Police Fatally Shoot Man During Traffic Stop, Aftermath Video Posted July 6, 2016 11:22 PM

[Smyth]

Thanks for posting that list, 777. Looking at the screen grabs at the link provided I see that some of the charges occurred at the same traffic stop. For example there are 5 charges on October 31, 2007 (#17 - #21 in your listing); 4 charges on July 29, 2008, 3 on March 12, 2008, 3 on May 2, 2008, etc. The guy drove without a license and didn't use a seat belt. In Smyth's world that is being a thug.

Those aren't the reasons Castile was pulled over. You don't get pulled over for driving without a license and probably not for not using a seat belt. You get pulled over for moving violations and for a car that is public hazard (broken tail light). The items in that list are just what Castile was charged with, which are mostly are either the lessor offense (cops playing) like a seat-built violation instead of a speeding ticket, or an indisputable offense, like driving on suspended licence instead of a failure to yield ticket.

Castile was stopped over 50 times, which nearly means over 50 times he was a danger or nuisance to the public. And, to get pulled over so frequently shows that he flaunted the law and public interests daily.

 

[carpro]

What really got me was the detached uncaring attitude of the woman in the video. Weird, to say the least. Looks like the police officer may be in trouble here, if we have the whole story.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Smyth]

What really got me was the detached uncaring attitude of the woman in the video. Weird, to say the least. Looks like the police officer may be in trouble here, if we have the whole story.

The GF did seemed detached, or at least too comfortable with what had happened. Someone might say she didn't know how hurt he was. Uh, several bullets and point-blank-range is very likely fetal. And, now the GF is really pimping the shooting.

The Hispanic officer will lose his job, a sacrifice to the lynch mob. He might be tried, but he won't be convicted. He was confronted by a hostile man who reached toward a gun in the front waistband of his pants. There's plenty of reasonable doubt that the officer acted with criminal negligence or intent.

I hope here's a cruiser dashcam video with some audio. Investigators will looking to how Castile handled other of his many encounters with the police. Someone who's been pulled over 50 times is going to be make himself hostile to any officer trying to deal with him, and there will be witnesses to prove it. They'll contradict the GF's story about Castile's behavior. What the public knows right now is not enough to convict, and all we don't know will favor the officer.

But, if the Hispanic officer can be shown to have acted in a criminal manner, he'll be convicted, without any need for a lynch mob to make it happen.

 

[TCassidy]

You continue to work against your position that the brown (not white) officer acted out of racism.

Please don't lie about what I said. I did not say and don't believe officer Yanez acted out of racism. I believe he fell victim to a well known phenomenon known as the cross-race effect.

Congratulations, you've just acquitted officer Yanez.

I wasn't aware he was on trial. Nor that I was engaged in either his prosecution or defense. I'm not. Maybe if you would stop trying to fix the blame you could offer something that might help fix the problem.

Your own testimony is that the officer didn't act out of racism, but was just going to question someone who looked like a wanted criminal.

Correct. He gave no indication he acted out of racism. He fell victim to the cross-race effect and stopped Castile because of a trait he shared with 95% of the African American community without realizing his bias.

 

[TCassidy]

What really got me was the detached uncaring attitude of the woman in the video. Weird, to say the least. Looks like the police officer may be in trouble here, if we have the whole story.

That perception may be due to the video having been edited. If you watch/listen to the entire video you will note that, at the time, she though Castile had only been shot in the arm. Later, when she found out he had been shot in the chest and was not going to survive she broke down into hysterics.

I have seen before what some law enforcement professionals called the "deathly calm" people display when faced with a terrible event. They appear deathly calm, but that is a result of the adrenaline overload. When that adrenaline overload wears off they usually collapse, just as Reynolds did later in the video. (And which Officer Yanez showed signs of doing too.)

As to whether or not Officer Yanez is going to be found criminally culpable is up in the air. If I were on his shooting review board (and I admit to a strong pro-law enforcement bias) I would find the shooting (with the information we now have) to be not justified, but also that Officer Yanez was not criminally culpable of wrong doing. It was a rapidly moving set of very tragic circumstances that ended badly for everybody.

 

[InTheLight]

Those aren't the reasons Castile was pulled over. You don't get pulled over for driving without a license and probably not for not using a seat belt.

In Minnesota you do get pulled over for not using a seat belt. After being cited for it so many times, it is likely that he DID get pulled over by officers to check and see if he had obtained a driver's license. (What is up with not getting your driver's license renewed?)

You get pulled over for moving violations and for a car that is public hazard (broken tail light).

There are only three of these types of violations listed--speeding twice, and lack of muffler, once.

The items in that list are just what Castile was charged with, which are mostly are either the lessor offense (cops playing) like a seat-built violation instead of a speeding ticket, or an indisputable offense, like driving on suspended licence instead of a failure to yield ticket.

So now you are determining the police intent from a remote location. That's a neat skill. Defense attorneys might find it useful.

Castile was stopped over 50 times, which nearly means over 50 times he was a danger or nuisance to the public. And, to get pulled over so frequently shows that he flaunted the law and public interests daily.

Just stop it with the "he was stopped over 50 times." Looking at the list 777 posted, in Ramsey County I see 20 stops that resulted in 45 violations. In Dakota County 1 violation and in Hennepin County I see 9 violations. At most that is 30 times being stopped. And look at #42-#45 on the list. Those are parking violations, meaning he wasn't pulled over.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rippon]

As to whether or not Officer Yanez is going to be found criminally culpable is up in the air. If I were on his shooting review board (and I admit to a strong pro-law enforcement bias) I would find the shooting (with the information we now have) to be not justified, but also that Officer Yanez was not criminally culpable of wrong doing. It was a rapidly moving set of very tragic circumstances that ended badly for everybody.

You did not see the entire thing. You have no basis to make a review. What transpired before the video we have is vital. Just about everyone is jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in.

 

[TCassidy]

You did not see the entire thing. You have no basis to make a review. What transpired before the video we have is vital. Just about everyone is jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in.

What part of (with the information we now have) didn't I make clear enough?

 

[777]

No, there are too many holes in her story:

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/...ng-investigation-uncovers-explosive-evidence/

It's her credibility I question, her story makes NO sense, now it turns out the taillight wasn't even broken at all.

Then she says she was too scared to film the shooting until after he was shot, but then, didn't he still have his gun? And this Diamond person was arrested, so why did they let her keep this cellphone? It's evidence, and exactly where is the CCW and why won't the family release it?

 

[TCassidy]

now it turns out the taillight wasn't even broken at all.

It was broken but had been repaired with red transparent tape making it legal and not probable cause for a stop. The audio makes it pretty clear he was making the stop due to a suspicion the driver resembled the armed robbery subject. (Which opens an entirely new discussion about cross-racial ID and how difficult it can be.)

And this Diamond person was arrested, so why did they let her keep this cellphone?

She was more likely detained as a material witness. Once she made her statement she was released. In such cases most detainees are not deprived of phones or other possessions with the obvious exception of weapons.

It's evidence, and exactly where is the CCW and why won't the family release it?

The phone was probably held as evidence. The video was uploaded to the cloud so was available to her using other devices.

And it has been confirmed that he had a CCW issued by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office when he was a resident of that county.

The most probable reason nobody is talking is that they have all lawyered up. The officer to protect him from prosecution and Mz. Reynolds in case she decides to file a civil suit (although there is some question of standing unless the child proves to be his).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

So, here you have a black male with a history of minor traffic violations (I don't recall any DWIs or other violation of that stature) pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black). He had the proper permits to legally carry. I assume the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office doesn't had out carry permits to thugs.

To me, the incident it the fruit of the shift in post WW2 law enforcement. I see a shift from the beat cop keeping the peace to the mobile cop in a car acting as an occupier. LAPD under Parker and Gates was an example of this mode of policing.

 

[777]

Oh, I bet he was racially profiled in some of those gadzillion stops, but his license was revoked and he shouldn't have ever put himself into this situation. And I later saw that they did grab the cellphone for evidence. kept it, then released her.

But did he have a CCW? Every site takes you right back to:

http://www.startribune.com/philando-castile-had-permit-to-carry-gun/386054481/

when they claim an unnamed source said so. But the county sheriff where he was currently living in went out of his way to point out THEY didn't issue any CCW to this guy:

Mr. Castile never applied for a permit to carry with our office.

Therefore we did not issue his permit.

The wording here implies to me that he DID have a permit, but not issued by them or they could be saying "we didn't issue this non-existing permit".

This would boost Castille's case if they released a CCW, but is there one? I hope Diamond herself isn't the "unnamed source".

The LEO account is off, too, so this cop thought Philando resembled some armed robbery suspect? He said "they" looked like the two, especially Castille because he had the same "wide-set nose". How did he confuse Diamond with a black guy and the other two DID resemble each other to me, particularly with those glasses. And then why did this cop just stroll up to the car if he was so worried they were armed and dangerous?

 

[Smyth]

It's a sad state all around. Obviously, the video starts after he has been shot; so now we have a he said/she said situation. The girlfriend says that he was reaching for his information that the officer requested, while in the video the officer says, "I told him not to reach for it". Does anyone have any more information on what happened prior to the shooting?

Every video I've ever seen a cop shooting the suspect, the suspect was uncooperative. And, when guns are involved, any hesitation by the cop, any second chances he gives the suspect, is at the risk of the officer's own life.

I have no doubt that Castile was uncooperative, as that is the universal pattern and the only motive for the officer to shoot. The officer told him not to reach for it. Yeah, Castile looked harmless after he was shot, but before he was shot, it doesn't take much to think that Castile was belligerent, given that he had already been stopped over 50 times -- Castile's motivation, even more so if the tail light wasn't broken.

The officer should have the presumption of innocence. And, the preponderance of evidence is on his side.

Now, to me, saying someone has a "wide set nose" does not mean pulling them over because they're black. Maybe it's just because I got used to having almost zero racism in the Army, but when you describe someone, it's not racist to use features like, "black" or "large nose" or something along those lines.

If Castile fit the description of a criminal, that doesn't make the officer racist to notice that Castile fit the description. And, yes, I've seen people try to describe a black person without mentioning race. It's hilarious and sad. I don't know if that was the case here. It could be that they were just narrowing down what the black person looked like. Some have wider noses than others.

No one should go out like that. For what it's worth, in the video it sounded as if the officer was genuinely sorry for what happened.

The, the officer didn't act like the racist assassin the Left pretends him to be. The GF, on the other hand, looked like she was already calculating before the video started how to spin events against the officer.

The Left invents racism as a motive because the officer had no motive but self-defense.

 

[Rippon]

What part of (with the information we now have) didn't I make clear enough?

You would not be able to make a determination because you don't have enough information as of now.

 

[Sapper Woody]

One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that the "victim" (I used quotes because we don't know yet if he was a victim, or if it was justified) is not on trial here. As sad as it is, what is done is done. The police officer will likely be on trial, and those on trial are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, unless and until evidence comes out that proves beyond doubt that the officer acted with malicious intent, we are to assume his innocence.

The history of the victim does not paint him in a good light, however; and this brings more doubt into the intentions of the police officer. So, the history of Castile is relevant. He doesn't have a violent history, however; and that helps him look better. But the fact is, his history shows that he didn't care about the law. Driving on a suspended/revoked license several times alone proves this.

Now, the subject of whether or not he had a permit to carry the gun is irrelevant, at least in light of the fact that the weapon may have been in plain sight of the officer in his waistband. In the pictures released showing the gun in his waistband, I'm not convinced that it is a gun that people are pointing to. It could be, but I'm not an expert on low resolution pictures.

I can't speak to the acting of the girlfriend, other than to say in a super high stress situation like that a person will often go into a calm state. Many of you can relate to this if you are hunters, as you are about to shoot a deer (unless you get the yips!). And those of us who have been in firefights can relate easily.

In a situation like this, we must allow the system to do its job, and not place blame on one party or the other before all the evidence is released. On this board, we have two extremes; one that says this was a racially charged shooting due to a systemic racism inherent in the system, and the other that says that Castile was a thug that deserved what he got. Who's right? Maybe neither side. Maybe this was negligence. Maybe it was a misunderstanding and Castile was complying while the officer thought he wasn't. My point is, one or both sides are going to have egg on their face.

The old adage "look before you leap" also applies to conclusions.

 

[Crabtownboy]

An armed petty thug that gets off on harassing police finally took a bullet. After being pulled over 50+ times (i.e. he flaunts the law daily) in his young adult life, the only question, what took so long for him to get shot? The police do a remarkably good job given the provocation they face daily by thugs.

He was pulled over for a broken tail light, not for being black.

In what way was he harassing the policeman?

 

[Smyth]

It's her credibility I question, her story makes NO sense, now it turns out the taillight wasn't even broken at all.

A broken tail light could mean that it didn't light up at night, not necessarily that the plastic cover is cracked. It's frustrating that authorities aren't more forthcoming with evidenced in this and other cases. Just have someone look to see if the tail light is lit when the head lights are on and then tell the public. What's the problem with that?

Why cant they tell us where the gun was. Was it in his lap? Was it in a holster? (I agree, it's better to error on withholding evidence until the witnesses are questioned.)

I'm curious as to why the GF didn't start recording until after the shooting. Obviously, she's very phone savvy, able to live-stream a video, even under the stress of having her BF shot several times. I'd think she'd want the whole thing on video from the start. But, maybe it didn't start in a manner she wanted to film.

There's no way the officer-of-color will be convicted. I doubt he'll even be tried. He did nothing wrong. Too bad his career has ended over a petty thug with a gun.

 

[TCassidy]

You would not be able to make a determination because you don't have enough information as of now.

Of course I can. In fact, I did!

 

[TCassidy]

Driving on a suspended/revoked license several times alone proves this.

Minnesota law has a provision that allows a person with a suspended license to drive directly to and from a place of employment. It is likely the tickets for driving under suspension were written when he was driving to or from work but the burden of proof was on him to convince the judge of that. If he could not, or was not, then he would have been found guilty of the minor offense.

Now, the subject of whether or not he had a permit to carry the gun is irrelevant, at least in light of the fact that the weapon may have been in plain sight of the officer in his waistband.

It wasn't.

I can't speak to the acting of the girlfriend, other than to say in a super high stress situation like that a person will often go into a calm state.

Agreed. But I still detect more than just a bit of premeditated self interest in her actions.

In a situation like this, we must allow the system to do its job, and not place blame on one party or the other before all the evidence is released.

Agreed again. As with virtually all such issues the radical fringe on either side seldom proves to be correct. The truth invariably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Smyth]

Minnesota law has a provision that allows a person with a suspended license to drive directly to and from a place of employment. It is likely the tickets for driving under suspension were written when he was driving to or from work but the burden of proof was on him to convince the judge of that. If he could not, or was not, then he would have been found guilty of the minor offense.

I don't see any acquittals on his record. He must not have been driving to work. And, again, no one is stopped for driving on suspended or revoked licences. They're pulled over for moving violations and for cars that safety hazards (e.g. broke tail light).

Agreed again. As with virtually all such issues the radical fringe on either side seldom proves to be correct. The truth invariably lies somewhere in the middle.

The officer shot a man he believed was reaching for a gun. Race had nothing to do with it. There's nothing radical about that notion.