• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty[W:456]

a most excellent discussion of this tragedy by a man whose reputation and credentials in this area are top flight

The Philando Castile Shooting and Some Advice for My Cop Readers | Active Response Training

The bigger mistake, in my opinion, was made by Officer Yanez. He appeared to panic when confronted by the fact that the driver he stopped was armed and didn’t seem to be paying proper attention to his verbal commands. He probably didn’t need to shoot Mr. Castile, but I feel reasonably certain that the officer felt that he had no other option. That is the predictable result of poor training, possibly combined with poor hiring practices on the part of Officer Yanez’ agency. People prone to panic should not be hired as cops. All cops should be given quality force on force training so that they know how to handle incidents like this without reflexively firing their weapons in abject fear. Unfortunately, both problems are likely to persist in the face of ever-shrinking government budgets.
 
So what, the only option at that point so to shoot him dead? I find that hard to believe.

I suppose he could duck or run or just stand there and hope the driver is not lying, thereby risking getting shot (and dead), but then that's not how cops are trained to react in those circumstances.

The American justice system is hardly perfect, no justice system is. You can't just say "well he was acquitted, that means you can't comment on the verdict.

People can comment all they want to. All too often, however, comments devolve into militant protests and riots and the branding of anyone who supports the verdict as a bigot and a fascist.

The verdict doesn't change my personal opinions on this case and trying to use that as a trump card is silly. If you saw a verdict you didn't like, would you not comment on it?

I have an opinion, too. I've seen verdicts I didn't like. I thought O.J. Simpson was guilty, but I still accepted his acquittal. I never contemplated rioting.

Well if the police are not normally a threat, why does the US have more police shooting then other Western countries?

I dunno. Maybe we have more stupid people who can't follow the law and simple instructions? :shrug: America is a violent country, so I think it's natural that cops patrolling in high-crime areas tend to be jumpy.
 
Doubling down on irrelevant race-baiting, eh? I'm really not sure what you're point is. Did you not read my link? There is a pattern of systematic abuse in some communities. There is also a larger issue of police shooting unarmed citizens regardless of race.

Seems like issues of color are making you lose sight of what we're talking about here.

Sir, the race-baiting is coming from your side, not mine. To me color is (or should be) irrelevant when it comes to matters such as self-defense and justice. If some dumbass redneck resists arrest in a threatening manner or otherwise sets in motion a chain of events that lead to his death, then he's the one who's culpable, not the officer who killed him. But when someone states that the OP is racist because he supports the verdict and I then point out that black jurors or judges were also supportive of those verdicts, then I'm merely pointing out that facts and reason usually prevail over hysterics.
 
At the time of the original shooting, I read many people questioning the mother's lack of anger or sadness as if this somehow justifies what happened or that Castille really was guilty. Even here, I've read character putdowns for her because of her past - which has zero relevance to what had just happened in the car.



Please don't get "shooted"says the little girl while distraught mother finally realises emotionally what has happened. That poor little kid has to grow up now having seen what she saw.


Nice try, but we have more crooks than you do and they don't use WWI-era Webleys, when they can get one, and knives.

Would you like some Catsup or mustard with your facts?

England and Wales crime rate


The study quoted.
 
~ Maybe we have more stupid people who can't follow the law and simple instructions?

No, you have some bad training for your law enforcement. No way routine traffic stops should end in so many shootings.

~ :shrug: America is a violent country, so I think it's natural that cops patrolling in high-crime areas tend to be jumpy.

That's the easy out, police patrol equally violent, high crime areas in other parts of the western world and there aren't the same rate of shootings by police.
 
At the time of the original shooting, I read many people questioning the mother's lack of anger or sadness as if this somehow justifies what happened or that Castille really was guilty. Even here, I've read character putdowns for her because of her past - which has zero relevance to what had just happened in the car.

Don't count me among those. I agree that what's relevant is what occurred in that vehicle at the time of the incident. Presumably, the jury did as well.

That poor little kid has to grow up now having seen what she saw.

Yeah, it's tragic. So is this:



At least she's alive, unlike Lavontay White, who was shot in the head and killed, along with another victim. But you won't hear a peep from the BLM people about him because he wasn't killed by a cop.

View attachment 67219092

Boy, 2, and man killed, pregnant woman wounded in shooting caught on Facebook Live - Chicago Tribune
 
Last edited:
Don't count me among those. I agree that what's relevant is what occurred in that vehicle at the time of the incident. Presumably, the jury did as well.

I wasn't, you have been nothing but focused on events at the time. Sadly though, not just this thread but when the actual event occurred people were seeking to discredit Castille and his girlfriend as if previous actions justified what happened or even questioned their ability as witnesses to events.
~ Yeah, it's tragic. So is this:

~ But you won't hear a peer from the BLM people about him because he wasn't killed by a cop.
~

I'm not here because of BLM, I've seen horribly embarrassing events such as a recent illegal teenager / young peoples party in the centre of London last year where older kids stayed long into the night and chanted at / threw stones at police and when one ringleader was about to be captured by (unarmed) police he said "black lives matter" as if that was some passport to excuse his stupid and criminal behaviour.

I've questioned police actions on other threads such as the mentally disabled white guy who was a rough sleeper ending up dead after a policeman escalated a simple street query into an arrest with 12 policemen holding him down and accidentally crushing his chest.
 
Would you like some Catsup or mustard with your facts?

England and Wales crime rate

The study quoted.

I guess gun control isn't the panacea the Left makes it out to be, eh? Anyway, I can see why burglaries and robberies would be high relative to the U.S. In Britain, a burglar can enter an occupied dwelling and not have to worry about getting shot. Same with robberies. No gun-toting grandmas in England or Wales, apparently. But what we're discussing here is the risk of getting murdered, especially with a firearm. Gun-wielding thugs don't give police officers much time to react. I'm guessing Brits come up short in that department. And, yes, I love all sorts of condiments with my Nathans hotdogs.
 
I guess gun control isn't the panacea the Left makes it out to be, eh?

Not to distract the thread but I'm not a fan of gun control. I am however a fan of enforced gun training and inquiry into those seeking a gun licence.

~ Anyway, I can see why burglaries and robberies would be high relative to the U.S. In Britain, a burglar can enter an occupied dwelling and not have to worry about getting shot. Same with robberies. No gun-toting grandmas in England or Wales, apparently

Armed robberies happen here, however the robbers can get illegal weapons pretty easily. Law abiding citizens can't so easily get weapons.

~ But what we're discussing here is the risk of getting murdered, especially with a firearm. Gun-wielding thugs don't give police officers much time to react. I'm guessing Brits come up short in that department. And, yes, I love all sorts of condiments with my Nathans hotdogs.

True, gun wielding thugs don't give cops time but if an unarmed policeman thinks he may be dealing with an armed robber, he calls for backup from the specially trained firearms squads we have. They're damned good as you saw with the 8 minute reaction time to the bastards who mowed people down and stabbed innocents near London Bridge last month.
 
After this and several other acquittals, it's easy to understand how the average black person has absolutely no confidence in being treated fairly by the police.

The victim told the cop he had a gun, did his best to comply with the law, and as the result of a minor vehicle deficiency and being black, was killed in cold blood. No wonder blacks don't trust the system.
 
After this and several other acquittals, it's easy to understand how the average black person has absolutely no confidence in being treated fairly by the police.

The police didn't acquit themselves. The courts (with black jurors and judges) acquitted them.

The victim told the cop he had a gun....

Yes, but he did not, as people keep falsely assuming, tell the officer he had a permit to carry it. Not sure even that would have made a difference, however, because the suspect didn't comply with the officer's demand not to reach for what the officer thought was a gun. (It could have been his driver's license, a comic book, or a condom. Doesn't matter. The relevant point is don't reach for something until a cop tells you to, especially if he's already jumpy because he thinks you may have robbed a convenience store.)

... did his best to comply with the law....

Wrong. He had been smoking pot while driving. He shouldn't have been doing that, especially with a four-year-old in the car.

... and as the result of a minor vehicle deficiency and being black...

He was stopped because he resembled an armed robbery suspect, who happened to be black. The broken brake light was the excuse used to stop the vehicle in order to better examine the occupants. Big difference from your spin on the facts.

... was killed in cold blood.

Stop the theatrical disingenuity. To kill someone "in cold blood" means to do it "without feeling" or "with cruel intent." If you watch the video, both during and after the shooting, you can see the officer's obvious distress at having shot the driver.

No wonder blacks don't trust the system.

What happened in this case was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, but to place blame on the "system" for it is a copout. Two black jurors were instrumental in former officer Yanez' acquittal. It's amazing how facts always seem to get in the way of the BLM fractured fairy tale that Justice turns a blind eye to racist cops who are just out to kill black people. Personally, I wish they showed the same level of outrage at the slaughter taking place in black communities all across this country every day. That's also a tragedy.
 
I disagree.

Let me ask you this, how often are African Americans shot by the police vs. other people?

Can an African American open carry in a small rural town without being harassed by the police?

I think if you are saying everyone who wants a gun should have a gun and then saying the police can shoot people if they fear they have a gun in their possession, you are spending a contradictory message.

I keep hearing conservatives saying guns make people safer, clearly that is not the case for Mr. Castile, who would have been safer without a gun.

The logic "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" only works if the criminal element is a civilian, not a law enforcement officer of any type. If you're the law, you can pretty much get away with it if you can convince the Grand Jury or a jury in a criminal trial that you "feared for your life" or the suspect "failed to comply" with the officer's instructions.
 
The police didn't acquit themselves. The courts (with black jurors and judges) acquitted them.



Yes, but he did not, as people keep falsely assuming, tell the officer he had a permit to carry it. Not sure even that would have made a difference, however, because the suspect didn't comply with the officer's demand not to reach for what the officer thought was a gun. (It could have been his driver's license, a comic book, or a condom. Doesn't matter. The relevant point is don't reach for something until a cop tells you to, especially if he's already jumpy because he thinks you may have robbed a convenience store.)



Wrong. He had been smoking pot while driving. He shouldn't have been doing that, especially with a four-year-old in the car.



He was stopped because he resembled an armed robbery suspect, who happened to be black. The broken brake light was the excuse used to stop the vehicle in order to better examine the occupants. Big difference from your spin on the facts.



Stop the theatrical disingenuity. To kill someone "in cold blood" means to do it "without feeling" or "with cruel intent." If you watch the video, both during and after the shooting, you can see the officer's obvious distress at having shot the driver.



What happened in this case was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, but to place blame on the "system" for it is a copout. Two black jurors were instrumental in former officer Yanez' acquittal. It's amazing how facts always seem to get in the way of the BLM fractured fairy tale that Justice turns a blind eye to racist cops who are just out to kill black people. Personally, I wish they showed the same level of outrage at the slaughter taking place in black communities all across this country every day. That's also a tragedy.


A couple of points here.

Yes the jury acquitted under what's sometimes called the "reasonable cop" standard. That is the jury found that he was reasonably fearful for his life despite the fact that the evidence indicated there was no real threat. That standard does not apply to you and me. Under the same set of circumstances if you or I were the shooter we'd most likely have been convicted. Police use of force follows a much more lenient standard that civilian, which is arguable backwards given that cops are supposed to be trained to much higher level than the rest of us.

Additionally, while I agree that Castile shouldn't have moved at all you're not accounting for human nature. He is an untrained civilian who finds himself with a gun pointed at him. Confusion and stupidity is probably par for the course for him in that case. For the police to expect complete and unquestioned obedience in that case is unrealistic. The officer in his statements to investigator spoke at length about the fear he felt. Castile had to feel the same fear and given conflicting orders "don't move" "license and registration please" is it really surprising that he didn't completely freeze?

Third point - it wasn't proven that he smoked pot while driving. There was THC in his blood and the ME thought he smoked in the previous few hours but he also admitted under oath that he'd never used the test he used on a corpse and wasn't sure of the accuracy of the result. Upshot is we really have no idea when he smoked.


Final point - he resembled the suspect in the most superficial way possible. Young, black and with dread locks. How many people do you suppose fit that description in St Paul?
 
I suppose he could duck or run or just stand there and hope the driver is not lying, thereby risking getting shot (and dead), but then that's not how cops are trained to react in those circumstances.

But are they being trained to defuse situations lie these or escalate them?

The cop in this situation was either poorly trained or should never have been a cop in the first place.


People can comment all they want to. All too often, however, comments devolve into militant protests and riots and the branding of anyone who supports the verdict as a bigot and a fascist.



I have an opinion, too. I've seen verdicts I didn't like. I thought O.J. Simpson was guilty, but I still accepted his acquittal. I never contemplated rioting.

I am not rioting and if others are, that's their problem. Just stating the verdict doesn't negate my points.


I dunno. Maybe we have more stupid people who can't follow the law and simple instructions? :shrug: America is a violent country, so I think it's natural that cops patrolling in high-crime areas tend to be jumpy.

Or maybe too many cops in the US are not being trained to defuse situations like this one.

Really this is part of a larger problem, in the US we see militarized police and a prison population higher then the one in China.

?Do Not Resist? and the Crisis of Police Militarization | The New Yorker

Highest to Lowest - Prison Population Total | World Prison Brief

Conservatives always tolerate big and intrusive government in the service of a supposed "law and order" agenda, which makes their calls for more individualism and smaller government seem hollow.

What happened to Mr. Castile is a symptom of a larger problem.

If you turn the police from public servants to public masters who must obeyed at all times, no matter what, you encourage a police state.
 
Yeah, I wonder about that. Would a "bad guy" really bother to tell a policeman he was carrying a gun?

I know several friends who carry, and each of them always tells the officer they are holding if ever stopped for some traffic infraction.
 
The police didn't acquit themselves. The courts (with black jurors and judges) acquitted them.



Yes, but he did not, as people keep falsely assuming, tell the officer he had a permit to carry it. Not sure even that would have made a difference, however, because the suspect didn't comply with the officer's demand not to reach for what the officer thought was a gun. (It could have been his driver's license, a comic book, or a condom. Doesn't matter. The relevant point is don't reach for something until a cop tells you to, especially if he's already jumpy because he thinks you may have robbed a convenience store.)



Wrong. He had been smoking pot while driving. He shouldn't have been doing that, especially with a four-year-old in the car.



He was stopped because he resembled an armed robbery suspect, who happened to be black. The broken brake light was the excuse used to stop the vehicle in order to better examine the occupants. Big difference from your spin on the facts.



Stop the theatrical disingenuity. To kill someone "in cold blood" means to do it "without feeling" or "with cruel intent." If you watch the video, both during and after the shooting, you can see the officer's obvious distress at having shot the driver.



What happened in this case was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, but to place blame on the "system" for it is a copout. Two black jurors were instrumental in former officer Yanez' acquittal. It's amazing how facts always seem to get in the way of the BLM fractured fairy tale that Justice turns a blind eye to racist cops who are just out to kill black people. Personally, I wish they showed the same level of outrage at the slaughter taking place in black communities all across this country every day. That's also a tragedy.

My goodness, such knowledge you possess! Do you work for that police department? Is it common for police to use fake reasons to stop people?

He nearly emptied the magazine into the guy. The cop totally freaked out, like a child. The guy "resembled" an armed robber (so you say) because he was black. That's it.

Maybe I missed it, and maybe or not you can show, where the cop asked him for his concealed carry permit. I won't hold my breath.

Cold blooded murder, just like so many other driving while black incidents.
 
I know several friends who carry, and each of them always tells the officer they are holding if ever stopped for some traffic infraction.

My first inclination would be to inform an officer, in case I was patted down and THEN a weapon is discovered. I just don't think a "bad guy" would tell - if there was bad intent, they would try and start shooting instead.
 
I disagree.
iLOL
You can disagree all you want. It is not going to change the facts or reality of this case.
Your reply was illogical given reality and those facts.


Let me ask you this, how often are African Americans shot by the police vs. other people?
Of those who interact with police in such a manner, whites are shot more often.

Which is why your take and everything else you said is absurd.


Police shoot more white folks in sheer numbers than they do blacks. If all things were equal, that is what should be expected.

If broken down by racial proportions, the numbers then reflect that the Police kill disproportionately more blacks than whites.
But the problem with that stat is that not all members of a race interact with police on a criminal level, so the whole number of a race can not be used for comparative purposes.
The numbers need to be broken down further to only those who interact with them.
When that is done it becomes clear that whites are shot more times than blacks are.


Whether officers, veterans or civilians, the subjects consistently hesitated longer before firing at black suspects and were much more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed white suspect, the researchers found. And when they failed to fire at an armed suspect — a potentially fatal mistake — the suspect was about five times more likely to be black than white. The study’s 36 police officers were the lone exception in failing to fire: The suspect’s race wasn’t a factor in their decision not to shoot. “The findings were very unexpected given the previous experimental research,” said Lois James, an assistant professor who conducted the research.

Are Police Bigoted?
Race and Police Shootings: Are Blacks Targeted More?





Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.

“If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”

“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”


Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage

Analysis contradicts widespread views about racial targets




The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.​

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds
 
When you have an argument, give me a call.
Deflection noted.
An argument was made.
Either reply to it or push on.


In a statement, issued immediately after Officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted, the city said:

“The City of St. Anthony has concluded that the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city. The city intends to offer Officer Yanez a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career other than being a St. Anthony officer.”

The City of St. Anthony has offered few other details besides that Officer Yanez will never again be allowed to return to active duty, and that they still needed to negotiate terms with the officer. Link.
Fired does not mean "welcome back with open arms, we thought you did great as a police officer."

Never allowed to return to active duty does not mean his life is in danger because of protests but because the man was a danger to the public and discredit to the police force.
Wrong.

1. A voluntary separation does not mean "fired".
2. The "public best being served" can in-part mean, his life would be in jeopardy if he remained employed by that department.


Please don't get "shooted"says the little girl while distraught mother finally realises emotionally what has happened. That poor little kid has to grow up now having seen what she saw.
Why would you even bring this into the discussion?
1. It is irrelevant to his use of force.
2. It opens up irrelevant discussion about her which is nothing more than purposeful distraction/deflection from the issue at hand. Besides the fact that a person can certainly say what you see as "finally realises emotionally" is just her faking it.

It's not even rational to introduce it, yet you did. Doh.


Yeah, I wonder about that. Would a "bad guy" really bother to tell a policeman he was carrying a gun?
Whether he tells him or not is actually irrelevant to his not following the Officer's commands and then grabbing the gun.





I already said good day!
A reply that is irrelevant as it is stupid.

As was already replied to that repeated and irrelevant nonsense...
iLOL And?

You deflected.
You asked for evidence and I gave it to you.

But of course you can't deal with the actual evidence so instead deflect with nonsense.
Figures.




Warrants show a deep dive into records of Castile, Reynolds, but not Yanez | Star Tribune

The deep police state protects their own, at the expense of those they are supposed to serve.
Of course this is how it would play out. Duh!
If you can't figure out why let me help you out asking a simple question.


Why in the world would they need to do a records dive on an Officer that they vetted prior to hiring, and would be aware of any infractions since?

If you answer that then you just might figure out why they would search the others involved and not the Officer.
 
I've thought about this...
iLOL
What does that even mean?
How is it even relevant when you show what you have been thinking is irrelevant?


Mr. Castile did hand Officer Yanez a document of some sort. To me, it looked like a white piece of paper. Of course, that could be just the reflection from the all the (flashing) lights. Still, if you recall, Officer Yanez asked Mr. Castile for his license and insurance, not his license and registration. Regardless, without reading the court transcript, I can't say for sure exactly what Castile presented, but it certainly wasn't two forms of identification. So, what was it?

If it was only his insurance card, it's very possible Castile was reaching in his back pocket for his wallet. But if he had already presented his driver's license to Officer Yanez, I think the question I asked in post #343 is very reasonable:


Why was he [Mr. Castile] reaching for his wallet after previously presenting Officer Yanez with his ID?
You can see the moment unfold for yourself in the video below at the 1:30-1:35 mark.
This is irrelevant. The only thing in question is the point where Officer Yanez saw his hand on the gun, which was in his front pocket, not his waistband.


Some will continue to contend that Castile reached for his firearm in his waistband, but until I can read the transcript for myself I'm not taking anyone's word for it especially considering there are conflicting accounts of what Officer Yanez saw or thought he saw. You can listen to his explanation of events w/the on-scene investigator beginning at 8:30 mark. First, he claimed Mr. Castile had a gun, then he says, "He was starring straight ahead and he reached down and his grip was wider than a wallet". Then he said, "I don't know where the gun was. He didn't tell me where the gun was"...an admission that he never saw the gun.
Again, front pocket, not waistband.
And no, there is no conflicting accounts of what the Officer saw.

There was one account where he was not asked to clarify what he said which he later did.


The fact that Mr. Castile made "a threatening motion" to some is justification enough for Officer Yanez firing on Mr. Castile. And assuming that Officer Yanez likely believed he had stopped an armed robbery suspect lends itself to giving him the benefit of the doubt.
It is a threatening motion that reasonable and rational folks understand would be a threatening gesture to the Officer, which then, under the law, allows the Officer to respond to protect himself.


But I still contend that Officer Yanez acted too hastily here. His rash decision cost a man his life, a daughter her father and a mother the benefit of having her child's father in her life to help raise their child.
Good thing you were not on the jury then.


1. Stop baiting.
This topic, nor that one, is about me, but about the arguments made.
When you have an argument, give me a call.
Hilarious nonsense.
1. When you have a relevant argument to make post it, as thus far you haven't made any.
2. You are deflecting as an argument was made in reply.


But Officer Wilson's situation was different.
No, not really.
The only difference is in the the extent of the public outcry but the outcry was still there.
Besides Castile's mother publicly wishing for the Officer's death, we had four or five ambush attacks on the police within 48 hours, the Dallas shooting being the next day.



He was receiving death threats and chose to resign of his own accord.
Own accord?
Based on what you already argued in regards to Yanez, the following would not be Wilson's his own accord.
It would be demanding a resignation, or in the way you view it, firing the person.
But the reality of it is that it is a voluntary separation.

From the previously linked article.
... and the city has now “severed ties” with him.

Wilson's attorney, Neil Bruntrager, told NBC News that Wilson submitted his resignation "two minutes after" Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told him of the threats.

"The chief thought that if he resigned it would alleviate those threats," Bruntrager said, and "that was all [Wilson] needed to hear."


Continued below.
 
He chose to resign not because he was being threatened and not because it was believed the public was after him, but rather because the St. Anthony Police Department no longer wanted a officer of the law around who didn't uphold the standards of good order and discipline and serving the public trust around.
NO.
This is you making an assertion outside of the available evidence.
Had that been the case they could have fired him for cause without a voluntarily separation package.
Since it is a voluntary separation and not termination for cause, your argument fails.

Since it is a voluntary separation the cause lies elsewhere. Such as, in-part for his safety, all the Officers of the Departments safety, and to appease public outcry.


You can try to twist this any which way you want, but Officer Yanez was fired because his termination was the best way to protect the public from him, not to protect him from the public.
Wrong as usual.


(And BTW, Officer Wilson wasn't given a severance package - a clear indication he was an asshole of a cop, too.)
As irrelevant an opinion as it is asinine.


So, Officer Yanez used the non-functioning tail lights as "probably cause" to pull Mr. Castile and Ms. Reynolds over because in his opinion they (Castile mainly) fit the description of a robbery suspect due to his "wide nose".

That fits why Officer Yanez took three actions immediately upon being informed by Mr. Castile that he had his firearm on him:

1) Officer Yanez unclipped his gun holster in preparation to fire upon him;

2) Officer Yanez declared prior to firing "Don't reach for it. Don't grab it."

3) Officer Yanez' nervousness (towhich he later admitted to the on-scene investigator).

#1 Stop spinning. An Officer un-clips it in case he needs to immediately use it.
Being aware of a gun is reason to do so.

#3 And again. He said he was getting nervous after he said Castile was getting hinky and just staring straight ahead. Not before that.



Reading Officer Yanez' debriefing interview concerning the night of the shooting...

On page 10, line 347 & 348: "(summarizing)...two African American males involved (last week) in strong armed robbery of a convenient store, both armed, driver of a white vehicle fit description of robbery suspect...Black male w/shoulder length dreadlocks, facial hair, wide-set nose".

Damn!...short of the dreadlocks, this officer just described my son and his white, 1979 Buick Riviera! This is why young Black men need to be extremely careful out there!!

Line 382: "I just knew that the driver matched the physical description."

Which begs the question, did forensics ever prove that the gun Mr. Castile possessed/owned was involved in the aforementioned strong armed robbery of the convenient story?

That aside, it's clear from the reading of the debriefing that Officer Yanez was prepared to fire upon Mr. Castile if he made any sudden moves. The moment he heard the man say he had a gun, he made ready to shot him!

Let's be clear: In any other situation, this would have fit the definition of premeditated murder. But because of the extenuating circumstances, specifically, the prior robbery, the description of the suspect, the very nature of police work and Mr. Castile's sudden moves, Officer Yanez is given the benefit of the doubt and gets off the hook.
1. All irrelevant to the case at hand.
2. Your take on it is irrelevant nonsense as well.
3. And suggesting this would fit the definition of premeditated murder is irrational.


The logic "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" only works if the criminal element is a civilian, not a law enforcement officer of any type. If you're the law, you can pretty much get away with it if you can convince the Grand Jury or a jury in a criminal trial that you "feared for your life" or the suspect "failed to comply" with the officer's instructions.
No.
Simply no.
There is no getting away with anything as that is what the law allows.

The fact that you frame your argument in such a manner just says you are not being objective.
 
After this and several other acquittals, it's easy to understand how the average black person has absolutely no confidence in being treated fairly by the police.
That easy understanding only comes to those who are extremely biased and have no clue as to what they are speaking about.


The victim told the cop he had a gun, did his best to comply with the law, and as the result of a minor vehicle deficiency and being black, was killed in cold blood.
A dishonest narrative.
Castile did not follow the Officer's commands.


No wonder blacks don't trust the system.
If they do not trust it is because of their own biased viewpoint.


Is it common for police to use fake reasons to stop people?
Based on your responses I am sure you think that is the case, yet I know you can not prove it is common.


He nearly emptied the magazine into the guy.
And?
An officer shoots until the threat ceases to be a threat.
In some cases that is when the hands go up, the weapon drops, the hands drop or the person stops moving, etc...


The cop totally freaked out, like a child.
No.
Maybe you just do not understand the term you are using.
At no point did the Officer freak out.

His reaction to Castile's hand on the gun is within the norms. His reaction to shooting someone is within the norms.

Your reply with it's irrationality, though many engage in such, could actually be called a freak out.


The guy "resembled" an armed robber (so you say) because he was black. That's it.
Wrong. It is because he looked like the other person.
Castilcompar.jpg


Maybe I missed it, and maybe or not you can show, where the cop asked him for his concealed carry permit. I won't hold my breath.
iLOL
Had Castile not put his hand on his gun, the Officer may have had a chance to ask him for it. Duh!


Cold blooded murder, just like so many other driving while black incidents.
An irrational freak out of a reply.
 
Back
Top Bottom