Minn. officer acquitted of manslaughter for shooting Philando Castile

Headline: "Minn. officer acquitted of manslaughter for shooting Philando Castile during traffic stop"

The Minnesota police officer [Jeronimo Yanez] who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop was acquitted on all charges by a jury Friday, a decision that came nearly a year after the encounter was partially streamed online before a rapt nation in the midst of a painful reckoning over shootings by law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.c51c4643890d

The report doesn't say if Officer Yanez was convicted on either of the two other felony charges of intentionally discharging his gun into Mr. Castile, but I assume since he wasn't convicted on 2nd degree manslaughter, he won't be convicted for discharging his weapon.

All I have to say here is it's really sad when a police officer can pull a man over having suspected he'd committed a crime and within seconds discharge 7 bullets into his person while unarmed and get away with murder simply by claiming "he feared for his life".

Oh my.

I called it a long time ago. This cop would be allowed to get away with murder. Until police are held accountable then everyone should expect these travesties of justice to continue to be an ugly stain upon the American canvas.

Objective Voice said:

Headline: "Minn. officer acquitted of manslaughter for shooting Philando Castile during traffic stop"



Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.c51c4643890d

The report doesn't say if Officer Yanez was convicted on either of the two other felony charges of intentionally discharging his gun into Mr. Castile, but I assume since he wasn't convicted on 2nd degree manslaughter, he won't be convicted for discharging his weapon.

All I have to say here is it's really sad when a police officer can pull a man over having suspected he'd committed a crime and within seconds discharge 7 bullets into his person while unarmed and get away with murder simply by claiming "he feared for his life".

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you can't simply tell the truth about the situation.

he informed the cop he had a gun check good job.
the cop told him not to reach for anything including his id.
he reached for his id or whatever after being told not too. stupid.

the cop doesn't know what he is reaching for.

There are protocols for such things as any ccw class will teach you.

ludin said:

I don't understand why you can't simply tell the truth about the situation.

he informed the cop he had a gun check good job.
the cop told him not to reach for anything including his id.
he reached for his id or whatever after being told not too. stupid.

the cop doesn't know what he is reaching for.

There are protocols for such things as any ccw class will teach you.

Click to expand...

So can anyone else just shoot someone in such a situation? If a guy is carrying and he reaching for something and can't quite see what he is reaching for is it ok if I shoot him?

Henrin said:

So can anyone else just shoot someone in such a situation? If a guy is carrying and he reaching for something and can't quite see what he is reaching for is it ok if I shoot him?

Click to expand...

depends on the state.
and the situation.

if they tell you that they have a gun and reach for something then depending on the state you have a reasonable fear for your life then yes.

Uh oh, board up the liquor stores!

ludin said:

I don't understand why you can't simply tell the truth about the situation.

he informed the cop he had a gun check good job.
the cop told him not to reach for anything including his id.
he reached for his id or whatever after being told not too. stupid.

the cop doesn't know what he is reaching for.

There are protocols for such things as any ccw class will teach you.

Click to expand...

I'm going by what's been reported publicly along with the video Castile's girlfriend posted live on Facebook. And since the transcripts haven't been made public yet, the FB video and public media accounts are really all people have to go on. Still, if I'm wrong in my assessment concerning the verdict, I'll own up to it, but from what's been made public there seems to be two conflicting accounts of what took place.

[Officer]Yanez said on the witness stand during trial that he acted in self-defense out of fear for his life after Castile ignored his orders to stop reaching for his firearm and grabbed his pistol.

The state maintains that Castile was trying to reach his wallet so he could hand over the driver’s license Yanez had asked him to product just seconds before the shooting.

...

Prosecuting attorneys said Yanez made many vague statements in that interview about what Castile had been reaching for before the officer shot him that reportedly contrasted with his testimony on the stand, where Yanez said he was certain he saw Castile gripping his gun.

Click to expand...

Clearly in the end, the jury believed the latter but again the FB video tells a different story.

.

EDIT: According to the girlfriend who was an eye witness to events, Mr. Castile was pulled over for a busted tail light (giving Officer Yanez probably cause to pull him over as a suspect). She said on video that Officer Yanez initially asked Mr. Castile to provide his ID which Castile was attempting to retrieve from his back pocket, but Officer Yanez can be heard frantically claiming that he told Castile to "get his hands off" (his gun) which also coincides with an accounting as described by the Chicago Tribune. However, according to what the Chicago Tribune reported, Officer Yanez informed his supervisor and his partner that he didn't actually see Castile with a gun.

He tells a supervising officer that Castile went to grab something and that Castile's grip seemed wider than a wallet would be.

"I don't know where the gun was," Yanez says. "He didn't tell me where the (expletive) gun was." Seconds later, he added, "I told him to take his (expletive) hand off the gun."

The officer who was with Yanez, Joseph Kauser, testified that Yanez later told him he had seen a gun on Castile, who had a permit for the weapon.

Kauser said he didn't see a gun from his vantage point on the passenger side of Castile's car. But Kauser also said he was watching Castile's passengers — his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds and Reynolds' then-4-year-old daughter — rather than the driver.

Click to expand...

In any case, the jury believed Officer Yanez' testimony. However, until I can read the court document of the trial for myself I content that Castile was murdered and this police officer used the same tired excuse just about every police officer uses in situations like this..."I feared for my life".

Henrin said:

So can anyone else just shoot someone in such a situation? If a guy is carrying and he reaching for something and can't quite see what he is reaching for is it ok if I shoot him?

Click to expand...

Not that simple. You want to wait and find out what it is?

Objective Voice said:

I'm going by what's been reported publicly along with the video Castile's girlfriend posted live on Facebook. And since the transcripts haven't been made public yet, the FB video and public media accounts are really all people have to go on. Still, if I'm wrong in my assessment concerning the verdict, I'll own up to it, but from what's been made public there seems to be two conflicting accounts of what took place.



Clearly in the end, the jury believed the latter but again the FB video tells a different story.

.

EDIT: According to the girlfriend who was an eye witness to events, Mr. Castile was pulled over for a busted tail light (giving Officer Yanez probably cause to pull him over as a suspect). She said on video that Officer Yanez initially asked Mr. Castile to provide his ID which Castile was attempting to retrieve from his back pocket, but Officer Yanez can be heard frantically claiming that he told Castile to "get his hands off" (his gun) which also coincides with an accounting as described by the Chicago Tribune. However, according to what the Chicago Tribune reported, Officer Yanez informed his supervisor and his partner that he didn't actually see Castile with a gun.



In any case, the jury believed Officer Yanez' testimony. However, until I can read the court document of the trial for myself I content that Castile was murdered and this police officer used the same tired excuse just about every police officer uses in situations like this..."I feared for my life".

Click to expand...

So he is guilty until proven innocent in your mind? Well at least you recognize that the court has the final say.

Objective Voice said:

Headline: "Minn. officer acquitted of manslaughter for shooting Philando Castile during traffic stop"



Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.c51c4643890d

The report doesn't say if Officer Yanez was convicted on either of the two other felony charges of intentionally discharging his gun into Mr. Castile, but I assume since he wasn't convicted on 2nd degree manslaughter, he won't be convicted for discharging his weapon.

All I have to say here is it's really sad when a police officer can pull a man over having suspected he'd committed a crime and within seconds discharge 7 bullets into his person while unarmed and get away with murder simply by claiming "he feared for his life".

Click to expand...

All I have to say here is it's really sad when a police officer can pull a man over having suspected he'd committed a crime and within seconds discharge 7 bullets into his person while unarmed and get away with murder simply by claiming "he feared for his life".

A very sad reminder of the state of this society indeed.

Objective Voice said:

I'm going by what's been reported publicly along with the video Castile's girlfriend posted live on Facebook. And since the transcripts haven't been made public yet, the FB video and public media accounts are really all people have to go on. Still, if I'm wrong in my assessment concerning the verdict, I'll own up to it, but from what's been made public there seems to be two conflicting accounts of what took place.



Clearly in the end, the jury believed the latter but again the FB video tells a different story.

.

EDIT: According to the girlfriend who was an eye witness to events, Mr. Castile was pulled over for a busted tail light (giving Officer Yanez probably cause to pull him over as a suspect). She said on video that Officer Yanez initially asked Mr. Castile to provide his ID which Castile was attempting to retrieve from his back pocket, but Officer Yanez can be heard frantically claiming that he told Castile to "get his hands off" (his gun) which also coincides with an accounting as described by the Chicago Tribune. However, according to what the Chicago Tribune reported, Officer Yanez informed his supervisor and his partner that he didn't actually see Castile with a gun.



In any case, the jury believed Officer Yanez' testimony. However, until I can read the court document of the trial for myself I content that Castile was murdered and this police officer used the same tired excuse just about every police officer uses in situations like this..."I feared for my life".

Click to expand...

you can believe what you want to. He was told to stop moving and not to reach for anything after there was a gun sited.
CCW classes go over exactly what to do when involved with a cop and carrying a ccw.

keep your hands visable at all times.
2. tell the cop that you are a licensed ccw carrier.
3. ask the cop what instructions to follow and do not reach for anything.

this is basic items for any stop with a ccw case.

blackjack50 said:

So he is guilty until proven innocent in your mind? Well at least you recognize that the court has the final say.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that police officers always use the excuse they feared for their lives and are often quick to pull the trigger.

I get that the job of any law enforcement officer comes with a very high degree of risk to their personnal safety. So, I'm not discounting that at all. Nor am I discounting that sometimes they have to make quick "snap" decisions. However, I'm keenly aware that sometimes police officers will use their partner to cover their mistakes and also try to hide their wrongdoing behind the excuse that their lives were in danger. After all, whose going to give the alleged perpetrator the benefit of the doubt when the officer makes a routine traffic stop of someone he/she believes fits the description of a robbery suspect? And when the officer can incorporate drug use or the victim's past criminal history into the proceedings, whose going to question the improper actions of cop?

Fear for their lives and non-compliance seem to be the standard fall-back for police nationwide. And when you have testimony that seem to contradict the officer's account of what occurred...

Officer Yanez was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. So, I have to accept the verdict. But I don't have to like it, nor do I have to agree with it.

Objective Voice said:

I'm saying that police officers always use the excuse they feared for their lives and are often quick to pull the trigger.

I get that the job of any law enforcement officer comes with a very high degree of risk to their personnal safety. So, I'm not discounting that at all. Nor am I discounting that sometimes they have to make quick "snap" decisions. However, I'm keenly aware that sometimes police officers will use their partner to cover their mistakes and also try to hide their wrongdoing behind the excuse that their lives were in danger. After all, whose going to give the alleged perpetrator the benefit of the doubt when the officer makes a routine traffic stop of someone he/she believes fits the description of a robbery suspect? And when the officer can incorporate drug use or the victim's past criminal history into the proceedings, whose going to question the improper actions of cop?

Fear for their lives and non-compliance seem to be the standard fall-back for police nationwide. And when you have testimony that seem to contradict the officer's account of what occurred...

Officer Yanez was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. So, I have to accept the verdict. But I don't have to like it, nor do I have to agree with it.

Click to expand...

The fact that you automatically disagree with "fear of life" is mainly my sticking point. Or that you disagree after the "trial of peers" result. That one isn't so bad. But I will circle back to it. Mainly because of the word peers.

The problem here is that "fear of life" is being used. Looking at any situation where we could say you have a reasonable fear for your life...you cannot expect anything less than an attempt to survive. So then you are left analyzing what is "reasonable" fear of life. What warrants self defense? Lethal self defense? And this isn't an ordinary job. Or an ordinary self defense claim. The officer has a job that requires exactly what you have already stated. But the addendum here is that THAT is not abnormal. Violence of some kind will likely be a daily occurrence for some. Be it on someone else, or on the officer. They have to fight for a living. Literally. Most may be a dumb drunk, but then you have the people who will play the system to get an edge and are willing to shank or shoot someone to stay free.

So what we are left with? There isn't a trial by peers. Not if they aren't cops as well. And I'm not suggesting we put cops into a jury with other cops. But the idea (like a military court) is not crazy. There is logic. So what we are left with is still the lingering question of what can be called reasonable? Game wardens approach armed individual daily during the hunting season. And I'm betting very few have to shoot people. Their training may be superior, and ranks may be made up of people who aren't rookies, but it is a thought as well.

So. What exactly is fair in a situation where you may not be able to prove exact state of mind or intent of either party? Especially when both are armed?

blackjack50 said:

The fact that you automatically disagree with "fear of life"

Click to expand...

I don't automatically disagree with it. I just think it's used too often by police to justify their actions especially in this case.

From what's been reported, Office Yanez didn't actually see Mr. Castile grab his weapon; he merely thought he did.

The larger question I have here as with similar shootings during routine traffic stops is why did Officer Yanez have his weapon drawn if the stop was "routine"? If he believed Mr. Castile was a suspect in an armed robbery, why didn't he call for back-up before approaching him? Why didn't he have Mr. Castile exit his vehicle and search him? Simple things you think a trained police officer would do in a situation like this, but neither happened. Media accounts alone contradict Officer Yanez' account.

I'm just saying this happens too often and police are quick to use "fear for my life" and "non-compliance" as excuses to cover their mistakes. And Grand Juries and criminal jury trials let them off the hook the vast majority of times.

Objective Voice said:

I don't automatically disagree with it. I just think it's used too often by police to justify their actions especially in this case.

From what's been reported, Office Yanez didn't actually see Mr. Castile grab his weapon; he merely thought he did.

The larger question I have here as with similar shootings during routine traffic stops is why did Officer Yanez have his weapon drawn if the stop was "routine"? If he believed Mr. Castile was a suspect in an armed robbery, why didn't he call for back-up before approaching him? Why didn't he have Mr. Castile exit his vehicle and search him? Simple things you think a trained police officer would do in a situation like this, but neither happened. Media accounts alone contradict Officer Yanez' account.

I'm just saying this happens too often and police are quick to use "fear for my life" and "non-compliance" as excuses to cover their mistakes. And Grand Juries and criminal jury trials let them off the hook the vast majority of times.

Click to expand...

That fact alone could have EASILY allowed every person at that scene to go home that night, and not have a single injury. A proper 'felony stop' could have done just that but Yanez ****ed up & performed a typical traffic stop. This put EVERYONE at the scene in harms way, and we see what the result was. Pure negligence on the part of Yanez, pure & simple negligence.

Just imagine, if this had been a black man unloading several rounds into a police officer in Ramsey County, you can bet the Ramsey County Attorneys Office would have prosecuted this case MUCH MORE VIGOROUSLY than in the case of prosecuting Yanez.

The WHOLE case reeks of nothing but pure **** .............

Objective Voice said:

I'm saying that police officers always use the excuse they feared for their lives and are often quick to pull the trigger.

I get that the job of any law enforcement officer comes with a very high degree of risk to their personnal safety. So, I'm not discounting that at all. Nor am I discounting that sometimes they have to make quick "snap" decisions. However, I'm keenly aware that sometimes police officers will use their partner to cover their mistakes and also try to hide their wrongdoing behind the excuse that their lives were in danger. After all, whose going to give the alleged perpetrator the benefit of the doubt when the officer makes a routine traffic stop of someone he/she believes fits the description of a robbery suspect? And when the officer can incorporate drug use or the victim's past criminal history into the proceedings, whose going to question the improper actions of cop?

Fear for their lives and non-compliance seem to be the standard fall-back for police nationwide. And when you have testimony that seem to contradict the officer's account of what occurred...

Officer Yanez was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. So, I have to accept the verdict. But I don't have to like it, nor do I have to agree with it.

Click to expand...

Maybe people should obey the law.

The clown was pulled over 55 times for valid reasons......... 55 times! I guess ole Castile thought he was above the law.

The asshole should have been in jail.

Sooner or later, he was going to run into a very nervous cop.

Now he's tits up.