@greenwitch The dangerous discharge charges were for endangering the girlfriend and the little girl that were in the car, not for endangering Castile. I think that’s why there are 2.
Oh. So it’s perfectly fine to kill an innocent man - no worry about endangering him if you’ve killed him!
Sorry… this is making me a bit crazy.
I’m not sure what black on black crime has to do with whether or not this officer should be held accountable for his crime?
And before you go saying the AfricanAmerican community isn’t responding to that type of crime in their midst why don’t you go look up the many organizations which exist that are trying to rectify this problem.
Again this type of ineptitude and yes BIASED treatment of a segment of our population by law enforcement only makes the jobs of qualified officers that more difficult. It undermines the work they do and their ability to communicate with a community.
I found the BCA interview very damning, although not indicative of racial bias, but that was excluded from trial.
I wonder what dangerous discharge of a firearm even means. There seems to be some misconception traffic cops are navy seals. In one of these previous threads, a poster suggested the officers should have shot out the tires, with no understanding of how difficult that would be. A typical traffic cop gets some firearm training at the academy, after that is told to practice on his own time, and then has to pass some basic quals with a stationary target at the range once a year.
Right. And several police experts testified that the proper police response when a motorist politely informs an officer that he has a gun is to instruct the motorist to put both hands on the steering wheel, where the officer can see them, and then ask the motorist where the gun is, and whether it’s loaded. Then, if necessary, instruct the motorist to get out of the car with his hands up. That would have defused the Philando Castile situation without bloodshed. Instead, Officer Yanez panicked and shot Philando seven times. It’s a good thing if motorists think to put their hands on the wheel without being asked, but a trained police officer should be sufficiently knowledgeable and in command of the situation to instruct the motorist to do so if he hasn’t done so already.
I don’t think Officer Yanez went out that night with the intention to kill a black man, but to my mind there’s no question racial bias played a big role here. Yanex stopped Castile in the first place based on pure racial profiling. Because Castile had a black skin and a “wide set nose” (a feature common to many African-Americans), Yanez thought he “looked like” the description of a suspect from a robbery that had occurred several days earlier (this is all on the police dispatcher’s recording of Yanez’s pre-stop statements). So Yanez approached the car already thinking this is a possible or probable felon, based solely on racial characteristics. When Castile politely informed him that he had a gun, that seemed to confirm in Yanez’s mind the suspicion that this black man with a gun was a dangerous felon (and Yanez himself testified to that effect)—not a citizen with a constitutional right, duly licensed to carry. Ultimately Yanez’s fear, while real, was founded on nothing more than racial stereotyping: a white motorist with a gun is probably just exercising his Second Amendment rights (though the officer might ask to see proof of his license to carry). A black man with a gun is assumed to be a dangerous felon and an imminent threat. Even if Yanez’s racially biased assumptions had been correct, however, Yanez handled the situation in a completely unprofessional, reckless, and needlessly homicidal manner. Just instruct the motorist to put his hands on the wheel. That’s all it takes.
Question to anyone: if the person killed had been a family member of yours, would your opinion of the verdict be different? My answer: no, because I think the verdict was wrong and I would feel that way even more strongly if the person killed had been my relative.
If the robbery suspect is black, then it seems like a real stretch to call it racial bias, when on officer is on the lookout for someone who meets that description. Apparently he had a cracked taillight, which got him pulled over.
This is a ridiculous question, both because no one knows how they would feel in some hypothetical situation and family members can’t be objective about the situation.
So then it is perfectly reasonable to think that if the suspect is white and has a thin nose, any white guy with a thin nose driving around is likely to get pulled over?
I don’t think it’s a ridiculous question. That you can’t put yourself in other people’s shoes is your choice, but it’s certainly not impossible for everyone. And true, family members can’t be objective and they’re not on the juries for people who kill their relatives, but I didn’t say they should be.
He was pulled over for a broken taillight. If the suspect is white, mid-thirties, male, and has a thin nose, then you might be more cautious around someone who meets that description.
@roethlisburger In the words of Yanez’s lawyer himself:
“But I can tell you that the stop of the vehicle for an equipment violation [broken tail light] was not the only reason for the stop.”
He didn’t have a broken taillight. You can see it clearly at the beginning of the video.
And even if he did, was he pulled over for DWB? Just because there was a crime in that neighborhood a couple of days before and he was driving through? That is the lowest standard for police work that I’ve ever heard of. Yeah, let’s pull over EVERY black male, whether he’s the driver or passenger, until we find the robber. A robber who may or may not have a car, or even be a passenger…
I just looked at the dashcam video. The quality isn’t the best, but the driver’s side taillight looks clearly out to me.
Just to clarify, Castile had been pulled over more than 100 times the past few years. How many of us have been pulled over more than a handful of times in our lives?
“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.”
You know what?? I’m perfectly capable of being concerned about all violence. However, your decision to deflect what this thread is about and my post by bringing up “black on black violence” tells me a lot and sadly plays lockstep into the mindset that refuses to acknowledge that racial discrimination is an issue both among some LEOs and in society. Sadly, I guess @partyof5 is correct in stating that these issues can’t be addressed in this country with so many people clearly excusing it and sticking their heads in the sand. This country is in a sad place.
I also do hold LEOs to a higher standard. They are, supposedly, trained professionals. Such things should not be tolerated or acceptable. Not everyone is cut out for the job. I respect those who do a top notch job and provide a bridge within the communities they serve. However, they need to do a better job policing from within and culling out those not capable of performing the duties and responsibilities given to them Until then, their jobs are only going to get harder because of things like this.
I also just noticed my previous post autocorrected to pinhead. hahahaha. =))
“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.”
@ClassicRockerDad I had always heard that you don’t fish out your license and registration from your wallet and glove compartment UNTIL the LEO actually asks for it for the very reason you are stating - THE POINT IS THAT YOU WANT THE OFFICER TO SEE YOUR HANDS AT ALL TIMES. If the officer is in his car or walking towards your car and sees you reaching around or rummaging through things, he/she might get put on edge thinking that you are reaching for a weapon then. That’s why I sit and wait until they come blind me with their flashlight and ask for it.
I’ve been pulled over three times. All in the next town over which everyone knows pulls everyone over. At least once it was totally my fault. Spaced out. Everytime they’ve run my license, found nothing and told me to be more careful next time. We’ve actually been trying to get our town’s police to pull over more people because speeding through the main thoroughfare in our neighborhood has become such an issue. So I know everyone gets stopped in that town. In any event as a middle aged white woman, I have never worried for a second that I could end up dead from a traffic stop.
That sounds very close to a personal attack.
Or my computer’s autocorrect function. 
He didn’t have a broken taillight. He was driving a 1998 Oldsmobile with a brake light in the center of the rear window that wan’t working. But I’m pretty sure those cars also have brake lights in the normal taillight location, and if they were working, then it wouldn’t even have been an infraction to have the extra brake light malfunctioning. A cop might stop a motorist in such circumstances as a courtesy, to let them know they had an equipment malfunction. But this was no courtesy call. The broken light was just a pretext for the stop. Yanez clearly tells the police dispatcher that he’s going to stop Castile because as Castile passed by in his car, Yanez thought Castile “looked like” the description of the robbery suspect, i.e., he was black and had a “wide set nose.” You think that’s not racial profiling? If the robbery suspect had been described as white with a thin nose, would the officer have stopped every white motorist with a thin nose who passed by? In your dreams.