Woman Live Streams Aftermath of Fatal Police Shooting

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

But now we have to see whether the jury will convict or acquit.

**Breotan**

I think that prosecuting is the right thing to do in this case. Given that the prosecution didn't overcharge like they did in Florida with the George Zimmerman case, I can see a guilty verdict on the misdemeanor and at least one of the felony charges. I'm not sure how much, if any, jail time will be awarded but the police officer should never be allowed to work in law enforcement again, except maybe as a filing clerk or something.

**kronk**

Desubot wrote:
Good.

Double ditto.

Prosecute him

**Easy E**

The trial has begun in the case after the jury was selected.

Apparently, Officer Yanez fired 7 shots into the vehicle of Mr. Castille and narrowly avoiding hitting the other passengers. Dashcam footage was also played at the trial, but I do not believe it has been released to the public.

Here is the latest news story:
http://www.startribune.com/use-of-force-experts-expected-to-take-the-stand-in-jeronimo-yanez-trial-for-philando-castile-shooting/427033361/

There is new stuff everyday from the local newspaper/media.

**jmurph**

Okay, see this is the reason why you should think before you ask a witness a question:

"What he said was, ‘I don’t know where the gun was,’ ” Noble said, quoting a conversation between Yanez and his supervisor that night.

“And you interpret that to mean officer Yanez never saw a gun?” Kelly asked.

“Well, yeah,” Noble said emphatically. “If you saw a gun, you’d know where it was.”

The nearly full courtroom burst into laughter, breaking a strict code of courtroom conduct set by Judge William H. Leary III.

But I think the defense has a dangerous strategy. Saying that the deceased was high and that was justification for shooting him 10 times despite Castille informing the officer in advance that he had a firearm (that he was legally carrying) and the officer shooting in the direction of his unarmed wife and child runs the risk of angering the jury and potentially causing them to then disregard good points the defense may make. But I guess it is all they have since Castille never did anything that should have triggered deadly force and Yanez didn't even remotely follow his training or department policies.

**oldravenman3025**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Easy E wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

The whole thing stinks... if you harass a law-abiding citizen enough and force enough bullcrap fines against him, he is eventually going to have a rap sheet a mile long too and look like a 'bad guy' which then the police to use to 'justify' any and all actions against him as they know anyone with a record will be discredited by juries.

Don't forget discrediting of the victim by the public and media so that the PD can sweep potential misconduct under the rug.

However, the information released by the PD this time seems like it was a genuine attempt at transparency as it is causing more questions for them then resolving.

No it's not creating more questions...sensible people look at this and say...wow - that guy is an idiot for driving on a suspended licence for 8 years and call it a day. In law enforcement they call this a "habitual offender". A jury will eat this stuff up. It's even more believable to me now that Castile reached for his gun. This guys clearly hates cops - it's kind of his own fault though - he's been driving almost exclusively illegally for like 8 years.

You find it more believable that he was reaching for a gun because he has a criminal history which involves no violent crimes, not even resisting arrest, whatsoever? I mean, why would he reach for it now, when he was paying off his fines and had his family in the car rather than at any other stop?

More cops are killed during routine traffic stops than any other incident, with domestic calls being a close second. People with a non-violent histories, or no criminal histories, across all age groups, have been known to gun down/kill cops

I always approached any situation as if there was chance that it could go bad, which is the best policy. When police agencies started incorporating such training in the late 1970s and 80's, officer fatalities went down annually. Be on your guard and be observant. And prepared to ACT.

**Easy E**

4th day of jury deliberations and no verdict.

Legal experts assume the following in the case based on precedent:

Hung juries — when jurors fail to reach a unanimous verdict — aren’t uncommon in cases of officer-involved shootings that end up in criminal court, according to Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

With that in mind, Stinson said “the most likely result” in the Yanez trial would be a mistrial.

“The second most likely result would be an acquittal,” he said.

http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/15/yanez-trial-philando-castile-jury-verdict-jeronimo-falcon-heights/

**whembly**

Update... jury came back with verdict:
Police officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty

A Minnesota police officer who was charged with manslaughter after he shot a black motorist five times during a traffic stop last year was found not guilty by a jury on Friday, according to multiple reports.

Defense attorneys said Jeronimo Yanez, the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life when he shot Philando Castile, 32, seconds after Castile informed the officer he was armed.

Prosecutors insisted Yanez never saw the gun and had plenty of options other than shooting Castile, who was an elementary school cafeteria worker.

The officer was also acquitted of two counts of discharging a firearm that endangers safety, according to CNN, which reported that several members of Castile's family screamed profanities and cried Friday after the verdicts were announced.

Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer.
Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times.

The video shows Yanez firing into the car but doesn't show any of Castile's actions inside the car. Some of the conversation between Yanez and Castile is unintelligible.

Yanez was charged with endangering the lives of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the car during the shooting, but found not guilty.

In November, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi argued that Yanez's use of force was unwarranted, because Castile never attempted to access his gun.

After the verdict, Castile's mother Valerie was quoted by The New York Times saying, “My son loved this city, and this city killed my son. And a murderer gets away. Are you kidding me right now?”

“The system in this country continues to fail black people and will continue to fail us," she added.

Ten members of the 12-person jury were white, while the remaining two were black. Reynolds says in the video that Castile never reached for his gun, but defense attorneys targeted inconsistencies in her story to cast doubt on her credibility.

I think I'm going to need to read the court transcripts...

**d-usa**

And nobody is shocked.

**curran12**

The thug police win again, to nobody's surprise. And we're supposed to respect cops, right?

**DarkTraveler777**

d-usa wrote:
And nobody is shocked.

Sadly no. Pissed off, though?

**Ouze**

Well, who could have seen this outcome.

**whembly**

Were the dashboard cams ever released?

**Co'tor Shas**

Oh yay, other person gets away with murder.

Good job America. This is what a frankly unsettling obsession with worshiping power does.

**Vaktathi**

Without wanting to get into the case specifics, it would be interesting to see if the same verdict would have been returned if the circumstances were all otherwise held the same but the shooter did not have a badge.

**WrentheFaceless**

Disappointing to say the least

**Easy E**

Wow, they couldn't even get the lesser charges to stick.

All a cop has to do is say they were afraid for their life in order to shoot? Sounds like a pretty easy bar to jump for defense attorneys going forward. I really hope there was more to the defense than that.

Dashcam was shown for the jury but not released to the public AFAIK.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, at least Yanez won't be a cop in the Twin Cities anymore....

The city of St. Anthony—for which Yanez worked as an officer—said it would end his employment because “the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” The city promised to offer him “a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career.”

**Vaktathi**

Easy E wrote:
Wow, they couldn't even get the lesser charges to stick.

All a cop has to do is say they were afraid for their life in order to shoot?

In a lot of cases, that's pretty much it, as has been demonstrated over a large number of court cases in recent decades. Like clockwork.

And in a lot of cases (though by no means all, some agencies are better than others), training is built entirely around "if any action could possibly be construed as reaching for something or could even in the most remote sense be considered threatening in any manner, shoot". Not always, not with every agency, but...frequently.

With predictable results.

And then people wonder why relations with police are bad and why police in other developed nations dont seem to have the same issues.

Again, I wonder what the verdict would have been had the person behind the trigger not had a badge.

**Desubot**

Why would a non badged person pull over another person and that person inform them that they had a weapon.

seems like a silly what if.

regardless not surprising and very disappointing.

**Vaktathi**

Desubot wrote:
Why would a non badged person pull over another person and that person inform them that they had a weapon.

seems like a silly what if.

maybe they got in a collision and both drivers pulled off to the side? Maybe someone broke down and someone stopped to see whats going on?

One can come up with not unrealistic scenarios where the decision comes down to "saw movement, felt threatened, drew weapon and fired".

**Desubot**

Vaktathi wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Why would a non badged person pull over another person and that person inform them that they had a weapon.

seems like a silly what if.
maybe they got in a collision and both drivers pulled off to the side? Maybe someone broke down and someone stopped to see whats going on? One can come up with not unrealistic scenarios where the decision comes down to "saw movement, felt threatened, drew weapon and fired".

Eh thats true.

etherway fairly awful.

**DarkTraveler777**

Vaktathi wrote:

With predictable results.

And then people wonder why relations with police are bad and why police in other developed nations dont seem to have the same issues.

Again, I wonder what the verdict would have been had the person behind the trigger not had a badge.

It would have resulted in a guilty verdict. We all know that. If any regular citizen pulled half the gak the cops that have made headlines pulled, those citizens would be in jail. Or dead.

Cops are a protected class. And apparently a very frightened protected class. Poor things.

And it isn't "just a few bad apples" it is all of them. Ever aspect of "good" policing is immediately negated when cops fall in line and protect one another in cases of abuse of power.

This is getting so fething pathetic.

Good luck to the cops out there. Your jobs will continue to get harder until you excise the cancer in your ranks.

**Desubot**

People in power giving up power? that's unpossible!

**d-usa**

At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

**DarkTraveler777**

Yup. Nothing will change.

Which means more cops will get ambushed and killed by angry, misguided civilians. And more civilians will get killed by jumpy, scared, bed-wetting cops. The cycle will continue and America will eat popcorn and masturbate to the evening news all while giving their "thoughts and prayers to the victims of these senseless tragedies."

We have our priorities so backwards in this country sometimes.

**Desubot**

d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

revoked drivers license
lose job
lose house
become homeless
no money for medical services
die in horrible pain and suffering?

**DarkTraveler777**

d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

Now. Right now. My sphincter clenches every time I see a police unit on the road because it is pretty damn apparent that they are above the law.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
Wow, they couldn't even get the lesser charges to stick.

All a cop has to do is say they were afraid for their life in order to shoot? Sounds like a pretty easy bar to jump for defense attorneys going forward. I really hope there was more to the defense than that.

Me too... given what we know publically and had I been a juror, I'd convict the officer.

However, we weren't in that courtroom... and I've yet to see any transcripts.

I'd have to think that the defense made a compelling case for the defendant.

Dashcam was shown for the jury but not released to the public AFAIK.

Interesting... you'd have to think that this dashcam must have supported the defense's case somehow.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, at least Yanez won't be a cop in the Twin Cities anymore....

The city of St. Anthony—for which Yanez worked as an officer—said it would end his employment because “the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” The city promised to offer him “a voluntary separation agreement to help him transition to another career.”

Yeah... no surprise there.

**Spetulhu**

d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

If in the USA, apparently any time a police officer stops you.

But seriously, it's a major problem to work over. Police in many US jurisdictions are taught to consider any action a reason to shoot, and sure, in some cases they are right. But this policy also tells ordinary citizens to fear their police. "To protect and serve", hah.... More like "Threaten and shoot". In a more trigger-happy county you could possibly argue that shooting the officer was self-defence. After all, being pulled over for speeding or hitting a red light shouldn't automatically mean someone points a gun at you. Police have been let at large for too long, having their own standards for what's legal and what's not.

**djones520**

Spetulhu wrote:
d-usa wrote:
At what point to people have a legitimate reason to fear for their life when getting pulled over?

If in the USA, apparently any time a police officer stops you.

But seriously, it's a major problem to work over. Police in many US jurisdictions are taught to consider any action a reason to shoot, and sure, in some cases they are right. But this policy also tells ordinary citizens to fear their police. "To protect and serve", hah.... More like "Threaten and shoot". In a more trigger-happy county you could possibly argue that shooting the officer was self-defence. After all, being pulled over for speeding or hitting a red light shouldn't automatically mean someone points a gun at you. Police have been let at large for too long, having their own standards for what's legal and what's not.

Because a police officer shoots you every time he pulls you over. Or every other time? Or maybe every 100 times? Or every 10,000 times?

Or we can just keep making inflated claims about a relatively insignificant statistic, while trashing other nations.