CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[mgidm86]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/philando-castile-trial-verdict/index.html

Yanez, a St. Anthony officer, testified he feared for his life because Castile reached for his firearm, despite being instructed not to do.


An audio recording captured Castile telling Yanez he had a gun in the car, and the officer telling Castile not to reach for it. Seconds later, Yanez opened fire.

Not saying he should have shot him or not based on this, but nobody has mentioned this here. And did he actually say "gun in the car" or that he had CCW? Says "gun in the car" here.

 

[Cleon]

Ugh. Just ugh.

 

[bignickel]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/philando-castile-trial-verdict/index.html

Not saying he should have shot him or not based on this, but nobody has mentioned this here. And did he actually say "gun in the car" or that he had CCW? Says "gun in the car" here.

"Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-case-verdict-jeronimo-yanez/

Remember: he's heard later saying he can't find the gun. So, he's admitting later that he didn't see it; if he did, he'd be able to go right to it.

And in the end: moot. The victim had a legal right to carry the weapon.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-case-verdict-jeronimo-yanez/

Remember: he's heard later saying he can't find the gun. So, he's admitting later that he didn't see it; if he did, he'd be able to go right to it.

And in the end: moot. The victim had a legal right to carry the weapon.

The respectful words of a madman bent on cop killing.

 

[bignickel]

And keep in mind: policeman isn't in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in this country.

If a logger (not the guy on this forum) is told ""Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me," he can't draw a weapon and fire.

If a construction worker is told ""Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me," he can't draw a weapon and fire.

And If a taxi driver is told ""Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me," he can't draw a weapon and fire.

But the guy with the safer job can... because. Danger.

 

[mgidm86]

"Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castile-case-verdict-jeronimo-yanez/

And then, according to audio, he is told not to reach for the gun, at least that is what I read. Again, I'm not saying it's enough for a shooting, just that it's something I did not see reported before. He may have said that and shot him anyways. Maybe he was reaching for the permit and not the gun.

Not a lawyer, but it seems like the audio recording was a big factor in the case.

For the record, I think the cop screwed up big-time, and should be off the streets, minimum, based on his behavior after the shooting alone.

Remember: he's heard later saying he can't find the gun. So, he's admitting later that he didn't see it; if he did, he'd be able to go right to it.

I agree he was most likely lying, but he seemed out of control. If I were his defense I'd try to BS my way around that - heat of the moment, things happened so fast...

And in the end: moot. The victim had a legal right to carry the weapon.

Having a right to carry doesn't mean you're immune from getting shot if you do something stupid. I know you didn't say that, I'm just pointing out that it isn't automatically moot. Maybe I'm stating the obvious I dunno.

This is all after knowing that he beat the rap, so I'm just guessing as to how that happened. Sounds like the guy shouldn't have been shot and that the cop is a basket case.

 

[mgidm86]

There's something seriously wrong in this country =\

Agreed. But what is it?

bignickel:
And keep in mind: policeman isn't in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in this country.

Problem is they don't always know they are in danger.

Recently a cop in the next town over from mine pulled over a guy with expired registration. The guy made a run for it on foot, the cop gave chase, tackled and arrested him.

A minute later he found out that the guy had just shot and killed someone in a parked car 10 miles away, carjacked a woman's car, evaded police, and was armed.

Had the cop known that would he have reacted differently?

Not disagreeing necessarily with you, but at the same time that argument is kind of weak. The odds may be low, but there aren't many jobs where people or machinery may be actively seeking to kill you. It can be completely out of the cops hands.

 

[Mumbles]

NOT GUILTY.

Gee, what a shock. Don't worry, I'm sure that Loretta Lynch - oh wait, it's Jeff Sessions now.

Never mind.

And then people wonder why folks are marching in the streets shouting "black lives matter!". Or, you know, brazenly stereotyping black people as "thugs" and "rioters". Either way.

It's only been a few minutes since I heard the verdict (from BBC news of all places). I drove by the police station and didn't see any activity there. However, it appears crowds are gathering downtown at the courthouse.

Hot Friday night, much tension all around. This is not going to end well.

*shrug* I've long said I'm anti-violence. But at this point...hey, if some people flip out and burn something down, I don't know what to tell you. What else can they do?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

NOT GUILTY.

Gee, what a shock. Don't worry, I'm sure that Loretta Lynch - oh wait, it's Jeff Sessions now.

*shrug* I've long said I'm anti-violence. But at this point...hey, if some people flip out and burn something down, I don't know what to tell you. What else can they do?

The best thing they could do to break this entire cycle is to not be a community which has an outrageous amount of crime and criminals and criminal apologetics, aid to criminals, concealing criminals, glorifying criminals, etc.

The black community, particularly in certain areas, have a reputation and trigger this response of hyper-caution from police for VERY good reasons. The character of the community, and the behavior pattern of the community, is the root cause of the entire dynamic and only changing that will change things downstream from it.

Of course, I don't actually believe it can be changed... but in your framework, that is what would have to happen.

 

[Mumbles]

Anyone else wish to advocate for racist murders?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Anyone else wish to advocate for racist murders?

How do you justify calling it either racist or a murder?

You can disagree with the verdict and you can disagree with the officer's actions but it isn't contested or in doubt WHY he shot. He shot because he thought Castille was going for the gun. Reasonable or not, that's what he thought and why he did what he did.

By definition, a police officer who shoots a man who is confirmed to have a firearm and who then reaches for something, is not and cannot be murder.

It could be found to be criminal by a jury but it can't be murder. The circumstances make his action very understandable even if they were incorrect, impulsive, tragic, etc. Though I see no evidence beyond the girlfriend's statements in the video that they were any of these things. A girlfriend who was recently charged for attacking someone with a hammer, btw.

We didn't see video showing us what Castiille did or how he did it. My understanding is that such video doesn't exist but that some audio came out that helped get this officer off the hook.

As for racist? What indication is there that this wouldn't have played out exactly the same way had Castille been a different race?

Without seeing exactly what that officer saw, we cannot really say with any sort of certainty that he behaved wrongly.

 

[Mumbles]

How do you justify calling it either racist or a murder?

Yeah, that's great, but I still don't argue with white supremacists, which you've long since admitted to being.

 

[Hungry81]

How do you justify calling it either racist or a murder?

You can disagree with the verdict and you can disagree with the officer's actions but it isn't contested or in doubt WHY he shot. He shot because he thought Castille was going for the gun. Reasonable or not, that's what he thought and why he did what he did.

By definition, a police officer who shoots a man who is confirmed to have a firearm and who then reaches for something, is not and cannot be murder.

It could be found to be criminal by a jury but it can't be murder. The circumstances make his action very understandable even if they were incorrect, impulsive, tragic, etc. Though I see no evidence beyond the girlfriend's statements in the video that they were any of these things. A girlfriend who was recently charged for attacking someone with a hammer, btw.

We didn't see video showing us what Castiille did or how he did it. My understanding is that such video doesn't exist but that some audio came out that helped get this officer off the hook.

As for racist? What indication is there that this wouldn't have played out exactly the same way had Castille been a different race?

Without seeing exactly what that officer saw, we cannot really say with any sort of certainty that he behaved wrongly.

Yeah, the policeman isn't racist or criminal, just incompetent. A fine example of someone who should remain a cop.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By definition, a police officer who shoots a man who is confirmed to have a firearm and who then reaches for something, is not and cannot be murder.

That's a long way down the slippery slope. By that definition, a policeman can stop someone he dislikes and knows to have a concealed weapon under permit, ask him for his driving license, shoot him as he reaches for it, and be immune from prosecution for murder, despite having carried out a deliberate and premeditated killing.

Dave

 

[Skeptic Tank]

That's a long way down the slippery slope. By that definition, a policeman can stop someone he dislikes and knows to have a concealed weapon under permit, ask him for his driving license, shoot him as he reaches for it, and be immune from prosecution for murder, despite having carried out a deliberate and premeditated killing.

Dave

And if I plan and carry out the perfect murder, then I will get away with it.

Police, due to the nature of their position, have always had more avenues to getting away with improbable murder plot scenarios than the average citizen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Police, due to the nature of their position, have always had more avenues to getting away with improbable murder plot scenarios than the average citizen.

In this case, though, the policeman could openly admit his intentions and, by your definition, be innocent of murder. You're not suggesting laws that are more easily circumvented, but ones that give the police the right to kill anyone they wish to.

Dave

 

[Hungry81]

And if I plan and carry out the perfect murder, then I will get away with it.

Police, due to the nature of their position, have always had more avenues to getting away with improbable murder plot scenarios than the average citizen.

Which is why they should be held to a higher standard. The standards they are currently held to are lower than civillians. US Police unions and the law seem to protect the incompetent.

 

[Ranb]

The black community, particularly in certain areas, have a reputation....

Remember that the victim was a person not a community.

Ranb

 

[Mumbles]

Remember that the victim was a person not a community.

Ranb

One could also note that the "police community" in many areas also has an extremely poor reputation. Doesn't justify shooting them, though.

Anyway, since the white supremacy brigade has mostly left this board, let's get to it. This trial turned out to be...about what I expected. The cop heard Castile say the word "gun", panicked, and imagined that Castile actually had a gun and was getting ready to shoot him. And yet, EMS testified that the police had to dig into Castile's pocket to find any gun, so the cop's story seems to be impossible, as opposed to just unreasonable. The similarities to the Levar Jones shooting are obvious.

The good news - unlike many police departments and unions, this one seems to understand that this guy is completely unfit to be a cop, and since he's acquitted, are working to move him to another line of work entirely. This is better than just firing him so he can move to another department, or even worse retaining him, which shows simple hostility to local black people. It's not *ideal*, but that option vanished when the jury dropped the ball.

 

[marplots]

It's just not right. Ever since Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, the whole Hispanic vs. Black thing has continued downhill. Now we have Officer Yanez shooting Philando Castile in questionable circumstances.

They should have been great allies instead of enemies.