Â
|
|
Quote: |
Castile's death garnered widespread attention -- and sparked nationwide protests over the use of force by police -- after his girlfriend broadcast the shooting's aftermath on Facebook Live.... "I didn't want to shoot Mr. Castile," Yanez testified."That wasn't my intention. I thought I was going to die." Yanez's lawyers alleged Castile had been smoking marijuana the day of the shooting, which they said affected his judgment. Castile was bleeding heavily in the Facebook video but managed to say he wasn't reaching for his gun, which he had a permit to carry. His girlfriend said Castile was reaching for his ID in his back pocket when he was shot. Castile's fully loaded gun was found in his shorts pocket, Ramsey County prosecutors said. Reynolds issued a statement Friday, saying Castile was pulled over because he had "a wide nose," like a robbery suspect who was being sought. "He did nothing but comply with Officer Yanez's instructions to get his driver's license. He was seat belted and doing as he was told, when he was shot by Officer Yanez who fired seven shots into the vehicle where my .... daughter and I also sat. It is a sad state of affairs when this type of criminal conduct is condoned simply because Yanez is a policeman. God help America." |
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I believe he was reaching for his ID that was located right by his gun.
Quote:
end well.
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I'm not sure but I'm guessing a lot of jurors who are black fear that the police can find out where they live and make there life hell. That would be in the back of my mind.
I think one of the jurors who was black in the Charleston police murder case didn't find the officer guilty.
Quote:
Quote:
end well.
Since I wasn't in the courtroom. I don't have a clue nor an opinion.
Do you have a transcript of the testimony that persuaded the jury to come to the conclusion they did?
Don't think you need to study the transcripts for this one. Juries simply do not convict police officers in cases like this. Even the guy in SC who chased after a driver and shot him in the back didn't get convicted by a jury.
I'm not sure but I'm guessing a lot of jurors who are black fear that the police can find out where they live and make there life hell. That would be in the back of my mind.
I think one of the jurors who was black in the Charleston police murder case didn't find the officer guilty.
On May 2, 2017, Slager pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law as part of a plea agreement, which has a potential maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
I don't think a long jail sentence is required but Yanez should be kicked off the force and have to pay 10% of his future earnings to that poor little girl, who had to witness that.
Gotta say too, that the civilian was armed didn't help this situation; it I usually does not.
What is most frustrating is that we don't seem to be leaning from these gun violence tragedies. Every day it's more of the same. Decent people needlessly being killed by guns. Every day.
The officer's supervisor testified (and police audio confirmed) that the officer said he didn't see the gun. When asked about that statement, the officer said he meant he didn't see it until he did. Another officer testified that the gun fell out of Castile's pocket as he was moved onto a backboard. However, a paramedic testified that an officer had to reach deep into his pocket to remove the gun.
As earlier mentioned, LE almost never gets prosecuted for this type of shooting. Removing race from the equation.
I dont think that was their argument. Fwiw, they argued it impaired his judgement.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
No one disputes that people in law enforcement have a tough job, but the risks and challenges involved in their line of work should not absolve them of accountability.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
He was reaching for his ID. Which the officer asked him to provide.
The cop also told him to get ID, which is what he was reaching for. Also, if the cop thought that Castile matched a robbery suspect, which was the purported reason he was pulled over for the 49th time in 13 years, then procedure was to have all occupants exit the vehicle while the police are covered with guns drawn, precisely to avoid a situation like this.
This is always a cop out to me (no pun intended). LE job is very difficult; we know that and they know that. However, it doesn't absolve them from holding a far higher level of standard than their regular civilian counterparts. If a police officer is so damn scared to do his job at the risk of himself over that of the public, then he needs to stop being a cop. The whole idea that at the end of the day the police need to ensure they come home alive is missing the whole point of such a position and authority. They are given such authority over others, and in return, they assume the risk to themselves over putting such risk on others.
The fact of the matter is that none of us have to immerse ourselves into their situations to understand how difficult their jobs are. It's given, and at the same time, it's fully expected that these individuals choosing such a profession are held to a higher standards than your everyday citizen. To put us all on the same plain or standards is the wrong way to look at the entire LE profession.
maybe procedures weren't followed. that doesn't equal up to murder.
Quote:
the evidence showed the victim said he had a gun, cop said don't reach for it, and then the victim reached for something. when a cop tells you not to reach after you've just admitted you have a gun, you don't reach. how fucking hard is that to understand?
The cop also told him to get ID, which is what he was reaching for. Also, if the cop thought that Castile matched a robbery suspect, which was the purported reason he was pulled over for the 49th time in 13 years, then procedure was to have all occupants exit the vehicle while the police are covered with guns drawn, precisely to avoid a situation like this.
we'd need to hear the audio and without it would be tough to know.
Did the cop ask for the ID and then Castile informed him he had a gun and then the cop told him not to reach for it?
That is the only thing that makes sense since the cops would have disarmed Castile themselves before caring about ID. Did this happen in quick succession or was Castile ignoring commands or distracted in any other way?
Did the cop think he matched the robbery suspect or did he match a vague description of the local population?---so I looked up the demographics of the area and:
The racial makeup of the city was 90.58% White, 2.06% African American.
So, I am just speculating of course, but that leaves me to believe he should have done a high risk stop. So why didn't he?
The town has 8,000 people in it and is pretty well off--it would be interesting to see how many stops like that he has done, maybe none. In contrast, a friend of mine who is a cop worked in Maryvale, Phx, AZ and would do multiple a night on illegal gang members.
A tangent, but I agree the situation should have been avoided with a proper stop and the cop should be fired and the department should look into hiring only cops with experience that they won't get in saint Anthony, MN.
But really all that matters criminally would be if Philando was asked to stop reaching at the vicinity of his gun and he didn't. This also happened the day after the Alton Sterling shooting so I wonder if that had an impact on either men.
I would be interested in his GF's detailed description or testimony of events because the video was vague. She is being charged with a 3 on 1 attack with her wielding a hammer against another lady and then driving back with bear mace to spray the already seriously injured victim--so I don't know how credible I would find her though.
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I have and I have been in my share of firefights as well and know how difficult those situations are. However, as a law abiding and tax paying citizen, I feel that it is our place to criticize when we believe that there is injustice. This police officer may be a great guy or not, and it doesn't matter. All that matter is that his actions led to another man's death needlessly. And because he's an officer of the law, he is given a pass. There is something so wrong with that.
maybe procedures weren't followed. that doesn't equal up to murder.
It wasn't a murder charge. That's a pretty important part here. This completely fit the bill for all 3 charges. 2nd degree manslaughter, and two counts of intentional discharging of firearm that endangers safety. Remember, girlfriend AND child were both in the car. And this guy ripped off 7 shots.
So that said. If he'd been convicted, Yanez could have been sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $20,000 on the manslaughter charge and five years and fined $5,000 on each of the other charges.
God knows the judge could have lessened the sentence.
Unfortunately, we'll never know. All we get to know is that at this point, white or black, if a cop shoots and kills you in this country, the south park defense of 'it's coming right for us' basically gets you off the hook most of the time.
People aren't asking for cops to be hanged here. But I think a lot of folks are right to wonder where the fuck the justice is.
I sure as hell am.
I think if there were lesser penalties, juries would be more likely to convict. Yanez should not be a field officer. you just can't panic the way he did and be trusted or effective
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I have and I have been in my share of firefights as well and know how difficult those situations are. However, as a law abiding and tax paying citizen, I feel that it is our place to criticize when we believe that there is injustice. This police officer may be a great guy or not, and it doesn't matter. All that matter is that his actions led to another man's death needlessly. And because he's an officer of the law, he is given a pass. There is something so wrong with that.
Given a pass? Unless I'm mistaken, he went in from of a jury of his peers and was found not guilty, but he was also dismissed from the police force. I don't see that as a pass. I agree fully with your comment we should seek justice. That's a given.
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
The officer's reaction in this incident not only resulted in Castile's death but also endangered the lives of two other people, including a young child.
Summary of witness testimony - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Yanez said he saw Castille gripping the pistol.
The other officer never saw the gun.
Yanez said he "Didn't know where the gun was" to his supervisor, which was caught on police audio.
Yanez later said on the stand "what he meant was" he didn't know where the gun was initially, but then he saw it in Castile's hand.
Prosecutors asked Yanez why he didn't initially tell investigators about Castile handling the gun with as much certainty as he was now doing at the trial. They pointed out he used words like, "Gripping something"... "It looked like"... "It appeared"... without ever definitively saying it was a gun.
The prosecutor's toxicology expert said it was impossible to tell when Castille had last smoked weed since that test doesn't work properly on blood samples from a decomposing body. The defense toxicology expert said his test indicated Castile had just smoked weed within 2 hours of his death. He later admitted that most experts say postmortem blood tests are unreliable and that this was the first time they ever used that test on a sample from a dead body.
Quote:
In comment 13502885 rebel yell said:
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Because someone is dead, you dolt. It was completely avoidable. If someone is riding passenger, with their kids, and they disclose that they have a firearm, I don't think the officer was in immediate danger. You bootlickers are something else.
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
Quote:
In comment 13502969 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502885 rebel yell said:
Quote:
In comment 13502756 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13502605 rebel yell said:
Quote:
opinion because I didn't sit through the trial. I only saw the video. However, I do encourage those who criticize and convict without having sat through the proceedings to try a day or two in LE, or immerse yourself in a shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Because their job is hard or stressful is not an excuse...
Did I use the word excuse or try to absolve the officer? No, I didn't. I urged those who criticize to try a shoot/don't shoot simulator. If you've never been in imminent danger, felt you adrenaline flow, or been shot at....you're clueless. I have and I know the feeling.
I don't care. He panicked and killed someone. He's a professional trained for exactly this kind of situation. If he could not handle it, he should not have been on the street.
What makes you think he couldn't handle it? He did what he felt he needed to do and a jury agreed with his action.
Because someone is dead, you dolt. It was completely avoidable. If someone is riding passenger, with their kids, and they disclose that they have a firearm, I don't think the officer was in immediate danger. You bootlickers are something else.
Nice response. Shrill, hysterical...attack someone with a different point of view. Did you watch the entire trial? Do you have any clue what really happened? If you say yes, you're a liar.
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
Person said he had a gun and a permit - officer feared for his life. IMO, this is similar to the Tulsa case, fear may well have been unreasonable. if you listen to police officer's voice during the event - does not seem in control of his emotions, very excited, very stressed. The fear has to be what a reasonable officer would think constituted an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Talk about finding pot in his system is nothing more than dirtying up the victim.
I was surprised and disappointed by this and the Tulsa verdicts.
RE: South Carolina - in state trial, one juror refused to convict and resulted in hung jury. he pleaded guilty at the federal trial
If you're in fear - how about waiting for a backup and like Deej said - conduct a felony traffic stop?
Remember, police officers voluntarily take these positions, fully aware that at some point they will be in harms way.
Quote:
In comment 13503017 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
. . . precisely the kind of flawed thinking that has lead to the acquittal of all of these cops recently - the idea that the life of a police officer is somehow "more valuable" than all others.
In most of the recent high profile cases with video evidence - Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, Terence Crutcher, Philando Castile - it was found to be conclusive that the officers were in no actual imminent danger.
We all want our police officers to be as safe as they can be while in the line of duty, but we should also be demanding that our law enforcement only use lethal force when the threat is clear, not just perceived. No one should ever end up dead because of a hunch.
Quote:
In comment 13503017 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502803 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502736 halfback20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13502695 JerryNYG said:
Quote:
Philando's marijuana use (which the officer did not know of at the time) was given as at least a partial explanation for why the officer was justified in his shooting.
How does that make any sense?
You don't have to wonder why large segments of the population do not trust law enforcement. It is an awful shame because communities need good policing and the police need trust and partnership with the communities to do a good job.
The ongoing violence without consequence undermines that partnership.
Ongoing violence? In the grand scheme of things these shootings are very rare.
That depends on your definition of "rare". In 2016, police shot and killed a total of at least 957 people (and 991 in 2015). Obviously that number doesn't account for how justified it was to use lethal force, but in comparison police in the UK shot and killed a total of 23 people . . . over a span of 10 years.
Of course there are huge differences between the US and the UK, particularly in regards to culture and population size, but the annual rate of police-related shootings should in no way minimize the circumstances surrounding each individual case. Any loss of life is tragic, and we as citizens should be particularly vigilant when that loss of life is caused by someone holding a position of authority.
Considering police have millions of contacts with people every year, less than 1000 is what id call rare.
And yet, it's still too fucking much.
Period.
99.9 % of those shootings are justified. Should more police die? Not defend themselves?
I think this is it. Like any quarternary event, Civilian shot/shoot or Cop shot shoot, the errors should be equally distributed. As it is now, the preponderance lethal errors falls upon the civilians, who by and large still have the presumption of innocence. Since the errors are so heavily skewed, one side is natrally going to be very resistant to change anything.
Might as well ban these threads along with political threads.
Honestly, I have no idea how anyone is surprised. Police are rarely convicted for shootings. Let's set aside whether you agree or disagree with the convictions, and all admit they are never convicted.
So what are the people who think this shooting was okay aiming for? The mere fact these judgements are criticized you compels you to take up the metaphorical arms? The system already acts how you want it to - police are rarely ever convicted for shootings/killings/murders, regardless of how controversial, and all effort this decade to bring greater accountability has failed.
You guys win!
Link - ( New Window )