MN - Philando Castile, 32, fatally shot by police officer, 6 July 2016 #2

[ZooSleuth]

And I'll wait for proof that Officer Yanez was acting illegally or irresponsibly before I condemn him. PC has a vast, well-documented history of irresponsible behavior; Officer Yanez does not.

Whatever the case, the Officer made the first mistake in this situation by pulling over the wrong person. Now I'm not condemning him for it and I don't think that mistake is irresponsible or illegal, but nonetheless, that mistake started the chain of events that led to the shooting. None of PC's past "irresponsible behavior" was violent or reckless. If anything his extensive record shows that he was compliant when dealing with law enforcement in the past. IMO both sides probably could have done things differently to prevent this, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[ohreally]

My son was stopped because his car matched the description of a car (his car was not tne one they were looking for) that was used in a house robbery/ burglary. The officer did not approach my son's car with his gun drawn. He approached it just like a traffic stop. In my experience an officer does not do a stop with guns drawn unless there is something more than a vague description that matches.

 

[K_Z]

Whatever the case, the Officer made the first mistake in this situation by pulling over the wrong person. Now I'm not condemning him for it and I don't think that mistake is irresponsible or illegal, but nonetheless, that mistake started the chain of events that led to the shooting. None of PC's past "irresponsible behavior" was violent or reckless. If anything his extensive record shows that he was compliant when dealing with law enforcement in the past. IMO both sides probably could have done things differently to prevent this, we'll have to wait and see.

The officers did not make "the first mistake" in pulling over PC. It's not a mistake for a police officer to identify a *potential suspect* in an armed robbery, and detain and approach them for a conversation and ID check. That's what police are supposed to do. There is no "requirement" that they must be 100% accurate just to pull over a motorist to talk to them, and check IDs. Had things gone more smoothly, PC and his companions would have been on their way shortly.

How PC's gun was revealed and communicated, was almost certainly "the first mistake", IMO.

And I disagree strenuously that driving without a license or insurance for more than THREE years is not reckless or irresponsible behavior, along with the dozens upon dozens of other traffic violations he had. "No insurance" is a mandatory court appearance in MN. He may not have been violent, but he was definitely irresponsible. I am just shaking my head that some believe PC was a model citizen, and dismiss the significance of 54 traffic stops and 84 charges. He didn't follow the laws related to safe, licensed driving-- so why should we believe he was completely responsible about how he carried his gun, and communicated that to LE during a traffic stop?

And the most recent youtube "hotboxing" videos of him and DR, with the child in the car, were posted less than 48 hours before the Yanez traffic stop. Those videos are not a secret-- they are all over the web discussions on this case, and easy to search and watch. Hotboxing (as a driver!) with a child in the car is not "responsible" behavior. Not at all. It's illegal, impaired driving. Very irresponsible for someone who works with kids in a school. So I have to seriously wonder if there were illegal drugs in that car, and if he and DR were indulging just before they were pulled over. That is a very legitimate suspicion, given his history, and hers.

 

[jkly]

Let me give another example of a concealed weapons permit holder who was shot to death by police in 2010.

His name was Erik Scott. He was an attractive young white man, a graduate of West Point, and Duke University, a medical equipment salesman, and was shopping in a Costco. By all accounts, white, relatively wealthy, and highly educated. Not the "typical" profile of a "poor black man profiled and shot by racist police" that liberal media and activists like to publicize, and protest, and riot about.

Mr. Scott was shopping in a Costco, behaving erratically. His pistol (one of 2 he was carrying) was visible. He was asked to leave the store. He refused. Police were called. The store was evacuated. He was identified by workers as the man they asked to leave. He did not follow instructions from police, and was shot 7 times, despite being a permit holder. Bystander accounts of what happened when police arrived differ-- some saw him holding a weapon, others did not. Unfortunately, security video wasn't working. Autopsy showed a nearly lethal level of morphine, and a high level of xanax, in his system. No police officers were charged in his death. Civil suits by his family were dropped.

As far as I know, there were no riots or demonstrations on his behalf by activists, and the NRA was pretty silent about supporting him, as well. The governor and members of congress didn't make comments about a presumed police bias for his shooting, either.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/c...family-drops-lawsuit-against-las-vegas-police

This is the NRA statement on the "Minnesota incident" (does not name PC directly):

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/751501317844107266/photo/1

Great. Prove Philando did not attempt to comply with the police orders and brazenly ignored them for what probably amounts to around a half hour to an hour like that man did.

Bring forward a witness who saw him holding his weapon. The police cited the "presence of a gun" as the reason he shot. They didn't say it was visible. That could mean anything from Philando "holding the gun on his lap as you claim" to the gun being visible on his holster when he reached for his ID to Philando attempting to inform the officer that he had a gun and a concealed carry license.

You yourself seem to think this was a split second misunderstanding caused by Diamond telling the officer he had a concealed carry license at the same time as the officer talked, causing Philando to delay following orders fast enough for the officer. No one deserves to die over a split second misunderstanding and if that was what occurred, it was the officer's faultfor being skittish and trigger happy.

 

[jkly]

The officers did not make "the first mistake" in pulling over PC. It's not a mistake for a police officer to identify a *potential suspect* in an armed robbery, and detain and approach them for a conversation and ID check. That's what police are supposed to do. There is no "requirement" that they must be 100% accurate just to pull over a motorist to talk to them, and check IDs. Had things gone more smoothly, PC and his companions would have been on their way shortly.

How PC's gun was revealed and communicated, was almost certainly "the first mistake", IMO.

And I disagree strenuously that driving without a license or insurance for more than THREE years is not reckless or irresponsible behavior, along with the dozens upon dozens of other traffic violations he had. "No insurance" is a mandatory court appearance in MN. He may not have been violent, but he was definitely irresponsible. I am just shaking my head that some believe PC was a model citizen, and dismiss the significance of 54 traffic stops and 84 charges. He didn't follow the laws related to safe, licensed driving-- so why should we believe he was completely responsible about how he carried his gun, and communicated that to LE during a traffic stop?

And the most recent youtube "hotboxing" videos of him and DR, with the child in the car, were posted less than 48 hours before the Yanez traffic stop. Those videos are not a secret-- they are all over the web discussions on this case, and easy to search and watch. Hotboxing (as a driver!) with a child in the car is not "responsible" behavior. Not at all. It's illegal, impaired driving. Very irresponsible for someone who works with kids in a school. So I have to seriously wonder if there were illegal drugs in that car, and if he and DR were indulging just before they were pulled over. That is a very legitimate suspicion, given his history, and hers.

Sure he was irresponsible. So lets give him a death sentence and completely bypass the due process rights that even accused killers are given by our justice system. The officer must have been completely justified in shooting him since he is a police officer and he could never have misunderstood or gotten scared and prematurely pulled the trigger and shot someone who just maybe didn't deserve to be shot and wouldn't have been shot if the officer wasn't operating under the mistaken notion that Philando was one of the armed robbers from a BOLO.

 

[K_Z]

Great. Prove Philando did not attempt to comply with the police orders and brazenly ignored them for what probably amounts to around a half hour to an hour like that man did.

Bring forward a witness who saw him holding his weapon. The police cited the "presence of a gun" as the reason he shot. They didn't say it was visible. That could mean anything from Philando "holding the gun on his lap as you claim" to the gun being visible on his holster when he reached for his ID to Philando attempting to inform the officer that he had a gun and a concealed carry license.

You yourself seem to think this was a split second misunderstanding caused by Diamond telling the officer he had a concealed carry license at the same time as the officer talked, causing Philando to delay following orders fast enough for the officer. No one deserves to die over a split second misunderstanding and if that was what occurred, it was the officer's faultfor being skittish and trigger happy.

Bold by me.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is a "half hour" requirement-- that's not what the law says. The use of deadly force says only that OJY had to be in "reasonable fear of imminent great bodily damage or death." This situation, IMO, will clearly meet that standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force

Officer Yanez is a witness, and his "excited utterances" captured on DR's videorecording are evidence.

“I told him not to reach for it!” the officer screamed. “I told him to get his hand off it!”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tally-shot-philando-castile-article-1.2756248

We have at least 2 witnesses we have not heard from yet. Officer Joseph Kauser is also a witness. We have not heard from him yet.

The squad car dash cam was operating, so we will probably have audio, if not some video. The dash cam is a "witness" (evidence).

As we have it now, the evidence (OJY's excited utterance) indicates PC was given at least two commands to not reach for, and let go of, "whatever" he had in his hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule.[1] The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" event or condition. The statement could be a description or explanation (as required for present sense impression), or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods.

Also wanted to add, I don't think PC "delayed" following the orders of the officer. To the contrary, I think he IGNORED what he was being told by the officer to do-- not reach for anything, and let go of what he was holding or touching. That is the crux of the situation. I think he continued to do what he wanted to do, or what DR was urging him to do. PC did not take the officer's instructions seriously, or did not respect the officer's authority to tell him what to do, or both. He's a permit holder-- he was instructed how to handle traffic stops while carrying. For whatever reason, he CHOSE not to comply, and to keep on doing what he was doing. IMO, that's what the evidence, as we have it, clearly shows.

 

[human]

The officers did not make "the first mistake" in pulling over PC. It's not a mistake for a police officer to identify a *potential suspect* in an armed robbery, and detain and approach them for a conversation and ID check. That's what police are supposed to do. There is no "requirement" that they must be 100% accurate just to pull over a motorist to talk to them, and check IDs. Had things gone more smoothly, PC and his companions would have been on their way shortly.

How PC's gun was revealed and communicated, was almost certainly "the first mistake", IMO.

And I disagree strenuously that driving without a license or insurance for more than THREE years is not reckless or irresponsible behavior, along with the dozens upon dozens of other traffic violations he had. "No insurance" is a mandatory court appearance in MN. He may not have been violent, but he was definitely irresponsible. I am just shaking my head that some believe PC was a model citizen, and dismiss the significance of 54 traffic stops and 84 charges. He didn't follow the laws related to safe, licensed driving-- so why should we believe he was completely responsible about how he carried his gun, and communicated that to LE during a traffic stop?

And the most recent youtube "hotboxing" videos of him and DR, with the child in the car, were posted less than 48 hours before the Yanez traffic stop. Those videos are not a secret-- they are all over the web discussions on this case, and easy to search and watch. Hotboxing (as a driver!) with a child in the car is not "responsible" behavior. Not at all. It's illegal, impaired driving. Very irresponsible for someone who works with kids in a school. So I have to seriously wonder if there were illegal drugs in that car, and if he and DR were indulging just before they were pulled over. That is a very legitimate suspicion, given his history, and hers.

Yes! Shoot him dead for irresponsible behavior! He should have been more responsbile by going on a wine tasting tour and driving after That is far more responsible and socially acceptable behavior.

 

[al66pine]

Sure he was irresponsible. So lets give him a death sentence and completely bypass the due process rights that even accused killers are given by our justice system. The officer must have been completely justified in shooting him since he is a police officer and he could never have misunderstood or gotten scared and prematurely pulled the trigger and shot someone who just maybe didn't deserve to be shot and wouldn't have been shot if the officer wasn't operating under the mistaken notion that Philando was one of the armed robbers from a BOLO.

Yes, agreeing w you - appears PC was irresponsible (traffic violations) in some ways which may or may not be relevant.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I do not recall anyone here on W/S saying that the LEO was COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in shooting PC.

Instead I sense that some others think this MAY have been a LEO's justified use of lethal force but will not think or say that conclusively until further evidence is publically released. Does anyone here say all or virtually all LEOs' shootings are justified? IDTS. Personally I'm waiting for more facts about this situation, JM2cts.

 

[K_Z]

I'll add one more thing. "If" PC was high-- and we know he was an "enthusiastic" user of at least marijuana, from the video taken by DR 48 hours before the traffic stop--*if* he was high at the time of the traffic stop, his JUDGEMENT may have been altered. Which "could" contribute to his reluctance to follow the officer's instructions properly and immediately.

We will have to wait to see what the autopsy results show. Toxicology will definitively determine if the marijuana that will almost certainly be positive, was "old" or remote use, or very recent use (minutes to hours). He's on DR's video smoking pot and hotboxing 48 hours before his death-- his autopsy toxicology will be positive for at least THC, IMO.

And let's look at the MN law that covers permit carriers-- PC would have known that his permit to carry would be REVOKED if he was under the influence of any alcohol or illegal drugs, and he would, at a minimum, be charged with a misdemeanor, in addition to charges as a driver. There is NO legal limit in MN for THC. So, if he was under the influence of any drugs or ETOH, or they were in his car and discovered, he KNEW he would be arrested, and face a number of charges, including revocation of his carry permit. And yet, he was video recorded and uploaded to youtube smoking pot and hotboxing just 48 hours before that traffic stop. Consider that, solemnly, for a moment.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.7142

 

[jkly]

Yes, agreeing w you - appears PC was irresponsible (traffic violations) in some ways which may or may not be relevant.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I do not recall anyone here on W/S saying that the LEO was COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in shooting PC.

Instead I sense that some others think this MAY have been a LEO's justified use of lethal force but will not think or say that conclusively until further evidence is publically released. Does anyone here say all or virtually all LEOs' shootings are justified? IDTS. Personally I'm waiting for more facts about this situation, JM2cts.

Well...I've seen claims that officer yanez did nothing wrong pulling Pc over for what he claimed was a broken taillight. I've seen claims that its excusable for the police to shoot you if you dont immediately follow their orders EXACTLY. If you have weed you must be a bad person who did something to cause your own death. If you are speaking at the same time as the officer and cause someone to misunderstand or not comply with the officers instructions immediately you deserve to be shot or are responsible for someone else getting shot. If weed is found on you or in your system its excusable for an officer to bypass your due process rights and shoot you. Where is any responsibility being put on the officer for pulling the trigger not one but four times and killing someone?

 

[K_Z]

Well...I've seen claims that officer yanez did nothing wrong pulling Pc over for what he claimed was a broken taillight. I've seen claims that its excusable for the police to shoot you if you dont immediately follow their orders EXACTLY. If you have weed you must be a bad person who did something to cause your own death. If you are speaking at the same time as the officer and cause someone to misunderstand or not comply with the officers instructions immediately you deserve to be shot or are responsible for someone else getting shot. If weed is found on you or in your system its excusable for an officer to bypass your due process rights and shoot you. Where is any responsibility being put on the officer for pulling the trigger not one but four times and killing someone?

BBM. OJY is definitely responsible for pulling the trigger 4 times, and causing PC's death. The debate is whether OJY was justified, legally, for the use of deadly force, in this specific situation.

There seems to be a difference of opinion among some as to whether an officer using deadly force is "ever" justified. Some believe that officers are *never* justified in using deadly force. That's a philosophical opinion that is not supported by the law. OJY was not a private citizen involved in an altercation with PC, such as a bar fight. OJY is a police officer, in the course of his lawful duty. This was not a case of 2 "equal private citizens" having an altercation, that one of them ends in gunfire. OJY is a sworn peace officer, on duty, who gave a number of lawful orders to PC, and pulled him over for a declared (to the dispatcher) and valid purpose. AND-- PC was a legal pistol carrier, with very specific responsibilities that go along with that right to bear arms.

 

[bluesneakers]

BBM. OJY is definitely responsible for pulling the trigger 4 times, and causing PC's death. The debate is whether OJY was justified, legally, for the use of deadly force, in this specific situation.

There seems to be a difference of opinion among some as to whether an officer using deadly force is "ever" justified. Some believe that officers are *never* justified in using deadly force. That's a philosophical opinion that is not supported by the law. OJY was not a private citizen involved in an altercation with PC, such as a bar fight. OJY is a police officer, in the course of his lawful duty. This was not a case of 2 "equal private citizens" having an altercation, that one of them ends in gunfire. OJY is a sworn peace officer, on duty, who gave a number of lawful orders to PC, and pulled him over for a declared (to the dispatcher) and valid purpose. AND-- PC was a legal pistol carrier, with very specific responsibilities that go along with that right to bear arms.

Who is suggesting it is *never* justified?

 

[K_Z]

Who is suggesting it is *never* justified?

Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, who has protested and rioted over the death of PC. They organized the effort to blockade and riot on Interstate 94, in support of PC.

“This group demands the dismantling of the police department, which includes disarming, d e f u n d i n g, demilitarizing, and disbanding police,” the post continues.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/blac...emands-disbanding-dismantling-of-police-dept/

 

[bluesneakers]

Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, who has protested and rioted over the death of PC.



http://www.mediaite.com/online/blac...emands-disbanding-dismantling-of-police-dept/

So no one on this thread?

 

[K_Z]

So no one on this thread?

Well, that would be my personal opinion, but yes, I do think there are some posting here who sincerely believe that there is never a situation where the use of deadly force by police is justified. JMO.

 

[bluesneakers]

Well...I've seen claims that officer yanez did nothing wrong pulling Pc over for what he claimed was a broken taillight. I've seen claims that its excusable for the police to shoot you if you dont immediately follow their orders EXACTLY. If you have weed you must be a bad person who did something to cause your own death. If you are speaking at the same time as the officer and cause someone to misunderstand or not comply with the officers instructions immediately you deserve to be shot or are responsible for someone else getting shot. If weed is found on you or in your system its excusable for an officer to bypass your due process rights and shoot you. Where is any responsibility being put on the officer for pulling the trigger not one but four times and killing someone?

Sometimes (often) after a shooting like this the officer is presented as almost helpless, as if he had no choice, he was practically forced to shoot. People don't put on a badge and become unable to reason. A badge doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.

But most of them never have to face any consequences.

 

[K_Z]

Sometimes (often) after a shooting like this the officer is presented as almost helpless, as if he had no choice, he was practically forced to shoot. People don't put on a badge and become unable to reason. A badge doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own actions.

But most of them never have to face any consequences.

BBM. And rightfully so, IMO, because there is a lawful basis for the justified use of deadly force, that most officer involved shootings complies with. The overwhelming number of officer-involved shootings ARE lawfully justified. That's what many media articles fail to mention in their indignant and breathless "reporting". They just hammer away at "police officer shoots man", and try strenuously to imply or persuade readers that there is "never" a lawful or justifiable use of deadly force. And then the media plays the "racist cop" and "profiling" cards, whenever it is a minority who is shot by police, rather than focusing on the behavior of the SUSPECT (not victim). To the liberal media, anyone shot by police is a VICTIM--never a "suspect."

 

[jkly]

I'll add one more thing. "If" PC was high-- and we know he was an "enthusiastic" user of at least marijuana, from the video taken by DR 48 hours before the traffic stop--*if* he was high at the time of the traffic stop, his JUDGEMENT may have been altered. Which "could" contribute to his reluctance to follow the officer's instructions properly and immediately.

We will have to wait to see what the autopsy results show. Toxicology will definitively determine if the marijuana that will almost certainly be positive, was "old" or remote use, or very recent use (minutes to hours). He's on DR's video smoking pot and hotboxing 48 hours before his death-- his autopsy toxicology will be positive for at least THC, IMO.

And let's look at the MN law that covers permit carriers-- PC would have known that his permit to carry would be REVOKED if he was under the influence of any alcohol or illegal drugs, and he would, at a minimum, be charged with a misdemeanor, in addition to charges as a driver. There is NO legal limit in MN for THC. So, if he was under the influence of any drugs or ETOH, or they were in his car and discovered, he KNEW he would be arrested, and face a number of charges, including revocation of his carry permit. And yet, he was video recorded and uploaded to youtube smoking pot and hotboxing just 48 hours before that traffic stop. Consider that, solemnly, for a moment.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.7142

So you think his concerns about weed being found in his car and causing him to lose his CCW permit caused him to believe threatening a police officer with his gun would be the correct course of action to insure both that the weed would not be discovered and that his permit would not be taken ? Don't buy it. Maybe 48 hours ago officer yanez had a couple beers. gling on hypotheticals maybe that affected his judgment. Maybe he having a bad day. Maybe he was mistaken.

 

[jkly]

Excuse my typing. On mobile. When I edit my post gets deleted. I meant maybe he was having a bad day

 

[K_Z]

In wake of Philando Castile shooting, 1,000 officers going through protest training

St. Paul police are putting on the training for more than 1,000 officers in the Twin Cities — about half from the capital city’s police department and the rest from 15 other agencies. Officers are learning more about First Amendment rights of protesters, hearing about looking out for themselves when they come under attack physically or verbally, and practicing tactics for making arrests when necessary.

St. Paul spent nearly $1.8 million on Castile protests as of Aug. 19, with most of that for police staffing. For the training that’s underway now, there is no cost to the city and the St. Paul police department is not charging other agencies for their officers to attend, according to a police spokesman.

At the Arden Hills Army Training Site on Thursday, officers finished classroom training and headed outside to practice scenarios. In one, a group of officers pretended to be protesters and chanted about justice. Police moved in to arrest a woman.

The officers, wearing helmets and holding batons crossways in front of them, walked toward the group in formation. An arrest team encircled the woman, and two officers “arrested” her and walked her out of the group. The other officers stood in a line in front of the demonstrators — they were there to provide security for the arrest team because they didn’t know if the group would turn on them, Frazer said.

For people who have been protesting Castile’s death, it is police practices like these that they’ve questioned. Demonstrators have been critical of the rationale for arrests and say the large police presence amps up the crowd, as does officers showing up in protective gear and holding batons.

And officers have been wearing helmets more often since police came under attack on I-94, Frazer said. He said the St. Paul police department weighs how the community will view the officers’ appearance with the need to protect the officers.

“We do know that there are people who feel that this is antagonistic or doesn’t help things,” Frazer said. “Usually, when you see us in large numbers or if you see us with helmets and batons out, there has been a shift in what maybe was started as a peaceful protest and has become a criminal action by some of the people in the group. … Our record shows we have a measured response. If protesters are not acting out criminally, they can convey whatever message they wish.”

http://www.twincities.com/2016/09/1...1000-officers-going-through-protest-training/