Minneapolis Officer Charged In Philando Castile Death

Attorney John Choi. Via mitchellhamline.edu.

Attorney John Choi. Via mitchellhamline.edu.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is reporting that St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez will face three criminal charges for the shooting death of Philando Castile during a traffic stop. Officer Yanez is being charged with a count of second-degree manslaughter as well as two felony counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm.

At a press conference today, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi announced that he had concluded that the “use of deadly force by Officer Yanez was not justified.” Choi went through the version of the story that he believed to be true, noting that Yanez and his partner believed that Castile resembled the description of a robbery suspect. After initial pleasantries and exchange of information, Castile–who was apparently licensed to carry a concealed firearm by Hennepin County, Minnesota–declared that he had a firearm on his person.

Yanez replied OK, then placed his hand on his gun, according to Choi.

Yanez said “Don’t reach for (the gun),” Choi said.

Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out.”

Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out,” then with his left hand reached inside the vehicle. Yanez withdrew his hand, then fired seven shots in rapid succession….

“His dying words were in protest that he wasn’t reaching for his gun,” Choi said. “There simply was no objective threat posed to Officer Yanez.”

Castile’s girlfriend and passenger in the car, Diamond Reynolds, streamed the last moments of his life via social media (which can be seen here; warning: GRAPHIC VIDEO, viewer discretion advised,) making the case a bit of a sensation and adding fuel to the fire of activists that protested what they considered to be police misconduct.

Although I am not familiar with the particulars of Minnesota criminal law, these cases hinge on whether a reasonable person in the shooter’s shoes would have reasonably perceived a threat to grievous bodily harm or death. It’s clear that Mr. Choi believes he can get a conviction out of this. It’s also clear that by seeking only a conviction on manslaughter, he may have put slightly more thought into this matter than prosecutors such as Florida’s Angela Corey and Maryland’s Marilyn Mosby, whose prosecutions of George Zimmerman and Baltimore officers Ceasar Goodson, Edward Nero, and William Porter, respectively, seemed to exemplify cases brought with insufficient evidence for purely political purposes.

That isn’t saying that politics didn’t enter into the equation for Choi, of course. Fueled by his girlfriend’s viral video, his death sparked the kind of Black Lives Matter protests that have become a regular feature in America, and we also saw a bit of a media campaign proclaiming that Castile, a school cafeteria worker, was a ‘role model’ for his community. Well, maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t. It’s easy to be a bit jaded after watching the legacy media trying (and failing) to put its thumb on the scale of public opinion in such a dumb manner on so many topics in the past year. Regardless, justice is supposed to be blind, and whether Mr. Castile had a license to carry or was a Mother-Teresa-in-training isn’t supposed to enter into the equation here.

For the sake of justice, I truly hope that Mr. Choi has more evidence up his sleeve than Ms. Corey or Ms. Mosby had.

comments

  1. avatar jwtaylor says:

    According to what was released this morning, the gun was still in his pocket.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      The charges seem to be justified by the evidence. It’s regrettable that an officer had to be charged, but he failed to carry out his duties in a professional manner. and must bear the consequences of his actions.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        How is it regrettable that the government employee was charged? He is a criminal. He should be spending the rest of his life in prison.

        1. avatar Ebby123 says:

          He made a significant mistake while doing his job. Its still cost someone their life, so he must be charged accordingly, but its very different than someone shooting a clerk while holding up a 7-11.

          Had it been malicious, I agree, the difference would be minimal, but I believe this was an honest mistake/overreaction.

          This officer failed to prepare himself emotionally and mentally to conduct his duties safely, and as a result his let himself be “scared” into shooting an innocent person.

        2. avatar Demo Man says:

          Chris- the wannabe tough guys here turn into screaming fairies at the sight of a badge because they secretly wish they were cops. Be careful in Illinois, what happened to Philando Castile will happen to any licensed citizen from out of state also. Illinois’ statute obligates all armed citizens to inform cops.

          These types of fascist retards are the reason that we have Duty to Inform with criminal penalties in Illinois 2013 carry bill. NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put DTI in the “NRA backed” bill because the IL Chiefs of Police wanted it. The IL Chiefs totally opposed any form of citizen carry for FORTY YEARS, and NRA sucks their asses. Duty to Inform, the “gift” that keeps on killing!

  2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    I don’t care whether Mr Castile was Mother Theresa in training or a dirt bag with a rap sheet longer than my arm. He was shot without apparent justification and we should all be concerned about that.

  3. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    Check the Conservative Tree House before buying the next media-created George Zimmerman profiling with this cop:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/16/here-we-go-again-activist-minnesota-prosecutor-charges-officer-without-grand-jury/

    Looks like his gun was in his lap/waistband in plain sight of the cop.

    Just saved you 45 minutes of typing Chip

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Maybe he kept the gun in the same pocket with the wallet?

    2. avatar gunguy says:

      That site has had some pretty wacky stuff on it, I’m not sure I’d trust what they are putting out there, 100%.

      1. avatar Bloggerusa1 says:

        Conservative Treehouse is a very solid blog. I read it daily. However, his point is inarguable–the DA did not empanel a grand jury as he normally would. Why not?

        1. avatar UTDMatt says:

          Tree house is a monkey zoo of trump cult and cannot be trusted for anything.

          They are seriously into info wars territory.

    3. avatar CueBaller says:

      No clear view of what (if anything) is in his lap.

      And the pictures of the gun on the ground are meaningless, as they would’ve disarmed him after removing him from the car, dead or not.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mn-shooting-handgun-wallet.jpg

        Gun in lap. Wallet in pocket. I wish it hadn’t of happened, but not a good combination at a traffic stop where they think the driver is an armed robbery suspect.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          American citizens have every right to bear arms. If the cops do not want the risk, then they need to find honest employment. I don’t care if the citizen is holding the weapon in his hand, the government employee has no business even touching his gun.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          Yeah, that picture is definitive. There can be no doubt whatsoever.
          Here’s some equal quality proof of the existence of bigfoot:
          http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/31/article-2152913-1364182C000005DC-653_468x309.jpg

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Armed robbery? Now *they* are murder suspects, but nobody is shooting them!

        4. avatar Ebby123 says:

          Based on that photo / footage, that’s speculation at best.

          Stop believing you “see” something because they headline told you what you’re supposed to “see”.

    4. avatar TStew says:

      The gun was not in his lap, as I’d previously believed as well. The facts in the case state that the gun was in a deep inside pocket of Castille’s jacket and his wallet was in a pocket on the other side.

      1. avatar Don says:

        The gun was also reported to be empty and the girlfriend was the potential backstop for any bullets that missed.

        1. avatar TStew says:

          Plus the four year old child in the backseat…

          For me, this all simply reinforces my MN Permit To Carry training. We are not a duty-to-inform state. The first option is to say nothing unless you’re asked to get out of your car – in which case it’s disclosure and request for instructions time. The second (and best, IMO) option is to have your wallet out before the cop walks up to the car and, should you choose, hand over permit with your license and calmly inform the officer that you are “armed”. While not a mistake worthy of being shot, the victim and his girlfriend apparently simply said that he has “a gun and a permit” at some point shortly after the cop came up to the car.

          Never, never, never say “gun” to a cop…

    5. avatar B says:

      That contradicts the cop’s official story. Surprisingly, I’m more inclined to believe him than random internet article by someone who wasn’t there. Gun wasn’t out. Sad, but there are consequences for doing a panic mag dump into a dude sitting in a car, no matter what color your shirt is. He shouldn’t have been a cop and now everyone pays the price.

    6. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Not in his lap and not visible. According to both officer’s statements, as well as the official complaint, the firearms was inside a jacket pocket, unchambered. It was not in his waistband at all and absolutely not visible to either officer. Again, that’s according to their own statements.

    7. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      prosecutor said the gun was in his pocket which was 12″ deep.

    8. avatar Bill says:

      Yep, always best to get your news from echo chambers.

      1. avatar Ebby123 says:

        ^^^So much this.
        People have GOT TO QUIT SHOPPING for “news” that confirms what they wanted to believe anyways.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:

    I better go check my tail lights. Make sure they are in good working order.

  5. avatar C.S. says:

    This is our imperfect system of justice. The prosecutors are using their judgement, let the jury decide.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Huh? Am I misreading your post in some way?

      How does it get to a jury if the prosecutor does not use their judgement and file charges?

      1. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

        Kindly please look up the difference between a grand jury and a petit jury.

  6. avatar Mike Betts says:

    Where are all of the people who regularly decry on these pages “cops getting away with murder”? Could it be that when a thorough investigation has revealed likely illegal conduct, a cop is being charged with a crime and now the state must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he should be convicted of it? That surely seems to be the case. Officer Jeronimo Yanez is going to have to justify his actions or face the consequences for them. Is this an aberration in American jurisprudence? Not at all. I won’t claim that it happens in ALL cases where police use deadly force – but it unquestionably occurs in the great majority of them. And that’s as it should be.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… but it unquestionably occurs in the great majority of them.”

      Citations please.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        I’d substitute “hopefully” for “unquestionably” in that.
        Because there sure seems to be a double standard in many jurisdictions, where there is a rebuttable presumption that the killer peon is guilty, and an all but impenetrable presumption that the killer LEO is innocent.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      As someone who has commented that cops get away with shootings that we peons would get life sentences for (remember Jose Guerena, the Marine killed by Pima SWAT in Tucson?), I don’t get your question. Are you saying we should all post that we were wrong, because in this one instance the cop is facing charges?

  7. Has ANYONE ever confirmed if the dead dude really had a CCL? IF NOT this cop is going down…trigger happy po-leecing. Correctly charged too. Unlike the goofy “try for a home-run” case of LaQuane McDonald in Chiraq…

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      I was wondering about that myself. I’ve seen reports that he did have a license and one that said he didn’t.

    2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      You really think they overlooked that claim, didn’t check, or are lying? The county attorney stated that Castile did have a permit when he made the announcement yesterday.

      1. Yes I REALLY think prosecutors are politically motivated,inept or left-wing dumbocrat apparatchuks…next question? I am not a potential juror but it would help to see an actual CCL…and I am also a former resident of Chicago(and live 10 miles south) now so I believe being skeptical is in order.

        1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          So you think the county attorney is dumb enough to lie about something so easily checked. I suppose it is possible but it seems unlikely he’d so sacrifice his career.

        2. Yep I think they are dumb/inept or left enough…this from a state who elected Jesse Ventura AND Al Franken aka Stewart Smalley. And I have no problem with the indictment-“show me the money”(shot)!

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          As someone who also lived in Chicago, let me ask you, you don’t think cops tell stupid lies on a regular basis?

          Perhaps you believe that the 100lb. barmaid really did throw 300lb. officer Tony Abbate around “like a rag doll”.

          And speaking of the Chicago PD, I believe that they’ve been ADJUDICATED as having a “blue wall of silence”. Strange that you wouldn’t know that…

          Of course you might be one of the guys who still thinks that Kathryn Johnston was a “drug dealer”.

        4. avatar Demo Man says:

          Chris- don’t waste your breath on people who possess the cognitive abilities of a turnip and G.E.D. level education at best.

          The NRA and ISRA members in Illinois who think Todd Vandermyde is their friend are still too stupid to figure out that they are going to get their heads blown off by police criminals like Philando Castile did. They do not have the sixth grade reading ability to look at the Duty to Inform language that Vandermyde placed in state Rep. Brandon Phelps 2013 concealed carry bill. As you can see here, you are dealing with brain dead hicks who will now get mad at you for pointing out that police lie, and that Todd Vandermyde and the NRA are their worst enemies.

      2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        Just remember, the bootlicker crowd dutifully repeated the lie that the victim did not have a CCL (and implied he was a felon) when some cop made this baseless claim on twitter.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          That’s the “circle the wagons” SOP. Look at how Kathryn Johnston was treated by fanbois of the Atlanta PD.

          Of course even if this is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to have been a criminal homicide, if the survivors sue, the fanbois will call it “the ghetto lottery”, as if Philando Castile had waited his whole life to be shot do death by the police in order to “cash in”.

    3. avatar Wood says:

      CCL or not, it’s irrelevant. Was he reaching for it or not. Did he intend to use it against the cop or not. Since you won’t accept the reported validity of the man’s CCL, why would accept what anyone here has to say about it? None of us can corroborate it one way or the other.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Ah no…I WOULD accept a copy of Castile’s CCL…if it exists. If it doesn’t he’s just another thug with a gun. But thanks for playing?

        1. avatar KOB says:

          I was unaware that you get to shoot people for possession of a firearm, thug or no.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Both officers agreed that they knew he had a gun because he told them. I did not hear that they had even asked. This is sounding like a not so bad guy. So a cop reaches into the car for some unexplained reason, while screaming, then steps back and fires 7 shots point blank. This is bad. Whether he had a permit or not.

        3. avatar Wood says:

          No no, thank YOU!

          Mere prescence of a gun does not a thug make. Carrying illegally is something clearly celebrated in the comments section, except when you’ve already decided someone’s a thug. Weird rules here, hard to keep track of the ttag PC.

    4. avatar Don says:

      There is a photo of the permit in some of the newspaper stories and the prosecutors office said he did.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        @FWW, there Don here at ttag said he had a CHL. Is that good enough for you? Maybe you’d like to do your own research instead of just yelling everyone else down?

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      Legally it makes absolutely no difference whether the guy had a license or not; the key question is whether he was reasonably perceived as a threat. Whether you find or don’t find a license in the guy’s wallet afterwards doesn’t matter to that unless you include a time machine in the equation.

      1. avatar RMS1911 says:

        if you don’t have a badge you are guilty. thats how they work.

        1. avatar Demo Man says:

          True. Mostly prosecutors cover up for cops because they rely on them to provide fodder for arrests to keep the courts and prisons full.

          The question is why the police suckass crowd among the gun peeps reflexively defend police criminals at every turn, like you see here? That’s because they are losers who could never cut it the military or any sort of real world, and they think having a piece of plastic in their wallet makes them junior policemen.

          These types of brain dead retards are the reason that NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde was able to put Duty to Inform in Illinois 2013 carry bill and not get skinned alive.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          Yes, yes, pigs more equal, blah blah blah

          none of which address the point I made, which is a legal point that should be known by anyone carrying a gun, not just cops- the only thing that matters is the reasonable perception of threat to the person using force, not exculpatory (or inculpatory) evidence that could not be known at the time. To turn it around, Even if the guy was carrying a gun illegally, it doesn’t give more justification to the cop. Even if the guy had stolen the gun and just murdered three people, it doesn’t matter if it was impossible to know.

          Also, I find it funny that the spell check here flags “inculpatory’ but not ‘exculpatory’

  8. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

    From the publicly available evidence the charges seem to fit the alleged crime, now it’s up to a jury to decide if the cop is guilty. If it is shown in court the deceased had a CHL and was legally carrying I don’t think the cop will be having a good day in court.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    But there’s still no justice for Harambe.

    Sniff.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Harabe got 14,000 write-in votes for president.
      DOFH! For Life!

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        1) No, he didn’t, you fell for another fake news site
        2) Harambe was just a gorilla

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yes, he did. You’re falling for the racist altmedia. Harambe is America!.

  10. avatar Pete says:

    CCW or not, reaching for a wallet during a traffic stop is not exactly the best thing to do, if he did have one how does that jibe with his recorded drug use? Video out there showing him passed out in the car.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      How do you know he was reaching for his wallet? If he was, was he told to retrieve his license? Was he following the officers orders?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The video I saw of him passed out was taken by his girlfriend, after he had been shot 7 times by a cop with his duty weapon, while he was dying. Kinda insensitive, there.

    3. avatar Chris Morton says:

      If the cop demanded ID, from where was the victim supposed to produce it, his colon?

      The defenders of criminals like Michael Brown and the defenders of criminal cops sound remarkably alike.

      Black Lies matter and the police unions are merely dueling bands of sociopaths seeking to create untouchable castes of felons. Only their respective constituencies differ.

      1. avatar Demo Man says:

        What separates the police unions from BLM is that the police have the good old boys in the state legislatures in their back pockets, and the police unions also have NRA, Inc. writing bills to advance and promote the criminal police state.

        That’s how it worked in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill: NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde cut a deal with the anti-gun police unions to place Duty to Inform in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill. Phelps and the brain dead hicks in southern IL who vote for him don’t care about black people like Philando Castile if they get gunned down by police criminals. They are all white Freemason good old boys, the police are their friends, and they know the secret handshake.

        You’re right, they are all dueling bands of sociopaths, plus a few traitors like Vandermyde thrown in to the mixture.

  11. avatar "Garrison Hall says:

    If the video had not been made and uploaded, these charges would never occurred. Instead, the police report would have covered all the bases needed to exonerate the officer and discredit any witness statements the woman might have made. Thanks to the internet and social media, this is pretty much common knowledge where, in previous years, it wasn’t at all well-known. While, in the interest of “diversity”, police departments have been reducing educational requirements (Austin notoriously admitted people without HS diplomas to its academy) , recent research shows that officers with only a HS education are substantially more likely to be involved in incidents like this than officers with college educations.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      (Austin notoriously admitted people without HS diplomas to its academy)
      The TCLEOSE certification required for law enforcement in Texas (including Austin) has not changed in decades. That is:
      •Be a high school high graduate or hold a high school equivalency certificate OR show proof of an honorable discharge from the US armed forces after at least 24 months of active duty service

      Austin, Texas is one the highest paid police forces in the country. There is quite the waiting list for the academy.

    2. avatar Demo Man says:

      Garrison- good observation re. the education level of cops. Last I knew Chicago P.D. required a two year community college degree, but that could be waived for military experience. So you could have a police recruit who enlisted as a private, in for four years, made it to sergeant, got busted back down to private, and at the end of the day had a G.E.D. when he started at the local P.D.

      Why does the system give a gun to people of below average intelligence? Because the politicians want low class blue collar morons willing to break down doors on orders, not Constitutional scholars. What’s the excuse in 2016? Everyone else in the courtroom from the judge to the prosecutor has at least a bachelor’s degree, plus a law degree on top of that, except for the transcriptionist. Cops are the garbagemen of the system, nothing more.

      As long as Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA pay people like IL state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde and let them sell out their own members to police unions to get executed like Philando Castile with Duty to Inform, this will keep happening. Don’t count on the average NRA member to wake up and do anything about it, that would be like expecting a turnip to speak English.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I cannot comment whether Officer Yanez’s actions were justified since I do not have access to all the evidence.

    I can say this:
    (1) Someone claiming that they have a concealed handgun carry license at a traffic stop doesn’t really mean anything. (They may or may not actually have a license.)
    (2) Whether or not the driver actually has a license doesn’t mean anything. (They may have a license and intend to attack the cop. They may not have a license and have no intention of attacking the cop. Or any other combination thereof.)
    (3) Someone saying that they have a handgun at a traffic stop does not mean anything. (They may be “legal” and trying to calm the cops fears. Or they may be “illegal” and trying to get the cop to let his guard down.)
    (4) Someone reaching to a location that is not visible could mean something. (They could be reaching for a wallet or they could be reaching for a handgun.)

    The best answer for this, going forward, is to have your driver’s license (and concealed carry license if applicable) in hand long before you pull over and to keep both hands on the steering wheel where the cop can see them the entire time. Oh, and if it is night, turn on your interior lights.

    And for the love of all that is good and decent, do NOT be rummaging around in your car while the cop is walking up to your car. If you were somehow not able to get your driver’s license in hand well before you pulled over, just sit still with both of your hands on your steering wheel and ask the cop what to do every step of the way. Verify everything that he asks verbally and do NOT suddenly reach for anything. If your driver’s license is in your pocket, suggest that you stand up outside the car, with your hands visible away from your pockets, and let the cop retrieve your license from your pocket.

    1. avatar Wood says:

      Right, because getting out of your vehicle without being instructed to is a good idea.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “If your driver’s license is in your pocket, suggest that you stand up outside the car …”

        Perhaps you misread my statement above. My sentence has an implied subject and object. Restating it, “If your driver’s license is in your pocket, [you] suggest [to the cop] that you stand up outside the car …”

        This is consistent with the rest of my comment where I directed you verify all actions with the cop before acting.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          You got me on the grammar. Thanks for clarifying.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      When I get pulled over in a car, I pull out my wallet and the booklet with my car’s paperwork and put them on the dash before the cop walks up. And I keep my hands high on the steering wheel.
      On my bike, I keep my wallet and registration in chest pockets, so I pull those out before the cop approaches, keep them in hand, flip up my visor, and keep my helmet camera trained on the cop.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        You’d better work real quick then. It was 15 seconds from the time that the vehicle stopped to the time the officer was at his window. 30 seconds after that the officer started shooting. Literally, the whole thing happened from the stop to the shots in one minute.
        Also, keeping your hands on the wheel after being told to get your ID is likely to get you tazered and drug out by the window.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          I’d love to sit on that jury. Cops seem really adept at yelling conflicting things at people who are already freaked out. The cops need to be held to a higher standard of performance. They chose the job, they are the ones who get into high stress contacts on a regular basis. Many of the rest of us don’t handle being screamed at by some choad with a badge.

  13. avatar Ed Thedog says:

    With respect to the need for more evidence…Yanez’s partner was on the other side of the car and will clearly corroborate the truth. Seems pretty damning to me that the partner never drew his service pistol so there will be some evidence of that officer’s state of mind (going to reasonableness).

    And to those doubters, it has been confirmed that the victim had a CCL and his firearm was in the pocket of his shorts.

    My 2 cents…being a LEO is a very difficult job and perhaps we should be sure those folks out on the street have the capacity to maintain some level of composure under difficult situations (traffic stops, domestic situations, etc.).

    I live in a state (OR) that doesn’t require notification of your CCL, but during a recent LEO interaction – speeding ticket, damn those 40 to 25 shifts – I informed the officer and kept my hands up on the wheel. Not an issue for either of us…

    Here’s the deal, have your info ready to go and just hand it out and be very clear with your hands.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Cop may be nervous. You need to not be.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Cop has training. You do not.

        It’s fairly clear where the burden should appropriately lie in this case.

        Until such time as this actually changes, of course, yours is a good advice. But it should also be clear that it’s not a good state of affairs.

  14. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    This is a case that needs to be adjudicated by a jury. If the officer was justified he needs a court to say so as much as if he is guilty of manslaughter.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      You mean as opposed to just pleading it out?

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

        If he pleads it out then he is admitting guilt. Justice is served.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          Tell that to his family. I bet they’d disagree.

        2. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

          Then he should take it to trial and trust his fate to the jury.

  15. avatar Catherine Nungesser says:

    Though not conclusive or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the complaint charging Ofcr. Yanez is the best place to start in understanding why the government charged him, and why they charged him with those particular offenses. Read that complaint here: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/County%20Attorney/Yanez%20Jeronimo%2011%2016%2016.pdf

    The complaint answers some of the questions above–e.g., did Mr. Castille has a CCW permit. It also holds many sobering lessons for those who carry on interacting with law enforcement when stopped in a car.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Reading that it’s pretty clear he was reaching for something after being told repeatedly not to. Would love to see that dashcam.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        That’s not what’s in the complaint at all, and not what the officer said. He said he just “kept his hand there” and he was “looking forward” and got “nervous” and “hinky”. Here’s how it went, according to the compliant and the cop’s own words.

        I’m sitting in the car with my girlfriend and daughter. Cop pulls me over. No problem. Cop tells me I have a busted tail light. I follow the law and tell him I have a firearm.

        As per the official complaint above, before I can even finish my sentence about where it is, the condition it’s in, or weather or not I am a legal carrier, the cop cuts me off and puts his hand on his gun. In my mind, right there, that’s step one of him drawing his weapon.

        He tells me to get my ID. Well I’m screwed now. Because this guys’ on step one his draw, he’s cut me off from explaining anything, and he’s told me to reach for my wallet. My gun is in a jacket pocket, not my pants pocket with my wallet, but the cop doesn’t know that.

        But he’s already ready to shoot me, with his hand on that gun. So I comply and slowly reach for my wallet, verbalizing that I am not reaching for my gun the whole time. I stop, I freeze while he yells at me. (as per the cop’s own words, the victim “just kept his hand there”.

        Then he kills me in front of my daughter.

        I followed the law by telling him I was armed. I was courteous. I had no warrants, and was being sought for no crime. I was never going for my gun. I was following his commands.

        And he kills me in front of my daughter.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          That’s what I get out of it. Bet that little girl doesn’t grow up to like or respect 5-0. All in all, more harm has been done here to po-leece / peon relations.

          Generally speaking, all LE organizations need some remedial training in the theory behind Blackstone’s Formulation.

        2. avatar the ruester says:

          The dashcam transcript is pretty clear that Yanez never told him to reach for anything. Exactly the opposite, he calmly told him “ok, don’t reach for it then.” Both officers then describe Castile shifting positions in the seat. Diamond even says he was reaching for the wallet in the livestream, an action that Yanez specifically warned against. On top of that, he apparently attempted and failed to physically restrain Castile by grabbing him. The transcripts appear to show a man so determined to show his ccl that he was willing to die trying.

        3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          You missed the part where the cop demanded the victim’s identification.

          As usual, bootlickers are pathological liars.

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          MDS, not that you care, but even when you’re on the right side of some point or other, your tone and general communication style make you completely unpersuasive.

        5. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Bootlickers cannot be persuaded. I guarantee you they will keep spewing pro-cop drivel even if their own children are killed in a no-knock raid.

        6. avatar Demo Man says:

          Yes More Dead Soldiers, you should be more sensitive and touchy feely in your communication style, that’s what’s important here, according to Carlos.

          What’s wrong with you? You’re not conforming to the group, as defined by Carlos and the other Freemasons here. It’s about “persuading” the others in the group (which is defined by them) not the fact that an armed citizen was publicly executed because of Duty to Inform.

          Besides, if you know the secret handshake and are white, this will never happen to you. A concealed carry license is like a junior policeman badge, don’t you know that? The police are your friends.

        7. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          I heard cops actually give money to white people who know the secret handshake, a la Eddie Murphy’s “White Like Me” skit on SNL.

        8. avatar Demo Man says:

          If you can stomach some reading without barfing, go to the Illinois Carry dot com website run by Valinda Rowe and read some of the threads about Duty to Inform. Many of the geniuses there recommend volunteering that you are armed to the cops, because it helps get you out of traffic citations. I am not making this up.

          Valinda is a grassroots activist of sorts from far southern Illinois who gets used by hacks like Richard Pearson from ISRA to set up the chairs for the annual IGOLD march at the state capitol in Springfield. IGOLD is sort of the annual spring migration of the cattle across the great plains of Illinois. Her website is replete with mottos like “in Todd we trust!” and other pearls of wisdom from the excruciatingly brain dead losers who are too stupid to figure out that Todd Vandermyde is their worst enemy.

          Valinda is also one of the people who helped recruit Otis McDonald for the Supreme Court, then betrayed him by failing to oppose the Duty to Inform Vandermyde put in the NRA bill.

          That’s a small town passive/ aggressive move: I won’t hurt you, but I won’t help you, because “that won’t happen to me.” Read the comments and you’ll see that these people really are that stupid. Too many shots of moonshine and Larry the Cable Guy movies must degrade the brain function down in Little Egypt.

    2. avatar Independent George says:

      Reading the description in the charge, this seems like a case of really, really poor communication. Facts not in dispute:

      1. Officer Yanez asks to see ID.
      2. Castile tells Yanez that he has a gun – probably to let Yanez know he’s reaching for his wallet and not his gun.
      3. Yanez tells Castille, “Don’t reach for it.” – meaning don’t reach for the gun.
      4. Castile tells Yanez that he’s not reaching for “it” – meaning he’s reaching for his wallet (to comply with the officer’s demand for ID), and not his gun.

      It seems clear to me what happened – Castile is trying to comply with two distinct orders: produce his ID, and don’t reach for his gun. Castile knows his gun is in his right front pocket, and is reaching for his wallet – so when he says he’s “not reaching for it”, he’s telling the literal truth and is in fact complying with both of those orders. Yanez does not know where the gun is, so when he sees Castile reaching for the wallet while saying he’s not reaching for “it”, he thinks he’s reaching for the gun.

      I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me there are two ways to interpret this:

      1. Castile was known to be armed, and matched the description of armed robbers, and was reaching into his pocket despite being told not to. Officer Yanez had a reasonable fear for his life and was justified in shooting.
      2. Yanez gave Castile ambiguous and contradictory instructions, and as a result Castile could not act without breaking at least one order. Yanez created a situation which had to escalate, as it was impossible to comply with both demands at once. Though unintentional, the situation was an inevitable circumstances created by Yanez’s negligent actions in issuing two contradictory orders – thus, manslaughter instead of murder.

      I don’t know that Castile is guilty of manslaughter, but he is also clearly responsible for creating the situation in the first place. I think a civil suit is definitely appropriate, and the police needs to seriously work on how to issue clear and unambiguous communication, but I’m not certain of the criminal charge.

      1. avatar dollup15 says:

        The problem for the cop is going to be that from the time he initially told Castile to not reach for his gun, to the time he finished shooting, a mere 7 seconds passed. Everything else, including Castile telling him he wasn’t reaching for his gun, the cop pulling his gun out the holster, and the cop unloading seven rounds, all occurred in a 7 second time span. Castile’s gun was not removed, and based on the information available, was never even touched, during this time. It’s going to be difficult for the cop to justify this shooting.

  16. avatar NorincoJay says:

    Based on what I’ve read it seems the cop is lucky he is just charged with 2nd degree man slaughter and firearm discharges. He should just plead guilty and save tax payers.

    I’m also disappointed in the NRA’s handling of this case or lack of. As this victim has been proven to be a concealed carry permit holder. Again shame on the NRA.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Norinco- the NRA is your worst enemy. In Illinois 2013 concealed carry bill, it was NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde that put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” bill, and the only people who opposed DTI in Phelps bill were Chicago area Democrat Black Caucus Reps!!!

      NRA has a great race hustle going on. They use black people as plaintiffs, like using Otis McDonald as the face man for the Supreme Court lawsuit. NRA made $1.3 MILLION dollars in legal fees on the McDonald v. Chicago case. When it came time in 2013 to pass a carry bill in Illinois, Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA let Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in their bill, because the anti-gun IL Chiefs of Police wanted it.

      NRA doesn’t care if blacks like Philando Castile get executed by police criminals, they work with the anti-gun police unions to promote and expand the criminal police state so cops can get away with murder. NRA is a corrupt rotten front filled with traitors and scum that feast on the blood of their own membership.

  17. avatar the ruester says:

    Culpable negligence manslaughter would be the same charge as someone who killed a pedestrian while drag racing. They will have to prove “wanton disregard” for the safety of those exposed to his actions. The other charges are related to that theme. They do not appear to be concerned so much with Castile than with the mother and child who may have been hurt. If they thought the sequence of events proved more than that, they would have charged him with something that carries a heavier sentence. Max for all 3 charges could be 30 years consec, but minimum sentence could be probation, as far as I can tell.

  18. avatar Dave says:

    The monkey should have kept his hands where the officer could see them. The judge’s indictment decision was just an appeasement to BLM.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      So much derp in only two sentences. Bravo sir, bravo.

    2. avatar TStew says:

      Odd, I’d read that the DNC’s army of phony racist trolls was shut down after the election…

    3. avatar Wood says:

      You’re a racist jackass.

    4. avatar Ad says:

      fuck you fucking racist piece of shit. crawl back into your hole.

    5. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Have you noticed that the most ardent of the fanbois ALWAYS sound like they wandered in from Stormfront…?

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m interested in the evidence for this one. Might be unjustified. But here’s a tip: don’t tell a cop “I’ve got a gun” and then reach for anything near that gun. It doesn’t matter if you’re saying “I’m not pulling it” if you look like you’re pulling it.

    Maybe it ends up being a justified shoot, maybe not, but it could have been avoided with some common sense. You may know who you are and why you’re reaching there but the officer sure as hell doesn’t.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “I’ve got a gun” and then reach for anything near that gun.”
      Read the complaint above, that’s not what happened, even according to both officers there. The told the officer he had a gun, but before he could finish the officer cut him off. The officer then told him to get his ID. He was complying with the officer’s specific instructions when he was shot.

      1. avatar Independent George says:

        That’s the exact problem – Castile’s action could legitimately be interpreted as threatening, but he was only doing it because he was ordered to do so by Yanez. In Castile’s mind, he was complying by (1) producing his ID and (2) not reaching for his gun. The problem is that in Yanez’s mind, his order to not reach for “it” meant don’t reach for anything.

        In that moment, neither was probably thinking about what the other knew. In Castile’s mind, he was complying with both of Yanez’s orders exactly. In Yanez’s mind, his orders were very clear and Castile was not complying. It’s easy to see the miscommunication when reading the details after the fact, but in the moment, it’s never so clear. How many times have you had an argument with your wife because you each heard something different in a conversation you had early in the morning?

        I think Yanez is at fault because his ambiguous and contradictory orders were impossible to follow, but I’m not sure if that merits a criminal charge. It was negligent but not malicious, but I don’t know if that makes a difference in this circumstance.

        1. avatar dollup15 says:

          “It was negligent but not malicious, but I don’t know if that makes a difference in this circumstance.”

          It does. The fact that is was negligent is why the cop is charged with manslaughter. If it was malicious, he would have been charged with murder. By your own analysis of the facts, the criminal charge is appropriate.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          “In that moment, neither was probably thinking about what the other knew…”

          That’s a very good point and happens an awful lot in such interactions… usually with less tragic consequences. Unfortunately it’s not something that can just be solved with “moar training!” or diversity hiring, no matter what we hear from mayors and the justice department. It’s just how humans work.

          Regardless of how this ends, I see this as a reminder that every law put into place by politicians- jaywalking, license plate lightbulbs, etc- can and usually do (eventually) lead to someone’s death. If we had to admit that before silly laws were passed we’d all be better off.

          Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want people constantly walking into traffic because there’s no jaywalking law. I just want to see some honesty about the whole thing and recognize that when politicians complain about the ‘oppressive nature of policing’ on one hand but pass these laws on the other, they’re full of it.

  20. avatar Accur81 says:

    This looks like a bad shoot and legit charges against Officer Yanez (or whoever it was who pulled the trigger), although I don’t have all the details.

    Contrary to what the cop bashers say, there are officers who should be charged and do get charged.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “there are officers who should be charged and do get charged.”

      Moving the goalposts as usual. Cops actually getting charged for crimes against civilians is exceptionally rare, “there are” ignores the extreme rarity of this event.

      This pig was charged because the passenger happened to be recording video, nothing more. Michael Slager would be home-free if he wasn’t caught on candid camera.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        So saith More Dead, ruler of his imaginary domain.

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Let’s hear you construe of a scenario where Michael Slager would have been arrested and charged without the hidden camera footage. Imaginary domain indeed.

          While we are at it, has there been a single instance of a cop being punished in any way when his body camera mysteriously malfunctioned or was never enabled when he shot a civilian? No? So much for accountability.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          has there been a single instance of a cop being punished in any way when his body camera mysteriously malfunctioned or was never enabled when he shot a civilian?

          During a six-month test run in 2015, Denver police only had their cameras turned on one out of every four times they reported using force against civilians. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, an officer with a history of refusing to turn on his camera shot a civilian and then claimed the camera came “unplugged.” There are numerous examples of cops not turning their cameras on at all or not until after the cop shot someone. There was a case a while back where the cop(s) said there was no video of an incident, but later when bystander cell phone video was released then the PD said, “oh, we found some video after all.” They were hiding it until the cell phone video came out.

        3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Yep, and no punishment dished out for any of this malfaesance.

          Then some cops have the chutzpah to claim that body cameras are for *their* protection against frivolous lawsuits. Hah!

    2. avatar Demo Man says:

      Check out how police manipulate language the way they manipulate people:
      “This looks like a bad shoot…” I guess “a bad shoot” is cop-speak for murder?

      “Contrary to what the cop bashers say…” Define “cop bashers?” Would that be citizens who pay the parasites who feed on society but produce nothing, then manipulate the legal system, the way the anti-gun Illinois Chiefs of Police made a deal with NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde to place Duty to Inform in his 2013 concealed carry bill? Off duty police and retired police traveling outside their home state have no obligation to inform on duty police that they are armed, so what’s the deal with that? Oh I forgot, Philando Castile was black, plenty more where he came from.

      Illinois’ 2015 Body Cam bill has NO criminal penalties for police who alter or delete the vids, so only two of five cameras were “working” when Laquan McDonald was shot by Chicago P.D. The police unions got to the good old boy legislators and persuaded them to make it a “departmental charge.” Once again ignorant hick state Reps. like Brandon Phelps and his pet rat Todd Vandermyde who put Duty to Inform in their carry bill write the laws to promote police state murder. NRA, Inc. and the police unions are both on the same side: against you.

      1. avatar Demo Man says:

        Had not heard about the Weems incident. It looks like Weems was not in uniform or identifiable as a cop at the time. Illinois’ concealed carry bill has no requirement that the “officer” who questions or forcibly disarms you must be in uniform or on duty.

        After NRA rat Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013, Phelps and Vandermyde betrayed gun owners again in 2015 with SB 836. If the Duty to Inform language was not bad enough, they took language provided by the anti-gun IL State Police which expanded the DTI to out of state license holders and everyone in a vehicle stop, and threw in disarming language which spells out that the cop can seize your gun. Once again no requirement that the “officer” be in uniform:

        “If an officer of a law enforcement agency (who’s an officer? It could be John Gacy) initiates an investigative stop, including but not limited to a traffic stop, of a licensee or a non-resident carrying a concealed firearm under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act…”

        “Not limited to a traffic stop” means that anyone can walk up to you at any time the minute you walk out your door and demand to know if you are armed. Since every violation of Illinois’ carry bill is criminal, the “officer” or police impersonator has the excuse to use force to disarm you. Thanks Todd!

        The Duty to Inform section of SB 836 continues:
        “Upon the request of the officer, the licensee or non-resident shall also identify the location of the concealed firearm and permit the officer to safely secure the firearm (check the bullshit language, it’s for your “safety” only a cop could have written this) for the duration of the investigative stop. During a traffic stop, any passenger within the vehicle who is a licensee or a non-resident carrying under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act must comply with the requirements of this subsection.”

        More great work from the dynamic duo which gave Illinois residents the worst possible carry bill that police unions could dream up, when they had a federal court order behind them!

        NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde and sponsor Rep. Brandon Phelps are traitors who have deliberately and repeatedly enabled language supplied by police unions which promotes the legalized execution of armed citizens. Anyone who supports or apologizes for these two rats is a traitor also.

  21. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    In other news, Glock is making Gen4 versions of its most popular models with colored frames in Gray and Battlefield Green. While a nice option for those who have been thinking about buying their first Gen4 model, a few different SIZE options would be a nice addition to the Glock family.

    For instance, a Gen2 (no grooves) G19/23 size frame (in the new colors) with a G26/27 size slide would be awesome. Factory stainless slides would be a welcome addition too.

    More frame/slide combos instead of just some Pez colors is what is needed to refresh the Glock lineup!

  22. avatar dollup15 says:

    The charge seems perfectly appropriate. I don’t know if he’ll be convicted, but that is the whole point of a trial; when there is probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, you have a trial to determine if it actually did.

    Some people are saying it isn’t criminal because it was negligent. That is a gross misunderstanding of criminal homicide laws. Minnesota law provides the following:

    Murder 1 is an intentional premeditated killing
    Murder 2 is an intentional but not premeditated killing, or felony murder
    Murder 3 is a unintentional killing caused by committing some dangerous and depraved action
    Manslaughter 1 is an intentional killing committed as a result of being provoked into a heat of passion
    Manslaughter 2 is a negligent killing

    If the cop’s actions were negligent and not malicious or unintentional, then manslaughter 2 is a perfectly appropriate charge.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Sounds reasonable to me.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Imagine, a prosecutor using the appropriate charge instead of pandering to the mob (hi, Marilyn)

      Somehow I bet it will be a lot easier of a trial that way.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      By your own chart, why shouldn’t it be Murder 3? Pulling a gun on someone without reason sounds like “committing some dangerous and depraved action” to me.

      1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        Some animals are more equal than others, interrupt senpai.

  23. avatar doesky2 says:

    Now days, if a police department is running without body cameras I’m going to assume that they are trying to hide their dirty cop practices. No exceptions.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email