Illinois? Appellate Court?

Holy crap! I can’t believe this!

The police here operated on an outdated assumption – possession of a firearm in and of
itself is a crime. Until recently, that was true in the City of Chicago. But the law has shifted
dramatically during this decade. Since the legislature has legalized gun possession and
concealed carry, many citizens may now possess firearms provided they have followed the
regulations. Our legislature has made a policy decision that has legal consequences for how
law enforcement officers must deal with possession of firearms. No longer can police assume that a person seen with a firearm is involved in criminal activity. Law enforcement
officers must adjust their procedures so that law-abiding citizens do not face the undue
burden of arrest for licensed activity.
¶ 36 Once Officer Whitlock discovered the gun in the glove compartment, he could have
attempted to find out whether Penister or Rockett had a license for the gun. If he found
evidence that they had no such license, he would have had probable cause to arrest. But if
police can lawfully arrest Penister here, without making any effort to determine whether he
had a license for the gun, everyone found with a firearm would be subject to arrest, no
questions asked.
¶ 37 Firearm owners who might wish to carry a concealed weapon should find that the facts of
this case give them some cause for alarm. Even a person who could quickly prove the
legality of gun possession would still face onerous arrest. Arrests can have significant legal
and reputational consequences. (Imagine, for example, a citizen legally carrying a concealed
weapon who is arrested during her morning commute, who then must explain to her
supervisor why she arrived hours late for work.) The approach the State advocates here –
arrest first, sort it out later – would cause fundamental and manifest injustice.

Can this be true?

Arrests can have significant legal and reputational consequences. (Imagine, for example, a citizen legally carrying a concealed
weapon who is arrested during her morning commute, who then must explain to her
supervisor why she arrived hours late for work.) The approach the State advocates here –
arrest first, sort it out later – would cause fundamental and manifest injustice.

This is amazing.

Trump sucks.

He may not be perfect as none of us are. He is the chairman of the board/world right now

The whistle worked!


HOORAY for the undue arrests curtailing but its years too late for Philando Castille who was murdered by a MN police officer who could not comprehend that Philando might have a gun but not be a criminal. Every case is unique but in my opinion Geronimo is a murderer.

Couple things here…

First off, given the way this usually turns out, he should consider himself lucky to still be alive. I mean, it has been contended on this very board that cops who shoot first are basically justified due to the dangerous nature of the job and all.

Secondly…it begs a question. If he was legal to possess the weapon, he should have been able to produce the documentation to prove so after the arrest, shouldn’t he? Yes, I am asking you to suspend judgement on what precipitated the arrest to begin with, and simply answer that question.

If he could have produced the documentation, either immediately after the stop or any time during discovery, I have to imagine we would merely be discussing whether or not a legally carrying citizen had unjust restraint placed on them by the police. As that didn’t happen, we can only assume that he was indeed in possession of the firearm illegally. That brings up another question…is possession of a firearm by someone who shouldn’t have one only illegal if they are doing something else illegal, or is the act itself illegal to begin with?

To me, this seems like a series of dumb decisions that led to someone who was indeed committing a crime ending up in jail.

Now that is an interesting post. My first inclination is to tear it apart because there’s a lot of scary stuff in there. But I’m working on somethings personally.

I don’t think you’re grasping the point here. Read the 2nd quote again and understand that the police do not believe it to be true.

Do you get it now?

The bold sounds strikingly similar to something else I’ve heard before…

That refreshed the old memory. Thanks!

It’s Illinois, no surprise.

Whats so scary about what I posted?

Well that’s not even close to what happened.

All Castile had to do was keep his hands up and not reach for the gun as ordered and he’d still be alive today.

Perhaps if he’d not been high as a kite at the time he wouldn’t have gotten himself killed.

It never is when the left describes such an incident.

The officer asked him for his license and registration. Like most people, he probably kept it in his back pocket. In order to get to it, he would need to move his hands in order to comply with the officers instructions. He did the cop a favor by informing him that he was armed.

Its all on the video. You even hear him tell the officer hes not reaching for his gun the first time the officer loses control and starts screaming about it. which is about 5 seconds before he starts blasting off into a car with an innocent and a child in it.

That situation could have been handled completely differently from the second Castile told the cop he was armed if he had simply asked Castile to step out of the vehicle so he could secure the weapon and allow for him to retrieve the license he had requested. Too bad he didnt choose to go that route.

One other note…not one crime that Castile had possibly committed (busted tail light or even being high at the time) comes with the penalty of death…EVER. That this officer imposed that penalty on him is a ■■■■■■■ travesty, and yet here you are once again placing the blame on the victim and not the officer, where it rightly should be.

Being a cop should be hard. We place them above us, and as such, the job should come with some higher standards of conduct. If it doesnt, ■■■■ like the Castile incident or the Tamir Rice incident happen. You MUST be willing to put the safety of the populace above your own, or you will be a terrible cop.

Stand and deliver.

Yes it’s all on video including Castile telling him where the gun was and then reaching for it as he’s repeatedly told not to. He refused to do so and he was lawfully and properly shot.

He had at that point already provided his license and insurance to the officer.

How can you tell from that video that the driver was reaching for something? I watched it about 15 times and I cannot tell that at all. Is this just an inference or assumption on your part?

This thread is not a rehash of a shooting.

Why are you making up ■■■■?

None of what you alleged is in that video. Let me help you out.

What is in the video:

The officer asks for his license and registration. You can clearly see Castile lean over to reach into the glove box to get the document that he then handed the officer.

What happens next is Castile informing the officer that he had a firearm, most likely in an effort to let him know so that when he reached for his wallet (you know, to get the license he had been asked for), the officer wouldnt make the mistake of thinking he was reaching for a gun he hadnt disclosed.

This goes back to exactly what I said that you conveniently ignored and is actually why I hope Sneaky will indulge the rehash of this incident in regards to his original point. The whole thing could have been avoided if at the moment Castile informed Yanez that he had a firearm, Yanez, to preserve the safety of all involved, had told Castile he was going to detain him, asked him to step out of the vehicle and secured the weapon until things had been resolved. He did not do that, and it cost a man his life.

Heres a question…he had the gun from the second he got pulled over. If his intention really was to shoot a cop in that moment, why go to the pretense of going in the glove box for the registration instead of just shooting as soon as the officer was at the window? On top of that…when the stop starts, the officer doesnt draw a weapon for safety, and doesnt even flinch when Castile reaches over into a glove box that could very well have contained a weapon. He just stands there. The problem doesnt arise unti Castile makes the officer aware of the firearm.

One other question regarding this travesty of the justice system…what the ■■■■ was this guys partner doing that whole time. From what we can see, he isnt doing anything. Another set of eyes on the matter could have kept this from happening as well.

This ties in to Sneakys point because while I think arrest is going way too far, I think that temporary detainment is perfectly acceptable in situations like this. That said, the belief in Illinois, while probably well intentioned, goes further than necessary to provide saftey for an officer and encroaches on rights.