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.

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Rendering first aid could expose the officer. It is unfortunate but that is what they do. Very similar to ROEs in combat. You don't render first aid to enemy wounded until they are definitely disarmed.

Minnesota is not Afghanistan - your posts really illustrate terrifically why police departments generally should not hire former military.

I'd like to see the dashcam or body cam footage if it exists, but I am immediately wondering why the cop's gun was out at all.

This... I heard on the radio that there's a dash cam... anyone see confirmation that's true?

Something doesn't square right with me with this.

Asterios wrote:
ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?

Because this is a country where black men are regularly shot by cops and white people hem and haw that maybe he needed to be killed and that the independent video evidence not suppressed by the police is definitely suspicious because why did the person recording it not do exactly as I made up that they must?

She could have spontaneously manifested the divine light of God and proclaimed the beginning of the new faith as angels sang from horizon to horizon and you'd complain that she mentioned the wrong translation of the bible.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:
ok something i'm confused about here, the woman's boyfriend is shot and all she cares about is videotaping it? not trying to call for medical help or anything?

Because this is a country where black men are regularly shot by cops and white people hem and haw that maybe he needed to be killed and that the independent video evidence not suppressed by the police is definitely suspicious because why did the person recording it not do exactly as I made up that they must?

She could have spontaneously manifested the divine light of God and proclaimed the beginning of the new faith as angels sang from horizon to horizon and you'd complain that she mentioned the wrong translation of the bible.

problem is this is after the fact, and you are going to say what? she took out her Camera and started filming after the incident? think about it, the cop just shot the driver and next thing we know she pulls something out, you think the cop is going to say go ahead? or do you think hes gonna think shes pulling out a weapon, more I hear about this and the timing of the video something is wrong with this picture.

Reading an MSN article that quotes the girlfriend statements http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minn-governor-says-race-played-role-in-fatal-police-shooting-during-traffic-stop/ar-BBu22Up?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout


I noted this line in particular:

Reynolds said the officer came to the window and instructed them to put their hands in the air. He then asked to see Castile’s license and registration, which, Reynolds said, Castile kept in a thick wallet in a pants pocket.

“As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know: ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry,’ ” Reynolds said. “After that, he [the officer] began to take off shots: ba ba ba ba. ‘Don’t move, don’t move!’

That sounds like he was already reaching to his waist BEFORE he started to inform the officer that he was armed, which could cause panic in the moment as the standard protocol is generally understood to inform the officer immediately and make no movements until directly instructed to. Not saying that it excuses the officer, but I can see how it could cause somebody to panic, then add additional tension created by somebody screaming at the officer while there's movement from the driver. If the officer was already being cautious or is jumpy about a situation it doesn't take much to tip cautionary approach into fire mode and sadly it looks like somebody died because of that.

Having worked security I know I've been in situations that would have resolved without any conflict right until the angry friend/girlfriend/wife aggressively butts in and causes the situation to escalate when it never should have. Sudden emotional outburst or aggressive verbal confrontation can cause major problems with conflict escalation even if they were well intended. Distractions coming in from a 3rd party can cause the participants to lose focus and in a tense situation it can lead to panic from either side and add a gun into the mix it can be deadly. I've had perfectly calm and rational discussions turn suddenly violent (fist fights) because another person interjects themselves into the situation by yelling which triggers a fight or flight panic response from one of the main parties.

Basically you can be talking to a guy who's being relaxed and chill about you asking them to leave, other bystander has a sudden verbal outburst and next thing you know the guy is swinging at your head because it triggered an emotional panic state. Things could have been proceeding perfectly clam and then it spins 180 in a split second. I've also seen it happened in reverse where things were calm until security got startled and suddenly they start swinging first, people react strange when they are placed under sudden duress.

Except if he were going to shoot you, why would he inform you of the fact that he has a gun, whether he was moving his hand or not?

He was reaching for his wallet, as instructed to by the police officer. He also informed the police officer of his armed state, as required.

We don't know the facts yet.... so, statement like these contributes to the racial antagonizers and provocateur.

*I will say that this looks really bad and if it *is* as bad as it looks, the book ought to be thrown at this officer...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except if he were going to shoot you, why would he inform you of the fact that he has a gun, whether he was moving his hand or not?

He was reaching for his wallet, as instructed to by the police officer. He also informed the police officer of his armed state, as required.

Yes but if armed I'd think it'd be best to announce that you are before making any movement, not during. At least that's what they taught at the CCW courses I attended.

Basically this

Officer: Show me your license and registration

Me: Yes, but before I do anything I am a CCW permit holder and I need to inform you that I'm armed with my weapon at this location on my body. (or my weapon is in the glove box etc)

Me: Do you want me to disarm?

Officer: Yes/No then gives explicit instructions on how to proceed while keeping everything calm and frosty.

problem is all we know right now is based off of what the woman, said, the other eye witnesses only heard the officer tell him to get his hands up, so until we know all the facts any specualtion at this time is just that speculation.

 stanman wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except if he were going to shoot you, why would he inform you of the fact that he has a gun, whether he was moving his hand or not?

He was reaching for his wallet, as instructed to by the police officer. He also informed the police officer of his armed state, as required.

Yes but if armed I'd think it'd be best to announce that you are before making any movement, not during. At least that's what they taught at the CCW courses I attended.

Basically this

Officer: Show me your license and registration

Me: Yes, but before I do anything I am a CCW permit holder and I need to inform you that I'm armed with my weapon at this location on my body. (or my weapon is in the glove box etc)

Me: Do you want me to disarm?

Officer: Yes/No then gives explicit instructions on how to proceed while keeping everything calm and frosty.

That's how it's supposed to work, but for example I got pulled over the other day and completely forgot I even had a carry license. When you don't pull it out everyday it's easy to forget about(of course I don't usually carry my gun in the truck). Sounds to me that if he informed the officer as he was reaching for his wallet, it was because he suddenly remembered he was supposed to tell the officer.

Official updates from the local paper as of this morning:

• A vigil for Castile at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School in St. Paul, where he was employed as a cafeteria worker, led to a march to the governor's residence, where Gov. Mark Dayton met with Castile's family. Some protesters broke off and marched in the St. Paul streets, briefly blocking traffic and light-rail trains.

• The officer who shot Castile was identified as Jeronimo Yanez. Yanez and Joseph Kauser, who also was part of the traffic stop, have been placed on paid leave. Both have been with the St. Anthony police for four years.

• The Castile shooting and the fatal shooting in Louisiana of Alton Sterling led to protests in other cities. In Dallas, five police officers were killed by snipers and six others were hurt at a protest downtown.

http://www.startribune.com/philando-castile-shooting-what-we-know-so-far/385838921/

Nothing about Dashcam footage yet.

 Easy E wrote:
Official updates from the local paper as of this morning:

In Dallas, five police officers were killed by snipers and six others were hurt at a protest downtown.

Wait Seriously?

Yes, the "Snipers in Dallas, TX protest" thread.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yes, the "Snipers in Dallas, TX protest" thread.

thanks just found the thread.

horrible :/

If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.

Very glad that PA does not have duty to inform. It's none of their business whether or not you're carrying, and no good can come of informing a cop that you're armed - that knowledge only increases the likelihood of you being shot.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.

Correct, IF, that's how it went down. We have no idea. Her video starts after the shooting, which makes it irrelevant.

 SickSix wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.

Correct, IF, that's how it went down. We have no idea. Her video starts after the shooting, which makes it irrelevant.

The police started their investigation after the shooting, so it will be irrelevant as well?

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.

Correct, IF, that's how it went down. We have no idea. Her video starts after the shooting, which makes it irrelevant.

The police started their investigation after the shooting, so it will be irrelevant as well?

Absolutely. Unless a judge was standing right there (with a jury) everything after is irrelevant. So we missed our chance for a trial.

right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.

The video is evidence and I am sure will be part of the investigation. Therefore,t eh video is not irrelevant.

However, it will be combined with other testimony and evidence to try and get as good a picture as possible as to what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.

To be clear the witness said the cop told the Castilo to put his hands up and then started shooting immediately after he said it 4 or 5 times.

 Easy E wrote:
The video is evidence and I am sure will be part of the investigation. Therefore,t eh video is not irrelevant.

However, it will be combined with other testimony and evidence to try and get as good a picture as possible as to what happened.

I'm glad we got that cleared up

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If it went down the way the female witness claims, then obviously bad shoot.

Correct, IF, that's how it went down. We have no idea. Her video starts after the shooting, which makes it irrelevant.

The police started their investigation after the shooting, so it will be irrelevant as well?

No. One is a data point that does not show the actual event but is helpful with the aftermath as well as the veracity of the witnesses.
The other is the investigation.

 Easy E wrote:
The video is evidence and I am sure will be part of the investigation. Therefore,t eh video is not irrelevant.

However, it will be combined with other testimony and evidence to try and get as good a picture as possible as to what happened.

Asterios wrote:
right now as it stands we have a female witness in the car who claims one thing, we have eye witnesses outside of the car claiming they heard the cop tell the driver to get his hands up before firing, right now both statements neither rule out nor collaborate the other and unless the cop had an operational body cam on it will come down to a he said/she said issue which will not bode well.

To be clear the witness said the cop told the Castilo to put his hands up and then started shooting immediately after he said it 4 or 5 times.

problem is the video is irrelevant pretty much since it adds no evidence other then what the witness said after, and if taking the other eyewitnesses testimony into consideration it sounds like the guy went to reach for his wallet and the cop saw the gun and then the excrement hit the fan, but this is if the driver did not inform the cop he was carrying and had a permit.

The other eyewitness could not see what was happening in the car due to the distance and angle. She could only report on what the officer outside the car shouted.

 Easy E wrote:
The other eyewitness could not see what was happening in the car due to the distance and angle. She could only report on what the officer outside the car shouted.

true but a couple things stick out to me and the main one is the video, if the shooting was an excited shooting like some believe why did the cop not shoot the passenger when she brought out the phone/camera? if it was an excited shooting and knowing a gun was on the driver would have assumed the passenger might have had a gun too and yet did not shoot her, also was that the whole video shot? the video could have been cropped which would also bring up that the investigation will investigate her phone to check the video and find out if it was edited and such. something does not sound right about this situation so I will hold my judgement till all facts are present.

The video does bring to light quite a bit of evidence that can be useful in the investigation.

Yes indeedy d-usa, just not video of the event itself.

Pure speculation but it could have been a case of:

"May I see some identification?"
"I need to tell you I'm carrying a concealed firearm"
Reaches for ID...
Bang! Bang!
"He has a license to carry! He has a license to carry!"
Bang! Bang!

Doesn't make it right and very sad for all either way though.

I think when cops are involved - keep hands in view, inform them of what you're going to do before you do it, move real slow.

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think when cops are involved - keep hands in view, inform them of what you're going to do before you do it, move real slow.

You can hear the cop in the audio. He clearly realized that this was a bad shooting and there was no way to make those bullets go back into his gun. The cop freaked and clearly escalated, making the situation spiral out of control when he should have been the one IN control.

With all the attention on bad shootings, one would think we'd be seeing less of this not more.

Is it any wonder African-americans feel like they're being treated as enemies of the state?

 d-usa wrote:
The video does bring to light quite a bit of evidence that can be useful in the investigation.

all the video shows is an officer with his gun drawn on a suspect he shot (in the arm according to the passenger) and the passenger (pretty calm)making some statements.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The video does bring to light quite a bit of evidence that can be useful in the investigation.

all the video shows is an officer with his gun drawn on a suspect he shot (in the arm according to the passenger) and the passenger (pretty calm)making some statements.

NO.

It also is supportive evidence of the veracity of both the shooter, the person recording, and the victim.