Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Police officer who shot Philando Castile found not guilty
Source:
thehill.com
URL Source: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby ... astile-found-not-guilty-report
Published: Jun 16, 2017
Author: John Bowden
Post Date: 2017-06-16 17:09:44 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 12006
Comments: 55
Minnesota police officer who was charged with manslaughter after he shot a black motorist five times during a traffic stop last year was found not guilty by a jury on Friday, according to multiple reports. Defense attorneys said Jeronimo Yanez, the 29-year-old Latino police officer, was scared for his life when he shot Philando Castile, 32, seconds after Castile informed the officer he was armed. Prosecutors insisted Yanez never saw the gun and had plenty of options other than shooting Castile, who was an elementary school cafeteria worker. The officer was also acquitted of two counts of discharging a firearm that endangers safety, according to CNN, which reported that several members of Castile's family screamed profanities and cried Friday after the verdicts were announced. ADVERTISEMENT Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer. Video captured from Yanez's squad car showed Yanez approaching Castile's car and Castile's voice warning the officer, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Before Castile can even finish the sentence, Yanez begins shouting. There is an exchange of words, before Yanez yells, "Don't pull it out!" and shoots Castile five times. The video shows Yanez firing into the car but doesn't show any of Castile's actions inside the car. Some of the conversation between Yanez and Castile is unintelligible. Yanez was charged with endangering the lives of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the car during the shooting, but found not guilty. In November, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi argued that Yanez's use of force was unwarranted, because Castile never attempted to access his gun. After the verdict, Castile's mother Valerie was quoted by The New York Times saying, “My son loved this city, and this city killed my son. And a murderer gets away. Are you kidding me right now?” “The system in this country continues to fail black people and will continue to fail us," she added. Ten members of the 12-person jury were white, while the remaining two were black. Reynolds says in the video that Castile never reached for his gun, but defense attorneys targeted inconsistencies in her story to cast doubt on her credibility.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: misterwhite (#13)
Yes, something everyone should know and be taught, because when you do, you get shot and killed by a public servant because he'll be in fear for his life. Why would you be opposed to teaching this to the general public? If this guy was stupid for how he behaved, why not let it be a lesson for all? Don't reach for anything. Including a driver's license. Maybe he should not have informed the cop he was armed as required by law, as that information scared the crap out of the cop. If he had not done that, he may have been fine. If he really was a hardened criminal intent on shooting the cop, then why would he have told the cop he had a gun? I suppose all thugs do that, right? Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so.
I'm not. I paid $300 for a 16-hour concealed carry class (required by the State of Illinois). The parts where I learned the most were the gun laws of Illinois (which differ from other states) and what to do when stopped by the police while carrying a weapon. But this guy was stopped by the police 52 times in 14 years for minor traffic infractions. You'd think he'd know the drill. Yet he reached for his gun. "If he really was a hardened criminal intent on shooting the cop, then why would he have told the cop he had a gun? I suppose all thugs do that, right?" If he's registered, he probably figured the cop already knew that.
How can you possibly know that? The cop was screamng at him to stop what he was doing. Yet he persisted. The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.
No he didn't, and neither did the jury. He was just in fear for his life. That's all the justification that's required for cops to kill.
For no reason?
For any reason.
Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason. Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was?
I sure do. Because there was no video of the actual shooting, or the moment beforehand. And in order to convict, the jury needs evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the shooting was unwarranted. Circumstantial evidence is not enough. For any ordinary person, shooting another is itself sufficient evidence to convict. But cops are uniquely granted the "I feared for my life" defense which ordinary people are not. And without any video of the shooting or the moment beforehand, there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life. So he walks.
Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting. The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty. Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ...
It's not clear if he was reaching for his wallet or the gun, but even if he had been reaching for the gun, it was pursuant to the conversation in which he voluntarily (albeit via lawful mandate) informed the cop that he had a legally owned firearm, and that he felt it prudent to allow the officer to see the gun, as a concealed gun could be considered more dangerous than one in plain view. While I'm sure you would suggest the jury believed that thugs and outlaws routinely tell cops they are armed before firing upon them, I would, in fact, disagree. I also maintain complete confidence that the same jury would, in spite of this acquittal, also say that this man did not deserve to die and that it is very unlikely that this man had any intention of firing upon the cop. What we could agree on is that the guy should have realized his life was in danger when he first informed the cop he legally possessed firearm, and at that point, conduct himself as though he was being robbed at gunpoint. Which he pretty much was, being robbed of his life. OF course, he had no way of knowing that the real reason for the stop was probably because his car matched the description of a car used in a crime earlier in the day, and not for any infraction. So the cop was on edge, and the guy wasn't, and the guy had no way of knowing the cop was on edge. BTW, 52 traffic stops in 14 years, and he still had his license? Apparently eitehr that number is not true, or many/most of those stops did not result in any penalty. Without specific evidence to the contrary, that's exactly how it happens. Yet what? Did he get convicted or acquitted, or is that still playing out in the courts as this old cop hopes he dies of natural causes before any trial can happen?
A lot of cities do profile black drivers. Stats show they get stopped more. Including law-abiding blacks with spotless driving records. The biggest Blue cities are the worst offenders on harassing black drivers excessively.
As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things. That leads to negligence. I know you just assume things a lot. That is obvious. For example you always 100 percent of the time assume the police are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Assuming things leads to ignorance.
Un-huh. The driver could have been reaching for the loaded gun in his pocket to clean it. Why didn't the jury think of that?
It doesn't have to be. The cop screamed at him to stop what he was doing. He continued. "and that he felt it prudent to allow the officer to see the gun" He felt? Prudent? It was reckless and dangerous. Keep your hands on the wheel holding your driver's licence and concealed carry permit, tell the officer you're armed and ask him how he wants to proceed. He may simply tell you to leave it there and not reach for it. If you want to carry concealed, those are the rules that go with it. Had this idiot followed them, he'd be alive today.
Police officers are trained to make assessments not assumptions.
In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges. They have the surveillance video of him shooting the guy throwing the popcorn and texting to his babysitter. It didn't help that the accused told the detectives in his statement immediately after "As soon as I pulled the trigger I said, 'Oh shoot, that was stupid.' If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened," he said. "If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. I wouldn't have moved. But you don't get do-overs." The movie was Lone Survivor. C'mon, no one should die over some crappy Mark Wahlberg movie. The court set up a website for this case: http://www.curtisreevestrial.com/. Just don't click any of the links so you can see the PDF documents because they all crash the website. Lordy. It's a disgrace that it takes 3.5 years to get to a pre-trial hearing in a murder case. At this may not be the last pre-trial hearing either; they've already had several of these. What happened to the right to a speedy trial (for both accused and victim)? These courts across the country and at the federal level are a complete disgrace with their indulgence of lawyers' endless stalling tactics. Who knows when this trial will finally go to court? Chances are pretty good that the trigger-happy cop will die first. Certainly, he's already avoided a trial for at least 2 more years than is reasonable.
There are two separate defenses -- stand your ground and self-defense. Even if the retired cop had a duty to retreat he couldn't. Not if he thought the popcorn was a prelude to an attack. What he told the detectives was stupid, and he of all people should know that. But you have to wonder how many people say that to themselves after a shooting. My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively. You or I might not have. I'm thinkng there might be enough here for reasonable doubt. Both parties acted irrationally. Unfortunately, one died. Don't pick a fight with an old man.
I assume he had advanced training on the use of lethal force against a criminal throwing popcorn at LEOs. Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime. Is there any cop shooting you won't defend, no matter how repulsive it is?
"Throwing popcorn isn't assault." Who are you? Deckard? Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him. "The facts in this case are sufficient to establish a prima facie claim that Reeves feared at least an imminent simple battery at the hands of Oulsen. Given that Reeves was in excess of 65 years at the time of this incident, a battery by Oulsen would constitute a third-degree felony—in other words, a forcible felony." "Specifically, the relevant elements to be considered in determining whether Reeves’ use of deadly force was lawful self-defense are to be found in that first sentence of §776.012. It tells us that Reeves’s shooting of Oulsen was lawful deadly-force self-defense if he reasonably believed it was necessary to either (1) protect himself or another from death or great bodily harm or (2) to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." Under the language of §776.012(2), then, if Reeves reasonable feared an imminent battery by Oulsen he would be justified in using deadly force to prevent that forcible felony. If this were established by a preponderance of the evidence, Reeves would qualify for self-defense immunity under §776.032.
You are so wrong so often. Why do you hate people so much?
What unadulterated bullshit! The guy threw popcorn at him. ... throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. So - the cop assumed that he was about to be assaulted when there was absolutely no evidence that was going to happen. The ex-cop was/is a coward who is now trying to use the magic words "I feared for my life" to get away with murdering a guy because he didn't like it that he was talking on his cellphone during the previews. Yeah - I can certainly understand why you would side with the ex-cop on this one. If the situation were reversed, you'd be calling for murder charges against a guy who "stood his ground" - because he killed an ex-cop. That's what it comes down to. Cops can do no wrong according to MW. Dishonesty at it's best. Give him shooting scenarios without revealing which party is the cop, and he won't be picking the cop side nearly as often.
Absolutely.
So if you throw popcorn at an old cop, he is fully justified to just kill you? Your badge-sniffing is some kind of a mental illness.
This goes beyond supporting LEOs. White is almost Freudian about it, like he's got some latent craving to see his daddy's peepee or something. It's a sickness.
This goes beyond supporting LEOs. White is almost Freudian about it, like he's got some latent craving to see his daddy's peepee or something. It's a sickness. It's not a sickness if he's paid to be here. I've voiced that possibility in the past. To doggedly take the same side all the time, never once conceding that your preferred side is ever wrong is certainly a sign of a paid troll.
I merely cited the state law. Under the state law I cited, it appears as though the old guy qualifies for self-defense immunity.
You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me.
Why not? When being pelted with popcorn, maybe there should be a usual police 22' rule for knives: if they are throwing popcorn at less than 22', they can close the distance and assault you before you can draw and shoot. Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher? Admittedly, he was a creepy old dude.
Jiffy Pop. I was certain it would explode and kill everyone in the kitchen.
Jiffy Pop. Yeah, it makes sense now. It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous.
Teach that in school and around the 'hood, and maybe we'd have fewer shootings like this.
And here we have the video of the easily frightened pussy-boy cop who pulled out his gun and started shooting because something made them a little nervous. Jazz Shaw, HotAir: In the shooting of Philando Castile, I tend to largely agree with Allahpundit’s conclusions from last night. This doesn’t have the odor of a cop who was out to murder someone (despite his obviously questionable comments on the radio prior to the stop). But this was definitely a guy who was either entirely lacking in proper training for such situations or possibly had the training but was totally unsuited for a job in law enforcement based on his temperament. We saw an officer who was, as AP described it, completely in panic mode after being informed by the driver that there was a legally owned firearm in the vehicle. As such, he surely wasn’t guilty of premeditated murder over this, but he was clearly guilty of something. Involuntary manslaughter sounded about right. It’s easy enough to say that none of us know how we would have reacted in the same situation, but that’s not a good enough excuse. The guy is (or was) a cop. It’s his job to be ready for that. The other reason I wanted to check in on this story has to do with the somewhat muted initial response to this case by the National Rifle Association and the total lack of follow-up after that, at least thus far. I received some less than constructive criticism when I tweeted about that last night as well. I brought it up after seeing this article in The Guardian about Colion Noir, a prominent black member of the NRA. “Philando Castile should be alive today. I don’t feel [Yanez] woke up that day wanting to shoot a black person. However, I keep asking myself, would he have done the same thing if Philando were white?” But, of course, this is LF where a suicidal medicated teen girl sending a text message is involuntary manslaughter if some other depressed medicated teen kills themself but a nervous-Nellie spic cop can just pull out his gun and blast a black man with no regard for the safety of the woman or toddler in the vehicle. So an iPhone is a deadly weapon but a Latino cop can shoot a black man to death for no good reason other than he was armed and people on this forum will defend it. Despicable.
An interesting contrast indeed.
He didn't shoot him because he was armed. The driver told the cop he was armed and the cop replied very calmly that it was OK as long as he didn't reach for it. I mean, that's on the video, right? But you're claiming that as soon as the driver said he was armed the cop drew his gun and shot him? (Nervous- Nellie spic cop?)
I was trying to avoid to much long prose. Would you prefer "pussyboy Hispani-cop"?
Watch the video: Castile, a licensed firearm owner, informs Yanez he has a gun. "Okay," Yanez says. (1:37) "Don't reach for it then. Don't pull it out." 1:40 - Yanez opens fire while Castile tells im "I'm not pulling it out," His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, also says, "He's not pulling it out." Three effing seconds! Teach that in school and around the 'hood, and maybe we'd have fewer shootings like this. I would agree that teaching the general public that cops are dangerous and that people need to act differently around them than they do other ordinary people.
Here's a guy who gets off 18 rounds in 2.7 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7HmZNtf5A
She's already given him up for dead. The smoke hasn't cleared and she's working on a lawsuit for her and her baby.
Hmmmm. Maybe the moral of the story is that you don't ignore the lawful orders of a police officer and reach for a loaded gun in your front pocket. I think that'll get you shot every single time.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)
"Why would you be opposed to teaching this to the general public?"
#18. To: Pinguinite (#16)
"Whatever he was reaching for, whether his gun or his license, he obviously had no criminal intent in doing so."
#19. To: misterwhite (#18)
The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#19)
"He was just in fear for his life."
#21. To: misterwhite (#20)
For no reason?
#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)
For any reason.
#23. To: misterwhite (#22)
Any? I don't think a jury would accept "any" reason.
Yet they accepted his reason. Why do you think that was?
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
"there was nothing to debunk his claim of being in fear for his life."
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
Ah. So the fact that the driver had a loaded gun in his front pocket and was reaching for it -- despite being told by the officer not to do it -- played no factor in the shooting.
The officer said he was in fear for his life and ... that's it. The jury hears that and it's not guilty.
Remember that retired Tampa police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him. He said he feared for his life. Yet ...
#26. To: Pinguinite (#25)
BTW, 52 traffic stops in 14 years, and he still had his license? Apparently eitehr that number is not true, or many/most of those stops did not result in any penalty.
#27. To: misterwhite (#18)
The cop assumed criminal intent, as did the jury, as do I.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
"As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things."
#29. To: Pinguinite (#25)
"It's not clear if he was reaching for his wallet or the gun"
#30. To: A K A Stone (#27)
(Edited)
As an officer you aren't supposed to assume things.
#31. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#25)
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
In March, a judge denied him the use of a Stand Yer Ground defense at trial so he will face the second-degree murder charges.
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
(Edited)
My guess it that he, as an ex-cop, reacted instictively.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#33)
"Of course, throwing popcorn isn't assault. It isn't even a crime."
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/order-denying-immunity-in-popcorn-shooting- riddled-with-legal-errors/
#35. To: misterwhite (#34)
#36. To: misterwhite (#34)
(Edited)
"The facts in this case are sufficient to establish a prima facie claim that Reeves feared at least an imminent simple battery at the hands of Oulsen.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#33)
Is there any cop shooting you won't defend, no matter how repulsive it is?
#38. To: Deckard (#36)
If the situation were reversed, you'd be calling for murder charges against a guy who "stood his ground" - because he killed an ex-cop.
#39. To: misterwhite (#34)
Given the totality of the circumstances, throwing popcorn (or anything) to distract someone could be the prelude to an assault. Had the ex-cop been 40 years younger, he could afford to wait and see if an attack was to follow. But he was 72. One punch from the 43-year-old could have killed him.
#40. To: Pinguinite (#37)
That's what it comes down to. Cops can do no wrong according to MW. Dishonesty at it's best.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#35)
"You are so wrong so often. Why do you hate people so much?"
#43. To: Tooconservative (#39)
"So if you throw popcorn at an old cop, he is fully justified to just kill you?"
#44. To: misterwhite (#43)
You mean like one day I'm walking through the park and I see an old cop sitting on the park bench and I throw popcorn on him? I would say no. He's not fully justified in killing me.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Tell me, were you once very frightened as a child by Orville Reddenbacher?
#46. To: misterwhite (#45)
#47. To: Tooconservative (#46)
"It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous."
#48. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#47)
"It seems that cops are increasingly easily frightened pussy-boys who pull out their guns and start shooting if anything makes them a little nervous."
“Yanez walking away from this case a free and clear man is just wrong,” Noir wrote in an impassioned online post on Sunday. Though he despised “race-baiting”, Noir wrote, “covert racism is a real thing and is very dangerous.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#48)
But, of course, this is LF where a suicidal medicated teen girl sending a text message is involuntary manslaughter if some other depressed medicated teen kills themself but a nervous-Nellie spic cop can just pull out his gun and blast a black man with no regard for the safety of the woman or toddler in the vehicle.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#48)
(Edited)
but a Latino cop can shoot a black man to death for no good re reason other than he was armed
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
(Nervous- Nellie spic cop?)
#52. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#50)
The driver told the cop he was armed and the cop replied very calmly that it was OK as long as he didn't reach for it. I mean, that's on the video, right?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#53. To: misterwhite (#47)
#54. To: Deckard (#52)
Three effing seconds!
#55. To: All (#0)
Castile's death went viral after his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, live streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, seconds after Castile was shot by the officer.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]