[Falcon Heights] Woman goes live on Facebook after boyfriend is shot by police

It's not out of context. He claimed that anyone who would expose a child to second hand smoke is capable of doing anything "to me" meaning he feared he was dangerous. Do you really find no issue with that?

The cop basically walked up to the window convinced the man was dangerous. The man informed him about his weapon and then tried to reach for his documents as requested and the cop gave vague orders after that. The cop was jumpy and in fear before he ever knew the guy was armed by his own admission.

 

So... timeline.

Yanez: asks Castile for license and registration

Castile: informs Yanez he has a weapon and a license for said weapon

Yanez: tells Castile to not pull it (the weapon) out

Castile: reaches for something, informs Yanez he is not reaching for weapon

Yanez: now yelling, orders Castile to not pull it (the weapon) out

*unintelligible noises/struggling as Yanez reaches into the car to stop Castile*

*Yanez fires 7 shots at point blank into Castile*
________

Several things come to mind.

1) How the hell did Yanez, with the presence of his partner/backup, feel threatened by a man who had a child in the backseat and had just DECLARED his weapon to him?

2) How the hell did a jury find Yanez's response "reasonable"?

3) Cops are well compensated. It is a dangerous job. We need to raise the standard for police behavior, response, and training to be more lenient to citizens. "I felt threatened" isn't a good enough excuse. Yes, this will result in more dangerous situations for the police. Tough s***. You're paid to deal with danger.

 

I only find issue with it in that you are only talking about one factor and eliminating the rest. Again, the entire reason he pulled him over was due to his resemblance to an armed robbery suspect from a case he personally responded to. When you go into a situation thinking that you are potentially dealing with an armed robber you are already concerned about that person potentially being dangerous. Add to that him being high, armed, acting strangely (according to the officer), and not complying with commands and you have a perfect storm.....and you'd be concerned well before finding out that he was actually armed.

 

Well
1) it only takes a second to get shot and the man was not complying with police commands. You don't reach for ANYTHING when an officer tells you not to reach for "it". That's effectively them saying "if you keep doing what you are doing, you are going to be shot"

2) Because it was reasonable given the entire context.

3) There's no amount of training that would have saved Castile's life. The command should have been "Put your hands on the steering wheel", but you can't assume that he'd have complied with that command any more than he did with the commands he was given. I know that you'd be fine with more cops getting killed, but you'll just have to deal with the fact that they aren't really there to get killed just so civilians can act however they want. I think the best solution would be if they increased training for CHL's making it more likely for people to do the right thing in situations like this.

 

I know you like to obfuscate, but please address this directly:

Do you take any issue with a cop saying that anyone who would expose a child to second hand smoke is "capable of doing anything" and that being part of a basis for his fear for his life?

 

If you are dealing with a potential armed robbery suspect that is okay with exposing his young child to mar1juana smoke....and is willing to drive around in public smoking in a car with their child, then yeah, you have to assume that they are a bit reckless.

Again though you keep trying to isolate one factor and pretend like it was the entire basis for action and that's at best intellectually dishonest.

 

You are making a leap. You are interpreting a police officer saying "don't reach for it" to be a universal "stop what you are doing, don't reach for anything." That's quite the catch all.

A: License please
B: Sure officer. Also let me inform you that I have a legal weapon.
A: Don't reach for it.
B: I'm not...

You assume he wouldn't have complied with any order, except he was complying with the precise order he was given. He didn't reach for the gun. Castille unfortunately doesn't get the benefit of knowing that the cop walked up the window in fear for his life. Had Castille known that this cop thought he had just robbed someone and that mar1juana use made him a monster, he might have just put his hands on the wheel and basically told the officer "I'm not moving my hands no matter what."

The cop never said "FREEZE!" or "STOP" or "BE STILL." Poor dumb Philando got pulled over for a bad taillight (lol). Reality is had he been in fear for HIS life like he should have been, he could have reacted differently.

I don't get why cops should get a free pass because they "think" someone "might" be a suspect. Perhaps in a traffic stop scenario we should just let both the officer and the driver go ahead and be in self defense/stand your ground/fear for your life mode and whichever one walks out alive wins? It sucks pretty bad for the dude and his girlfriend and her kid that the cop got to be in "fear for his life mode" before he ever got to the window and poor Philando had no clue.

 

I just struggle with the idea that WRONGLY believing someone could maybe resemble a suspect in a burglary is the grounds to justify whatever happens after that.

The cops fear for his life was based on:
1) False information (that he could be the guy from the burglary)
2) Dumb information (exposing people to second hand smoke makes him dangerous)

You've added information to the situation like he was driving around smoking (he had smoked "that day" was not smoking in the car based on what I've read) and that the cop saw all of these things that matched description like hair style, etc. All the cop cited was his nose.

 

I'm sure if you were high that might be your thought process but if someone yells "Don't reach for it!" the implication is that they think you are reaching for it and you should stop whatever you are doing. Are there different ways he could have said it? Absolutely, but any sober halfway intelligent person would have realized that the cop thought he was reaching for something when he continually screamed "Don't reach for it!".

Anyway, it's okay if you don't understand the law on this issue and how it was applied, understanding the law and the application thereof is not something that is for everyone. Just know that it was applied accurately in this instance based on the circumstances of the case and the laws on the books. Doesn't mean everyone will like it, but they don't have to.

 

I expect better of you Bobby. You managed to be condescending with your post but you left out your usual "him being dead is probably the best think that could happen because the family will sue and get rich" commentary.

I also never said the man should have been convicted of anything. I don't live in Minnesota and am certainly not an expert on their laws. I've only questioned the acceptance by so many of the defense as reasonable on this board, not whether it means a legal standard. As to whether the law was applied appropriately, plenty of extremely intelligent and well qualified people take both sides and plenty of arrogant internet pricks do as well.

I get why people who fall into the "extremely intelligent and well qualified" camp are always so sure of themselves, by I struggle with why you take so much pleasure in being in the other camp.

 

In this instance it's not true. This was actually an innocent man and a tragedy. Of course that doesn't mean it was a crime.

That said, in this instance the family SHOULD sue. While not a crime I think they have a really good case for a civil suit which is probably the right outcome here.

 

If you can admit it's a tragedy and that the family SHOULD sue and probably win a civil case, why can't you admit that the cop had a really poor foundation for his fear and was really dumb in his orders? That's all I've said and you've battled me on it.

This cop built a rationale in his head that included some really silly stuff and then handled a situation poorly as it progressed. (I already said Philando did as well) America is better off without that guy as a cop.

 

He had a solid legal justification for his actions which is why he beat the criminal charges. That doesn't say that his thought process wasn't ultimately inaccurate and that's why the family can and should sue the police department over the wrongful death of their family member.

I don't disagree that the guy shouldn't be a cop anymore, in fact all I was ever saying was about the criminal case and why his actions were legally justifiable in that setting.

 

I never said he reached for a gun. He reached for something, whatever that was, should have never done so.

 

LMAO pot calling the kettle black

You are known liar on this board. You accused someone on this board of using the N word and when he asked you to show proof you ran like a little b**** and disappeared.

 

All other circumstances being the same here, If Yanez had been a citizen in this situation, he'd probably be in jail. It's very galling to think we expect better behavior from our citizens than we do the police who serve and protect them.

 

The question:

The response:

The lie, or lapse of memory:

 

I stand corrected. He reached for something. That "it" could have been anything. Could have been his gun or permits. Whatever he was reaching for is beyond the point. His fatal mistake was reaching for something at the wrong time.

 

You are better than Trump already.

It was fatal, but the mistake is on the cop for firing 7 shots to kill, not for the black man reaching for his driver license.

 

I think plenty of folks on both side know and agree that Yanez was reckless and wrong in this case. Only a selected few find no fault with Yanez or places all blame on the victim (if there is at least a hint of fault, Bobby will always blame the dead person - he's a special kind). But many will probably disagree if he should face jail time. He works in a dangerous job protecting the public and he did not have any malice intent. He made a huge mistake. Is jail time appropriate? Maybe not, but walking free with no punishment is not helpful either - there should be serious consequences to making lethal mistake. At min, being fire and never allowed back on the force. I said also at least some jail time. The city also need to be responsible for their force, owning the victim family some large payout. These punishments would provide some incentive for the city and the police force to be better train and to handle these situations with less recklessness.