The Philando Castile Verdict Was a Miscarriage of Justice

[Frederick Foresight]

I understand that you desperately want to blame a cop for shooting a black man

Just as I understand that you desperately want to blame the black victim for getting shot.

When you say " I have a gun" or "I am armed", that sends at best a mixed message.

From the link:

9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.

Does that sound threatening to you? If it does, then you shouldn't be a cop. Yeah, being a cop can be very stressful, but it's the job the shooter signed up for. If he couldn't properly read this situation, then he has no business being a cop. While I personally hate all things gun, let's not dismiss the need for at least a modicum situational awareness.

I agree he could have said what you suggested, and it might have played out differently. But this was in the heat of the moment and he was speaking slowly and calmly. There was no cause for startle. If the onus was on anyone at that point to keep a level head, it was on the cop.

Clearly this was a tragedy.

More than that, it was a crime of at least criminal negligence that has now gone unpunished.

As plenty of amateur videos have shown, the cop is not always right. I'm not suggesting they're always wrong, but when they are they should be called out. That did not happen here.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I understand that you desperately want to blame a cop for shooting a black man, but the fact is, every self defense or firearms course will warn you not to say what this man said. If you say "Officer, I am a CCW permit holder", then he will ask if you are carrying and you say, with your hands on the steering wheel, "yes sir I am, what do you want me to do?"

When you say " I have a gun" or "I am armed", that sends at best a mixed message. Is it a threat or what? Recall that this cop thought he might have apprehended armed robbers, based on an earlier APB.

The policeman told him three times not to move his hands. I understand that people can get confused, that it might not have been clear, that it is hard to think straight when a cop is pointing a gun at you.

Should the cop have held off until he actually saw a weapon being drawn? Perhaps, but I am not in a position to judge that. TT or someone with more experience in this area might have an answer. I would expect the cops are trained in this type of interaction and part of that training emphasizes how quickly a gun can be deployed against them.

Clearly this was a tragedy. I think it does point up the need to rethink police training. This kind of incident is clearly unacceptable. It also points up how carrying a weapon, even legally, can affect people's perceptions of the risk you pose to them and can create unintended consequences.

I'm assuming this was a response to one of the bleeding hearts/snarkasaurases I have on ignore and not to me. Hard for me to tell because of the missing posts.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I'm assuming this was a response to one of the bleeding hearts/snarkasaurases I have on ignore and not to me. Hard for me to tell because of the missing posts.

No doubt you are accessorizing accordingly:

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I'm assuming this was a response to one of the bleeding hearts/snarkasaurases I have on ignore and not to me. Hard for me to tell because of the missing posts.

I was replying to FF. I have the same problem. I have most of the trolls and bots on ignore, so it is difficult to follow some threads.

I did have a question for you. In the situation presented by this shooting, do you think it is incumbent upon the police officer to wait to see an actual weapon being drawn before firing? Or is it adequate that the person seems to be going for an unseen firearm? I know you have had a lot of martial arts training and will appreciate that a weapon can be deployed with unbelievable speed by someone with the proper training.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Does that sound threatening to you? If it does, then you shouldn't be a cop. Yeah, being a cop can be very stressful, but it's the job the shooter signed up for. If he couldn't properly read this situation, then he has no business being a cop. While I personally hate all things gun, let's not dismiss the need for at least a modicum situational awareness.

I tend to agree with you. So did the police department, as they fired this cop. The jury must have weighed all the circumstances, which included an APB for armed robbers on the loose, and the victim's actions, which arguably contravened the cop's orders.

I fault the cop because when he was told, in a non-threatening way, that the victim was carrying, he should have taken control of the situation more clearly. He perhaps gave mixed signals, then panicked.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I tend to agree with you.

Okay, that was refreshing. Thank you.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This is one of those situations where political labels can be misleading. I generally support the police, and I don't think they should be expected to take unreasonable risks in dealing with violent criminals. At the same time, they don't have the right to go crazy just because someone is carrying a legal firearm.

Plenty of cops go from 0 to 100 in use of force way too fast. They are trained to demand immediate compliance and use force if it is not forthcoming, but that leads to many preventable tragedies. This case also did not involve the usual situation of a suspect fleeing or resisting the police. I give the cops more leeway in those situations. This was a traffic stop for a "broken taillight", which is usually a pretext. They were probably hoping for an open warrant on the guy, no operator's license or maybe to smell weed.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I was replying to FF. I have the same problem. I have most of the trolls and bots on ignore, so it is difficult to follow some threads.

I did have a question for you. In the situation presented by this shooting, do you think it is incumbent upon the police officer to wait to see an actual weapon being drawn before firing? Or is it adequate that the person seems to be going for an unseen firearm? I know you have had a lot of martial arts training and will appreciate that a weapon can be deployed with unbelievable speed by someone with the proper training.

This answer is complicated because it is situational. The problem with training, any training, is that it is impossible to prepare you for every possible situation. Preventative measures help in controlling unknown factors. This is why police are trained to pull over someone in a certain manner, with lights blinding their mirrors. They are taught to have their cruiser parked in a way to protect them from oncoming traffic. They approach at an angle, sometimes even from the passenger side. If they have a partner, their partner stands overwatch.

In general, drawing one's weapon before a visible threat is a bad idea. If you believe the threat is imminent, that's different - and probably what happened here. The officer has the advantage in that he can retreat out of the view of the passenger and back to his vehicle if he believes the situation is going south - assuming there is time.

I continue to maintain that this is all about poor training and, more importantly, poor selection. People are making it past selection that shouldn't because of psych profiles, and once past, either perform poorly on training, or don't get enough of the training they need.

Then you give them a badge and a gun and somehow expect law and order to materialize. Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more of these tragedies.

 

[traderob]

in the footage I saw the driver replies to the 'officer' that he is not reaching for the gun.

 

[piezoe]

There is a serious accountability problem pervading our criminal justice system, and the lower one goes in the system the worse the level of competence one encounters and the worse the problem of accountability becomes. Once you are down to the level of the cop on the beat, the jailer and jail personnel, and the lower courts you are at great risk of having your rights violated, and there is, for most people, practically nothing at all that can be done about it.

It is much worse in some regions of the country than in others. Justice in the United States is extremely non-uniform. It is mainly in theory, and much less in practice, that the problem of non-accountability for mistakes could be addressed by bringing suits against cities and counties where the police or courts have acted improperly according to the law. These problems are especially acute in areas that serve the poor and indigent, and are so prevalent, especially in certain rural areas, that they might be considered almost endemic. Add to this that the police and justice system in many places is largely funded via fines and court fees, creating a gigantic conflict of interest, and the problems only get worse..

Why can't the problems of accountability be resolved via standard legal process? There are several reasons. The victims are often without financial resources and may not be able to show sufficient damages to attract competent private legal representation, and they may not have access to legal aid for one reason or another. Government at all levels is difficult to sue -- there are roadblocks that don't exist in the case of suits between private parties.

But one of the main impediments to obtaining redress is the difficulty of finding any local attorney that will take the case. That's because justice isn't actually as blind as we have been told. Local attorneys generally will not sue the cities and counties where they live and work. They believe that if they succeed in obtaining a judgement against a municipality or county where they practice, that their future clients will be at a disadvantage; that the cooperation of court clerks, police and judges will be harder to come by and that their clients will be at a disadvantage in the court room. If you want to sue a city or a county, the local lawyers will advise you to go out of town to find an attorney.

This same factor can be present in subtle ways in cases such as the Castile - Yanez case. The venue for cases such as this involving a local police officer should always be moved as far as possible away from the jurisdiction of the accused. This seldom happens however.

Lack of accountability continues to plague our justice system. Without accountability, we can expect to see these sad incidents continue. The Watchword among our law enforcement officers will remain shoot first, then justify.