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

[jkly]

Yes, I know PC would have had no knowledge of that robbery, but as someone who had been pulled over 56 or more times, and had numerous encounters with police (including no license/ no insurance situations in his past, etc), he knew how to respond to an officer during a traffic stop, AND he knew he was an impaired driver, AND he knew he was an impaired driver with a child in the car, AND he knew he was in possession of a gun he WAS NOT authorized to have (by virtue of him knowing that he WAS actively impaired), he absolutely did CAUSE the situation that occurred, IMO.

You don't know what he knew. You act like he was actively trying to antagonize the officer. I see no evidence of that. From what I can see, he made every attempt to be calm and respectful.

He was also authorized to have the weapon because he had not been convicted of a felony and he had gone through all the proper procedures. Normally, this should have resulted in a trial for him, not an automatic death penalty.

My guess is that PC absolutely knew he was busted for the impaired driving and pot possession and smoking, and the gun possession while driving impaired, and the child in the car, and thought somehow he could "mitigate" the situation by digging out his carry permit INSTEAD of complying with the officer's instructions and keeping still.

So you think he deserved to be shot for that?

The officer did not tell him to keep still. He told him not to reach for his weapon. In response, Philando informed him that he had no intention of reaching for his weapon.

Either way, that's not what Yanez's attorneys are even claiming. They're claiming that:

" Castile was high on pot when he was pulled over this past July, which resulted in him supposedly ignoring Yanez’s commands and staring “straight ahead during the traffic stop,” thus making him “culpably negligent in the incident.”

Someone deserves to be shot for "staring straight ahead"? Addressing your earlier comment, that sounds like he was keeping still the way he was told to. So why did he deserve to die?

IMO, being acutely under the influence, his ability to make sound legal judgments was severely impaired.

You don't know that he was "acutely under the influence." THC can stay in your blood for quite awhile.

These were not just some random "virtuous, law abiding innocent" people driving home from an outing. They were 2 adults smoking drugs in a car with a child, driving around under the influence, with a child in the car, and carrying a loaded gun. Let's not forget that. All of that is extremely significant to understanding what happened. Both of these adults committed numerous crimes-- that the police and prosecutor chose not to charge the girlfriend is immaterial-- she still engaged in criminal activity. (And politics had a lot to do with her not being charged, IMO.) This wasn't a "simple misunderstanding" that went awry.

Yes, and Officer Yanez magically knew all that when he stopped them It doesn't sound like an excuse for this police officer's behavior after the fact.

Officer Yanez could just tell at first glance that Philando was a terrible criminal who deserved to die. The livestream footage and the police audio later provided completely supports that this officer had total control of himself and made a rational and well thought out decision that ensured the safety of all around him right before he started hysterically shouting expletives.

We cannot have elected officials inserting themselves into these kind of emotionally charged situations, and "taking sides" in policing and criminal investigations--it is not fair or just, and is immensely destructive to the ideals of a democracy. IMO.

Yeah, they tend to do that when a police officer's behavior comes into question.

 

[K_Z]

First of all, the positive toxicology tests that were done were done at autopsy, which means they were (to use a more simplistic term) "more sophisticated" tests than the usual drug screening urine tests that only test for the inactive metabolite carboxy THC-- which indicates remote and/ or chronic usage. Most likely the THC results referred to by the defense lawyer were from both central and peripheral blood, and possibly other areas like eye fluids, and urine. (The blood results are more relevant for acute usage than urine or vitreous, which would be for metabolites and longer remote usage.) This is easily googled for more details, if one is interested.

The attorney most definitely would not characterize PC as "stoned" (his words) if the tox results were low level metabolites. He knows how those results will be presented in court, and specifically chose to characterize PC as acutely under the influence. And if that isn't enough, the girlfriend ADMITTED that they both were smoking prior to the stop. And MJ was found in the car-- a possession charge that if more than 1.5 oz/ 42.5 g, is a felony.

Second, I never once said PC "deserved" to die. IMO, PC's actions directly produced, escalated, and created the situation where OGY took out his weapon and fired it. That's vastly different than "deserving" to die. IMO, it was ENTIRELY reasonable under the totality of the circumstances that OGY perceived PC as reaching/ digging around for his loaded gun. We will eventually see what all the evidence shows, and what the jury members decide. I'm not going to be one of those jury members, so it probably doesn't matter what I think. But I don't think I'm the "only" one who will see this situation for what it was.

I will re-iterate that PC was NOT authorized to carry a loaded weapon, or even have one in his car, BECAUSE HE WAS USING DRUGS. PC has now been proven to be acutely under the influence of a class 1 substance (the tox results do exist, they will be presented in court, and the officer had strong suspicion from the moment he pulled PC over, which means he could have lawfully ordered PC as the driver to be tested whether or not he had a carry permit). There is ZERO tolerance in MN for carrying while under the influence (remote or acute) of ANY controlled substance, so ANY result other than "zero" for drugs and alcohol (including only non-active metabolites) is an automatic invalidation and immediate revocation of a carry permit. Refusal to submit to testing is an automatic immediate revocation of the carry permit.

PC would have been charged with at least 4 criminal violations:

- Carrying a loaded gun while under the influence
- Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)
- Driving with a child in the car while under the influence of drugs
- Possession of class 1 substance

The penalties for these range from potential felonies to misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors with jail time, fines, loss of driver's licence, loss of carry permit, etc. He would have lost his job in the school because of the seriousness of these charges, and had drug and child endangerment charges permanently on his record. These are not innocuous offenses.

It is extremely disingenuous, bordering on delusional, to imply that PC "didn't know" he was under the influence of an illegal substance. Or that he "didn't know" it was a criminal offense to carry a loaded gun, and another criminal offense to have a child in the car while he was DUID, or that he "didn't know" how to interact with a police officer while carrying a loaded gun. IMO, even in his impaired haze, he knew he was busted, and it was serious. His and the GF's claims about the "carry permit", and claiming to be digging around for it, were a "hail mary", IMO, to try to deflect the imminent arrest and charges they knew they were BOTH facing. IMO, DR should have been arrested and charged as well.

PC was impaired, we know that now without a doubt. PC was probably *severely* impaired in the areas of judgement, impulsiveness, problem solving, etc. due to his acute (and chronic) drug use. I have no doubt at all that the defense attorney will be able to prove this with the evidence-- which includes the tox results and the official statement by the GF.

I think it's sick that he has been made into a folk hero, and that the school he worked at now has a scholarship in his name. He engaged in low level criminal activity for many years, and his biggest success was flying under the radar for criminal charges for so long, IMO. He's no role model for kids. This kind of lifestyle is not what we should be promoting for at-risk kids. This kind of behavior should not be "normalized"-- it's just an avenue to continued heartache and destruction for at risk kids to be indoctrinated that this kind of low level criminal lifestyle and behavior is somehow laudable and something they should emulate, and the police are always the "bad guys". The message is "crime is ok as long as you don't get caught."

 

[yllek]

Philando Castille did not deserve to die at the hands of a police officer that night, period, IMO.

I don't care that he was high. By all accounts, he did not threaten the life of Officer Yanez or anyone else with his actions and words. IMO, Yanez was not in 'reasonable' fear for his life.

The fact that Officer Yanez apparently had it in his mind that Philando was a wanted armed robber doesn't negate the fact that he wrongly shot someone who was legally armed and told him so; someone who was within inches of a woman and child.

But, after watching the Slager jury hang, I have little faith Yanez will be convicted.

 

[human]

I am not a drug user and do not believe in drugs including alcohol. There are numerous secere alcoholics that are held up as role models or heroes such as Betty Ford or Winston Churchill. The alcoholic list is long.

Alcohol is a far worse drug rhan mj.

 

[drjones]

castile's drug use is pertinent as to whether or not it had an effect on the incident, in this case he seems to have been rational, calm, cooperative, compliant, and polite.

maybe it was the fact that he was "stoned" that didnt allow him to recognize that this officer was getting unreasonably concerned that castile was about to pull out his gun and open fire, immediately after he politely informed him that he was armed - find me a case where that has ever happened.

even tho he was potentially facing many charges he didnt flee, he pulled over, he kept both hands visible, he was polite and compliant, and informed the officer that he was armed.

the idea that castile would inform the officer that he was armed and then immediately try to draw the weapon and use it is ludicrous to me, it is as ridiculous as believing someone would inform an officer "sir, i would just like to let you know that im about to try to shoot you"

there is not one thing castile did that was not compliant with the officer's instructions.

 

[CoolJ]

First of all, the positive toxicology tests that were done were done at autopsy, which means they were (to use a more simplistic term) "more sophisticated" tests than the usual drug screening urine tests that only test for the inactive metabolite carboxy THC-- which indicates remote and/ or chronic usage. Most likely the THC results referred to by the defense lawyer were from both central and peripheral blood, and possibly other areas like eye fluids, and urine. (The blood results are more relevant for acute usage than urine or vitreous, which would be for metabolites and longer remote usage.) This is easily googled for more details, if one is interested.

The attorney most definitely would not characterize PC as "stoned" (his words) if the tox results were low level metabolites. He knows how those results will be presented in court, and specifically chose to characterize PC as acutely under the influence. And if that isn't enough, the girlfriend ADMITTED that they both were smoking prior to the stop. And MJ was found in the car-- a possession charge that if more than 1.5 oz/ 42.5 g, is a felony.

Second, I never once said PC "deserved" to die. IMO, PC's actions directly produced, escalated, and created the situation where OGY took out his weapon and fired it. That's vastly different than "deserving" to die. IMO, it was ENTIRELY reasonable under the totality of the circumstances that OGY perceived PC as reaching/ digging around for his loaded gun. We will eventually see what all the evidence shows, and what the jury members decide. I'm not going to be one of those jury members, so it probably doesn't matter what I think. But I don't think I'm the "only" one who will see this situation for what it was.

I will re-iterate that PC was NOT authorized to carry a loaded weapon, or even have one in his car, BECAUSE HE WAS USING DRUGS. PC has now been proven to be acutely under the influence of a class 1 substance (the tox results do exist, they will be presented in court, and the officer had strong suspicion from the moment he pulled PC over, which means he could have lawfully ordered PC as the driver to be tested whether or not he had a carry permit). There is ZERO tolerance in MN for carrying while under the influence (remote or acute) of ANY controlled substance, so ANY result other than "zero" for drugs and alcohol (including only non-active metabolites) is an automatic invalidation and immediate revocation of a carry permit. Refusal to submit to testing is an automatic immediate revocation of the carry permit.

PC would have been charged with at least 4 criminal violations:

- Carrying a loaded gun while under the influence
- Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)
- Driving with a child in the car while under the influence of drugs
- Possession of class 1 substance

The penalties for these range from potential felonies to misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors with jail time, fines, loss of driver's licence, loss of carry permit, etc. He would have lost his job in the school because of the seriousness of these charges, and had drug and child endangerment charges permanently on his record. These are not innocuous offenses.

It is extremely disingenuous, bordering on delusional, to imply that PC "didn't know" he was under the influence of an illegal substance. Or that he "didn't know" it was a criminal offense to carry a loaded gun, and another criminal offense to have a child in the car while he was DUID, or that he "didn't know" how to interact with a police officer while carrying a loaded gun. IMO, even in his impaired haze, he knew he was busted, and it was serious. His and the GF's claims about the "carry permit", and claiming to be digging around for it, were a "hail mary", IMO, to try to deflect the imminent arrest and charges they knew they were BOTH facing. IMO, DR should have been arrested and charged as well.

PC was impaired, we know that now without a doubt. PC was probably *severely* impaired in the areas of judgement, impulsiveness, problem solving, etc. due to his acute (and chronic) drug use. I have no doubt at all that the defense attorney will be able to prove this with the evidence-- which includes the tox results and the official statement by the GF.

I think it's sick that he has been made into a folk hero, and that the school he worked at now has a scholarship in his name. He engaged in low level criminal activity for many years, and his biggest success was flying under the radar for criminal charges for so long, IMO. He's no role model for kids. This kind of lifestyle is not what we should be promoting for at-risk kids. This kind of behavior should not be "normalized"-- it's just an avenue to continued heartache and destruction for at risk kids to be indoctrinated that this kind of low level criminal lifestyle and behavior is somehow laudable and something they should emulate, and the police are always the "bad guys". The message is "crime is ok as long as you don't get caught."

This post is so full of assumptions i dont even know where to start. Folks can write paragraph upon paragraph trying to demonize PC all they want. It is not going to change what happened and it is not going to change my opinion of him. I have heard enough good things about him from people who actually knew him to know what kind of person he really was.

This officer made a huge mistake. His mind froze when he heard PC calmy tell him he had a gun. PC was the responsible person in this interaction. He was trying to avoid exactly what ended up happening. Yanez is 100% at fault. He went into panic mode in a situation that did not call for it. Its as simple as that. He is probably not a cold blooded murderer, but he made a huge mistake that cost a child their father. We, as a society should demand that he suffers grave consequences for his irresponsible and careless actions .

 

[jkly]

First of all, the positive toxicology tests that were done were done at autopsy, which means they were (to use a more simplistic term) "more sophisticated" tests than the usual drug screening urine tests that only test for the inactive metabolite carboxy THC-- which indicates remote and/ or chronic usage. Most likely the THC results referred to by the defense lawyer were from both central and peripheral blood, and possibly other areas like eye fluids, and urine. (The blood results are more relevant for acute usage than urine or vitreous, which would be for metabolites and longer remote usage.) This is easily googled for more details, if one is interested.

The attorney most definitely would not characterize PC as "stoned" (his words) if the tox results were low level metabolites. He knows how those results will be presented in court, and specifically chose to characterize PC as acutely under the influence. And if that isn't enough, the girlfriend ADMITTED that they both were smoking prior to the stop. And MJ was found in the car-- a possession charge that if more than 1.5 oz/ 42.5 g, is a felony.

Second, I never once said PC "deserved" to die. IMO, PC's actions directly produced, escalated, and created the situation where OGY took out his weapon and fired it. That's vastly different than "deserving" to die. IMO, it was ENTIRELY reasonable under the totality of the circumstances that OGY perceived PC as reaching/ digging around for his loaded gun. We will eventually see what all the evidence shows, and what the jury members decide. I'm not going to be one of those jury members, so it probably doesn't matter what I think. But I don't think I'm the "only" one who will see this situation for what it was.

I will re-iterate that PC was NOT authorized to carry a loaded weapon, or even have one in his car, BECAUSE HE WAS USING DRUGS. PC has now been proven to be acutely under the influence of a class 1 substance (the tox results do exist, they will be presented in court, and the officer had strong suspicion from the moment he pulled PC over, which means he could have lawfully ordered PC as the driver to be tested whether or not he had a carry permit). There is ZERO tolerance in MN for carrying while under the influence (remote or acute) of ANY controlled substance, so ANY result other than "zero" for drugs and alcohol (including only non-active metabolites) is an automatic invalidation and immediate revocation of a carry permit. Refusal to submit to testing is an automatic immediate revocation of the carry permit.

PC would have been charged with at least 4 criminal violations:

- Carrying a loaded gun while under the influence
- Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)
- Driving with a child in the car while under the influence of drugs
- Possession of class 1 substance

The penalties for these range from potential felonies to misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors with jail time, fines, loss of driver's licence, loss of carry permit, etc. He would have lost his job in the school because of the seriousness of these charges, and had drug and child endangerment charges permanently on his record. These are not innocuous offenses.

It is extremely disingenuous, bordering on delusional, to imply that PC "didn't know" he was under the influence of an illegal substance. Or that he "didn't know" it was a criminal offense to carry a loaded gun, and another criminal offense to have a child in the car while he was DUID, or that he "didn't know" how to interact with a police officer while carrying a loaded gun. IMO, even in his impaired haze, he knew he was busted, and it was serious. His and the GF's claims about the "carry permit", and claiming to be digging around for it, were a "hail mary", IMO, to try to deflect the imminent arrest and charges they knew they were BOTH facing. IMO, DR should have been arrested and charged as well.

PC was impaired, we know that now without a doubt. PC was probably *severely* impaired in the areas of judgement, impulsiveness, problem solving, etc. due to his acute (and chronic) drug use. I have no doubt at all that the defense attorney will be able to prove this with the evidence-- which includes the tox results and the official statement by the GF.

I think it's sick that he has been made into a folk hero, and that the school he worked at now has a scholarship in his name. He engaged in low level criminal activity for many years, and his biggest success was flying under the radar for criminal charges for so long, IMO. He's no role model for kids. This kind of lifestyle is not what we should be promoting for at-risk kids. This kind of behavior should not be "normalized"-- it's just an avenue to continued heartache and destruction for at risk kids to be indoctrinated that this kind of low level criminal lifestyle and behavior is somehow laudable and something they should emulate, and the police are always the "bad guys". The message is "crime is ok as long as you don't get caught."

You claim you don't think he "deserved to die" but IMO, that sounds like it's exactly what you're saying. You wrote that Philando was "entirely responsible for his own death" and then you just wrote paragraph after paragraph reiterating what a horrible person you think he is and how the officer is 100% justified in shooting him.

I don't consider him a "folk hero", and I don't always consider the police the bad guys. In the majority of cases I'm on their side.

I just don't believe that shooting Philando was in any way, shape or form, okay. I don't think he presented an immediate deadly threat. I don't think he deserved to die because he:

1) smoked weed
2) May have moved after the officer told him not to
3) May have reached for his permit to "mitigate the situation."
4) May have been what you consider a "bad person."

The only thing, IMO, that would have justified shooting him there on the spot is if he presented a legitimate threat at that time. Listening to the audio recording from the squad car, he obviously did not. For whatever reason, this officer freaked out and KILLED him when, at most, he should have been putting handcuffs on him.

Nothing justifies that. Going through his history later and saying "oh well, he was trash anyway" doesn't work for me.

This officer needs to answer for needlessly taking a human life. If everyone behaved like him, murderers would never go on trial, they would have all been shot by overzealous police officers.If Dylan Roof was allowed his due process rights, I see no reason why Philando should have been denied them merely for "possibly being high", "staring straight ahead", "reaching for his permit" etc.

 

[Tawny]

PC would have been charged with at least 4 criminal violations:

- Carrying a loaded gun while under the influence
- Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)
- Driving with a child in the car while under the influence of drugs
- Possession of class 1 substance

The penalties for these range from potential felonies to misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors with jail time, fines, loss of driver's licence, loss of carry permit, etc. He would have lost his job in the school because of the seriousness of these charges, and had drug and child endangerment charges permanently on his record. These are not innocuous offenses.

FIRST OF ALL - when ANY of these becomes an offense worthy of the death penalty, you go ahead and let me know, and I'll agree with your points. Until then, you're desperately trying to rationalize an unjustifiable shooting because it makes you feel better for some inexplicable reason.

Bolded - Yep. AND YET. He did not run, he did not pop off at the mouth. He was respectful and compliant and offered more information than he was required, knowing he was likely to be in trouble if it was found out he was (assumption) high. (And there's no proof he was high at the time, only that he had it in his system). He was NOT reaching for his weapon, show us proof or stop saying it.

Let's talk about those child endangerment claims. You ready to charge that officer who fired several shots through the window of a vehicle IN THE DIRECTION OF a small child? Look at the angle of where the officer was and where that child was, and tell me again you feel good about the decision to open fire. PC was the one endangering a child? I don't think so.

I'm forever blown away by these threads. Every time.

 

[K_Z]

I think it can be possibly be argued that OGY reacted "too quickly". I think there is a case to be made that OGY should be reprimanded, or even potentially fired-- but not necessarily definitely fired. There may be a set of circumstances on which a civil case could proceed.

Where I depart from the majority of posters here is that I don't believe that what OGY did rises to the level of a criminal action at all. I don't think what he did was reckless or intentional, nor do I think he had any malice involved. I think he reacted in an understandable manner to a clear, definite, THREAT to his life by the actions of PC and the total circumstances of the stop. (And the dangerous circumstances of the "war on cops" in general.)

For goodness sake, you could easily make the argument that OGY was trying to also PROTECT the passenger and the child in the car from the imminent threat he perceived by PC, the drug use, and his loaded gun.

If OGY "made a mistake" or clearly departed from accepted practice, then he should be fired, not prosecuted. I think the level of culpability with criminal charges is much higher than this.

Knowing as much as I know now (and we haven't seen all the evidence by a long shot), I could not find him guilty of second degree manslaughter.

OGY faces 3 charges: 2nd degree manslaughter, and 2 counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm.

The problem, IMO, with charging a police officer in a situation such as this one with "dangerous discharge of a firearm" is that it sets an extremely bad precedent for ALL police officers, and makes them LESS likely to discharge their firearms in situations when they clearly SHOULD be shooting to stop a fleeing felon, and to protect themselves and others.

You see, anyone who believes in "dangerous discharge of a firearm" as an appropriate charge for a LEO in a situation like this one would never be able to envision ANY situation where a firearm was discharged by a LEO that was NOT "dangerous". Of course, EVERY discharge of a firearm is "dangerous". It is the CONTEXT of that discharge that determines whether or not it is REASONABLE under the circumstances. This is, IMO, where this case has a real problem as a criminal case.

Police officers are not civilians, and should be held to different (more liberal) standards for discharge of firearms than civilians, IMO-- far more liberal guidelines that allow them to stop fleeing felons, and protect the public and themselves from criminals. I'm quite concerned that we are moving in the direction that neuters police officers from enforcing any kind of laws or public safety, and that they are becoming afraid to do their jobs.

This was not a case of a "bad cop" who harbored malice and had it out for racial minorities, or even a reckless cop. He was reacting to a THREAT on his life, IMO. That is a very reasonable FEAR in this current environment.

This department has not had a shooting in THIRTY PLUS YEARS. It's not a case of a bad or rogue police department.

We have an all out WAR on police officers, and nearly every week more LEO's are being ambushed and killed on the job. That is a REAL PROBLEM that has REAL CONSEQUENCES for each and every citizen. We now all have to be MORE vigilant and careful when we encounter police, because of what has happened with the riots, deonstrations, and "social justice warriors" calling for police to be killed. They have made every citizen and all of society far less safe with their actions against LEO's. This has to stop.

I could easily accept that OGY should never work as a police officer again. But I simply don't think that what he did in shooting PC is an example of "bad cops" or "police brutality" or any of that BS. And I don't think what OGY did rises to the level of criminal charges. I just don't. What he did faced with the totality of that situation is completely understandable, IMO.

The prosecutor, in an immensely unfair and polarized political environment, chose to bring charges. That is his right to do so. The case will be tried, unless the charges are dropped or dismissed. I don't think that was a slam dunk decision at all. I think there is a VERY narrow legal basis on which he brought charges. Now we see what happens. And whether OGY will be sacrificed (unjustly IMO) to a prison term to satisfy a "social justice" mob mentality that refuses to accept that people encountered by police officers bear responsibility for their actions, as well.

 

[Tawny]

Yeah we're never gonna agree on this, so I'm just gonna move on.

 

[yllek]

For goodness sake, you could easily make the argument that OGY was trying to also PROTECT the passenger and the child in the car from the imminent threat he perceived by PC, the drug use, and his loaded gun.

Respectfully snipped.

No, it wouldn't be for 'goodness' sake. Nor would it be 'reasonable' considering it's in no way backed up by Yanez's actions, the adult passenger's account, nor the statements of LE.

In my opinion, such an unreasonable claim could only be made for the sake of trying to win an argument on the internetz.

 

[drjones]

if he reacted too quickly then he did not have legal justification to fire and therefore committed a crime, if he had legal justification to fire then he did not react too quickly.

i would love to hear this "easy" argument that he unloaded 7 bullets into the car and in the direction of a woman and child in order to protect them from someone who was acting calmly, politely, and had just informed him that there was a gun in the car even tho he had no legal obligation to do so.

what would set a bad precedent would be for this to be considered a legal shoot and to encourage other officers to fire under these circumstances, there was no fleeing felon here, im not sure why it would have an effect on officers in those situations.

now anyone that thinks this shooting was reckless and unlawful cannot believe ANY shootings could ever be lawful? thats a strange argument.

far more liberal guidelines for fleeing felon situations? well they can already shoot them, should they be given a way to immediately kill them?

you seem to strongly think that this officer did the exact right thing and it was completely justified, yet you would support him being fired and never allowed to work as an officer again?

i never did see anyone point out a single thing that castile did that was not compliant...

 

[K_Z]

In the early hours and days after this situation took place, the NRA took a lot of criticism over not immediately coming out in support of PC, who was presumed (but not verified at that point) as being a carry permit holder. I was, personally, baffled that anyone would criticize the NRA’s silence on the matter, as that is their policy on all gun-related incidents involving carry and conceal carry holders. The NRA waits until more evidence is known, and does not take “sides” as the law enforcement investigation takes place. When the situation favors the behavior and actions of the permit holder, they feature their situations on their website and publications as positive examples, and they keep an pretty exhaustive database of all carry holder interactions.

Yet, you seldom read about these POSITIVE cases in the mainstream news, which would be a very good educational lesson for the general public in how to behave during LE interactions, IMO. But these stories, many of them lifesaving situations, don't embrace the media agenda against gun ownership and carry, so they are ignored. PC's situation, IMO, is a good lesson on what NOT to do when holding a permit to carry. But that lesson is largely lost on the general public.

IMO, it’s disgraceful and appalling that the 3 prominent MN elected officials rushed to take sides in this matter, and in a very political, biased, and public way. and yet, because of politics, they are not criticized very widely. I don't expect any of the 3 to retract their support now that the evidence is coming out, because the truth doesn't further their narrative and agenda. NOW they will "stay silent". Typical.

Full disclosure—I’m a carry permit holder, and I’m a supporter of laws that permit lawful carry and ownership. So one might think I would see the PC situation as one that disenfranchises permit holders—but I don’t. It’s very obvious to me why the NRA has not had any public comments on the PC situation, because from the earliest hours, it was apparent that PC did not comply with the law regarding carry permits in MN, nor the guidelines and procedures for encounters with law enforcement. His behavior is not supported by the NRA, nor supported by most reasonable, law abiding gun owners and permit holders, as correct and lawful behavior.

It’s a shame that the background check for PC’s carry permit and firearm purchase did not uncover the three marijuana charges in his past, because he would not have been eligible to purchase the handgun, nor obtain the carry permit. That these charges were not discovered is indicative of a lot of flaws and holes in the process for each, IMO, in addition to PC omitting/ concealing (lying about) that information on his applications. By virtue of his background and history, PC was not someone that should have had a carry permit at all, or been allowed to own a gun. That should worry all of us, IMO.

 

[drjones]

whether or not castile was legally carrying has no bearing on the justification for the officer to use deadly force in this case.

 

[Tawny]

The officer had no way to know he was under the influence (if he was), so no, that's not justification. The only thing an officer has to go on is the person's behavior at that moment.

 

[K_Z]

Here's a thought experiment.

Physicians make all kind of determinations about a patient's situation and care, and make all sorts of "interventions" that sometimes directly lead to a patient's death. They didn't set out to "kill" their patients-- even the ones who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they perform surgery, for example, and there is a bad outcome. But almost NEVER is a physician charged with "manslaughter", even in circumstances that are outrageously egregious. Why the double standard for a police officer? OGY didn't approach that situaiton intending to be reckless, or with malice. Why is a police officer, in the course of his job, who perhaps made an unwise or "snap" decision, judged far more harshly than an impaired physician who hurts a patient? Why? Because physicians have a "golden parachute" in the manner of the "doctor/ patient relationship" such that almost never can their negligent, reckless, or abusive actions be considered "criminal" behavior. Think about that.

This is precisely why I believe that OGY should be dealt with as a procedural case internally, and perhaps a civil matter, but not a criminal action. That is the distinction. There ARE situations where LE could be engaged in criminal activity and charged, but this case with OGY is not one of them, IMO.

OGY is wayyy overcharged, IMO. We will see how the jury trial goes.

 

[K_Z]

whether or not castile was legally carrying has no bearing on the justification for the officer to use deadly force in this case.

But that has been used precisely to justify PC's actions by virtually every one commenting on the case in the media and on the net. The fact of his carry permit, and how he chose to communicate that, and how he chose to BEHAVE is exactly the issue that caused OGY to fear a threat to his life, IMO. You cannot now say the carry permit was irrelevant. It's hugely relevant to the entire situation.

 

[drjones]

here's a thought experiment;

What if Castile had both hands on the wheel and said "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” and the Officer immediately drew his weapon and shot him 7 times, in explaining his decision to shoot the Officer said he could see it in Castile's face that he was going to draw his weapon, he was absolutely sure of it, Castile looked shifty and nervous, his hands were shaking and he had an evil look in his eye

Would that be something that should be handled through internal police department discipline? Or could that possibly be a crime to be determined by the criminal court system?

 

[drjones]

But that has been used precisely to justify PC's actions by virtually every one commenting on the case in the media and on the net. The fact of his carry permit, and how he chose to communicate that, and how he chose to BEHAVE is exactly the issue that caused OGY to fear a threat to his life, IMO. You cannot now say the carry permit was irrelevant. It's hugely relevant to the entire situation.

PC's actions don't have to be justified for the Officer's actions to be unjustified, it is simply a fact that whether or not Castile was legally carrying has no bearing on whether or not the Officer had legal justification to shoot. The fact that it has been used in discussion to try to understand Castile's actions is also completely irrelevant to determining the justification of the Officer's actions.

 

[Tawny]

Here's a thought experiment.

Physicians make all kind of determinations about a patient's situation and care, and make all sorts of "interventions" that sometimes directly lead to a patient's death. They didn't set out to "kill" their patients-- even the ones who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they perform surgery, for example, and there is a bad outcome. But almost NEVER is a physician charged with "manslaughter", even in circumstances that are outrageously egregious. Why the double standard for a police officer? OGY didn't approach that situaiton intending to be reckless, or with malice. Why is a police officer, in the course of his job, who perhaps made an unwise or "snap" decision, judged far more harshly than an impaired physician who hurts a patient? Why? Because physicians have a "golden parachute" in the manner of the "doctor/ patient relationship" such that almost never can their negligent, reckless, or abusive actions be considered "criminal" behavior. Think about that.

This is precisely why I believe that OGY should be dealt with as a procedural case internally, and perhaps a civil matter, but not a criminal action. That is the distinction. There ARE situations where LE could be engaged in criminal activity and charged, but this case with OGY is not one of them, IMO.

OGY is wayyy overcharged, IMO. We will see how the jury trial goes.

That's not a double standard. What even is this post.