And people wonder why I don’t trust law enforcement.
Not based on prejudice, based on logic and the fact that the officers version of the story neither makes sense, nor matches what appears on that video.
You have no idea what he was reaching for. The officer had asked him for his drivers license, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that was what he was trying to get, and not the gun he could have already had out to shoot the officer if that had actually been his intent.
I understand that there are a multitude of people in this world who would allow for officers to not have to use the same amount of common sense that the average person would have to use in the same kind of life or death situation. You appear to be one of them…and thats cool…I just wholly disagree with you on that issue.
Ive been thinking about this statement…you know, my argument being weak because I deflected back to OJ.
I think you have it backwards. It seems to be your contention that since the jury chose not to convict him of anything, that that somehow proves that the evidence didn’t support conviction. Its my contention that the evidence DOES support the idea that the cop messed up and that the jury got it wrong. I bring up OJ because there are a ■■■■■■■■ of people who think that that jury got it wrong, and for some reason I would put you in that very group. If you are, then you believe the very thing that I do…juries ■■■■ up from time to time.
Its not a weak argument…its an argument that you yourself probably show signs of being correct.
It’s not just a weak argument it’s a complete strawman.
The prosecution blew their case, they obviously tried to frame a guilty man and the jury saw it and acquitted him as a result.
Castile would be alive today if he had simply followed the directions of the officer.
Being armed and high is a really bad combination and in this case it got him killed.
Yeah except the officer asked him for his ID and that was in his pocket. The tactical option available to the officer was easy. The officer had the option of stepping two steps towards the rear of the car behind castile and using castiles own body for cover. The cop sounded terrified and clearly didnt belong in a high stress job. The jury refused to punish him due to political considerations
You have absolutely no basis for making such a statement.
The law is pretty clear, if you can articulate a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death you have a justification for the use of deadly force.
He met that legal standard.
Beyond that cops are not held to the same standards the rest of us are, they have a duty to act where we do not.
We can sit here and come up with as many different ways the shooting could be avoided as you want to but the fact remains the officer acted within the law and in accordance with his duties as a cop.
Bullseye cite any police training or policy manual that instructs officers to ask someone to step out of the vehicle in such a situation.
My Google-fu is not what it should be, but I did find this:
Scroll down to the section about how do I tell an officer I have a firearm
While that is neither a policy manual or training manual, it is written with the laws and procedures of officers in mind. That being said, it appears that one of the possible options that cops have in that situation is EXACTLY what I said this guy should have done. If that isn’t part of the training, then maybe it should be, as it seems the simplest way to avoid dumb ■■■■ like this.
1 Like
Where does it say in that article that when the officer says, “don’t reach for it” you continue reaching?
As for the rest, you’re making it up.
The first thing we teach in these situations is that you inform the officer you are armed, tell them where it is, and follow their instructions to the letter.
What did I make up?
You asked for citation that an officer could or would ask you to step out of the vehicle. I provided exactly that.
I never said that you shouldn’t follow the officers instructions. As a matter of fact, I’m blaming a lack of proper instruction for the incident going the way it did in the first place. The officer never gave any clear instruction after learning of the firearm. He was ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst. Let me explain…
You seem to have a hard time with order of events.
- The officer asked Castile for his license and registration.
- You then see Castile reach into the glove box, for what we can only assume was his registration and insurance paperwork.
- Then you clearly hear Castile tell the officer he was armed, in what any logical person would assume was a step to not surprise the officer when reaching for his wallet.
- Immediately after Castile tells the officer he is armed, you even hear the officer reply with an “O.K.”.
Here is where things get dicey, and fall completely on the officer. Nowhere after that point did the officer anything to diffuse what is inherently a difficult situation. He didn’t tell Castile not to reach for his wallet at that point, and he didn’t give any other instructions either.
- As he hadn’t been told not to produce his license to this point, it is assumable that the officer still wanted him to produce it, thus requiring him to get it out of his pocket.
Officer Yanez never stopped the process of the stop, and that is COMPLETELY his fault. Once Castile told him about the weapon, he had plenty of options for actual instuctions he could have given that would have resulted in a totally different outcome. That is where the article I provided comes in. Apparently, in at least some jurisdictions, they would ask you to step out of the vehicle to secure the weapon. In this situation, it would have been the best choice for multiple reasons…not the least of which would have been the chance to direct Castile away from the car so that if shooting WAS necessary, he wouldn’t have been blasting in the general direction of a 4 year old child he could have very easily hit.
Bottom line is that his actions were reckless and unnecessary. He could have handled that situation a thousand different way that wouldn’t have ended up with a man dead for a tail light.
Why did they stop him?
Because he had a tail light out.
I take that back…you did point out that he may have looked like a suspect in an earlier robbery…with his wide nose and all…
Point taken…
LOL. Is that the story?
Yes, that was the story to begin with.
What’s Rule 1 of getaway cars?
Wait! Rule #2 mas bien.
Wait, the one about making sure everything works perfectly?
Yeah, so the cops don’t have a bull reason to stop you.
Of course you’re making it up, once again you completely ignore the fact the officer repeatedly and forcefully instructs him not to reach for it.
Had he sat there calmly with his hands on the wheel and gotten specific instructions on what to do as the article suggests the shooting would have never happened and if it had the officer would have been convicted in court of either murder or some form of manslaughter.
