Officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty

[Paranoid Android]

This Just In: Dashcam video of officer Yanez.

http://www.startribune.com/case-file...day/429659263/

Its some bullshit where you have to click through site. But continue on.

[ParanoiD84]

This Just In: Dashcam video of officer Yanez.

http://www.startribune.com/case-file...day/429659263/

Its some bullshit where you have to click through site. But continue on.

Sounds like he went for the gun when the officer told him not to reach for it.

[Ghostpanther]

This Just In: Dashcam video of officer Yanez.

http://www.startribune.com/case-file...day/429659263/

Its some bullshit where you have to click through site. But continue on.

After watching that video, while it is still hard to see what Castile was doing, I can see why the jury could not convict the officer for any crime. There cannot be any question of reasonable innocence if you are going to find them guilty.

[Paranoid Android]

I now found just the video so you can ignore the newspaper link.

[Endus]

Sounds like he went for the gun when the officer told him not to reach for it.

"Sounds like" is a terrible measure to use. Especially when the officer says "well, don't pull it out then", and Castile clearly and calmly replies "I'm NOT pulling it out" and then the officer starts screaming and shooting. There's no aggression or hostility in Castile's voice at all, not even annoyance at being pulled over. He tried to inform the officer calmly, the officer freaked out and rather than try and regain control, he just started shooting.

I was kind of assuming, not having seen the dashcam, that there was at least a little more back-and-forth, but this seems ridiculous. Reason for the officer to draw and back off so he's got a good shot on the guy, maybe, but actually shooting him? I don't have any clue what the jury was thinking.

Unless there was solid evidence that Castile was a stone-cold killer who was lying and actually was pulling the gun, and the cop saw this, I don't see how the cop's story holds up. He may have been reaching for SOMETHING, but the officer never instructed him to put his hands on the wheel or anything. Just to "stop reaching for *it*", and Castile clearly told the officer calmly that he wasn't. Unless the cop had visual confirmation to contradict that, I don't see it.

[Ghostpanther]

"Sounds like" is a terrible measure to use. Especially when the officer says "well, don't pull it out then", and Castile clearly and calmly replies "I'm NOT pulling it out" and then the officer starts screaming and shooting. There's no aggression or hostility in Castile's voice at all, not even annoyance at being pulled over. He tried to inform the officer calmly, the officer freaked out and rather than try and regain control, he just started shooting.

I was kind of assuming, not having seen the dashcam, that there was at least a little more back-and-forth, but this seems ridiculous. Reason for the officer to draw and back off so he's got a good shot on the guy, maybe, but actually shooting him? I don't have any clue what the jury was thinking.

Well clearly not what you are thinking. Barring some other info I am not aware of, I would not have been able to convict the officer. There is still the possibility the juries knew more than we do.

[Endus]

After watching that video, while it is still hard to see what Castile was doing, I can see why the jury could not convict the officer for any crime. There cannot be any question of reasonable innocence if you are going to find them guilty.

If the officer is insisting he saw Castile drawing the weapon, and the scene did not confirm or contradict that, then I could see reasonable doubt at least, but it's a far cry from "the officer is totes in the right". It's more "the cop probably murdered the guy, but we can't prove it beyond the reasonable doubt standard".

[ParanoiD84]

"Sounds like" is a terrible measure to use. Especially when the officer says "well, don't pull it out then", and Castile clearly and calmly replies "I'm NOT pulling it out" and then the officer starts screaming and shooting. There's no aggression or hostility in Castile's voice at all, not even annoyance at being pulled over. He tried to inform the officer calmly, the officer freaked out and rather than try and regain control, he just started shooting.

I was kind of assuming, not having seen the dashcam, that there was at least a little more back-and-forth, but this seems ridiculous. Reason for the officer to draw and back off so he's got a good shot on the guy, maybe, but actually shooting him? I don't have any clue what the jury was thinking.

Unless there was solid evidence that Castile was a stone-cold killer who was lying and actually was pulling the gun, and the cop saw this, I don't see how the cop's story holds up. He may have been reaching for SOMETHING, but the officer never instructed him to put his hands on the wheel or anything. Just to "stop reaching for *it*", and Castile clearly told the officer calmly that he wasn't. Unless the cop had visual confirmation to contradict that, I don't see it.

Well if they had cameras on the cops so we could see the actual shooting inside the car it would be easier, though the guy smoking marijuana infront of his 5 year old child does not make me think he was clear in his head at the time so who knows , maby his brain didnt think he was reaching but when in reality he did.

[Endus]

Well clearly not what you are thinking. Barring some other info I am not aware of, I would not have been able to convict the officer. There is still the possibility the juries knew more than we do.

Right, see above. I'm willing to acknowledge reasonable doubt, I've mostly been taking issue with the "totally legit action by the cop" posters here.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if they had cameras on the cops so we could see the actual shooting inside the car it would be easier, though the guy smoking marijuana infront of his 5 year old child does not make me think he was clear in his head at the time so who knows.

Marijuana also doesn't exactly make you aggressive and hostile. If anything, while driving under the influence is bad, it means it's less likely Castile did anything that deserved shooting.

[Ghostpanther]

If the officer is insisting he saw Castile drawing the weapon, and the scene did not confirm or contradict that, then I could see reasonable doubt at least, but it's a far cry from "the officer is totes in the right". It's more "the cop probably murdered the guy, but we can't prove it beyond the reasonable doubt standard".

That is fair. So you agree it is not right to convict someone of a crime if you are not reasonably sure they are guilty.

[Endus]

That is fair. So you agree it is not right to convict someone of a crime if you are not reasonably sure they are guilty.

Of course. I'm not gonna demand the officer be locked up. A conviction depends on the evidence, or lack thereof. As much as I think "bad cops" need to face the strongest penalties when they break the law themselves, I don't agree with abandoning basic principles in pursuing that, like presumption of innocence (by the courts, I'll emphasize) nor lowering the standard of proof.

The shooting looks all kinds of hinky. Could the defense have established reasonable doubt? Sure. Does that make this shooting not-hinky? Absolutely not; it just means the cop gets away with it. Better for a guilty party to get away with it, than an innocent go to jail.

But can we stop pretending this was standard procedure? It clearly wasn't. Yanez may not be guilty of homicide, but he's been fired from the force over this.

[Paranoid Android]

Well if they had cameras on the cops so we could see the actual shooting inside the car it would be easier, though the guy smoking marijuana infront of his 5 year old child does not make me think he was clear in his head at the time so who knows , maby his brain didnt think he was reaching but when in reality he did.

Or maybe the cop firing 7 rounds if a fairly reckless matter into a care with a kid. But you just want to point out the marijuana smoke, huh?

[ParanoiD84]

Right, see above. I'm willing to acknowledge reasonable doubt, I've mostly been taking issue with the "totally legit action by the cop" posters here.

- - - Updated - - -



Marijuana also doesn't exactly make you aggressive and hostile. If anything, while driving under the influence is bad, it means it's less likely Castile did anything that deserved shooting.

Well from personal experience with smoking along time i sometimes do funny stuff like taking out my keys and lay them on the counter when i should have taking out my credit card to pay for whatever i was buying, maby he did reach for it but didnt think about it as he was stoned as fuck. My point had nothing to do with being agressive just him being being stoned and didnt think right, also wasnt he a convicted fellon? maby that's why the cops where extra careful.

- - - Updated - - -

Or maybe the cop firing 7 rounds if a fairly reckless matter into a care with a kid. But you just want to point out the marijuana smoke, huh?

It may have been a reason you know as you dont always think right when stoned.

[Paranoid Android]

Of course. I'm not gonna demand the officer be locked up. A conviction depends on the evidence, or lack thereof. As much as I think "bad cops" need to face the strongest penalties when they break the law themselves, I don't agree with abandoning basic principles in pursuing that, like presumption of innocence (by the courts, I'll emphasize) nor lowering the standard of proof.

The shooting looks all kinds of hinky. Could the defense have established reasonable doubt? Sure. Does that make this shooting not-hinky? Absolutely not; it just means the cop gets away with it. Better for a guilty party to get away with it, than an innocent go to jail.

But can we stop pretending this was standard procedure? It clearly wasn't. Yanez may not be guilty of homicide, but he's been fired from the force over this.

It is basically the standard of the way the law is written which basically states; "if an officer feels threatened he can use deadly force." I mean that has such a wide scope. What officer in a trial is going to say; "I didn't feel he was a threat but opened fire" or "Yeah, I profiled this person because of X, so I opened fire".

[I Push Buttons]

This Just In: Dashcam video of officer Yanez.

http://www.startribune.com/case-file...day/429659263/

Its some bullshit where you have to click through site. But continue on.

Funny how the number one argument in this thread against the officer this whole time was "He wasn't reaching for the gun, he was reaching for his ID!"...

You can clearly see in this footage he had already handed the officer his ID...

[Paranoid Android]

It may have been a reason you know as you dont always think right when stoned.

LOL! WTF! The cop was stoned? That is what you are saying.

[Ghostpanther]

Of course. I'm not gonna demand the officer be locked up. A conviction depends on the evidence, or lack thereof. As much as I think "bad cops" need to face the strongest penalties when they break the law themselves, I don't agree with abandoning basic principles in pursuing that, like presumption of innocence (by the courts, I'll emphasize) nor lowering the standard of proof.

The shooting looks all kinds of hinky. Could the defense have established reasonable doubt? Sure. Does that make this shooting not-hinky? Absolutely not; it just means the cop gets away with it. Better for a guilty party to get away with it, than an innocent go to jail.

But can we stop pretending this was standard procedure? It clearly wasn't. Yanez may not be guilty of homicide, but he's been fired from the force over
this.

I think it could have turned out better for sure. Yet the thing which sticks in my mind is hestitation can get you killed and just one second can make a difference between life and death. He was fired, but was that more from his handling of the incident or a public image issue? *shrugs.

[ParanoiD84]

LOL! WTF! The cop was stoned? That is what you are saying.

Oh yeah the cop was stoned, did you just miss everyting i just wrote here? use some common sense perhaps?

[McFuu]

I don't know if we can read anywhere, an official report of what was going on in the car. But the cop tells him 3 times, don't reach for it, don't pull it out. So I'm assuming he was doing something questionable in the car.
And then after the shooting he had to be told again to not reach for it. So whether he was doing something else in the car that was misunderstood or he was actually reaching for the gun, it's really hard to tell what happened. Regardless the cops reaction after the shooting and the doubt surrounding why it occurred, there is plenty of reason to believe this wasn't a malicious act.

[Endus]

also wasnt he a convicted fellon? maby that's why the cops where extra careful.

Nope. Nothing worse than traffic tickets/violations in his legal history.

Funny how the number one argument in this thread against the officer this whole time was "He wasn't reaching for the gun, he was reaching for his ID!"...

You can clearly see in this footage he had already handed the officer his ID...

The argument was that he was reaching for something, not the gun. He gave the officer something he was looking at; that may have been ID, but you usually need to provide registration papers too, he may keep them separate; mine are in my wallet but I know a lot of people keep them in the glove compartment or some other nook in the car. Or maybe he was scratching an itch on his back.

Fact is he clearly and calmly told Yanez he was NOT reaching for the weapon, and then Yanez shot him.