Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i believe the gun should be pointed at a cop before they can take a shot, instead of cop killing people in their front seat and claimes yes he had a gun.
Pointed, no. I would not obligate anyone to wait until a gun is actually leveled at him. There is a gray area where a gun is seen in hand--that could be situational, depending on other aspects of the situation.
Gun visible but not in hand (in a state where carry is legal)--depends on whether the person is at that point in compliance with the officer.
There was a case where a Florida officer asked a driver to step out of his vehicle. The driver was licensed to carry concealed, but the officer was triggered when he saw the man's shirt hang on his holstered gun as he stepped out.
Considering that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed, was any other verdict possible?
That's actually a great question that needs a lot of further evaluation.
Truth be told, I didn't want Yanez locked up for being criminally stupid. To me, locking him up upon a guilty verdict would've been mean spirited. Obviously, he didn't premeditate killing someone that day.
I wanted him found guilty so that accountability could and would be assigned to someone for Castile's death. He's the only logical choice because he pulled the trigger. As it stands now, Castile was murdered by a ghost somewhere out in the ether, and no one is accountable for it. That's unacceptable and abhorrent to me and should be to all Americans.
For me, convicting Yanez is the best choice out of a bunch of bad alternatives. And it also has the extra benefit of keeping him away from a badge for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, he can probably move and get another law enforcement job as soon as this controversy dies down in a few years.
The thought of him riding around in a cop car again is unfathomable to me, but some desperate department will hire him. Believe that.
That's actually a great question that needs a lot of further evaluation.
Truth be told, I didn't want Yanez locked up for being criminally stupid. To me, locking him up upon a guilty verdict would've been mean spirited. Obviously, he didn't premeditate killing someone that day.
I wanted him found guilty so that accountability could and would be assigned to someone for Castile's death. He's the only logical choice because he pulled the trigger. As it stands now, Castile was murdered by a ghost somewhere out in the ether, and no one is accountable for it. That's unacceptable and abhorrent to me and should be to all Americans.
For me, convicting Yanez is the best choice out of a bunch of bad alternatives. And it also has the extra benefit of keeping him away from a badge for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, he can probably move and get another law enforcement job as soon as this controversy dies down in a few years.
The thought of him riding around in a cop car again is unfathomable to me, but some desperate department will hire him. Believe that.
In a military court-martial, the jury panel is able to say, "They didn't prove that crime, but they did prove this lesser crime."
Keep in your mind that the prosecutor's closing statement was that
“Officer Yanez used deadly force as a first option rather than a last resort.”
To convict, a jury would have to believe that a veteran police officer simply walked up to a car and shot a man without seeing any threats. The jury would have to believe that it was simply a coincidence that the same place the Officer Yanez said he saw a gun, a gun was present and that same jury would have to believe that all of that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I can understand why the Juries found him "not guilty" for killing Castile.
This said,
I have to say, Yanez killed a guy who perhaps misunderstood his command. We have to admit there is a problem.
The saddest part is that he was so respectful in how he disclosed that he had that firearm,He said "sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me. " He went beyond what the law requires. He was compliant. He wasn’t resisting.
Castile's weapon was on the same side as his ID. It doesn't matter if he didn't "intend" to grab the gun, he was told not once, not twice but three times, each time with increasing urgency, not to "reach for it".
Common sense dictates that you stop reaching for anything until further instruction. Why he didn't stop is anyone's guess, maybe his judgement was impaired because he was high or it was plain ineptitude.
The officer was very calm the first time he issued a command to stop. In fact, the way he says it implies that he was in disbelief that Castile would actually reach over to grab anything after just having disclosed the fact that he was armed. You know, the tone if voice one uses when someone says or does something really foolish.
If anything, I believe more "training" is needed for people who take on the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon, legally, living in a high crime area.
In my opinion, the recording only strengthened Yanez's claims.
With Officer Yunez on the job, Castile died the moment he made his disclosure because at that point there was no act that he could take that would not have resulted in his being shot. So, whatever training Yunez received was clearly not effective on any level.
well, correct me if I am wrong here, officers should draw their weapons and command the suspect to drop their gun and get on the ground. The dialogue that happens between an officer and the suspect is what some experts call the most important aspect of police work.
If the suspect complies, one officer should then search the suspect for any additional weapons while the other officer still has his or her gun drawn. If a concealed weapon is found, officers should place cuffs on the suspect.
This is how they trained to handle an armed suspect. In another word, even if the suspect was armed, you don't shoot him/her immediately.
Castile did not even hold a gun in his hand.
I understand that officer-involved shootings are all about an officer's perception of danger, which can be a tricky thing to gauge. I don't think Yanez was a racist, to me, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that he showed signs of poor deadly force training and that is the scarier part.
Castile's weapon was on the same side as his ID. It doesn't matter if he didn't "intend" to grab the gun, he was told not once, not twice but three times, each time with increasing urgency, not to "reach for it".
Common sense dictates that you stop reaching for anything until further instruction. Why he didn't stop is anyone's guess, maybe his judgement was impaired because he was high or it was plain ineptitude.
The officer was very calm the first time he issued a command to stop. In fact, the way he says it implies that he was in disbelief that Castile would actually reach over to grab anything after just having disclosed the fact that he was armed. You know, the tone if voice one uses when someone says or does something really foolish.
If anything, I believe more "training" is needed for people who take on the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon, legally, living in a high crime area.
In my opinion, the recording only strengthened Yanez's claims.
I don't know that Castile was reaching for a gun just because Yanez said that's what he was doing. He told Castile to get his ID. In the girlfriend's video, she clearly told the officer that "you told him to get his ID," and Yanez didn't issue a rebuttal. You can't get your ID without actually moving.
Nah, the cop was criminally negligent. Clueless, and shouldn't be wearing a badge.
It's kind of interesting that in addition to NRA, the gun-oriented press and forums are also absolutely silent on this issue. In most cases of an African-American killed by police, those groups would be immediately supporting court exoneration of the police. In this case...crickets chirping.
The NRA believes in two sets of standards for gun ownership. One for whites, and one for everyone else.
That's what their silence says. Personally, I already knew that African Americans don't have Second Amendment rights. Been knowing it for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
In a military court-martial, the jury panel is able to say, "They didn't prove that crime, but they did prove this lesser crime."
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,338 posts, read 7,109,569 times
Reputation: 9487
I just love how anti-Philando folks keep saying "Philando should've done this, Philando should've done that," as if Castile is supposed to follow the steps in his "how to survive being pulled over" trainee handbook.
Yanez is the one who has trained for tense, dangerous situations, and was trusted to uphold the law and keep people safe. Castile was just some guy who got pulled over.
But people keep saying what Castile did wrong, as if its his fault he's dead. Saying that Castile could've done more to not get himself killed, as if he was expecting the jumpy cop with bad nerves and poor judgement to suddenly pull out his service pistol and dump half a magazine into him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
