bad for not making it clear that I was speaking to multiple sources from the previous debate on the issue.
Video does exist showing him receiving medical treatment and images exist showing the gun outside of the vehicle.

But yes, in the video we can see what appears to be the gun on his lap. Nothing else is in evidence that would look like that, and nothing else got taken out of the vehicle with his person that looked like that except the gun. We can even see what appears to be a square bulge (not gun shaped) in his pocket which would likely be his wallet.

Receiving medical treatment @ 01:26.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh1WxxhTbUc

His gun which was carried out of the vehicle with his body.

Object as seen on his lap.
Nothing else resembling that object got carried out of the vehicle with him except for the gun, and no other evidence has been reported that would suggest it is anything else.

ashurbanipal said:
Of course he would say that. And perhaps he is even telling the truth...in which case, he will have the chance to tell his side at trial.

Of course he would say that? Of course he would say that because that is what he knows happened. Do you have any credible evidence showing otherwise? Of course not.

ashurbanipal said:
That's hardly proof. That's not even evidence. That's your claim, and even if it's true, it's irrelevant, since Yanez' telling Castile to take his hand off his gun doesn't mean Castile's hand was anywhere near his gun, or even that Yanez thought it was. So again: provide some evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is on the side of the shooter, not the victim.

iLOL
It is proof that he said it, and it is evidence of what he saw.
You thinking it is not evidence is hilarious. It is.
And no, it is not my claim, it is the Officer's account of what happened. And yes that is evidence that his hand was on the gun. You have nothing that suggests otherwise and no evidence to suggest the Officer's account isn't credible.
Secondly, you do not seem to understand how this works. All the Officer has to do to meet his burden is to articulate the reason he used deadly force. This has already been done. If the prosecutor submits those statements to the trier of fact, the burden will be met.

ashurbanipal said:
I can think of any number of reasons. Maybe Yanez was unusually angry. Maybe he was genuninely scared. Maybe he was hallucinating. Maybe he's a sociopath who thought he could get away with shooting a man in cold blood in front of his family. Plenty of people make reasonable remarks to their murderers right before they are killed. Nice words won't stop deadly malice.

Holy ****! Get a grip.
Playing make believe is not what this is about.
It is about what can be argued given the evidence.
Nothing credible exists to suggest what the Officer said isn't true.

It is the evidence that matters here. Thus far nothing shows the Officer was in the wrong.
So unless/until newer credible evidence becomes available, we go with what we have.

Hatuey · Nov 27, 2016

TurtleDude said:
horsecrap-if their real reason was that they thought he was a felon they would have approached the car completely differently

I suspect you will defend any cop who shoots a black no matter what the circumstances

You've made some really good points TD - I'm just wondering though, MN is a state where you have to by law inform police officers that you have a CCW. Right?Would that carry any weight considering the availability of information to cops? I mean, if cops can just look it up and it's all neatly displayed on a screen - why are people still required to tell cops? My suspicion is that many states use the same logic as Texas. You're driving around with a CCW, cops should know that - which explains while Castile told the guy almost immediately.

Why get a fine for something easily avoidable with a few words? I know in some places like Texas, cops can check on this stuff directly from the nice little laptops they have; which is why people can be fined for not telling officers.

However, I admit that I don't know if this is true all across the US much less MN.

TurtleDude · Nov 27, 2016

Hatuey said:
You've made some really good points TD - I'm just wondering though, MN is a state where you have to by law inform police officers that you have a CCW. Right?Would that carry any weight considering the availability of information to cops? I mean, if cops can just look it up and it's all neatly displayed on a screen - why are people still required to tell cops? My suspicion is that many states use the same logic as Texas. You're driving around with a CCW, cops should know that - which explains while Castile told the guy almost immediately.

Why get a fine for something easily avoidable with a few words? I know in some places like Texas, cops can check on this stuff directly from the nice little laptops they have; which is why people can be fined for not telling officers.

However, I admit that I don't know if this is true all across the US much less MN.

A friend of mine-a major league employer -what you would call a big shot-got pulled over in a small rural community. He forgot to tell the cop he was carrying legally. He ended up losing his pistol though the judge allowed him to keep his license. The cop KNEW he had a ccw PERMIT but didn't know if he was actually CARRYING. so that is why you had to inform the cop

I think its a good practice to tell the cop right away.

the case of the shooting still bugs me. I think the cop was in the wrong

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Charged With Manslaughter

ashurbanipal

Excon

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Mustachio

Khayembii Communique

Mustachio

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Hatuey

Rule of Two

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands