# Philando Castile Thread



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 18, 2017)

Okay, necessary disclaimer out of the way.  I'm as "pro-cop" as anyone I know.  This is not me bashing cops, or questioning their integrity, but I was listening to two lawyers (a prosecutor and a defense attorney)  debate the jury system yesterday; especially when it comes to police and trying to convict police officers.

They did not agree on much, but one area where they were absolutely aligned, was over the concept of presumption of innocence.  The conversation went on for nearly an hour, but in the end it came to to this:

The average jury walks into the courtroom and sizes up the defendant.  They instantly think, "I wonder how the defense will try to make me think this guy is not guilty".

The average jury walks into the courtroom and sees a cop on trial.  They instantly think, "I wonder what evidence the prosecutors has to make convict a cop of something".

Police officers are of the few class of citizens who truly enjoy a presumption of innocence, and that is one of the primary reasons it is so difficult to convict them of anything.  The jury expects the prosecutors to PROVE the cop is guilty, and that same jury is looking for a reason not to convict the officer.

I thought about it for a while, guilty as charged.  My personal bias is that in most cases the cops are going to be above board, and it is really going to take "something" for me to say the words "guilty".

Thoughts?  

Agree/disagree?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 19, 2017)

Well it's the prosecutors job to prove they're guilty though, the defence isn't totally there to prove them not guilty as such, it's to defend the person. 

Personally if I ever get arrested for something I didn't do I would elect a judge only trial.


----------



## CQB (Jun 19, 2017)

Generally the inquisitorial system of justice in Europe is better than the adversarial system that we have here in Oz & you have in the States & also in Britain. From my basic knowledge of it, it requires a judge to get to the facts of the matter before the court and ask any question of anyone to solve the legal puzzle. This results in a higher conviction rate than in the adversarial system. The adversarial system is an ancient duel where an entity picks a champion to go into battle on their behalf. Two issues do however, stand out for me (Gospel According to Moi).

Why is it that the guilty have more rights over the victim?
The right to silence really only protects the guilty


----------



## 757 (Jun 19, 2017)

I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 19, 2017)

757 said:


> I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.


 
I have that video bookmarked. Well done.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 19, 2017)

757 said:


> I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.



Your post reminded me of this video.  Funny stuff, and ultimately true.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 19, 2017)

I good friend on mine--we went to high school together and worked as paramedics together--was a local ADA, now in private practice.  Since I carry I have his number on speed dial.  He taught me three things:  1) always keep your mouth shut, 2) money talks (the paid defense attorneys are simply better than the public defender, and 3) cops/FF/EMS/medical professionals are at a huge advantage.


----------



## CQB (Jun 19, 2017)

757 said:


> I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.



I'm not in the legal profession. I had a look at your recommendation & it has a strong case for the right to silence in criminal law. There is always (or should be) the presumption of innocence and the prosecution carries the burden of proof in an adversarial system. The US laws are similar to ours, as is our constitution & also there are other common law rights which are the basis of the legal system. Within our system there are some government bodies that have an inquisitorial approach but they are a rarity.  
Would the right to silence apply in a terrorism case? For example, there is a man in custody who has knowledge of a mass casualty event occurring in the next 12-24 hours in a metropolitan environment. Does he have a right to silence? I would argue no, he does not. If he remains silent he runs the risk of an adverse inference being drawn. I'm not across the current US terrorism laws, but ours have changed radically over the past 10 years and have upset the legal fraternity here as they have wholeheartedly eroded common law rights like the right to silence. Whilst not perfect, generally these new laws been successful.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 19, 2017)

CQB said:


> Would the right to silence apply in a terrorism case? For example, there is a man in custody who has _knowledge of a mass casualty event occurring in the next 12-24 hours _in a metropolitan environment. Does he have a right to silence?



I've been wondering whether "time" in some way should be considered an element of a crime/offence. Perhaps depending upon the nature and severity of it...


----------



## policemedic (Jun 19, 2017)

Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 19, 2017)

I'm not expressing myself clearly. And I need to think about it more.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 19, 2017)

Maybe in the world of use of force or in the performance of the LEO's duties, we do get some latitude as we are making decisions based on seconds ....but when an LEO crosses the line....committing crimes (theft, burglary, rape...etc), they are held to a higher standard and the public crushes them in court....just from my perspective.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 19, 2017)

Is this about Philando Castile?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Is this about Philando Castile?



Yes.

I live in Minneapolis.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 19, 2017)

My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...

As to the presumption of innocence, if it were the same for normal citizens as it is for police we would have a lot less people in jail.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 19, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...



I agree with this completely.  Living in Minnesota, I have closely followed this case;  as a long time permit holder (15+ years) it has greatly disappointed me.  Bottom line, the officer panicked.  Castile was following two sets of orders, get his wallet and don't touch his gun.  The officer panicked, and killed the man.

Very VERY frustrated that on the other forum I post on, videos of the anguished mother and sister are being posted and mocked.  I understand that I have not had access to the same testimony and evidence that the jury saw, but I'm really struggling with friends who automatically  go to the cop's side....because he is a cop and the departed was a 'black thug'. (their words).  Yes, the man had a lengthy record...but that was unknown at the time of the stop.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...
> 
> As to the presumption of innocence, if it were the same for normal citizens as it is for police we would have a lot less people in jail.



Have they ever done that, in any officer-involved shooting of a legal handgun owner?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 20, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Have they ever done that, in any officer-involved shooting of a legal handgun owner?



I don't know. Seemed like a good time to start IMO.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know. Seemed like a good time to start IMO.



The NRA fiercely criticizes government overreach, yet it is a largely pro police organization.

A great many of it's more than 5 million members are current or former law enforcement officials.

The NRA host an annual police shooting championship, and have an entire law enforcement firearms training division.

In view of these facts alone, it isn't really difficult to figure out why they aren't making any strong statements in a case like Philando's, IMO.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...



You are not the only one to ask...

Castile being black is keeping NRA silent about cop's acquittal, 'Daily Show' host charges





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155490286001800


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> You are not the only one to ask...
> 
> Castile being black is keeping NRA silent about cop's acquittal, 'Daily Show' host charges
> 
> ...



Whether Castile were black or white, speaking out against the cop's actions in this case, or similar ones, would open a whole new conservative front on changing the way police operate in this country. 

I would be surprised if the NRA wanted anything to do with being the impetus of such a dialogue.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 20, 2017)

Since the discussion is really about the Yanez/Castile stop, here is the dashcam video:





So, rather than jumping to conclusions based on the he said/she said and an emotional Facebook Live stream, we can actually get a little better context as to what took place.  There are still missing pieces that we'll never have real answers to; such as Castile's placement of hands, etc.

IMHO there were mistakes on both sides that led to the tragedy.  Was Yanez too jumpy for the job?  Don't know but was he spooked?  It certainly seems so.  Castile didn't follow instructions and compounded the issue when apparently placing his hands near his firearm (he did what every permit to carry class I've taken tells you not to do).  Oh yeah, and his girlfriend, who has since been charged with felony assault with a hammer in a separate incident, is f'n vile.

Absolutely tragic but seems the jury in this case reached the correct decision.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 20, 2017)

Holy shit that happened fast.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 20, 2017)

T


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 20, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Since the discussion is really about the Yanez/Castile stop, here is the dashcam video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So in your post lies an obvious contradiction, first you say that we will never have real answers about where his hands were, then say he didn't follow instructions when he apparently had his hands near his firearm. 

What does a later felony charge have to do with the events that took place that evening? If my wife got gunned down in front of my I might be liable for some felonious shit myself in the months following it...


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 20, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> So in your post lies an obvious contradiction, first you say that we will never have real answers about where his hands were, then say he didn't follow instructions when he apparently had his hands near his firearm.


That's a fair rebuttal.  However, both Yanez and Phillips testified that he Castile's hands were not on the steering wheel and was reaching either for wallet or gun, depending on the story.  Castile's hands, wallet, and gun location is speculative.

This is where both made errors in my view.  Yanez should've instructed him to keep both hands on the wheel and ask where the firearm is.  For his part, Castile should've kept both hands on the wheel (this was taught in every permit to carry class I've been to - also in MN).  Aside, Castile is not under any obligation to notify the officer he is carrying a firearm unless asked.  My speculation is that it was visible and Castile was attempting to be proactive in telling Yanez.  However, after doing so, he should've been extra careful in leaving his hands on the wheel and telling the officer it's exact location before making any movements.  Tragedy all around.



TLDR20 said:


> What does a later felony charge have to do with the events that took place that evening? If my wife got gunned down in front of my I might be liable for some felonious shit myself in the months following it...


Speaks volumes as to her character or lack thereof.  First, she was his girlfriend, not his wife; so quite possibly a different level of commitment.  Second, I would certainly hope you wouldn't be mugging people, even if you lost your wife.  Regardless, it's not an excuse.  She and two others went after someone and she was swinging a hammer.  I don't think losing her boyfriend had anything to do with her behavior.  So, not cool anyway you try to argue it.  That said, she is the one that streamed _her_ own reaction and broadcast _her_ side of the story to the world.


----------



## Andoni (Jun 21, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Speaks volumes as to her character or lack thereof.



I don't see the connection between the girlfriend's "lack of character" and a police officer unloading 7 rounds into a driver of a vehicle with a 4 year old passenger in the backseat.



Blizzard said:


> Regardless, it's not an excuse.



Fair enough. Excuses are not acceptable. Witnessing a police officer gun down the driver of you vehicle is not an excuse for assaulting someone months later.

The officer's reaction in the dashcam transcript and his interview responses all point to an inexperienced officer overreacting and panicking. 

I do not believe that lack of adequate training is an excuse that justifies panicking. It comes down to the officer understanding the cost of fear and inexperience in terms of lives, and mitigating the risk though action- or giving up the badge. 

The sum total of the officer repeating "fuck" immediately after the shooting and the number of "um" and "uh" used when describing the shooting during the interviews are concerning, at the very least. 

Its really a terrible situation for all involved- and it makes it even harder to attract and retain the caliber of people that we need in law enforcement.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 21, 2017)

.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 21, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I have to wonder about the experience level of the officer, and if he was making dangerous assumptions that put him at risk.


He was licensed in 2011 and had been an officer for 4 years.  That doesn't necessarily make him good at what he did.  Like any career field, there are people that are good at their jobs and others that aren't.  But I wouldn't say he was inexperienced nor did his actions necessarily make him negligent (and confirmed by a jury).  Regardless, he is no longer a police officer for that department.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 21, 2017)

[Q


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 21, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I am not an LEO but there are a couple of things I noticed the officer did not do, that other officers do, routinely at a traffic stop.
> 
> Almost every officer will imprint their fingerprints on the tail lights of the stopped vehicle, Yanez did not do that.
> 
> ...



I thought the same thing about the experience level of the officer.

Faced with genuinely dangerous and personally threatening situations in close proximity, or what's perceived to be, someone inexperienced with such circumstances can rapidly enter a process of behavioral regression that ends in a great loss of self and situation control, IME.   

The case of the murder of young Deputy Kyle Dinkheller comes to mind as an example.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 21, 2017)

Inexperience, yes...you can tell from the response.  Over reaction of the officer, absolutely.  A training issue, sure...but sometimes people react badly in actual situations.

- Use to be you would approach the car and place you hand on the trunk lid...one to make sure your prints are on the car and the other to make sure the trunk is secure.  Prints are to ID the car if you were killed or shot..etc, linking your prints to the suspect car.  Checking the trunk to make sure no one would pop out of the trunk and shoot the officer.

- You would contact the driver from the position of the door post, why you would bend down and be even with the driver is beyond me. The door post area makes the driver have to look back at the officer and provided a barrier, to some degree.

Due to most PD cars having in car video...there has been false sense of security with it, our FTO's have been correcting this too relaxed approach for a few years now.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Based on watching the video, and reading parts of the transcript that have been released, I fail to see how  Yanez was acquitted.  This was completely unjustifiable, IMO.  Once the dude said he had a firearm on him, Yanez had several options he could have utilized before he got to 7 rounds from point blank range.  "Oh well, we can't Monday morning QB these things."  That's a lazy argument, and nothing is ever going to be learned or improved upon if incidents like this aren't analyzed and questioned.   This dude should have been convicted and faced severe consequences for what he did.

Edited to correct a grammatical error.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Castile didn't follow instructions .



What instructions did he not follow?


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> Based on watching the video, and reading parts of the transcript that have been released, I fail to see how  Yanez was acquitted.  This was completely unjustifiable, IMO.  Once the dude said he had a firearm on him, Yanez had several options he could have utilized before he got to 7 rounds from point blank range.  "Oh well, we can't Monday morning QB these things."  That's a lazy argument, and nothing is ever going to be learned or improved upon if incidents like this aren't analyzed and questioned.   This dude should have been convicted and faced severe consequences for what he did.
> 
> Edited to correct a grammatical error.



Agreed - people who do terrible things in the heat of the moment should still be punished.  He obviously realized he'd made a terrible mistake, though, so manslaughter instead of murder, IMHO.

That very reaction after the fact may have been what swayed the jury to the final verdict.

At the least, his department will be undergoing intense escalation of force training _sehr schnell_.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> Based on watching the video, and reading parts of the transcript that have been released, I fail to see how  Yanez was acquitted.  This was completely unjustifiable, IMO.  Once the dude said he had a firearm on him, Yanez had several options he could have utilized before he got to 7 rounds from point blank range.  "Oh well, we can't Monday morning QB these things."  That's a lazy argument, and nothing is ever going to be learned or improved upon if incidents like this aren't analyzed and questioned.   This dude should have been convicted and faced severe consequences for what he did.
> 
> Edited to correct a grammatical error.


He was charged with second degree manslaughter.  Here's the statute:
609.205 - 2016 Minnesota Statutes



			
				MN Statute 609.205 said:
			
		

> *609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.*
> A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
> 
> (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
> ...


The jury determined his actions don't meet the criteria.  I agree.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> What instructions did he not follow?


That's the crux of argument, isn't it?  Yanez told him not to "reach for it" or "pull it out".   He perceived that Castile was doing so. 

Why do you think Yanez reached into the car with his left hand before firing?  He perceived a threat.  Yanez was scared and has said as much.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> He obviously realized he'd made a terrible mistake


Why do you say that?  Because of his reaction/cursing afterwards?

I've seen a number of police shooting videos and in many there's a fair amount of "remorse" cursing afterwards.  He just took a life - he was probably pretty certain about that.  It's doubtful that scenario was on his mind up until the moment it went down based on the way he approached the vehicle.  He was surprised and scared.  It's absolutely tragic but I don't believe it rises to manslaughter.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 22, 2017)

@Blizzard "Disagree" with your post above because everything about the pain-in-the-ass his sister, mom, etc are all non-factors.   At the time, the officer did not know any of this.

Regarding the case, I've listened to enough lawyers to understand that in many cases a jury feels helpless.  They want to convict a person of 'something', but following the strict rule-of-law that the judge spells out during instructions, the evidence often does not allow a conviction for the crime that the prosecutor went with.  

In a case like this, I believe that the prosecutor is often pressured to "go for it" on a charge, knowing it is a long shot, and wishing they could get away with charging a lesser offense and be more likely to get a conviction on it.   It's lose/lose for them, because if they don't charge a strong enough crime, the "outraged" will protest that he's being too easy on the cop.  A shitty situation all around.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> That's the crux of argument, isn't it?  Yanez told him not to "reach for it" or "pull it out".   He perceived that Castile was doing so.
> 
> Why do you think Yanez reached into the car with his left hand before firing?  He perceived a threat.  Yanez was scared and has said as much.



Him saying he perceived a threat isn't good enough in this situation. The responsibility is on the officer to make his instructions clear, which he did not do.  "Oh well, his hand was set wider than it should have been for a wallet."  GTFO with that lame ass argument.  This dude was so far into blackout mode that he let go of 7 rounds, then started screaming and cursing.  He didn't have the mental acuity to process that type of minute detail.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Blizzard "Disagree" with your post above because everything about the pain-in-the-ass his sister, mom, etc are all non-factors.   At the time, the officer did not know any of this.


Agree.  I didn't imply they were a factor in the shooting.  I just said she's f'n vile, which she is.  It was really intended to be a separate statement.  It becomes more relevant as she tells stories after the fact.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> Him saying he perceived a threat isn't good enough in this situation. The responsibility is on the officer to make his instructions clear, which he did not do.  "Oh well, his hand was set wider than it should have been for a wallet."  GTFO with that lame ass argument.  This dude was so far into blackout mode that he let go of 7 rounds, then started screaming and cursing.  He didn't have the mental acuity to process that type of minute detail.


I don't think I can make that leap.  Having an officer perceive a threat is exactly why they take an action.  However, where I agree with you is that he absolutely could've taken a different approach to the situation; ie. asked him directly to keep his hands on the wheel, tell him where the weapon was located, etc.  He does that and maybe we never have this story.  That said, it doesn't mean he didn't see or perceive a serious threat.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> I don't think I can make that leap.  Having an officer perceive a threat is exactly why they take an action.  However, where I agree with you is that he absolutely could've taken a different approach to the situation; ie. asked him directly to keep his hands on the wheel, tell him where the weapon was located, etc.  That said, it doesn't mean he didn't see or perceive a serious threat.



I don't really care what he perceived.  It was wrong.  If you're a cop, or a military member, or a CCW holder, or whatever, and you make a bad judgment call and kill someone, then that's on you. If you can't apply critical thinking properly, and you mistakenly perceive a threat, and you kill someone, you should be criminally and civilly liable for that.  That perceived threat has to be justifiable, and in this case it wasn't even close.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> I don't really care what he perceived.  It was wrong.  If you're a cop, or a military member, or a CCW holder, or whatever, and you make a bad judgment call and kill someone, then that's on you. If you can't apply critical thinking properly, and you mistakenly perceive a threat, and you kill someone, you should be criminally and civilly liable for that.  That perceived threat has to be justifiable, and in this case it wasn't even close.


If Castile had his hands up, kept them on the wheel, or never moved them in the direction of his visible weapon, I'd completely agree.  But that wasn't the case.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> If Castile had his hands up, kept them on the wheel, or never moved them in the direction of his visible weapon, I'd completely agree.  But that wasn't the case.



The cop asked for his license and registration.  Is Castile running the stop, or is Yanez?  The officer allowed it to go where it went through poor decision making, then he panicked and killed the man.  It baffles me that people can defend Yanez in this situation and say Castile being killed is fine because his hands weren't on the steering wheel.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> The cop asked for his license and registration.  Is Castile running the stop, or is Yanez?  The officer allowed it to go where it went through poor decision making, then he panicked and killed the man.  It baffles me that people can defend Yanez in this situation and say Castile being killed is fine because his hands weren't on the steering wheel.


_Why_ did he panic?

I've stated Yanez absolutely could've done better and it's possible (probable) that he may very well have been in the wrong careerfield; he's no longer with that department (or any that I'm aware of).  However, I don't see his actions rising to the level of being criminal.


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 22, 2017)

Agreed with @CDG 's last post.

The people inside the car are not the ones who are intimately familiar with what should be done in the event of numerous contingencies, or what they should be doing with themselves to best prevent those situations.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

DocIllinois said:


> Agreed with The people inside the car are not the ones who are intimately familiar with what should be done in the event of numerous contingencies, or what they should be doing with themselves to best prevent those situations.


I generally agree with this as well, even though how to respond to a traffic stop is taught as part of basic drivers education.  The officer still needs to control the stop, which is why I also agree with @TLDR20 's comment about training/escalation of force.  Hopefully FTOs everywhere revisit this scenario with their officers to ensure a higher standard.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 22, 2017)

The cop wigged the fuck out like Barney Fife.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> _Why_ did he panic?
> 
> I've stated Yanez absolutely could've done better and it's possible (probable) that he may very well have been in the wrong careerfield; he's no longer with that department (or any that I'm aware of).  However, I don't see his actions rising to the level of being criminal.



Who cares why he panicked?  As a cop, the ability to perform under stress is expected.  You don't get to panic and start unloading rounds, and then come back and say "Well, you know, I didn't know what was going on. I said a couple things, didn't like the response, and the shot the dude 7 times."

Dude, he fucking killed a guy.  For no discernible reason.  So losing his job doesn't cut it.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Blizzard "Disagree" with your post above because everything about the pain-in-the-ass his sister, mom, etc are all non-factors.   At the time, the officer did not know any of this.
> 
> Regarding the case, I've listened to enough lawyers to understand that in many cases a jury feels helpless.  They want to convict a person of 'something', but following the strict rule-of-law that the judge spells out during instructions, the evidence often does not allow a conviction for the crime that the prosecutor went with.
> 
> In a case like this, I believe that the prosecutor is often pressured to "go for it" on a charge, knowing it is a long shot, and wishing they could get away with charging a lesser offense and be more likely to get a conviction on it.   It's lose/lose for them, because if they don't charge a strong enough crime, the "outraged" will protest that he's being too easy on the cop.  A shitty situation all around.



Money shot.
Elected DA's swing for the fence to get votes (see Duke lacrosse case).
Some states allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge, but most states/judges (per my resident JAG) don't allow this (form of double jeopardy?)



CDG said:


> Him saying he perceived a threat isn't good enough in this situation. The responsibility is on the officer to make his instructions clear, which he did not do.  "Oh well, his hand was set wider than it should have been for a wallet."  GTFO with that lame ass argument.  This dude was so far into blackout mode that he let go of 7 rounds, then started screaming and cursing.  He didn't have the mental acuity to process that type of minute detail.



Did the Officer give himself a mental escape route if things took a shit?  standing by the door pillar and moving backwards makes it harder for a shooter to engage without exiting the car.  Did the Officer think the situation through that far.

Hell, the dud knew disclosing the gun probably meant he was getting arrested.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> Who cares why he panicked?


I do.  That's at the heart of the case.  The fact that Yanez told him several times not to pull it out and reached into the car before shooting tells me something was going on.  If Castile was just chillin' with hand on the wheel or completely stopped his movement when repeatedly told "don't pull it out", would we be talking about this?  Plenty of hardship to go around.

Now, if there was consensus that Castile had his hands up (during her interview, his girlfriend later said that they both hand their hands up; conflicting with her earlier statements that he has reaching for his seatbelt buckle and/or his wallet), was not making any movement with his hands, and still got lit up, then I'd be right there with you on this but it's not nearly that cut and dry.



CDG said:


> As a cop, the ability to perform under stress is expected.  You don't get to panic and start unloading rounds, and then come back and say "Well, you know, I didn't know what was going on. I said a couple things, didn't like the response, and the shot the dude 7 times.


I don't think that's an accurate assessment of what took place.   Yanez never said he didn't know what was going on; quite the opposite actually.


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> I do.  That's at the heart of the case.  The fact that Yanez told him several times not to pull it out and reached into the car before shooting tells me something was going on.  If Castile was just chillin' with hand on the wheel or completely stopped his motion when told "don't pull it out", would we be talking about this?  Plenty of hardship to go around.
> 
> Now, if there was consensus that Castile had his hands up (during her interview, his girlfriend later said that they both hand their hands up; conflicting with her earlier statements that he has reaching for his seatbelt buckle and/or his wallet), was not making any movement with his hands, and still got lit up, then I'd be right there with you on this but it's not nearly that cut and dry.
> 
> ...



Philando Castile shooting: Dashcam video shows rapid event - CNN.com

_Yanez: And then it was just, getting hinky, he gave, he was just staring straight ahead and I was getting (expletive) nervous and then, I told him, I know, I know, (expletive) I told him to get his (expletive) hand off his gun.
Yanez gives a brief explanation of the events to a supervising officer on the scene. Yanez says he told Castile not to reach for the gun and that Castile's "grip (was) a lot wider than a wallet." Yanez continues, saying, "I don't know where the gun was. He didn't tell me where the (expletive) gun was."
_
So, he's staring straight ahead and it was "getting hinky".  He didn't know where the gun was, because he never bothered to ask.  The dude told him he had a gun, and Yanez said "Ok."  Then he starts screaming about no reaching for it, and shoots him.  So he doesn't even know where the gun is, but decides Castile is reaching for it.   If the cop hadn't been incompetent, and had handled the stop like a professional, would we be talking about this?


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

Again, not completely accurate and out of context.  Read the rest of Yanez' statement about his comment to his supervisor.  The CNN story conveniently left that out.  Yanez says the comment was said meaning he didn't know where the weapon was prior to seeing it.



			
				CDG said:
			
		

> If the cop hadn't been incompetent, and had handled the stop like a professional, would we be talking about this?


I agree.  If the stop were handled differently, we probably wouldn't be discussing it but it doesn't make what took place criminal.

Also, as FYI, listen to the interview with Castile's girlfriend starting at like 2:45:
BCA interview with Diamond Reynolds after Castile shooting


----------



## CDG (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Again, not completely accurate and out of context.  Read the rest of Yanez' statement about his comment to his supervisor.  The CNN story conveniently left that out.  Yanez says the comment was said meaning he didn't know where the weapon was prior to seeing it.
> 
> 
> I agree.  If the stop were handled differently, we probably wouldn't be discussing it but it doesn't make what took place criminal.
> ...



So you mean after Yanez calmed down and realized he was in a world of shit, he decided to say that.  Is that also when he came up with the whole "I could smell weed, and if he would endanger a little girl by smoking weed, who knows what he would do to me?" defense?


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> So you mean after Yanez calmed down and realized he was in a world of shit, he decided to say that.  Is that also when he came up with the whole "I could smell weed, and if he would endanger a little girl by smoking weed, who knows what he would do to me?" defense?


Did Castile in fact have a gun?  Was it in the location where Yanez says he saw it?  Was Castile fiddling with that side of his pants?  Yes to all.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 22, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> I don't think I can make that leap.  Having an officer perceive a threat is exactly why they take an action.  However, where I agree with you is that he absolutely could've taken a different approach to the situation; ie. asked him directly to keep his hands on the wheel, tell him where the weapon was located, etc.  He does that and maybe we never have this story.  That said, it doesn't mean he didn't see or perceive a serious threat.



I can understand how he felt uncomfortable, he had put himself right in the line of fire by walking straight up to the door. My sense is that if Officer Yanez had kept station closer to the door post, at the driver's left shoulder, he would not have been quite so exposed. As the driver moved his hand, the officer moved into an even more exposed position near the side view mirror. Granted the officer's firing position probably saved the passenger's life and directed all his rounds towards the driver.


----------



## CDG (Jun 23, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Did Castile in fact have a gun?  Was it in the location where Yanez says he saw it?  Was Castile fiddling with that side of his pants?  Yes to all.



And that equals justification for a kill?  Come one man.  That's not a defensible position, and you should know that.  This was 100% on Yanez. The justice system screwed the pooch on this case.  Yanez should be behind bars.


----------



## 757 (Jun 23, 2017)

"The Unwritten Law That Helps Bad Cops Go Free" -David French

I recommend reading the above article. I have worked with Mr. French before and he is a good legal analyst.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 23, 2017)

CDG said:


> And that equals justification for a kill?  Come one man.  That's not a defensible position, and you should know that.  This was 100% on Yanez. The justice system screwed the pooch on this case.  Yanez should be behind bars.



Although I do not necessarily disagree, the jury believed the state did not meet the burden of proof of the charge.  The state charged him after a grand jury indicted him, the part of the system that that failed was in overcharging him (that's not on the jury, that's on the DA).  The family can still sue in civil court.

I think he is guilty, but not of the crime with which they charged him.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 23, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> The state charged him after a grand jury indicted him



As an FYI, the county attorney got spooked by similar cases having a grand jury come back without charges.  He made the decision to charge on his own, without a grand-jury. 

Here We Go Again – Activist Minnesota Prosecutor Charges Officer Without Grand Jury…


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 23, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> As an FYI, the county attorney got spooked by similar cases having a grand jury come back without charges.  He made the decision to charge on his own, without a grand-jury.
> 
> Here We Go Again – Activist Minnesota Prosecutor Charges Officer Without Grand Jury…



Wow.  I did not know that (Capt Obvious, me....). 

If you are concerned the grand jury would return a no-bill, that should be a clue.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 23, 2017)

@Devildoc - It was a big concern from the Black Lives Matter groups up here.  The DA was given "hero-status" when he agreed to make the decision without a grand-jury.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 23, 2017)

I guess state law is different there.....you have to get an indictment for any felony in Texas.  Sure, you can be charged, but it will go to a grand jury eventually.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 23, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> I guess state law is different there.....you have to get an indictment for any felony in Texas.  Sure, you can be charged, but it will go to a grand jury eventually.



Interesting. In PA, grand juries are available but most often charging decisions are made by the police in cooperation with the DA. Grand juries are not frequently used.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 23, 2017)

Don't get me wrong....we charge people all the time, file the case, send it to the DA for prosecution, but soon after any felony arrest is made and filed with the DA...a grand jury will see the case and make a determination.  It's part of the process and a behind the scenes thing. The  grand juries only seem to get all the attention when no arrest is made yet and the DA sends it to them for a determination.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 23, 2017)

.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 24, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I think of the Grand Jury move as a test of two things. One is a test of the evidence in a court room, granted the DC has all the power before the GJ. The other thing that has me wondering is if the DA and the ADAs are a little weak, and they are testing their case at the Grand Jury level.
> 
> The other question I have is what role does the mayor and Chief of Police play in all this.



The decision to use a grand jury is the prosecutor's alone.  Police have no input, and since the DA is an independent elected official, the mayor should not have any either.  That's not to say that politics doesn't enter the picture, but strictly speaking the ball is in the DA's court as to how they want to to proceed.  That's speaking for PA, of course.  YMMV.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 24, 2017)

.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

Wow.  That didn't take long....

City settles with mom for $3Million

St Anthony Village, MN

Philando Castile family reaches $3M settlement in death

From the article:
_Castile's girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, later said Castile was reaching for his wallet._

Permit me to fix that for ya....
_Castile's girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, will now be reaching for mom's wallet._


----------



## policemedic (Jun 26, 2017)

What a waste of the taxpayer's money. That's 4.5 million between Ferguson and St. Anthony.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

policemedic said:


> What a waste of the taxpayer's money. That's 4.5 million between Ferguson and St. Anthony.



The article did state that in this particular case, no taxpayer money was spent on the settlement. 
_ The settlement will be paid through the City’s coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. No taxpayer monies from the City of St. Anthony Village will be used to fund this settlement_


----------



## policemedic (Jun 26, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The article did state that in this particular case, no taxpayer money was spent on the settlement.
> _ The settlement will be paid through the City’s coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. No taxpayer monies from the City of St. Anthony Village will be used to fund this settlement_



That quote is misleading. The taxpayers pay for the coverage.  The taxpayers will pay for the inevitable increase in premiums.  It's not unusual for a municipality to have an insurer cover their liability exposure, but the taxpayers will still face increased costs.

The problem (and one of the reasons they settled so fast) is that the mayor and others basically admitted liability where none may have existed.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 26, 2017)

policemedic said:


> The problem (and one of the reasons they settled so fast) is that the mayor and others basically admitted liability where none may have existed.



I will certainly concede that.  Hell, our Governor did exactly that as soon as the incident happened.

_Within hours of the fatal shooting, Dayton forcefully declared that Castile would not have been killed if he were white — a dramatic assertion immediately criticized by law enforcement groups locally and around the country. Dayton doubled down the next day, jeopardizing what has been strong support by police, who backed him early in 2010 during his first run for governor._
_
How Gov. Mark Dayton got to his big statement on race after Philando Castile was shot_


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...
> 
> As to the presumption of innocence, if it were the same for normal citizens as it is for police we would have a lot less people in jail.



Took em' long enough. 

NRA finally weighs in on death of Philando Castile


----------

