Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Charged With Manslaughter

JANFU · Nov 16, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The officer, Jeronimo Yanez, who will appear in court on Friday, was also charged with two felony counts of intentional discharge of a dangerous weapon.

“No reasonable officer — knowing, seeing and hearing what Officer Yanez did at the time — would have used deadly force under these circumstances,” the Ramsey County attorney, John J. Choi, said.

Mr. Choi revealed new information about the traffic stop, saying that Mr. Castile had “calmly and in a nonthreatening manner” disclosed that he was carrying a gun and that Officer Yanez had replied, “Don’t reach for it, then.”

“Castile tried to respond, but was interrupted by Officer Yanez, who said, ‘Don’t pull it out,’” Mr. Choi said on Wednesday as he announced the charges. “Castile responded, ‘I’m not pulling it out.’”

But Officer Yanez then “screamed, ‘Don’t pull it out’” and fired seven rounds from his gun, Mr. Choi said, surprising the other officer on the scene and fatally wounding Mr. Castile.

Shooting occurred July 6th

Appears more information came from the other Officer on site.

Chomsky · Nov 16, 2016

I hate to see a cop facing charges, but in this case it strikes me as a good thing.

HenryChinaski · Nov 16, 2016

Counting down to the "It was a good shoot" posts..

Hawkeye10 · Nov 16, 2016

“Officer Yanez said that as Castile was reaching down to his right, Castile turned his shoulder, kept his left hand on the steering wheel and then canted his upper body, blocking Officer Yanez’s view of his right hand,” Choi said, recounting Yanez’s statements to the BCA. “At that point, officer Yanez articulated that he was scared for his life and that of his partner.

“Officer Yanez’s verbatim statement, included in the criminal complaint, is inconsistent with the statement he made immediately following the incident in which he stated he never saw or knew where the gun was.”

Yanez fired seven times at Castile a minute after he had stopped Castile.

“Philando Castile was not resisting or fleeing,” Choi said. “There was absolutely no criminal intent exhibited by him throughout this encounter. He was respectful and compliant based upon the instructions and orders he was given. He volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm, beyond what the law requires. He empathically stated that he wasn’t pulling it out. His movement was restricted by his own seat belt.”

There is no evidence that Castile pulled or attempted to pull his gun out of his foot-deep pocket, Choi said

Police officer charged in fatal shooting of Philando Castile - StarTribune.com

It is a tough call, but given that he is overcharged with three felony counts I am going to tell the state to stuff it if I am on the jury....I let him walk.

Barring something explosive at trial of course.

ashurbanipal · Nov 17, 2016

Hawkeye10 said:
It is a tough call, but given that he is overcharged with three felony counts I am going to tell the state to stuff it if I am on the jury....I let him walk.

Barring something explosive at trial of course.

I'm curious: do you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns? Alternately, do you think they shouldn't disclose to police officers that they have them?

Because unless you can answer one of those two questions in the affirmative--that is, unless you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns or shouldn't have to disclose that fact to police officers--it seems to me your position here is incoherent. If it's a right in this country to bear arms, it makes ZERO sense to say that when a police officer shoots someone for merely exercising that right, that officer shouldn't be punished. Castile wasn't being threatening and certainly wasn't reaching for his gun. The officer who shot him has no excuse whatsoever.

Hawkeye10 · Nov 17, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
I'm curious: do you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns? Alternately, do you think they shouldn't disclose to police officers that they have them?

Because unless you can answer one of those two questions in the affirmative--that is, unless you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns or shouldn't have to disclose that fact to police officers--it seems to me your position here is incoherent. If it's a right in this country to bear arms, it makes ZERO sense to say that when a police officer shoots someone for merely exercising that right, that officer shouldn't be punished. Castile wasn't being threatening and certainly wasn't reaching for his gun. The officer who shot him has no excuse whatsoever.

My understanding is that the officer shot because he perceived his life to be in danger.

While I applaud stating to the cop freely that there is a gun it is important to not make any sudden moves which could reasonably be perceived as threatening to the cop after the gun has been declared.

This is a good way to end up dead.

ashurbanipal · Nov 17, 2016

Hawkeye10 said:
My understanding is that the officer shot because he perceived his life to be in danger.

No doubt a sizeable portion of all murders that have been committed have been committed for the same motive. A person is blameworthy for misperception in such high-stakes situations. Nothing Mr. Castile did should have caused the officer's perception. Imagine if all it took for a murderer to get off is to say that he had a perception that his life was in danger.

Hawkeye10 said:
While I applaud stating to the cop freely that there is a gun it is important to not make any sudden moves which could reasonably be perceived as threatening to the cop after the gun has been declared.

This is a good way to end up dead.

The prosecutor specifically said the officer didn't make any sudden or threatening moves. I agree the officer should get a trial and the evidence should be reviewed in a fair and balanced manner. But in this case, things seem pretty clear.

Hawkeye10 · Nov 17, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
No doubt a sizeable portion of all murders that have been committed have been committed for the same motive. A person is blameworthy for misperception in such high-stakes situations. Nothing Mr. Castile did should have caused the officer's perception. Imagine if all it took for a murderer to get off is to say that he had a perception that his life was in danger.

The prosecutor specifically said the officer didn't make any sudden or threatening moves. I agree the officer should get a trial and the evidence should be reviewed in a fair and balanced manner. But in this case, things seem pretty clear.

Clear that this officer should fired yes, clear that he should be charged with a major crime or three....no.

ashurbanipal · Nov 17, 2016

Hawkeye10 said:
Clear that this officer should fired yes, clear that he should be charged with a major crime or three....no.

Why do you think so? I mean, I've said why I think the officer should be charged with a crime...

MaggieD · Nov 17, 2016

JANFU said:
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Shooting occurred July 6th

Appears more information came from the other Officer on site.

Happened in July. Arrest today. Yeah, that's swift justice from a video. That right there is the systemic problem. It was on tape. Why on EARTH would it take so long?

Dragonfly · Nov 17, 2016

Absolutely the police officer should be taken to trial on charges. Absolutely.

Based on the video, he should also be found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison.

If there's more to this than what's on that specific video, then perhaps I might change my mind.

JANFU · Nov 17, 2016

MaggieD said:
Happened in July. Arrest today. Yeah, that's swift justice from a video. That right there is the systemic problem. It was on tape. Why on EARTH would it take so long?

Afternoon Maggie
I worked in security for 13 plus years. Video can be deceiving at times. Number of factors come into play, lighting, shadows, video quality to name a few.
Then when the DA has had expert advice and conclusions, they must reach that level of a probability of conviction.
My personal opinion. The 2nd Officer on site, that Officers reports, testimony closed the loop.

JANFU · Nov 17, 2016

MaggieD said:
Happened in July. Arrest today. Yeah, that's swift justice from a video. That right there is the systemic problem. It was on tape. Why on EARTH would it take so long?

Afternoon Maggie
I worked in security for 13 plus years. Video can be deceiving at times. Number of factors come into play, lighting, shadows, video quality to name a few.
Then when the DA has had expert advice and conclusions, they must reach that level of a probability of conviction.
My personal opinion. The 2nd Officer on site, that Officers reports, testimony closed the loop.

poweRob · Nov 17, 2016

He'll probably walk. Seems to be the batting average.

Excon · Nov 18, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
... that when a police officer shoots someone for merely exercising that right, ...

False narrative.
That is not the reason he was shot.

ashurbanipal said:
Castile wasn't being threatening and certainly wasn't reaching for his gun.

Just continuing your false narrative.
He did indeed reach for and put his hand on his gun when he was clearly told not to.
That is being a "threat".

ashurbanipal said:
The officer who shot him has no excuse whatsoever.

Wrong.

ashurbanipal said:
Nothing Mr. Castile did should have caused the officer's perception.

Wrong.
Castile reached for his gun when he was told not to.

ashurbanipal said:
Imagine if all it took for a murderer to get off is to say that he had a perception that his life was in danger.

Oy Vey!
This is not all it takes. The totality of the circumstances (evidence) plays an important part.

ashurbanipal said:
The prosecutor specifically said the officer didn't make any sudden or threatening moves. I agree the officer should get a trial and the evidence should be reviewed in a fair and balanced manner. But in this case, things seem pretty clear.

The Persecutor is making a decision based in ideology, not actual facts.
He even chose to forgo a Grand Jury just so he can bring it to trial.

Excon · Nov 18, 2016

Dragonfly said:
Absolutely the police officer should be taken to trial on charges. Absolutely.

The standard of review is if a similarly situated Officer would act in the same manner, not if a similarly situated Officer wouldn't. So while it is probably true that some similarly situated Officers would not have acted in the same manner, it is also true that others would.
So no, taking this to trial is absurd.

Dragonfly said:
Based on the video, he should also be found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison.

Based on the video? What? There literally is nothing in the video that says he is guilty of any crime.

Dragonfly said:
If there's more to this than what's on that specific video, then perhaps I might change my mind.

You mean like the suspect grabbing his gun when he was clearly told not to?

HenryChinaski · Nov 18, 2016

Excon said:
The standard of review is if a similarly situated Officer would act in the same manner, not if a similarly situated Officer wouldn't. So while it is probably true that some similarly situated Officers would not have acted in the same manner, it is also true that others would.
So no, taking this to trial is absurd.

Based on the video? What? There literally is nothing in the video that says he is guilty of any crime.

You mean like the suspect grabbing his gun when he was clearly told not to?

You forgot to say the "it was a good shoot" line.

ashurbanipal · Nov 18, 2016

Excon said:
False narrative.
That is not the reason he was shot.

Depends on what you mean by "reason." I suppose you could say he was shot thanks to the laws of neurology. I suppose you could also say he would have been shot whether or not he had a gun (which is probably true in this situation), though I have no idea how any of that would help your case.

Excon said:
Just continuing your false narrative.
He did indeed reach for and put his hand on his gun when he was clearly told not to.
That is being a "threat".

Video, eyewitness testimony say otherwise. Castile didn't tell the officer where the gun was (neither side has claimed otherwise), so the officer couldn't have known Castile was reaching for his gun in any event.

Excon said:
Castile reached for his gun when he was told not to.

Prove it.

Excon said:
This is not all it takes. The totality of the circumstances (evidence) plays an important part.

Well, I will agree it should.

Excon said:
The Persecutor is making a decision based in ideology, not actual facts.
He even chose to forgo a Grand Jury just so he can bring it to trial.

Again, prove it.

Anyway, I've noticed you seem to come to the defense of the police every time someone is shot, and this suggests to me that you're the one in the grip of an ideology. In any event, I've argued the officer should be charged, not that he should be convicted. We'll see what the jury says.

Mustachio · Nov 18, 2016

There was a child in the back seat. 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. With 7 shots. With a child in the backseat.

That's murder 2 imo. But we'll take what we can get (we meaning MN citizens, I live pretty close to where this happened)

Excon · Nov 19, 2016

ashurbanipal said:
Depends on what you mean by "reason." I suppose you could say he was shot thanks to the laws of neurology.

Deflection noted.

ashurbanipal said:
I suppose you could also say he would have been shot whether or not he had a gun (which is probably true in this situation),

Stop with the absurdity.

ashurbanipal said:
Video, eyewitness testimony say otherwise.

Wut? iLOL No the video doesn't say otherwise, and she lying ioon video doesnt; make her a credible witness.
The Officer clearly told him not to reach for it and then told him to get his hand off it.
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.

ashurbanipal said:
Castile didn't tell the officer where the gun was (neither side has claimed otherwise), so the officer couldn't have known Castile was reaching for his gun in any event.

iLOL
With the gun being seen on his lap after the shooting and with the Officer telling Castile not reach for it and to get his hand off it before shooting, is an indication the Office saw the gun. SO that there makes you wrong.
And the Officer made it clear he was responding to the "presence" of the gun he saw "displayed".

St Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez was reacting to “the presence of that gun and the display of that gun” when he opened fire on Castile, the Minneapolis attorney Thomas Kelly said.

Philando Castile shooting: lawyer says officer reacted to gun, not race

ashurbanipal said:
Well, I will agree it should.

iLOL
Which shows your "imagine" comment to be just that. Imagined.

ashurbanipal said:
Prove it.

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

ashurbanipal said:
Anyway, I've noticed you seem to come to the defense of the police every time someone is shot, and this suggests to me that you're the one in the grip of an ideology.

This tells me you see what you want to see, not reality, and just confirms it is you who are in the grip of an ideology.

Mustachio 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.

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.

TurtleDude · Nov 19, 2016

based on what I have seen it was a bad shooting. I would vote to indict the officer if I was on a grand jury

Excon · Nov 19, 2016

TurtleDude said:
based on what I have seen it was a bad shooting. I would vote to indict the officer if I was on a grand jury

And others believe it was a justified shooting. So instead of just voicing your in-general opinion why don't you reveal what exactly leads you to this conclusion?

Btw, who said it was going to to a GJ?

TurtleDude · Nov 19, 2016

Excon said:
And others believe it was a justified shooting. So instead of just voicing your in-general opinion why don't you reveal what exactly leads you to this conclusion?

Btw, who said it was going to to a GJ?

its an area of the law that was one of my specialities in the DOJ-use of force by state police officials.

1) he was shot SEVEN times

2) the officer knew he had a CCW

3) the incidents of CCW license holders shooting cops is almost zero

4) the traffic stop seemed bogus-the police have contradicted themselves on why the stopped the car

Excon · Nov 19, 2016

TurtleDude said:
its an area of the law that was one of my specialities in the DOJ-use of force by state police officials.

1) he was shot SEVEN times

2) the officer knew he had a CCW

3) the incidents of CCW license holders shooting cops is almost zero

4) the traffic stop seemed bogus-the police have contradicted themselves on why the stopped the car

It doesn't look we are going to get anywhere here as you are not making any substantive argument to show the shooting wasn't justified, or showing charges against the Officer are.

#1. Shot seven times? Not that it matters, but where do you get the number 7 from?
After that show how shooting the number of times really maters here. You shoot to stop the threat.
Once they are no longer a threat you stop. If he had ran out of rounds, reloaded and began firing again, you might have had a point, but as it is you really don't.

#2. The Officer did not know he had a CCW. What a yelling passenger says is not the Officer being informed of any such thing, nor does it speak to the veracity of what they are yelling.
What matters is that Castile reached for and was grabbing the gun when he was told not to.

#3. Irrelevant to what occurred. Even if one were to absurdly accept that what a passenger yells is then being informed of factual information, the individual in this case was not following direction and elevated the threat level by not doing so.

#4. They haven't contradicted themselves. The radio call made clear it was because the driver looked like the description of an armed robbery suspect.
That is not something you are going to tell the driver upon contact. Not doing so doesn't make it a contradiction.

TurtleDude · Nov 19, 2016

Excon said:
It doesn't look we are going to get anywhere here as you are not making any substantive argument to show the shooting wasn't justified, or showing charges against the Officer are.

#1. Shot seven times? Not that it matters, but where do you get the number 7 from?
After that show how shooting the number of times really maters here. You shoot to stop the threat.
Once they are no longer a threat you stop. If he had ran out of rounds, reloaded and began firing again, you might have had a point, but as it is you really don't.

#2. The Officer did not know he had a CCW. What a yelling passenger says is not the Officer being informed of any such thing, nor does it speak to the veracity of what they are yelling.
What matters is that Castile reached for and was grabbing the gun when he was told not to.

#3. Irrelevant to what occurred. Even if one were to absurdly accept that what a passenger yells is then being informed of factual information, the individual in this case was not following direction and elevated the threat level by not doing so.

#4. They haven't contradicted themselves. The radio call made clear it was because the driver looked like the description of an armed robbery suspect.
That is not something you are going to tell the driver upon contact. Not doing so doesn't make it a contradiction.

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

1) broken tail light

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

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

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Charged With Manslaughter

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Chomsky

Social Democrat

HenryChinaski

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

ashurbanipal

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

ashurbanipal

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

ashurbanipal

MaggieD

Dragonfly

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Excon

Excon

HenryChinaski

ashurbanipal

Mustachio

Excon

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Excon

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Excon

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands