philando Castile verdict?

[Jmfox3]

Colion Noir, NRA spokesman, posted on Facebook and The Blaze but those won't be picked up by big media. Hopefully the NRA is being thoughtful and will come out with an official statement soon. Google 'Colion Noir Philando Castile'.

 

[JoeLiberty]

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.

 

[kingfhb]

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"?

I don't think this would happen to the average concealed carry holder... place your hands on the wheel, notify the officer immediately "I have a weapon, its on my blah blah side and it is loaded... if you'd like to disarm me I will comply however you choose". If the officer asks for license and insurance and you have to reach... you tell the officer where the license is. You can even ask to step out so that he can disarm you so you and he both feel more safe.

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.

One more thing... do I think the officer could have used restraint given the small child in the backseat? Possibly... Or even the female in the passenger seat. Where do you draw the line for an officer feeling threatened to be able to act? I do also disagree with the way the news is focusing on the video of the daughter in the patrol vehicle with her mother... it tugs on the heart strings, but it definitely makes you question the officer (even if normally you wouldn't have).

 

[JoeLiberty]

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"?

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!

he NEVER said "I am a concealed carry permit holder" or any such thing

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.

 

[Saintsfan6]

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.

I agree with you and kingfhb. Officer should have given him more specific direction and/or retreated toward the cruiser (gun equipped) to help reduce the chance of collateral damage. Castille should have kept his hands on the wheel and not moved an inch before, during or after stating he had a firearm and then waited for clear instructions from the officer. IMHO bad judgment on both sides. Do I think the officer feared for his life? It looked like it with the way he reacted, but I don't necessarily think the trigger should have been pulled. Sad story any way you slice it.

PS just armchair opinion here. Not saying I would have done anything different in his shoes. Hindsight and all.

 

[JoeLiberty]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Blue Diamond]

If u watch the video it is approximately 4 or 5 seconds between Mr. Castille informing the officer that he was armed and the officer open fired on him. A lot can happen in those 4/5 seconds.

 

[oleheat]

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.

 

[Saintsfan6]

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!

 

[oleheat]

Yeah being high on anything + carrying + traffic stop = nothing good!

Yep. Plus- demanding the NRA to perform NORML's job for them is asking a bit much.

 

[JCcypress]

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.

 

[JoeLiberty]

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.

We know his vehicle had a little stank to it. How do you 'know' someone is high?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...him-fear-for-his-life/?utm_term=.e1e8716cd884

Yanez says that the smell made him fear for his life. Good grief. I wouldn't be surprised if NORML did speak up too.

 

[RG43]

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.

 

[AustinBR]

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.

Well said, and a good summary of what went down and why he was not charged in my opinion.

 

[Coastie Paul]

First, the officer had charges brought on him by an activist DA (not by recommendation of a grand jury) 19 weeks after the shooting. Second, media fanned the flames (again) to drive the narrative that cops are just out to shoot black people in cold blood. Third, I don't know if a tail light and third brake light weren't working or not, but the driver matched the description of an armed robbery suspect from a robbery a few days before, so the cop wasn't sure who he might be pulling over. Fourth, I'm a white guy and even though I've only been pulled over twice in my life, I keep my hands in sight (one on the door, one on the wheel, with ID in one hand, dome lights on, etc. We'll never know what Philando Castille would have done for sure, but we've all seen the videos of folks surrounded by cops and still deciding to go for a gun.
I like the following website and their analysis. I discovered them during the Trayvon Martin case and they put the traditional media to shame. https://theconservativetreehouse.co...allet-positioned-underneath-visible-hand-gun/

 

[Coastie Paul]

the dash cam video
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ting-mom-dont-want-you-get-shooted/103099426/