Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 redleger wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Did the officer see a weapon?

I don't know did he? I have already stated shooting by a police officer is premature if he does not see a weapon, but that is the standard the ground forces in the military are trained to, not the forces in the police force. I would also add if intent to harm, even with harsh EOF, is shown then lethal force is ok. Obviously a different standard in a warzone though. Whether the officer saw the weapon or not, when told to stop reaching Castille did not stop. I am not an advocate of murder most of the time, but I do not believe this was murder, manslaughter, or any thing negligent. This was someone not complying, knowingly reaching in a direction his weapon was, because he did not wanna follow simple directions. None of us know where his hand was going, and until officer Yanez is proven to be a LEO that runs around trigger happy in this case, this single case he gets the benefit of the doubt from me, especially since 12 other Americans thought the same thing and they had access to way more information than any of us have access to.

You can read the entire transcript of Yanez' BCA interview in which he never claims to have seen Castile's pistol only that Castile was reaching for/grasping an object. Then while testifying at his trail Yanez says he clearly saw the gun. This is similar to the clarification by Reynolds that when she initially said Castile was reaching for his wallet in his back pocket she meant that he was reaching to unbuckle his seatbealt so he could more easily reach his wallet in his back pocket.

The jury doesn't have to believe that Yanez ever saw Castile's pistol or that Castile was reaching to draw his pistol. The jury only has to conclude that it was reasonable for Officer Yanez to believe that Castile could have been reaching for his pistol in order to acquit Yanez. Castile could have been reaching for his wallet while telling Yanez "I'm not reaching for it" when Yanez was yelling at him "Don't reach for it" and Yanez could have believed Castile was reaching for his pistol leading to him shooting Castile, and being acquitted.

http://www.startribune.com/read-the-transcript-of-officer-jeronimo-yanez-s-bca-interview/429665063/

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on Tuesday released the file from its investigation into the fatal shooting of motorist Philando Castile by St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minn., last July. Below is a transcript of the BCA's interview with Yanez after the shooting.

The interview became a point of contention during Yanez's trial. Prosecutors did not introduce that interview as evidence until cross-examining the officer on the stand. Judge William H. Leary III denied that request but allowed it to be referenced during Yanez’s cross-examination. During deliberations, jurors asked to see the interview transcript, but the judge again denied the request. Yanez was acquitted of all charges related to the shooting of Castile on Friday. WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT.

https://www.twincities.com/2017/06/15/yanez-trial-with-jury-in-4th-day-of-deliberations-heres-what-witnesses-said-at-trial/

He told the jury that Castile stared straight ahead and had “total disregard” for the officer’s commands to stop reaching for the firearm that Castile had just seconds before disclosed he was carrying in the car. When he finally saw the top of Castile’s pistol appear near his “right thigh area,” Yanez said he had to act.
“I was able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand, and that’s when I engaged him,” Yanez told the jury. “I had no other choice. … I didn’t want to shoot Mr. Castile. Those were not my intentions.”
During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned why Yanez was vague about what he saw in his initial interview with BCA agents if he had been certain at that time that he’d seen Castile gripping a gun. Citing excerpts from that statement, prosecuting attorney Rick Dusterhoft said Yanez said things like “(Castile was gripping) something,” “it looked like,” and “it appeared” without ever explicitly saying he saw a gun.
He also recounted Yanez’s quote on the scene shortly after the shooting. At that time, Yanez said, “I don’t know where his gun was. … He never told me where his (expletive) gun was.”
Yanez said he meant at the time that he didn’t know where Castile’s firearm was initially, but then he saw it in his hand.

 

.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Hold on, hold on. We have to clear something up right quick here.

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/minnesota-s-open-bottle-container-law.html

Scroll down to the possesion of MJ in a car.

Possesion of 1.4 grams in the passanger area (basically the amount of weed in your standard joint being anywhere but in the trunk) can carry up to a 90 day jail sentence and suspend your drivers licence and up to 1000$ fine.

Whose standard joint is 1.4 grams?! You realize in a lot of places, that is well over $20 worth of weed. Nobody is running around rolling 1.4 gram joints to smoke in a moving vehicle. That is some party/have your friends over for a good time stuff. Who the hell told you that? I want to know.

Don't get me wrong, I have rolled and smoked some hefty joints, but they have always been special occasions. Two people are not rolling around in a car with a child smoking 1.4 grams of weed. That is just hysterical.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 redleger wrote:
No where in the video is there proof he is being compliant, there is actually the opposite of proof of compliance, therefore I can not take any post serious that insists he was being compliant as there is no proof what so ever in that regard.

Is telling the Officer you are armed, something he is legally bound to do, not compliance?

What does that have to do with anything? Reaching for something when told several times to stop is non compliance.

It has absolutely everything to do with what redleger is saying and attempting to push here. I bolded, italicized, underlined, then clipped out the portion that is relevant to what I said. If you have issues figuring out the relevance then, well, gods help us all.

It has also been brought up that when you are told to stop doing something that you are not doing, it is very difficult to comply with the order.

Did you ever watch Super Troopers? If so, do you remember the beginning of the movie where the cops are messing with the stoners, asking them to pull the car over when it was already pulled over on the side of the road and parked. They started freaking out. That is what happened here.

Great movie Super troopers. Maybe I was doing something wrong back in the day but that was a pretty standard size for a joint. Then again - joints were things for special occasions anyways or for bringing to parties. Casual smoke uses other devices.

I was merely trying to explain to people with 0 experience about MJ. 1.4 g is not a lot of product. It would be odd to have less than that on your person.

There is some fundamental flaws in your reasoning that show you are wrong.

 redleger wrote:
Whether the officer saw the weapon or not, when told to stop reaching Castille did not stop.

He did not stop reaching for his weapon because he never started reaching for his weapon. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's.

This was someone not complying, knowingly reaching in a direction his weapon was,

This was someone complying, reaching in the direction of the documents he had been asked to produce. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's.

because he did not wanna follow simple directions.

Not following directions is not justification by itself for being killed.
Even so, Castille was following directions. That Yanez did not comprehend this is not Castille's fault, it is Yanez's

None of us know where his hand was going,

That s not justification for being killed

and until officer Yanez is proven to be a LEO that runs around trigger happy

Yanez doesn't have to be trigger happy. But he should be held responsible for his actions. Sadly it seems we live in a world where people do not have to take responsibility for their actions and are supported by others who don't want people to be responsible for their actions either.

especially since 12 other Americans thought the same thing and they had access to way more information than any of us have access to.

That he was not found guilty is not definitive that he should not be culpable for his actions. It is plausible (and I'd suggest likely, as I have stated previously when discussing other cases) that the burden of proof and notions of proportional force and reasonable justification are rather screwed up in the US justice system.

First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.

Can you honestly explain to me how a not guilty verdict still makes culpable for the killing?

The reason he is found not guilty is the fact that he was (as far as the evidence can take us) acting in defense. This would indicate NO WRONG DOING.

Lets just imagine for a second that we did have a video showing Castile's hand on the gun and ignoring commands to not reach for it. Would your opinion change about how Yanez should be treated? It shouldn't - because nothing about what happened in that car would have changed. You would just know for sure what happened instead of 1 of 2 things that could have possibly happened. Our legal system presumes innocence. So should our social justice.

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.

What if you have no weapon? You cannot comply with an order to stop doing something which you are not doing, nor have any ability to do.

If someone orders me to stop sticking my tongue out when I am not sticking my tongue out, what should I do?

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - not following directions to not reach for a weapon is justification for a killing - you might not agree with that - but that is the Law.

Can you honestly explain to me how a not guilty verdict still makes culpable for the killing?

The reason he is found not guilty is the fact that he was (as far as the evidence can take us) acting in defense. This would indicate NO WRONG DOING.

Lets just imagine for a second that we did have a video showing Castile's hand on the gun and ignoring commands to not reach for it. Would your opinion change about how Yanez should be treated? It shouldn't - because nothing about what happened in that car would have changed. You would just know for sure what happened instead of 1 of 2 things that could have possibly happened. Our legal system presumes innocence. So should our social justice.

To not have been following directions to not reach for a weapon you would have to be reaching for a weapon. There is no evidence in this case that shows conclusively that Castile was reaching for his weapon that’s why Yanez was charged with a crime and put on trial.

Officer Yanez could have and should have handled the situation better. His handling of the situation contributed to his decision to use lethal force and he therefore bears some responsibility for Castile’s death.

The jury decided that it was reasonable for Yanez to perceive. Astile’s movement as an imminent threat to his life. The jury did not rule on whether or not Yanez handled the traffic stop badly and most importantly the jury did not rule on whether or not Castile actually intended to harm Castile. Castile could have meant Yanez no harm and been reaching for his wallet not his gun and Yanez could have lawfully killed Castile.

Castile has been pulled over dozens of times previously and never once acted violently towards the police. None of his previous traffic stops had escalated into violence or a DUI for driving stoned. Castile knee the routine of traffic stops he’s been through it plenty of times before and there was no sign of him harboring ill will or malice towards the police. The idea that on his 47th traffic stop he would suddenly decide to bang it out with 2 cops by trying to pull his gun that he was carrying on an empty chamber from his shorts pocket while in a seated position with his seatbelt on while his girlfriend and daughter were in the car with him strains credulity.

I would not believe that Yanez ha does the stop well if there was video of Castile actually pulling his gun because the exception doesn’t disprove the rule. Lawfully armed concealed carry permit holders shouldn’t be automatically treated as a threat by police. I’ve been around armed strangers plenty of times, people open carrying or concealed carrying at ranges and competitions as well as hunting and camping trips. I’ve never assumed that they were about to murder me anytime one of them reached for something.