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

[tangelo]

You are correct that the number of whites shot by police is higher, but the PERCENTAGES are a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

a lot of percentages are different stories

 

[K_Z]

As we debate esoteric "percentages" of people shot by police officers in the line of duty, I think it's important to remember a factual statistic in THIS particular case. The St. Anthony Police Department has not had a single officer involved shooting in more than THIRTY (30) years.

More than THIRTY (30) years. Think of how many thousands upon thousands of traffic stops, crime scenes, domestic calls that this police department has responded to in the past THIRTY years. The chief of police reported this himself.

The department’s interim chief said Wednesday night there hadn’t been an officer-involved shooting in the department for 30 years.

http://www.startribune.com/st-anthony-officers-in-shooting-identified/385941491/

So this shooting is one in many thousands, perhaps MILLIONS of officer contacts. The officer has had years of experience (about 4-6, IIRC), on these very streets in Falcon Heights, and has not had any complaints or weapons issues. He has had literally thousands of contacts with citizens in this area-- yes, that includes many black citizens. He does not have a history of bullying, profiling, or being trigger happy. That means something.

This case, as sad and frustrating as it is, is an enormous anomaly in how this department usually operates. That means that there is not any kind of "pattern" of anything racist or profiling in THIS department in THIS city. Something very unusual happened in THIS situation with the officers and the occupants of that car.This was not a case of a "racist, bad cop hunting down a black man to shoot."

It is beyond ridiculous and disingenuous, IMO, to suggest or imply that the behavior of ALL the participants did not contribute to whatever happened. It's my opinion that a serious problem/ error in communication on the part of the car occupants was coupled with a visible firearm, probably unholstered, that the driver, PC, was handling. Perhaps PC was moving it out of the way to reach for his wallet, and OY misinterpreted that, but I doubt it. Perhaps it slid off his lap and he reached for it. Whatever happened, OY's excited utterance indicates that he gave MORE THAN ONE command to "stop" whatever PC was doing and let go of whatever he was holding.

I think there is no chance at all that we will hear that the firearm in question was holstered and out of sight, or in a glove box.

 

[silverkitty]

As we debate esoteric "percentages" of people shot by police officers in the line of duty, I think it's important to remember a factual statistic in THIS particular case. The St. Anthony Police Department has not had a single officer involved shooting in more than THIRTY (30) years.

More than THIRTY (30) years. Think of how many thousands upon thousands of traffic stops, crime scenes, domestic calls that this police department has responded to in the past THIRTY years. The chief of police reported this himself.



http://www.startribune.com/st-anthony-officers-in-shooting-identified/385941491/

So this shooting is one in many thousands, perhaps MILLIONS of officer contacts. The officer has had years of experience (about 4-6, IIRC), on these very streets in Falcon Heights, and has not had any complaints or weapons issues. He has had literally thousands of contacts with citizens in this area-- yes, that includes many black citizens. He does not have a history of bullying, profiling, or being trigger happy. That means something.

This case, as sad and frustrating as it is, is an enormous anomaly in how this department usually operates. That means that there is not any kind of "pattern" of anything racist or profiling in THIS department in THIS city. Something very unusual happened in THIS situation with the officers and the occupants of that car.This was not a case of a "racist, bad cop hunting down a black man to shoot."

It is beyond ridiculous and disingenuous, IMO, to suggest or imply that the behavior of ALL the participants did not contribute to whatever happened. It's my opinion that a serious problem/ error in communication on the part of the car occupants was coupled with a visible firearm, probably unholstered, that the driver, PC, was handling. Perhaps PC was moving it out of the way to reach for his wallet, and OY misinterpreted that, but I doubt it. Perhaps it slid off his lap and he reached for it. Whatever happened, OY's excited utterance indicates that he gave MORE THAN ONE command to "stop" whatever PC was doing and let go of whatever he was holding.

I think there is no chance at all that we will hear that the firearm in question was holstered and out of sight, or in a glove box.

Thank you, K_Z. I really appreciate the logic, intelligence, and lack of histrionics in your posts. It's posters like yourself that I gravitate to most. I'm just amazed that I've not run across your posts at some point over the past few years!

I'm a nurse, so maybe it's logic that I look for most. And of course, we nurses are known for our stellar sense of sarcasm/humor, along with sore feet, aching backs, and weak bladders. But I digress...

Anyway, just wanted to express my appreciation and how much I've learned from your posts. I look forward to reading more!

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So.many white criminals. Is there a profile we should watch for?

Imo, yes. White criminals seem to do white on white crimes more than to others. Like murdering their families and possibly committing suicide themselves. They tend to do more white collar crimes over other races. At one time the FBI profilers said that a serial killer will most likely be a white male. That is changing somewhat now and we have seen several serial killers tried lately who were black.

If a violent crime has happened or any crime for that matter and the police have been told the potential suspect/s is a white male or woman, stating hair color, build, and height, etc., I certainly expect the police to profile whites in the area who meet that general description while looking for the suspect/s. They certainly shouldn't be profiling blacks or any other race if they have been told the race of the one they are looking for is white.

Another example: If LE goes to a shooting in gang infested areas of Chicago and is told by witnesses the person was killed by an unknown black individual/s then they of course would be (profiling) looking for black suspects only that meet the general description the witnesses gave them.

Another example: LE gets a tip that someone is planning on doing mass murder in the name of Islam or Allah but the tipster doesn't give them a name then it only makes sense the police will profile those in the area who may have radical extremist views so they would only be looking for those who may be radical Muslims. It would be rather foolish for them to waste their time profiling everyone else who has never been a Muslim and have never seen the inside of a Mosque..

Or lets say if they come to a murder scene and there are racist words written on the body of a black male/female then of course the first ones they would profile would be white males or females of any racist hate group that may live or been in the area at the time. Rightly so.

Profiling has existed since police work began if that is what you want to call it. I call it good old police work based on commonsense. The FBI has done profiling for decades now.

There is nothing wrong with LE profiling any particular race if the description of the suspect included race or if forensic evidence found shows them what race they are looking for and what gender. Or other evidence that may be present showing them in which direction they should follow.

IMO

 

[K_Z]

Castile protesters angry with Falcon Heights police task force plan
After the mayor and council members left the meeting, residents and protesters engaged in an emotional dialogue.

What started Wednesday night as a Falcon Heights City Council work session turned into a shouting match between protesters who demanded their voices be heard, residents who were just as angry and a mayor who briefly tried to talk over the verbal melee.

For more than an hour, there was palpable frustration in the room from the audience of about 150 people. That frustration stemmed from the death of Philando Castile, 32, who was killed by police July 6 after a traffic stop in Falcon Heights.

But after council member, the mayor and city administrator had fled the room and tensions eased, a 15- to 20-minute dialogue occurred between the mostly older, white residents and the mostly black protesters. The crowd listened to each, and one woman called it “the best listening session I’ve ever attended.”

When three St. Anthony police officer appeared in the room, they were swarmed. “When you guys take your badges off, you’re people, too,” one protester, who refused to give his name, said to the officers. The officers moved back into a kitchen attached to the room where the council members and mayor had gone.

The council was supposed to discuss a proposal by Mayor Peter Lindstrom to create a 12- to 15-member Inclusion and Policing Task Force that would advise the council on policing issues, from data collection to training, “especially implicit bias and de-escalation training.” The plan called for the group to make its final report by May 2017 and for the St. Anthony Police Department, which patrols Falcon Heights and Lauderdale, to implement the recommendations within 30 days or explain why.

They also planned to talk about a proposal from the city of St. Anthony to create a tri-city task force with four members from each community that would address many of the same issues.

The task force plans came after Castile was shot to death by officer Jeronimo Yanez. The aftermath, including Castile’s last minutes of life, was videotaped by his girlfriend, prompting nationwide attention and dozens of protests throughout Minneapolis, St. Paul and the suburbs.

http://www.startribune.com/castile-protesters-clear-falcon-heights-city-council-meeting/392669251/#1

[video=twitter;773691787227443200]https://twitter.com/StarTribune/status/773691787227443200[/video]

http://www.fox9.com/news/203347957-story

https://twitter.com/MyFOX9/status/773716044594556928

 

[al66pine]

Imo, yes. White criminals seem to do white on white crimes more than to others. Like murdering their families and possibly committing suicide themselves. They tend to do more white collar crimes over other races. At one time the FBI profilers said that a serial killer will most likely be a white male. That is changing somewhat now and we have seen several serial killers tried lately who were black.

If a violent crime has happened or any crime for that matter and the police have been told the potential suspect/s is a white male or woman, stating hair color, build, and height, etc., I certainly expect the police to profile whites in the area who meet that general description while looking for the suspect/s. They certainly shouldn't be profiling blacks or any other race if they have been told the race of the one they are looking for is white.

Another example: If LE goes to a shooting in gang infested areas of Chicago and is told by witnesses the person was killed by an unknown black individual/s then they of course would be (profiling) looking for black suspects only that meet the general description the witnesses gave them.

Another example: LE gets a tip that someone is planning on doing mass murder in the name of Islam or Allah but the tipster doesn't give them a name then it only makes sense the police will profile those in the area who may have radical extremist views so they would only be looking for those who may be radical Muslims. It would be rather foolish for them to waste their time profiling everyone else who has never been a Muslim and have never seen the inside of a Mosque..

Or lets say if they come to a murder scene and there are racist words written on the body of a black male/female then of course the first ones they would profile would be white males or females of any racist hate group that may live or been in the area at the time. Rightly so.

Profiling has existed since police work began if that is what you want to call it. I call it good old police work based on commonsense. The FBI has done profiling for decades now.

There is nothing wrong with LE profiling any particular race if the description of the suspect included race or if forensic evidence found shows them what race they are looking for and what gender. Or other evidence that may be present showing them in which direction they should follow.

IMO

IIUC, I understand "profiling" differently and not applying to above examples in which LE is AWARE OF A CRIME & HAS A DESCRIPTION (thru eyewitness or vid surveillance, etc) of the perp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offender_profiling
"Offender profiling, also known as criminal profiling, is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects (descriptive offender profiling) and analyze patterns that may predict future offenses and/or victims (predictive offender profiling).[SUP][1][/SUP] Offender profiling dates back to 1888 and the spree of Jack the Ripper, and the profiling theory describes how profiling will ideally work.[SUP][2][/SUP] Current applications include predictive profiling, sexual assault offender profiling, and case linkage (using profiling to identify common factors in offenses and to help with suspect identification[SUP][2][/SUP])."
"Offender profiling is a method of identifying the most likely type of person that could have committed a crime based on evidence and information found at the crime scene along with specific characteristics of the crime itself. It is not a method for finding the specific person who committed the crime,[SUP][7][/SUP] instead it describes the type of person that most likely committed the crime. Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime.[SUP][8][/SUP] This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender."
(sorry about underscoring, cannot fix, IDK reason)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
"Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race.[SUP][1][/SUP] According to Minnesota House of Representatives analyst Jim Cleary, "there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term 'racial profiling': a narrow definition and a broad definition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person's race or ethnicity... Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and take action."[SUP][2][/SUP]

"According to the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) '"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband."[SUP][3][/SUP] Examples of racial profiling on ethnic groups in the U.S. include African Americans – gangs, Chinese Americans – espionage, Hispanic and Latinos – illegal immigration, Arab and Muslims/South Asians – Terrorism, and Jews - conspiracy theories."

 

[jkly]

As we debate esoteric "percentages" of people shot by police officers in the line of duty, I think it's important to remember a factual statistic in THIS particular case. The St. Anthony Police Department has not had a single officer involved shooting in more than THIRTY (30) years.

More than THIRTY (30) years. Think of how many thousands upon thousands of traffic stops, crime scenes, domestic calls that this police department has responded to in the past THIRTY years. The chief of police reported this himself.



http://www.startribune.com/st-anthony-officers-in-shooting-identified/385941491/

So this shooting is one in many thousands, perhaps MILLIONS of officer contacts. The officer has had years of experience (about 4-6, IIRC), on these very streets in Falcon Heights, and has not had any complaints or weapons issues. He has had literally thousands of contacts with citizens in this area-- yes, that includes many black citizens. He does not have a history of bullying, profiling, or being trigger happy. That means something.

This case, as sad and frustrating as it is, is an enormous anomaly in how this department usually operates. That means that there is not any kind of "pattern" of anything racist or profiling in THIS department in THIS city. Something very unusual happened in THIS situation with the officers and the occupants of that car.This was not a case of a "racist, bad cop hunting down a black man to shoot."

It is beyond ridiculous and disingenuous, IMO, to suggest or imply that the behavior of ALL the participants did not contribute to whatever happened. It's my opinion that a serious problem/ error in communication on the part of the car occupants was coupled with a visible firearm, probably unholstered, that the driver, PC, was handling. Perhaps PC was moving it out of the way to reach for his wallet, and OY misinterpreted that, but I doubt it. Perhaps it slid off his lap and he reached for it. Whatever happened, OY's excited utterance indicates that he gave MORE THAN ONE command to "stop" whatever PC was doing and let go of whatever he was holding.

I think there is no chance at all that we will hear that the firearm in question was holstered and out of sight, or in a glove box.

I think its beyond disingenuous to blame the victim for his own death by claiming he was just driving around with a firearm on his lap and that if his firearm was somehow visible on his belt when he reached for his license, he deserved to be shot for it.

I also dont believe that thinking in this manner is considering the behavior of all involved because little if no responsibility is put on the officer for the actual act of killing someone who was legally licensed to carry and as far as we know aside from a vague and evasive police statement, doing nothing wrong.

 

[Doghairrules]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ec3f2-7452-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

This poor woman. (And I already know what some posters will say - just keep it to yourselves, please.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ec3f2-7452-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

This poor woman. (And I already know what some posters will say - just keep it to yourselves, please.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

 

[K_Z]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ec3f2-7452-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

This poor woman. (And I already know what some posters will say - just keep it to yourselves, please.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's an awful lot that "doesn't add up" in the human interest story about DR. And most of it is irrelevant to the incident where PC was shot by OJY.

Let's not forget how unusual this shooting was, from every angle. There is more, much more, to the story than what DR live streamed and told un-truths about afterward.

The timing of this "sympathy" article, now trending nationally, may be interesting, too, IMO. Rumor has it that a decision over whether or not to charge Yanez criminally is imminent.

For balance, let's look at the history of Officer Jeronimo Yanez, whose life has also been ruined by this episode. He has a wife and child, and has had to move out of his home over this, due to threats. He was not just an average or mediocre officer; he was highly decorated at the academy, and was widely admired.

St. Anthony officers who made traffic stop are longtime friends, former classmates

Their names are still enshrined at their alma mater as Baton of Honor winners.

The faculty at Minnesota State University, Mankato’s law enforcement program chose Jeronimo Yanez and Joseph Kauser from about 500 students as the best in their class — an award given to promising future cops for their smarts, respect and leadership qualities.

Yanez and Kauser, two of the best students in their class, their lives tied together since college, now face national scrutiny.

Long before the shooting, they were expected to shine in their profession. Side-by-side photos in a 2010 newsletter show Yanez and Kauser grinning in their graduation robes next to their instructor, a red, white and blue cord around their necks signifying the Baton of Honor.

To Paige Burke, a classmate and fellow Baton of Honor winner, both Yanez and Kauser were model students and “leaders of their class.” She remembers them excelling in the classroom, attending all of the extracurricular training, and being the first whom professors would seek out with any leadership opportunities.

The former chairman of the department, Jeff Bumgarner, remembers the same things when he taught the two.

“They reflected and embodied what we looked for,” he said.

He particularly remembers Yanez as someone who didn’t come from privilege, “a very nice, a sensible guy who got into law enforcement for the right reasons.”

Yanez lives in the Twin Cities with his wife and child. Both are members of a Catholic church. Neither officer has faced any lawsuits, court records show. Kauser does not appear to have received any citations.

What’s clear is that the two have never been involved in a confrontation like the one Wednesday night. The department’s interim chief said Wednesday night that there hadn’t been an officer-involved shooting in the department for 30 years.

http://www.startribune.com/what-we-...-who-fatally-shot-philando-castile/386016701/

 

[K_Z]

By the way, this is a VERY important phrase in the newest article "about" DR. The story on her end is definitely evolving.

Castile reached down toward his waistband, where he kept not only his wallet but also a gun that he was licensed to carry.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/09/1...-diamond-reynolds-composure-was-tested-again/

“As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know: ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me,” she said. “I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry.’ After that, (the officer) began to take off shots.”

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/1...lcon-heights-police-about-gun-shooting-death/

Diamond Reynolds: Castile Did Not Show Gun on Night He Was Killed

"(The gun) never came out. It could never be a threat. He didn't ask about it. He didn't know it was on his person," Reynolds said.

http://kstp.com/news/diamond-reynolds-gma-philando-castile-shooting/4195464/

But now, the gun AND the wallet was "down toward his waistband", and PC was "reaching" there?

Where exactly was the gun? Was it holstered? Was PC holding it, or touching it in ANY way? What did PC tell the officer about the GUN, not the permit? HOW did PC tell the officer about the gun?

From Yanez' excited utterances, I think PC was definitely holding the gun. Clearly "whatever" he was holding, he did not release or put down, according to Yanez' comments on DR's recording. We will soon see.

There is zero chance that gun was in the glove box, as the sister of PC has said was his habit. She and he took the carry class together.

Philando had been reaching for his wallet, Reynolds has said, when he told the police officer that he was carrying a handgun. Before he could show his permit to carry, Philando was shot five times, his mother said.

BBM.

Allysza decided to call the gun shop where she and her brother had taken a six-hour course together a year earlier to receive the certification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c1b1fc-45e3-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html

Total Defense owner Dan Wellman told the AP that Castile and his sister Allyza attended the class together. Students are briefed on handling all possible encounters with police — including traffic stops.

The basic response: Comply with the officer’s request, hand over your driver’s license and carry permit, calmly answer all questions about your gun and its location.

“We make several jokes about it during class: ‘I have a gun’ is not the way to say you have a gun on you,” said Wellman.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...gun-safety-class-year-death-article-1.2711298

How Philando Castile told officer about gun was critical in his final moments

The final moments before Philando Castile was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights revolved around a gun he was licensed to carry, trained to use safely and instructed to tell authorities about when stopped.

But just how he informed the officer — and whether the officer followed his own training — gets to the heart of the investigation into Castile’s death last week.

But when talking to reporters the day after his death, she shed light on possible confusion stemming from Castile’s final words to the officer.

“As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know: ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me,” she said. “I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry.’ After that, (the officer) began to take off shots.”

Allysza Castile said she usually leaves her gun at home. But if she does have it with her while driving, she said she puts it in her glove compartment in a holster with the safety on.

“Most of the time, he did the same,” the 23-year-old said of her brother. “There’s never a time I saw him driving in the car with his weapon on his person.”

Reynolds, however, has said his gun was in its holster when they were stopped.

BBM

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/1...lcon-heights-police-about-gun-shooting-death/

 

[human]

The fact that the officer is so highly thought of reinforces the tragedy of this cocealed carry.

Officers are terrified for their lives and are always on high alert. Hypervigilant so any move may be pereived as a threat. Not heslthy for them Not good for the public

 

[K_Z]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ec3f2-7452-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

This poor woman. (And I already know what some posters will say - just keep it to yourselves, please.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a LOT to criticize in that WaPo propaganda piece-- and it's definitely "fair game" for criticism, since it's MSM and obviously produced with her full cooperation. It's not journalism at all-- just a manufactured propaganda piece designed to whip up sympathy and racial discontent, IMO. (And perhaps set the tone for more donations.)

There are a LOT of incredibly bad decisions, and a lot of incredible bad judgement on her part in the details of that article. Who knows why she put all that out there in the public when she SHOULD have kept quiet. She put herself out there for criticism, probably because she got paid for the interview, and for letting a press team trail her around.

She deserves every bit of the criticism levied at her in the 500+ comments following the WaPo article (reprinted by MSN), IMO. I have little to no sympathy for her or her situation. There is a lot she can, and should have done, and should be doing, to better her life and her situation with her daughter. She is, IMO, trolling for more sympathy (and donation$) in this propaganda piece. It was unnecessary, and has brought enormous criticism and scorn to her.

She should stay off social media, IMO, and out of the public eye, while she tries to make some improvements in her life-- and certainly out of the public eye until this case is concluded.

I definitely think social services should be involved, for her daughter's sake. IMO. She has uploaded a number of videos on social media that indicate her daughter is at serious risk, IMO, in addition to what she has admitted to in that article.

That's my opinion, and I'm allowed to have it. She opened herself up to valid criticism by doing the interview with a MSM outlet.

Check out the comments at the end of the article (and others who reprinted) over the past 12 hours or so. Running 99.9% against her. It's the same article as WaPo, just reprinted by MSN. This interview she did was another mistake for her, IMO. I think it contains a number of lies/ untruths on her part, as well. But, it's not necessary to go into that any deeper, because it doesn't affect the case with PC and OJY. Suffice to say she has an awful lot of problems, mostly of her own making, IMO.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fo...tragic-minutes-of-video/ar-AAiK2S0?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ec3f2-7452-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

This poor woman. (And I already know what some posters will say - just keep it to yourselves, please.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That article reminds me of the idiom 'you've made your bed, now lie in it'.

 

[K_Z]

Update from yesterday.

Still No Word On Charges In Killing Of Philando Castile

Jill Oliveira, public information officer for the BCA, said there is no news to report in the investigation, stating it is still ongoing. Dennis Gerhardstein, public information officer for the Ramsey County Attorney, said it was initially anticipated that Choi’s office would have been presented with the BCA findings by now, but that is not the case.

“At the beginning of August it was stated that the investigation would take about 30 days. That was our best guess,” said Gerhardstein, who said Choi’s office in engaged in ongoing conversation with the BCA regarding the matter. He said once the findings are presented Choi will consult with a five-member team including outside attorney Don Lewis before announcing any decision in the matter.

http://www.insightnews.com/2016/09/12/still-no-word-on-charges-in-killing-of-philando-castile/

 

[jkly]

There is a LOT to criticize in that WaPo propaganda piece-- and it's definitely "fair game" for criticism, since it's MSM and obviously produced with her full cooperation. It's not journalism at all-- just a manufactured propaganda piece designed to whip up sympathy and racial discontent, IMO. (And perhaps set the tone for more donations.)

There are a LOT of incredibly bad decisions, and a lot of incredible bad judgement on her part in the details of that article. Who knows why she put all that out there in the public when she SHOULD have kept quiet. She put herself out there for criticism, probably because she got paid for the interview, and for letting a press team trail her around.

She deserves every bit of the criticism levied at her in the 500+ comments following the WaPo article (reprinted by MSN), IMO. I have little to no sympathy for her or her situation. There is a lot she can, and should have done, and should be doing, to better her life and her situation with her daughter. She is, IMO, trolling for more sympathy (and donation$) in this propaganda piece. It was unnecessary, and has brought enormous criticism and scorn to her.

She should stay off social media, IMO, and out of the public eye, while she tries to make some improvements in her life-- and certainly out of the public eye until this case is concluded.

I definitely think social services should be involved, for her daughter's sake. IMO. She has uploaded a number of videos on social media that indicate her daughter is at serious risk, IMO, in addition to what she has admitted to in that article.

That's my opinion, and I'm allowed to have it. She opened herself up to valid criticism by doing the interview with a MSM outlet.

Check out the comments at the end of the article (and others who reprinted) over the past 12 hours or so. Running 99.9% against her. It's the same article as WaPo, just reprinted by MSN. This interview she did was another mistake for her, IMO. I think it contains a number of lies/ untruths on her part, as well. But, it's not necessary to go into that any deeper, because it doesn't affect the case with PC and OJY. Suffice to say she has an awful lot of problems, mostly of her own making, IMO.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fo...tragic-minutes-of-video/ar-AAiK2S0?li=BBnb7Kz

Her bad decisions didn't directly lead to anyone's death.

Sorry, I don't think it's her fault that Philando was shot if she piped up and said he had a concealed carry license and Philando failed to follow orders to raise his hands fast enough. The police shouldn't be shooting people over a misunderstanding and they shouldn't be approaching citizens they feel could possibly be bank robbery suspects under the pretense of a broken taillight and then unloading FOUR bullets in them if they don't move fast enough for the police.

IMO, THAT was the entire reason that Philando was shot and killed. The officer approached the car under the belief that he was approaching someone who was armed and DANGEROUS, not someone who had followed all the steps for a legal CCW license and was trying to follow instructions regarding what to do if pulled over. Philando had no way of anticipating that, especially if he was informed that he had been pulled over for a broken taillight. IF they had done a felony stop, perhaps Philando would have comprehended that the police officer was deathly afraid of any sudden movement he might make and he would not have died.

The officer misunderstanding Philando's intent does not make it okay that he shot and killed someone. Philando's girlfriend being mouthy and in some people's opinion's, obnoxious, does not excuse the officer's actions.

 

[K_Z]

I'm not at all sure a felony stop would have been "better" or "safer". Certainly it would have created even MORE controversy and protests, if PC and his passengers were subjected to the conditions of a felony stop, and they actually weren't the suspects. The howls of profiling, police brutality, and racism would be deafening, and the lawsuits they filed against the city would be enormous. The predatory media would cover the case non-stop, about how these innocent people were brutalized by the big, bad, racist police. There would be marches, riot behavior, and demonstrations.

So, let's visualize what may have happened if OJY did a felony stop. He calls it in, keeps an eye on the car and suspects, and then several squad cars with sirens and lights flashing scream up on PC's car, blockading the street and cordoning his car off from other traffic. Officers use loud speakers to give commands, while they stay behind their squad cars as cover. All of the officers have guns drawn and pointed at PC's car, including his 2 passengers, one of whom is a very young child. And let's also say that PC has his gun, EITHER in a holster, OR loose on his lap. If he touched that gun in any way that officers could see, he could have easily been shot, even though he possessed a carry permit,and may not in fact be the suspect police were seeking. His carry permit would not matter at that point in the felony stop process. And if he did not comply fully and instantly with instructions, and REACHED for his wallet, to show his carry permit, he would almost certainly be shot. Because if it's a felony stop, he is assumed to be ARMED and DANGEROUS. Let's also throw in DR whipping out her cell phone to live stream the felony stop. And this would be safer.....how???

Let's even say PC cooperates, puts his hands up, and exits the car, backs up, lays down, and submits to arrest, and search. Let's say DR is still live streaming, and trying to have a "discussion" with officers. He is found to have a weapon concealed in a holster. He is advised he is a suspect in an armed robbery. He tells officers he has a lawful permit in his wallet. He is still going to jail until it can be determined that he is, or is not, the armed robbery suspect. DR would be rather assertively taken down and handcuffed as well, and taken to jail, her terrified and traumatized child delivered to social services, until she was cleared hours (or days) later. And the howls of police brutality, profiling, and racism will fill the airwaves and the internet.

Police are in a "no win" situation in cases like this. It is their job to identify and apprehend suspects. If they do a lower level stop, to check IDs, they face serious risks. If they do a felony stop, they face exponentially more risks, IMO. PC chose to carry-- but he ALSO chose to accept the risks for his behavior while carrying a loaded weapon, even knowing he had been stopped by police 54 times.

It's all going to boil down to WHERE exactly was the gun, was PC touching or holding it, and what(if anything) did PC tell the officer BEFORE he touched, or "revealed" the gun. As the permit holder, PC bears responsibility for how and when that was communicated to the officer during a traffic stop. It's not up to the officer to be clairvoyant, to be a mental health counselor, or make "assumptions" that the driver was a lawful permit holder that would do him no harm. When an officer sees a gun, and particularly someone touching or holding a gun, they have to assume that the person (now a suspect, even if they weren't before) may be intending to do them imminent harm.

There is a reason why the NRA and other gun advocacy groups have not immediately jumped on the bandwagon to support PC in this case,IMO. And that is because it seems like a very strong probability that PC did not follow proper procedures for how he was carrying while driving a car, and how and when he communicated that to the officer that pulled him over. That's my opinion. I have a carry permit myself, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the carry issues, and how one is supposed to behave and communicate during a traffic stop. Choosing to carry a loaded gun while out in society, and driving a car with a child inside, is a very, very, very serious set of circumstances, and not to be taken lightly. The presence of a gun escalates EVERY situation. As a carry permit holder, you have to be MORE compliant, MORE patient, more responsible, than the average citizen. You have a much higher level of responsibility and accountability when you decide to carry a loaded weapon. The NRA will not, for example, endorse or support impaired drivers carrying loaded weapons, even if they have a lawful carry permit.

And the decision whether or not Yanez faces criminal charges will also be affected, IMO, by the toxicology results obtained during PC's autopsy, and from OJY when he was processed after the shooting. If PC has illegal substances in his system, or found in his car when it was searched and impounded (and I think that is highly likely from the videos DR has uploaded to FB and youtube), then that will go even further to supporting and justifying OJY's actions-- if OJY did not have any illegal substances in his system.

As I said before, I think this case ultimately will be used in carry classes as an example to prospective carry permit holders of what NOT to do during a traffic stop. I don't think Yanez will face any CRIMINAL charges. He may face internal consequences, however. Maybe not. Depends on exactly what happened in the critical 103 seconds before DR began live streaming. And I personally don't believe DR's several evolving versions of how that went down.

 

[jkly]

I'm not at all sure a felony stop would have been "better" or "safer". Certainly it would have created even MORE controversy and protests, if PC and his passengers were subjected to the conditions of a felony stop, and they actually weren't the suspects. The howls of profiling, police brutality, and racism would be deafening, and the lawsuits they filed against the city would be enormous. The predatory media would cover the case non-stop, about how these innocent people were brutalized by the big, bad, racist police. There would be marches, riot behavior, and demonstrations.

It certainly would have pissed them off, but sorry, I don't see it blowing up nearly as huge if they were stopped in such a manner with no human casualties I guarantee the public outcry would be nowhere near as huge.

Police are in a "no win" situation in cases like this. It is their job to identify and apprehend suspects. If they do a lower level stop, to check IDs, they face serious risks. If they do a felony stop, they face exponentially more risks, IMO. PC chose to carry-- but he ALSO chose to accept the risks for his behavior while carrying a loaded weapon, even knowing he had been stopped by police 54 times.

Yes. He took all the steps to legally carry a weapon. Is your point that because he gets pulled over more, he should be denied his second amendment rights?

As the permit holder, PC bears responsibility for how and when that was communicated to the officer during a traffic stop. It's not up to the officer to be clairvoyant, to be a mental health counselor, or make "assumptions" that the driver was a lawful permit holder that would do him no harm. When an officer sees a gun, and particularly someone touching or holding a gun, they have to assume that the person (now a suspect, even if they weren't before) may be intending to do them imminent harm.

Neither is it up to PC to be clairvoyant. The police officer is supposed to be in control of this situation. I doubt it had escalated anywhere near the point where it was necessary to unload four bullets into someone sitting in a car with a four year old in the backseat.

I have a carry permit myself, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the carry issues, and how one is supposed to behave and communicate during a traffic stop. Choosing to carry a loaded gun while out in society, and driving a car with a child inside, is a very, very, very serious set of circumstances, and not to be taken lightly. The presence of a gun escalates EVERY situation. As a carry permit holder, you have to be MORE compliant, MORE patient, more responsible, than the average citizen. You have a much higher level of responsibility and accountability when you decide to carry a loaded weapon. The NRA will not, for example, endorse or support impaired drivers carrying loaded weapons, even if they have a lawful carry permit.

I'll wait for proof that he was being irresponsible before I condemn him. .

 

[K_Z]

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

 

[K_Z]

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.