Let’s talk real. This is fucked up. Totally fucked up. There already is a diary on it, and I’m not posting this to participate in Cop-Kills-Black-Man porn, but there are a series of issues with what this video displays, and some of things simply need to be seen to be believed. And sometimes not even then.
The first crap thing is the reason for pulling him over. Yeah, it’s bullshit. The officer proclaims “Your break light is out” but from the video we can see that both his left and right break lights are functioning, what isn’t working is his marker light which is on whenever the headlights are on. We already know that the Officer actually suspected they were “Robbery Suspects”, even though they didn’t exactly meet the “wide set nose” description for that either.
We can hear the officer as for “License and Registration” and we can see Philando hand him something through the window [which is apparently his proof of insurance.] Philando then informs the officer that he’s armed and the officer immediate proclaims “Don’t pull it out!” twice to which just before shots are fired Castile says “I’m not pulling it out”, as does his girlfriend Diamond in the passenger seat just as shots are fired. Another interesting thing is the reaction of his partner standing on the passenger side of the car, which is to skip backwards out of the way. He has presumably a better viewing angle on what Castile is doing yet he never pulls his weapon or discharges it.
After he’s fired his shots, the armed officer is still screaming “Don’t pull it out” and “Don’t move” as presumably a wounded Philando is slumped in his seat dying. He repeats “Don't move” screaming four times before calling on his radio “Code 3, Shots Fired. Oh FUCK! Don’t move. Code 3, Shots Fired. FUCK!” His reaction is completely over the top and absolutely unjustified and unnecessary.
Full Transcript via National Review:
9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.
9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.
9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.
9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.
9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.
9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
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.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”
9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.
It takes 1 minute 4 seconds from the time the car stops until Philando is shot fatally. 64 seconds, that’s all the time he had in the rest of his life.
It’s at this point you can hear his girlfriend Diamond going onto Facebook Live and begin to film and explain the situation in real time, as we’ve previously seen. (For reasons I don’t understand her video is posted backwards, left side switched with right)
Diamond is the first person to bring up the fact the Philando is a licensed gun carrier and that he was only trying to get his ID out of his wallet.
Officer: “I told him don’t pull it out.”
Diamond:”You asked for his license and ID, Sir.”
This video and transcript confirms everything that Diamond said on her original video as being accurate, and still when this was went to trial Officer Yanez was inexplicable found “Not Guilty.”
Yes, I could agree Yanez was clearly and obvious afraid. Actually fucking terrified would be an appropriate description, but is that fear reasonably justified by anything? It makes no sense for someone who about to shoot you, while your partner has perfect cross-fire position behind them, to announce that they are armed just before beginning to fire. That’s not logically the action of someone who intends you harm, it’s the action of someone who intends the opposite. Yes, I understand the SCOTUS case laws allows for act in self-defense when he believes he is personally in mortal danger, but what about when it’s quite obvious this isn’t the case — is someone’s irrational fear and paranoia now a license to kill simply because they have a badge with their gun?
Perhaps all this occurred because of “Negrophobia”.
Philando Castile is dead because Officer Jeronimo Yanez shot him. And Yanez shot him because he claims he feared for his life. And he feared for his life, supposedly, because Castile informed him he had a gun and was ostensibly reaching for it. But this makes no sense, and surely in a society less infected with the pathogen of what Jody David Armour calls “Negrophobia,” all would see why. Aside from the fact that Castile had no criminal history that would suggest he posed a threat to Yanez — something about which Yanez could not have known at the time — there is one thing the officer most assuredly should have been able to discern: namely, that when a man intends to shoot you, he does not announce the presence of his weapon first, so as to give you time to draw yours. This was not, I beg to remind you, a duel.
And so we are left with the ineluctable conclusion that Yanez feared for his life because Philando Castile was a black man with a gun, and for no other reason. Although licensed to carry it — a point he made to Yanez in what would constitute some of his final words — such a thing means little, either to police, the NRA, or those “All Lives Matter” folks who by their silence over Castile’s killing and the acquittal of the one who killed him have made quite clear whom they mean — and don’t mean, or include — in their definition of “all.”
This fear of black men — if indeed we should even call it that, rather than the contempt it more closely resembles — is a fascinating pathology, unmoderated by even the most elementary logic. And yet we regularly ratify the pathology with the stamp of rationality, pronouncing it understandable even if tragically unfortunate. So the very same logic that says it makes sense for Yanez to think Castile would have told him about his gun before proceeding to shoot him with it, leads large numbers to believe Tamir Rice would have pointed a toy gun — which presumably he must have known held no real bullets — at police who carry actual guns, which most assuredly do. It’s the same logic that allows still more to believe John Crawford would have pointed an air rifle at the officer who killed him at Walmart. And even though we have video in the cases of Rice and Crawford, demonstrating that neither pointed their fake guns at anyone, it is apparently easier to believe in the rationality of anti-black fear than to believe in what our own eyes are telling us.
And yet, when police shoot down a legal and licensed gun owner for once we hear absolutely nothing from the much vaunted 2nd Amendment Rights advocates —
the NRA.
So some NRA members were furious when the organization released a tepid statement, more than a day after the shooting, that merely called it “troublesome” and promised that “the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known.”
A year later, the investigation is over and many more facts are known. Police recordings and court records confirmed initial reports that Castile had tried to defuse the situation, assuring the officer that he wasn’t reaching for his weapon.
It’s the same thing we saw in South Carolina with another officer who clearly over reacted in abject fear when a man reached of his wallet immediately after being asked to do exactly that.
And what we saw when Police chased down and shot Darren Hunt in the back after he supposed “brandished’ a decorative blunted blade.
Philando Castile worked in a school cafeteria. He watched over children, his own daughter was in the backseat and could have been easily hit by a stray bullet. He was by all accounts a good person and good father who for inexplicable reasons had been
pulled over dozens of times in the preceding months and years for minor traffic infractions. You would think he knew how to behave during a traffic stop.
The person who is clearly out of control, out his mind with panic and fear, was the guy with the badge.
A guy who apparently will never see the inside of a jail for his clear and obvious murder of Philando Castile.
Wednesday, Jun 21, 2017 · 8:20:36 AM +00:00 · Frank Vyan Walton
I see the commentary and I fully understand the issue of how a jury, any jury, could fail to convict this man but the source of this problem isn’t entirely the jury. I mean, they might share the same kind of irrational fear shown by Officer Yanez, but then again that isn’t really required largely because of Graham v Connor.
In the United States, this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." This case abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if they refused to halt.[2]
In Graham v. Connor, (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) the court expanded its definition to include an "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene—and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
So basically under Graham based purely on the reasonable perspective of the officer in that moment rather than like — actual facts and reality — that the “suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm” this shooting is Constitutional and legal. It seems to me this officers actions are pretty unreasonable, but that’s really a matter of opinion and how do you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? You can’t fix this by changing individual laws, just like Roe V Wade, you have to find a case that goes all the way back to the Supreme Court and significantly changes this standard to at least require the officers to do some basic due diligence to ensure that their subjective view — IS. THE. TRUTH. Particularly when the lives of citizens are on the line purely based on their subjective split-second judgement.
Without that any scared little rabbit snowflake cop can have a panic attack and shoot someone and nothing can be really done about it, ever.
Wednesday, Jun 21, 2017 · 6:28:44 PM +00:00 · Frank Vyan Walton
As shown above the standard changed from Garner which required probable cause to where under Graham an officer can use deadly force when he has an “objective reasonable belief or suspicion” that a suspect is dangerous. Just for clarity here's short discussion of how reasonable belief/suspicion differs from probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion is a term used to describe if a person has been or will be involved in a crime based on specific facts and circumstances. It may be used to justify an investigatory stop. Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch that a crime has been committed but does not require as much evidence as probable cause. ... A person may not be arrested based on reasonable suspicion—an arrest is made based on probable cause. However, if probable cause develops during an investigatory stop, the officer may arrest the suspect. ... Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that an individual has, is, or will commit a crime. This belief must be based on facts, not a hunch or suspicion. To determine if there was probable cause, the court must find that a person with reasonable intelligence would believe that a crime was being committed under the same circumstances. Probable cause requires stronger evidence than reasonable suspicion.
So under this topsy turvy standard Castile couldn’t be arrested for anything because there was no probable cause for an arrest, but he could be killed on the spot due to “reasonable suspicion” once he announced that he was armed, and the officer already thought he was a potential robbery suspect. One who drove around robbing places with his girlfriend and child in the car, because that makes sense...
IMO as a result of all this, as well a Negrophobia by Juries and Judges, it’s difficult to secure a beyond a reasonable doubt convict of a police officer when the subject is African American. It’s actually pretty hard when they’re White too.
Although between 1,100 and 1,900 (according to latest BJS estimates) people are killed by police every year — based on a 2015 Wapo report the rates of charges and convictions is dismal.
The Post found that an average of five officers per year have been indicted on felony charges over the previous decade; this year, 18 officers have been charged with felonies including murder, manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm.
Such accusations rarely stick, however. Only 11 of the 65 officers charged in fatal shootings over the past decade were convicted.
That’s between 11,000 and 19,000 police killings over the past decade with only 11 convictions. Total. 1/10 of a percent or 999 to 1 odds of getting convicted for killing someone, if you’re a cop
Wednesday, Jun 21, 2017 · 8:35:26 PM +00:00 · Frank Vyan Walton
On top of all the above, you also have the situation where the prosecution — as IMO they with both the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin — just plain blows the case.
This case was blown by the prosecution — as is often the case. Do I think they did it on purpose? No, but they were outclassed and they made some incredibly stupid decisions.
The worst is that the cop changed his story and the jury did not get all the evidence on that. There was a tape of the officer talking to another officer and there was a tape of an interview with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). In both of those interviews, it’s clear that he did NOT see the gun. But the prosecution neglected to introduce that tape in their case-in-chief. When they tried to introduce it after the officer testified, they were not allowed to put it in. Why? Well, they should have known that there was a HUGE chance the judge wouldn’t let it in, but for some reason, they thought he would.
I’ve heard that the prosecutors thought that if they didn’t introduce it in their case, that would force the defendant officer to testify. But even that was a mistake, because he was a terrific witness for himself — he cried!
The prosecutors also didn’t conduct a very good jury selection — and they left on some people who they should have been able to get the judge to take off for cause if they knew how to question them properly. It all sucks.