Strange that nobody in the thread has mentioned ol' Phil was smoking pot and CCW'ing. Pretty sure the two are mutually exclusive legally.
Even so, this still seems like something that could happen to the average concealed carrier. That's the scary part. A little miscommunication and bang you're dead.
Concealed carriers are supposed to be trained on how to interact with LEO, but does anyone know how much training LEO get on interacting with legal carriers? Honestly asking.
I must just be looking at this wrong... I don't see an officer giving a command several times of "Don't reach for it" and the other party not complying as a "little miscommunication". He acknowledged that the party said he "had a weapon on him" and even said "Okay"... he NEVER said "I am a concealed carry permit holder" or any such thing... Then he starts to reach, disobeying the officers commands to stop.
I could just be missing something, but how is this different than any other instance I have read about here where everyone jumps back and says "JUST LISTEN WHEN THE OFFICER GIVES YOU DIRECTION"?
Yeah, that's also a communication problem.he NEVER said "I am a concealed carry permit holder" or any such thing
What you are missing is the officer's exact choice of words.
Because Philando may have been thinking "OK, duh, I am not going to pull out my gun, I'm not stupid", and kept trying to get his wallet... like anyone would during a traffic stop... like the officer told him to do. (I think he was already trying to get his wallet when he said 'firearm'.) Had the officer said 'let me see your hands', or 'freeze', or 'hands on the steering wheel', or 'stop what you are doing', that would have been clear, and he might have complied. When the officer said 'don't pull [the gun] out', he likely was complying with that specific order.
I guess he should have known when the cop said 'it', referring to the gun, that it ALSO meant his wallet or ID or any other thing. Sounds like my wife, lol. I'm not a mind reader, lady. Tell me what you want!
Yeah, that's also a communication problem.
To be clear, I don't think the jury made the wrong decision, I think the whole situation sucks and either one of them could have avoided this. It would have been easier for Mr. Castille to avoid this, but officer Yanez's communication probably also contributed.
Agreed.There was a LOT more that could have been done here... I can blame both parties, but I can't see just dumping the blame on the officer.
That likely contributed to Castile's inability to follow orders, but it doesn't exclusively mean he should have been shot to death.
I could definitely see where it would answer your question as to why the NRA isn't jumping in on this, though.
Yeah being high on anything + carrying + traffic stop = nothing good!
Do we know that he was "high" or did he just have THC in his system?
There's a huge difference, as it is not unusual for THC to remain in the body for up to (and beyond) 30 days after last use.
Here's the video from the police car:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/21/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam-llr-orig.cnn
A couple of things that haven't been mentioned here yet. First, he wasn't just pulled over because of the tailight, but also because he fit the description from a recent robbery. This means the policeman was unsure of who he had pulled over and didn't know if he was a criminal (not that they ever do). Second, Castile wasn't a legal CCW permit holder as it had expired, plus with the pot in the car he was clearly not carrying legally. The policeman didn't know he was a CCW permit holder or not, so that's not terribly relevant, but is a point that seems to be brought up a lot, sort of as support that he is law abiding, when he wasn't.
As others have said, you tell the LEO straight away you are CCW holder and keep your hands on the wheel, follow his instructions. Castile did none of those things. Watch the video. The officer approaches the car, tells him why he pulled him over (tailight) and asks for DL & Insurance. Castile hands him something (insurance, apparently), and then tells the LEO about the gun, at which point the LEO immediately tells him don't reach for it (whatever 'it' is, doesn't matter). From what the Yankee Marshall said, sounds like he was reaching for his seat belt to get to his wallet maybe? But with the LEO now aware there is a gun, and the driver not following his instructions to "not reach", I don't see how the LEO can be held responsible. Castile was effectively illegally carrying a weapon (because of the pot in the car) and didn't follow his instructions. When the girlfriend said "you told him to give you his ID" that was before he was told there was a gun. Everything changed in that moment, but Castile didn't follow instructions and as a (past) CCW holder didn't follow protocol.
Was this incident unfortunate? Very. Was it unjustified? From the LEO perspective in the moment, I have to say he felt justified in the moment and per the law that is enough. Could he have handled it better? Certainly, and he probably will never work on the street again, which he might not have been suited for anyway. But with the evidence we have, I don't think he can be held responsible in a criminal court. In a civil court, probably another matter. And in that respect, I agree with the YM video that the LE need to keep in mind their job is to serve and protect, not dominate. I think his point about focus on de-escalating rather than dominating might be valid and relevant to these situations. But, I'm not an LEO nor have any real idea what it's like to be one. So my perspective is from the point of a citizen, a law abiding one.