@scout59 - that is just awful. And they have Diamond in handcuffs? While they sit in the car and wait for more than an hour? Unbelievable.
The dashcam video from the shooting has the officers talking near the end about her being “taken into custody”, as if she was a criminal. Talk about adding insult to injury. The injustice of it all is just swirling around her, as vast as the ocean, and the cops don’t seem to see it at all.
I’m waiting for some of our ‘law and order the victim always brought in on themselves’ posters to come here and explain what Diamond and her daughter did to bring this on themselves, and why it was perfectly reasonable for the cops to inflict this on a 4 yr old and her mother. Other than the reality, which is that they were all guilty, even the 4 year old, of DWB: now a death penalty offense in our nation.
About 20 years ago, I was taking my little S for an ice cream cone in Deering Oaks park. A cop pulled me over. I had no idea why. I hadn’t done anything wrong. My car was registered and inspected. I asked him why in a civil manner. All he would do is bark at me “license and registration.” (Luckily, he didn’t decide to kill me when I reached into the glove compartment.) Then he walked off to his cruiser. After a couple of minutes he returned with a ticket. He proceeded to bark more information at me, including the fact that if I didn’t show up for the court date they assigned me or pay the fine it would be a felony (!). My “crime” was that my car’s registration had lapsed, meaning that it was in fact still registered, but I hadn’t paid the fee and gotten the new sticker. In CT, from where we had recently moved, the DMV sent you a notice when it was coming due. Maine did not, at that time, and I had had no idea it was overdue. He started to hand me the ticket to sign, and while reaching for it I said, “Can I ask you a question?” He yanked the ticket out of my hand and barked “If you do not sign this ticket I WILL arrest you.” My S, about 5, said from the back seat in a scared voice, “Mommy, are you going to jail?” I began to shake with rage. I got him to give me the ticket, which I signed, and then I asked him why, since I wasn’t guilty of any moving violation and my car was inspected and all that that he hadn’t simply WARNED me that my registration $ was overdue, something I would have fixed by driving directly to the town hall. No answer.
I drove straight to police HQ to complain. I said to the person at the counter, “If this is how he treats a middle class white woman with a child in the car, how does he treat young black men?”
If he had shot me, I’m sure some of our fellow posters would have been able to explain why it was justified.
You give some people a badge and a gun and they think it’s a license to be little tyrants.
@Pinhead said this in #37: “I guarantee you that the 12 people on the jury gave this issue much more thought than an anonymous poster on a message board or a television commentator pandering to boost his ratings.”
Watch Noah’s latest video. Pandering or a voice of concern from someone who grew up facing discrimination and calls it like he sees it and uses his platform to address issues that should concern us all? If folks can’t see a difference between how Blacks are treated and their own privilege for not having to worry about this kind of CRAP, you’re definitely part of the problem, IMO. Open your eyes, people.
I had not seen the video. As I said above, it is now officially acceptable to be afraid of a man because he is black, and to kill him for it. That “officer” was hysterical with fear. He should never have been allowed on the streets with a deadly weapon. He was a public menace. And you know what will happen next? He will get a gun “for self protection” because he thinks black people want to kill him. That is, if he doesn’t have one already. How long will it be before he kills again?
Of course, people who were paying attention knew that irrational fear of black men was an acceptable excuse for murder after Trayvon Martin, if they didn’t know it before. Stalk an unarmed young man through the night with a gun, and then kill him when he reacts in fear, because YOU are now afraid. And that is just fine. Even though YOU created the situation out of nothing.
As the anecdote I relayed above shows, I was WELL AWARE of this problem 20+ years ago. And some white people are STILL denying it?
What will it take? What will it take?
Unfortunately it’s the desire to be a little tyrant that attracts many to this line of work.
I am not expressing an opinion about whether the jury was right or wrong not to convict the officer involved in the Castile case. I am only offering some information that might explain why the jury decided the way it did.
The jury instructions said that under state law “the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified, and no crime is committed, when necessary to protect the peace officer … from apparent death or bodily harm.” The instructions indicated that it was the State’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the peace officer was not justified. And, the instructions said the reasonableness of the officer’s decision to use force had to “be judged from the perspective of an officer acting reasonable at the moment he is on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” that “the reasonableness inquiry extends only to those facts known to the officer at the precise moment the officer” fired his weapon, and that “the determination of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation under circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.” Much of the language about reasonableness comes from a Supreme Court case – Graham v. Conner – decided in a civil context, so I am not sure how it got to be in an instruction in a criminal case.
http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/13/read-the-judges-instructions-to-the-yanez-jury/
So, in other words, the jury had to consider what the officer knew at the moment he fired the shots. The video I saw of the shooting itself (maybe there was other video out there?) was apparently from the cruiser’s dash camera. The officer was visible in the frame and most of the exchange between the officer and Castile was audible, but it was impossible to see what happened inside the car in the seconds leading up to the shooting. The officer said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun, and since it wasn’t possible to see inside the car, maybe the jury couldn’t draw any conclusions about the reasonableness of that perception. If that’s what happened, then the jury would be unable to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the shooting was not justified, which, judging from the instructions appears to be a necessary conclusion to convict. That is just my theory about how it was possible for the jury to not convict. Again, not saying I agree or disagree with that decision. Just saying that is one way things might have played out in the jury room. I know that doesn’t satisfy most of the people on this thread, and I am not saying it should or shouldn’t.
Of course, everything we have seen and heard in the media about this case is from the “20/20 vision of hindsight.” So we know that Castile was not the robbery suspect the officer thought he might have been, and we know that Castile was a hard-working, well-liked school employee without a criminal record. Knowing what we know now, it’s pretty easy to say the officer should have given Castile the benefit of the doubt and should have realized that Castile was reaching for a wallet and not a gun. But that wasn’t what the jury was tasked with doing.
I’m also not sure I would want to be a police officer forced to decide in a split second and with limited knowledge whether or not to give someone the benefit of that doubt.If a police officer doesn’t give someone the benefit of that doubt, he kills a person whom he later finds out meant him no harm, as it appears happened here. But if he gives the wrong person the benefit of that doubt, he could wind up dead.
Full disclosure, I am often involved in litigation in which police officers are sued civilly after uses of force, a few cases kind of like this and many cases that have had much less tragic outcomes than this one. I can only say I am glad I won’t be assigned the defense of the civil case that will follow this shooting. That would be a tough job.
One thing to note is that Castile probably mentioned that he had a gun so that if the police officer were to see it while he was reaching for his wallet (hopefully), he wouldn’t get shot immediately (which didn’t exactly work). I don’t really know what he could have done better if he, in fact, was reaching for the wallet.
Not sure if it’s linked already in this thread but for all the amateur data analyzers, Stanford has a site that might help you: https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/
There are times when an officer legitimately has to make a split second decision. This wasn’t one of them. This killer had his gun out and drawn. He was in full control of the situation. He had plenty of time to kill his victim if the victim had indeed been drawing a gun. He would have seen it well before the victim could have fired it. He had asked for the license. The victim was obeying orders.
If he was so temperamentally unsuited and so poorly trained for the job that his overwhelming fear rendered him unable to wait for the seconds required to see what his victim was drawing from his pocket, to listen to the assurances that the victim was doing what he had asked and producing his license, he should not have been out there. He should be jailed. He is a dangerous, armed killer on the streets.
All of the white men out there who chose to carry a legal firearm, do you think he would have shot YOU?? You know damn well he would have given YOU those seconds. Why isn’t the NRA rushing to the defense of this innocent gun owner? Why the silence?
@Consolation The only part of that paragraph that I intended to apply to the Castile situation is the part where I said it appears the officer shot someone who meant him no harm in this case. In The rest of that paragraph I was speaking more generally.
I cannot respond to your inquiry relating to the NRA as I am not a white male, do not carry, and am not a member of the NRA or one who sympathizes with that organization. Maybe you weren’t asking me specifically, just wanted that to be clear.
@Consolation you are so on point!
This is exactly what Yanez did, in this case fortunately it wasn’t fatal.
https://youtu.be/vXmVPxQGTsE
Horrifying and appalling. And even in that video, the victim who has been shot keeps calling the cop “sir”.
So, what can we as concerned citizens do about this?
As long as folks keep denying there is bias with cops and jurors, nothing will change.
I have zero interest in watching a politically motivated celebrity pander to his audience. If his rating depended on it, he would change his opinion on any topic in a heartbeat.
As for my privilege about not worrying about this crap, a few weeks ago I was in the Lawndale area of Chicago for a meeting. We got to the property at 9:25 AM, and the street was closed off with multiple police cars, ambulances and a chopper circling above. They were responding to the following crime.
After the shooting, I spoke with many of the residents on the street, and for them it seemed like an everyday occurrence. One was surprised only two people were hit given the number of gunshots that went off. On other occasions, people in these neighborhoods have described gunshots over weekend nights sounding like fireworks.
You get so upset over the occasional cop who questionably shoots someone in the line of duty, but you totally ignore the bigger issue of black on black violence. Go look at this page with the murders in Chicago in June alone. The majority are young black men killed by other young black men, and the assailants are hardly ever found.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-chicago-murders
According to NPR (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-people-killed-by-police-america_us_577da633e4b0c590f7e7fb17), police killed approximately 39 unarmed blacks in 2016. That is fewer than were killed in one summer month in Chicago.
Does the Philando Castile incident bother me? Yes, but it bothers me a whole lot less than what happened to Corey Hill and Jacques Mack.
No excuse for what happened. I would have convicted.
I think I read this in a bookstore while waiting for someone. I view it as life saving information.
An officer signals for you to pull over. Immediately signal right. If you are on a highway, drive 40mph with your right directional to the nearest place where you can pull over so that the officer doesn’t have to walk in traffic. If it’s in a city street, pull over into the nearest place. SHUT OFF THE CAR. The point is to signal that you don’t want the officer to risk getting hit in traffic. They will often appreciate your consideration.
Before waiting for instructions, he/she will run your plate from his vehicle. During this time, get your license and registration out, put them in your hand, roll down your window and place both hands holding the license and registration on the steering wheel. THE POINT IS THAT YOU WANT THE OFFICER TO SEE YOUR HANDS AT ALL TIMES. You never want to have to reach for your license and registration because when the officer can’t see your hands, that officer perceives danger. You don’t want an officer to perceive danger because they have the authority to kill you on the spot, as we have seen over and over again. They will always say they feared for their life. When they can’t see your hands it may be true. This in no way justifies them shooting you, but it is rare when a jury agrees. MAKE SURE THE OFFICER CAN SEE YOUR HANDS AT ALL TIMES.
When he/she approaches don’t talk. The officer will ask for your license and registration and you will hand it to them in silence. They may tell you why they pulled you over or they may immediately take your documents back to the cruiser to check you out. Again, continue to KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL.
Be contrite. Use Sir or Ma’am when speaking. Contrition totally takes the officer off the defensive. Sometimes they are lenient. When they are thank them. When they aren’t thank them anyway. This is not the place to argue. If you view every traffic stop as your possible death, you will soon see that there is no reason to argue with an officer.
Don’t replace your license and registration until the officer has walked away. Again THEY MUST SEE YOUR HANDS GRIPPED AROUND THE STEERING WHEEL AT ALL TIMES.
It’s terrible that we have to fear law enforcement, but we do.
Even if you disagree with the verdict, and it appears some significant evidence was excluded at the trial for whatever legal reasons, there’s still zero evidence racial bias was a factor in this shooting.
Here we go, “but what about black on black crime”, as if we should be okay with people in positions of authority occasionally shooting law abiding unarmed men, or having women of color mysteriously die in their custody.
Here we go, ignoring the Ferguson effect because it does not advance your agenda.
@ClassicRockerDad - that is all good advice you posted. But I have to laugh, or maybe cry, because it reminded me of instructions on what to do if you suddenly encounter a bear while hiking. Geez, we shouldn’t be bears…
Yanez was charged with second degree manslaughter and 2 felony counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm. According the jury instructions, I would have found him guilty. His fear and his reaction were neither reasonable nor necessary. Even if someone is slanted very much towards giving cops the benefit of the doubt, there is no sane reason to acquit on the charges of dangerous discharge of a firearm. It seems like jury nullification, or worse.
And I wonder - why 2 charges of dangerous discharge of a firearm? Are they for each bullet that missed Philando’s body? Are they for the two survivors?