Politics and Religion

I am not anti cop, I'm really not, but just watch (and listen) to this
GaGambler 7640 reads
posted

Without the audio, which the jury was NEVER allowed to hear, much less consider in deciding the case. Without the audio I guess it's a he said/the dead man said and hard to really tell what happened. With the audio though, it confirms to anyone with even the least bit of objectivity that this cop freaked out and cost an innocent man his life.

 
As I said to Jack in an earlier thread, sometimes the jury doesn't get to hear all the evidence, this was most definitely one of those times. I most certainly would not want to live anywhere where ex officer Yanez is ever given a badge and a gun again, especially considering I too most always carry a firearm while in my vehicle. Fortunately in the many times I have interacted with LE while having a loaded weapon only inches away from me I have never run into officer Yanez or I too might be a statistic by now.

 
Can anyone both watch and listen to this unedited tape of the event and still claim this was a "good" shoot?

 
Correction, it was just brought to my attention that the jury did indeed get to hear the audio portion of the dash cam video, which plainly shows Castile's calm, polite and respectful tone, only to be shot dead only three or four seconds later. I completely stand by my conclusion after watching and listening to this tape about 20 times. It's beyond me how ANYONE could call this shooting justified. This cop was CLEARLY out of control and I certainly hope he NEVER gets a badge and a gun again.

-- Modified on 6/22/2017 5:36:35 PM

prejudicial to the point that it gets thrown out. It seems, much evidence could be considered prejudicial just by it's nature. The way I heard it explained is the jury has a very narrow scope of consideration. That consideration is, did the officer believe his life was in danger. It seems very difficult to disproved he did not. This is the reason so many police officers are acquitted, while still being kicked to the curb by their departments. It seems the officer did not follow correct procedure, and as a result, the man was fatally shot. Juries do not convict based on the officer not following correct procedure; only if they believe the officer truly did not fear for his life.

Now, here's an interesting case. One wonders what the story would have ended up being if the black officer died, and there were no witnesses! ;)

I can honestly see this happening to a white cop as well as a black cop as he interjected himself (as I am sure he was trained to do) into an active crime.  

There are not a lot of these cop shootings of innocent civilians that I can really relate to, but the Castile incident is one where I have definitely thought to myself, "Fuck, that could have been me"  

Appearances really mean a lot when interacting with LE, for years I drove Cadillacs and dressed like a businessman and was almost always treated that way by LE, and was often given the benefit of the doubt by the cops. In the very late 80's I decided to buy a Jaguar a car in roughly the same price range and all of a sudden I stopped getting treated like a respectable businessman, but instead more like a "drug dealer of color" the difference was night and day.

I drove that Jag for less than two years and went back to Caddies for the next 25 years. lol

86H13LTP43 reads

Instead of " Officer , I have a carry permit and I am armed . The weapon is located ___ on my body . I am going to keep my hands right here where you can see them until you tell me how to proceed "    

On this one , I say they were both wrong . And GF's actions will always amaze me .  

Being pulled over and having the Police officers gun in near your head is bad . So is being a smart ass ISIS pussy standing in the open with a Canadian JTF2 sniper 2.1 miles away with a McMillin Tac 50 .  What a great shot !  He beat the old record by 3000 meters

I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine but totally agree, except for your last two lines which have zero to do with the OP.

He didn't beat the record by 3000 meters. Get your facts straight.

The shot was from 11,316 FEET away. Not meters. There's a difference. Beat the old record of a U.K. sniper by 3280 FEET.

OK whatever you say since you don't have any counter. Have a great weekend.

86H13LTP43 reads

want me to smarten up stupid ? Fine

Canadians shoot metric  

US news reports in standard  

Older hardheaded  fucks like me still shoot in standard as well . All my gear is in .25 INCH mils . Becoming harder to harder to find .  

Somewhere in the mix is the exact distance of the new record sniper kill which was 3000 meters longer than the previous record .  

When you don't know WTF you're talking about then STFU

"A Canadian sniper set what appears to be a record, picking off an ISIS fighter from some 2.2 miles away, and disrupting a potentially deadly operation by the terror group in Iraq.

Shooting experts say the fatal shot at a world-record distance of 11,316 feet underscores how stunningly sophisticated military snipers are becoming. The feat, pulled off by a special forces sniper from Canada’s Joint Task Force 2, smashed the previous distance record for successful sniper shots by some 3,280 feet, a record set by a British sniper."

"The Canadian Special Operations Command can confirm that a member of the Joint Task Force 2 successfully hit a target from 3,540 metres [2.2 miles]," the Canadian military said in a statement.

Ok thanks but US reports then were wrong in reporting it in feet. Thanks for the clarification. I'll post where I got later. Please be patient? Thanks.

so are you saying he broke the record BY almost 2 miles (ie 3,000 m = ~1.9 miles) ?  really?

86H13LTP49 reads

You don't know shit about shooting so pretend to .  

Just another douche bag on here

Castile was actually moving his hand toward his firearm or if he was even moving his hand toward anything.  The video is of no help there. All we have is the voice recording regarding Yanez's description of Castile's supposed hand movement.  

Even though we can't 100% rule out Castile was reaching for his weapon, this was almost certainly avoidable due to the poor actions of Yanez. It  is obvious Yanez was poorly trained and/or had some sort of problems himself.

-- Modified on 6/22/2017 6:34:51 PM

...wasn't guilty.  It's just that the jury could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

The cop stopped Philando Castile for an inoperable brake light, but LIED and said Castile matched a robbery suspect.  He didn't approach the vehicle like Castile was an armed robbery suspect.  He informed Castile about his brake lights, not about Castile being an armed robbery suspect.  The cop was out of position if he was dealing with an armed robbery suspect - he was too far forward.  He should have been behind the driver by the center post of the car.

This is what the cop said when he radioed in the call:  "I'm going to stop a car."  Moments later, the officer reports that his reason to pull the car over was that "the two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery." He goes on to explain: "The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just 'cause of the wide-set nose."  The cop clearly LIED when he radioed in the call because he did not approach Castile's vehicle like he was an armed robbery suspect.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-thought-philando-castile-was-robbery-suspect-tapes-show-n607856

Here is what some experts (other than GaG) have to say about the shooting after viewing the newly released dashcam video:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/video-police-shooting-philando-castile-trial.html

Meh, What does David A. Klinger know about shooting a suspect?  He's some namby-pamby college professor in an ivory tower who never put his ass on the line.  Or is he?  No, he's not - he knows more about policing than JackDunphy ever learned sitting on his daddy's lap.  Klinger actually is a former LAPD cop who had to shoot and kill a man who stabbed his partner.  The shooting was certainly justified but looking back years later, it seems Klinger's partner should not have put Klinger in the position of having to shoot and kill a man.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/what-i-learned-after-i-killed-a-criminal-117751
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/06/28/former-lapd-officer-who-killed-shares-lessons-on-deadly-force/

approach the vehicle like one would if the car contained a possible armed robbery suspect.

The tail light was the LEGAL reason for the stop, officers need a legal reason to conduct the stop, once the vehicle is stopped, the police can begin their investigation into the supposed robbery suspects.

Hey BP, do you think the deceased carried a firearm because he was insecure of the size of his penis?

That's usually a factor in your reasoning.

...description, he doesn't need any other reason to pull him over.  If someone is a murder suspect and the cop sees someone driving who matches the description, you're saying he can't pull him over if there's nothing wrong with his car.  According to you, the cop would have to follow the suspect for miles and hope the suspect makes an illegal lane change or doesn't signal for a turn or the cop has some other pretext to pull him over.

I think the size of your pea brain is a factor in your dumb posts.  You definitely should be insecure about that.

Traffic stops have to happen for a reason, if you want the charges to stick.

Even if you are right I'm 100% certain you are wrong, their would have to be some kind of warrant issued.

Knowing that, this really was a "he said, she said" and when you have a tarnished, drugged and BSC witness versus a sober cop with a pristine record, the chances of a conviction was virtually zero.

 
The video changes nothing for me, as it didn't for the jury either. The video does show a totally calm PO, who didn't go into the event enraged or angry or anything the lib media left us to believe when they showed the fb live video, post shooting, back when this story first broke.

 
The video does not show the interior of the car, nor does it show the vantage point of the officer. We just don't know what he saw. Since we don't, and him being the defendant, he gets the benefit of the doubt in our system, so the "good shoot or bad shoot" debate is moot.

 
I believe that DA's are pressured by liberal and anti-police groups to bring charges in the first place, that without that pressure, would have never been brought.  

 
We have now seen case after case after case, where someone comes in contact with the police and they are either inebriated or don't follow orders, or, in this case, probably both and tragedy ensues and the acquittal follows a year later.

 
I am sorry but with gun ownership comes responsibility. Driving a vehicle, high, with a gun in your possession is a recipe for disaster.  

 
Remember, this was not a murder charge. This was 2nd degree manslaughter. Not only did a jury of twelve, with 2 being African American, all agree to kick the manslaughter, they also kicked the less serious charges of recklessly emptying a gun in the vicinity of the other two people in the car. That is quite telling.

 
I agree with much of what Matt said except for cops who are exonerated, like the Ferguson PO, that still lose their job in many cases. Imagine getting fired when a jury acquits you, the African American witnesses side with the white officer and the Obama DOJ clears him afterwards.

 
All that being said, I feel awful that Philando Castile is dead.  The officer was clearly distraught over the shooting. He showed remorse immediately and for quite some time after, and I am sure that weighed on the jury as well.

 
It doesn't seem like Castile was a bad or evil man, just one that made some really bad choices, but then who in life hasn't?

He must have made all those decisions pretty damn quickly as he was full of holes about three seconds after calmly, politely, and respectfully informing the cop he had a firearm.

But I can only prove one; his being high, driving with a gun.  

 
The other one is what I assume was his disobeying the demands of Yanez so I will revise my previous comment and say one bad choice for sure.

I didn't know there was a witness to the shooting. I mean I haven't read that, but you seem more knowledgeable of this case then I.

The victims girl friend  and her young daughter were also in the vehicle at the time, she is the one who streamed the aftermath of the shooting on her phone, which took this case viral.

I agree the cop over-reacted badly and should NEVER have a gun and a shield again.  But Castile did something dumb, perhaps because he was high and not thinking at his best.  He should have kept his hands on the wheel in plain sight when he explained there was a gun in the car.  He should have explained where the gun was and where his license was, not just reached behind himself for his permit.  How could the cop have known it was his license behind his back and not his pistol?
The cop heard "gun" and freaked out.  Castile then reached behind his back and, sadly, sealed his fate.  Which does NOT excuse the cop firing SEVEN shots in rapid succession.  He panicked.
Here's a question I have not heard asked: what is the obligation of a gun owner to disclose to a cop during a traffic stop that he has a gun in the car?  I doubt there is one but I'd like to know, and if it varies from state to state.

He does not "freak out" when he heard "gun."

 
He remained totally calm and said "ok." He still remained calm the first two times he told Castile not to go for the gun ("don't each for it then" and "don't pull it out.")

 
He didn't get emotional until the third time he gave the command.

It might have been all of three seconds between the time Castile said he had a gun, the cop said "OK," and the cop started shooting.  So what you're saying is he went from "totally calm" to shrieking and shooting in three seconds (and I'm being generous with that). I would say you have just made a classic "distinction without a difference."

I watched it again too, as I wasn't sure myself, and it doesn't seem that the mere mention of the gun changed the emotional state of the policeman. In those additional 3 seconds you mention, it is certainly plausible that Mr. Castile had more than enough time where he could have made a threatening gesture. Just so many unknowns.

This is what I saw, borrowing many of Jake's words.

The cop heard "gun" and stayed calm for several seconds.  Castile then [apparently] reached behind his back and the cop freaked out, which sadly, sealed Castile's fate.

86H13LTP70 reads

The officers sub conscience took over and pulled the weapon and fired . His conscience mind took control again when he realized what he did and that's when he freaked out.

that didn't have anything to do with pussy!  Seriously, thanks.

I have been in the very same situation as Castile multiple times, and the one thing I always did differently than Castile was to keep my hands on the wheel in plain sight as you suggest. That should be rule number one when dealing with LE. You can run your mouth, you can do a lot of things, but keeping your hands in plain sight is paramount.  That is of course assuming that Yanez is telling the truth in this regard.  

None of this of course excuses Yanez from emptying his service weapon into Castile.  

I don't know the answer to your question about disclosing the fact about having a firearm in your possession during a traffic stop, but I have always approached it with a common sense attitude. I don't mention it unless the officer asks me to do something like show my registration and proof of insurance and that to comply with his request I will be reaching into the same space where I have a firearm. I would rather tell a cop that it might be better that he retrieve my insurance card rather than surprise him if he sees a pistol right underneath those papers and having him think the worst.

Please go get some rope for hadji.  He desperately needs it.

This indeed was a tough case. I can understand why the family is upset but I don't see enough evidence to have found him guilty but I honestly don't know every detail of this case. Maybe the prosecutor overcharged the case? Either way, I agree I would not want the officer back on the street so we are in agreement on that count.

“Armed and dangerous” may be an exercise in redundancy  but it still matters to the Supreme Court.

           If the police stop you for a traffic violation and you tell them you are lawfully carrying when they ask for ID, the police can pull you out of the car, frisk you and remove your gun, even though they have no warrant, or probable cause to believe you have committed a crime  – a so-called Terry stop.  It makes no difference that the state has authorized you to carry. And they can use deadly force to protect themselves if they reasonably think you pose a risk of serious physical harm.

         So among the many other sins of concealed carry laws, the ones that require you to disclose force you to waive your Fourth Amendment rights. The Constitution prohibits the government from conditioning the grant of a benefit – the right to carry in public – on the waiver of a constitutional right. That is exactly what these laws do. So these laws are all bad.

We can't see what movements Castille made in the car.  His girlfriend isn't exactly an impartial witness and as such her testimony must be viewed with more circumspection than that by an impartial bystander type witness.

According to his statements after the shoot, Yanez says Castille appeared to be reaching to a gun and his grip was "wider than reaching for a wallet".  Thats just CYA cop bullshit.  Its obvious from this video that Yanez was inexperienced and badly trained.  Standard procedure is that once a driver says he has a gun, the officer is to immediately tell the driver to place both hands on the steering wheel, continuing keep his gun holstered but in hand as he takes a small step to his right, to lessen his target profile but to keep the driver's torso and hands in sight.  He then tells the driver to exit the vehicle and remain backwards with the officer behind him.  This technique is shown properly done when the girlfriend exits the vehicle.  I am of course not going to disclose why I know this because that would be TMI.   But I will say that former LAPD chief Tom Reddin (now deceased) told me thats the procedure.

Was it a good shoot?  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  But was it criminal?  Thats a different analysis altogether.  First of all, in a criminal case the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal culpability.  That is a heavy standard to meet especially in Police cases.  In the jury's mind, they're the good guys, right?

In criminal law there is the concept of "mens rea" which means a criminal state of mind in doing an act.  From the video, and Yanez's statements afterwards, it shows he did not have the mens rea to commit a criminal homicide. Think of it as you have to prove 100% of your case.   He simply  and clearly misperceived the events and acted with gross negligence.  Yanez's defense attorney did a good job getting that across.  It's abundantly clear that Yanez is an idiot cop who had no right to be on the job.  Its highly doubtful he will ever get to carry a gun in any official capacity again.  

But remember there is a civil case for damages, including punitive damages.  The burden there is "preponderence of the evidence."  Think of that as tipping the scale only 50.00000001%.  That video makes any civil attorney that does police cases cream his jeans because he know thats going to be a huge payday for him and his clients.  

The real tragedy in this case is the girlfriend and the child.  That was a severe and infinitely painful thing to witness and to endure the years of the personal aftermath.  There is a civil cause called Infliction of Emotional Distress arising from witnessing a terrible injury to another.  I don't know what the law in Minnesota is, but here in California, because they were not married, the girlfriend would not be able to claim that. The little girl, if she was Castille's  daughter, by blood or adoption only, would be able to collect.  Even though these two persons were the closest to him and loved him the most - they are screwed.

But sadly for the neocons on this board, changing the law to allow them to recover is a progressive concept and has always been strongly opposed by conservatives.   Just food for thought on perhaps moving your head.  

Mens rea is an element in basically all crimes.  Don't confuse it with motive.  Manslaughter is usually based on criminal negligence or recklessness which are levels of mens rea.  It's simply murder without malice or intent to kill.  Manslaughter and its various levels is defined differently in every state and I don't know what that is in Minnesota.  Second degree manslaughter there may be based on either or both.

So the mens rea in section 1 is found in the language "creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes them chance"...

Section 2 is an example of a strict liability crime, where mens  rea is not required.  You mistake a guy for being for a deer and kill him, you are automatically guilty of second degree manslaughter.  It's also an example of a Hillbilly Law.

86H13LTP48 reads

Radioing that he's pulling the car over because one of the people has a " broad nose " like bank robbers reported by witnesses.  So a broad nose which is common with the deceased ethnicity is grounds to pull the vehicle over ?  

...The cop was lying about the nose he couldn't see because he didn't want to give the chickenshit reason that Castile's brake light was not working.

... and likely a Trump voter because thats the only qualification.  My take is that he was either with his TO or was just put out on his own, but with a clearly senior partner.  Rookies drive.  So this thing started out with Yanez getting a hard on for the Castile vehicle.  He's young, stupid and has a general hard on for any kind of police work that doesn't involve driving.  So he says to his senior partner, "Let's do a Terry" on him.  (Google "Terry Stop") and the partner agrees to give the kid a chance at a real cop experience.  Big mistake.  The rest is tragic.

balller49 reads

it makes me think he was a lib

likely a Bernie supporter who killed those 2 guys in Portland

and the Scalise shooter

Does Bernie have his own para-military unit?

Register Now!