Officer Jeronimo Yanez. Via StarTribune.com.

A Minnesota jury has found Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez not guilty of all counts for the shooting death of Philando Castile last year during a traffic stop. Yanez had been charged by prosecutor John Choi with second-degree manslaughter and dangerous discharge of a firearm, both felonies under Minnesota law. The municipality of St. Anthony, which had employed Yanez, announced that he “will not return to active duty” because “the public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” Yanez will be offered a “voluntary separation agreement with terms to be negotiated,” according to Minnesota Public Radio.

Yanez shot Castile during a traffic stop in 2016 — he and his partner believed that Castile resembled a suspect wanted for the robbery of a local convenience store. When Yanez approached the vehicle, Castile announced that he had a Minnesota Permit to Carry a firearm, and that he was armed. Shortly afterwards, the situation went off the rails. Yanez and his partner claimed that Castile was moving to draw his firearm.Castile’s girlfriend and passenger in the car, Diamond Reynolds, however, said that Castile was reaching for a wallet per the officer’s request when he was shot. She began live-streaming from the scene after Castile was shot, which quickly went viral.

Reynolds’ video as well as the dash-cam footage from the police car appears to have been studied closely by the jury in this case; the footage of both was repeatedly requested during their five days of deliberations.

Philando Castile.

That video, plus the fact that Castile was black, and that Reynolds claimed that he was attempting to comply with the officer’s instructions, drew national attention to the case. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, opined that Castile would not have been shot if had had been white. Indeed, the prosecution alleged that Yanez, a Chicano, had “racially profiled” Castile.
The whereabouts of the gun became a major issue in the case as well. Yanez took the stand in his own defense, testified that Castile had begun to pull the gun out of his pants, enough so that he could see its slide. “I didn’t want to shoot Mr. Castile at all…. I thought I was going to die…. I had no other choice.”

Prosecutors alleged that Yanez hadn’t seen the gun. In Reynolds’ video, Castile can be heard saying, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” There was contradictory testimony between two eyewitnesses. Another police officer testified that the gun slid out of Castile’s shorts pocket as Castile was loaded onto a backboard.  A paramedic claimed that an officer had to reach “deep” into Castile’s shorts pocket to remove the gun.

Castile’s mother was outraged by the decision.

“My son was murdered,” Valerie Castile, Philando’s mother, told reporters afterward, her voice choked with emotion. “Where on this planet do you tell the truth and be honest and still be murdered by the police in Minnesota … nowhere in the world do you die from being honest and telling the truth.”

The judicial system continues “to fail black people” she said. “When they get done with us, they’re coming for you, for you and all your interracial children. You all are next and you’ll be standing up here fighting for justice just as well as I am.”

UPDATE: Demonstrators plan to rally in support of Castile at 7:00pm CDT in front of the Minnesota Capitol, led by three groups: Justice Occupation for Philando, Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar and Communities United Against Police Brutality. A post on the Facebook event invitation read:

This verdict shows how the system is rigged against justice for victims of police terror. This was a prosecution team that usually works with police day in and day out; this system gave us a jury that was 83% white and 58% male, and included people who said they could never convict a cop. If we can’t count this system to just give us justice, we need to come together and make our own justice.

This summer might be longer and hotter than we thought…and I’m not talking about ‘global warming’.

Recommended For You

141 Responses to BREAKING: Not Guilty Verdict for Officer in Philando Castile Shooting

    • You know at this point I think the PD should armor up a few water tanks and use them for riot control. Put armored water turrets on them. Hell, have the time someone starts a fire at this events anyway. :/

      Here’s hoping this one will be more of a house event instead of a fury event. But given the history and the city I’m expecting to see burned out buildings on the news in the morning.

    • the anger at this one is justified, this was not a justified shooting. The cop should have been found guilty.

    • You also praised ISIS as freedom fighters against the fascist west. They’ve killed thousands of innocents too. So perhaps the cops are now freedom fighters as well?

      • I said no such thing.

        I did say the Viet Minh were freedom fighters, as well as the patriotic Iraqis and Afghans who resisted against the American invasions and occupations.

        Don’t misattribute other people, it is very dishonest behavior.

        • The “patriotic Iraqis” who blew up innocents and killed children as a common practice? The “patriotic Afghanis” who slaughtered anyone opposing their views? The many members of the Sunni insurgency who are now daesh? Right.

        • “The “patriotic Iraqis” who blew up innocents and killed children as a common practice? The “patriotic Afghanis” who slaughtered anyone opposing their views?

          Some Iraqis and Afghans committed atrocities. Not all. The overriding ideology of Iraqi and Afghan resistance was to end the occupation. Internecine violence was common, but not universal to the entire resistance. The Nazis used the same lie to slander the European resistance movements and it worked quite well. There are lots of gullible idiots the world over. 🙂

          “The many members of the Sunni insurgency who are now daesh?”

          Now this is really good. Were these the same Sunni tribes that the US paid with cold cash to cease their resistance just long enough to convince the American public that the “surge” worked? The same tribes which were then left out to die at the hands of Shiite militias? Oh right, those Sunnis.

        • “Some Iraqis and Afghans committed atrocities. Not all.”

          #notallmuslims

        • Who did I misattribute? You cited a context-less statement. Motives and intent were not even part of the discussion.

          And yes there are some cops out there who kill people, just because.

        • “Some Iraqis and Afghans committed atrocities. Not all.” #notallmuslims

          So, just like the “bad apples” argument for cops?

        • People who support those who fight our troops should be put on trial for treason and on conviction should be hanged from a tree.

          That includes communist whores and their jihadi loving cucks like you.

        • Oh, Dead, I’ll play.

          You said “All cops lie all the time.” And I responded “I’m a cop and I say 7 x 7 = 49.”

          You’re pretty famous on these pages when it comes to never admitting when you are wrong. I don’t expect you to have the maturity level to change that anytime soon.

        • VietMinh were anti-colonial nationalists. If they were fighting for “freedom,” it wasn’t a conception of “freedom” that I want.

          As for the other comment, patriotism is only as good as the nation that’s at its center.

        • “You said “All cops lie all the time.” And I responded “I’m a cop and I say 7 x 7 = 49.”

          I say cops are trained to lie and deceive. For example, look what you just did. 😉

        • “VietMinh were anti-colonial nationalists. If they were fighting for “freedom,” it wasn’t a conception of “freedom” that I want.”

          Do you prefer to be the colonialist? Please tell everyone how that is pro-freedom.

    • Do you mean the police-on-civilian carnage? That’s been going on for some time already.

      • Pointless snide commentary from some leftist scum bag trying to troll. Well that’s innovative.

        Oh, side note. If you leftist scum really want to convince America to give a damn about your cause… try to find some real victims to talk about. And not just some obvious criminal who just couldn’t follow the most simple of police instructions. Hey, I actually DO care about victims of unlawful police violence. Case in police the story of Kelly Thomas. But stop defending some obvious criminal just because he’s black.

        • Sorry, the victims of police criminality are usually dead so they have nothing to say.

          “not just some obvious criminal who just couldn’t follow the most simple of police instructions.”

          “For some time” obviously means a continual trend, not any single particular case. Of course whenever individual cases are brought up, bootlickers talk about “bad apples” and ignore the systemic issues.

          “racial agenda”

          Where did I mention race?

        • Oh don’t be coy. I know what you people always push. I’ve heard all the narratives. Hell, I read the abject bullshit you leftist push. And I also know what the actual hard evidence said about the case to being with. And I do this every time a shooting like this comes up in the media. And there’s plenty of examples of incidents where the cops have done wrong. The problem here is, is that the incidents the left obsesses over are largely focused on race rather than any actual face of that case. Because when you start doing that you quickly realize just how many of these incidents were justifiable homicide by any real legal standard. You may hate that it has to be that cut and dry. But that’s how it is. Because in the end bad people will do bad things, no matter how morally outraged about.

        • “you people”

          Do you know me? 🙂

          “focused on race rather than any actual face of that case”

          Again, point out where I am focusing on race, or even mentioned race as a factor at all.

          “Because when you start doing that you quickly realize just how many of these incidents were justifiable homicide by any real legal standard”

          Indeed, that legal standard having been warped to provide a massive pro-police bias. Legality has nothing to do with morality.

          “Because in the end bad people will do bad things”

          Yep, and having the government provide legal cover for their murderous thugs makes it all the easier for said thugs to do bad things. Nothing to see here, move along, amirite?

  1. I would really recommend y’all do your research about this one. IMO, its a shining example of what NOT to do when interacting with law enforcement.

    Know what? Ill give you a spoiler: Castile did not disclose that he had a permit to carry. He disclosed that he had a firearm, and then reached into his pants. And THEN he did not obey the instructions of the officer, and as a result he was shot.

    Also, Castile was stoned as heck when it went down. Yes you read that correctly- he got stoned, and then was out driving his girlfriend and her daughter around. Maybe I am too judgemental, but thats not something responsible adults do!

    It is sad/tragic, but dont buy the media hype. IMO this officer really had no choice.

    • The victim was getting his wallet as ordered when he was shot. The girlfriend testified the victim said he had a CCL, the killer cop did not refute this.

      As usual the bootlicker uses lies and slander to justify government murder.

      • MDS,

        I know I replied on another comment of yours thanking you for making me laugh, but I just had to reply to this little thread to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed watching you f*ck up your own argument. Really high-quality entertainment, pal. Keep up the good work.

      • Watch the dashcam footage. It’s very easy to make out the ENTIRE conversation. He stated he had a firearm, not a permit, and was, at that point, instructed to STOP reaching. Regardless of previous instructions, at that point the only instruction is to stop and very, very slowly put your hands on the steering wheel and don’t move.

        You can paint this any way you want, but this was justified. The cop did what he had to do. And don’t give me the “What about a taser?”, “Why not wait to see him pull his hands out of his pocket?” garbage. The second you ignore the instruction to stop, you are asking to be shot.

    • The “girlfriend” seems to be the one who precipitated the shooting. Saw video when it happened, where she blurted out, “He has a gun” (meaning Philando Castile). Right there, tensions rose to the “someone’s gonna die” level. From that minute/second, tunnel vision, hearing and attention overwhelm the participants. I can understand that the cop was so hopped up in fear of what could happen next, that he didn’t even recognize the commands he shouted. From what I have read (not being there means I don’t really, and can never really, have all the facts), it wouldn’t have mattered if Philando Castile was an 80 year old white man, a 15 year old Asian, or anything else.

      Are there unjustifiably too many cops who shoot for no good reason? Yes. Was this one of them? Seems like a natural outcome of fear removing all thought beyond not getting killed.

      Too close to call.

      • Ah, so being a panicky, fear-ridden wreck was a justifiable excuse for murder, but only if you are anointed with a government badge.

        Land of the free, yo.

        • “Ah, so being a panicky, fear-ridden wreck was a justifiable excuse for murder, but only if you are anointed with a government badge.”

          Ok, I will write this much more slowly so you can read it….

          I did not say “justified”, but “understandable”. Since neither you or I was there, since we likely have never faced a situation like this traffic stop (and the proximate cause of the stop was a “wide nose” [Really?]), neither of us truly knows how we would respond. You call it “murder” (because you are all knowing, all seeing). I call it a cautionary tale about a police encounter while armed.

        • Sam, the real irony here is MDS describes communist soldiers as freedom fighters. And then spouts off about the land of the free.

        • Murder? A jury of your peers, instructed as to the applicable laws, who sat through two weeks of testimony (and has now placed targets upon their back) does not agree with your take. Furthermore, according to an interview of one of the jurists, after the first day of deliberations it was 8-2 not guilty…and the two were not the black people on the jury.
          If a well tried case does not equal justice in your eyes, then do you have a better idea on how we handle police shooting cases?

        • “Furthermore, according to an interview of one of the jurists, after the first day of deliberations it was 8-2 not guilty”

          Wrong again: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/walter-scott-michael-slager-north-charleston.html?_r=0

          “Judge Clifton B. Newman’s decision to halt the proceedings came three days after jurors signaled that they were within one vote of returning a guilty verdict against Mr. Slager”

          “If a well tried case does not equal justice in your eyes, then do you have a better idea on how we handle police shooting cases?”

          Yes, by handing over initial review over to oversight boards run by civilians, like every other first world country.

        • “the real irony here is MDS describes communist soldiers as freedom fighters”

          I see how you totally omitted the context (Vietnam), where the communists were indeed fighting against colonial occupation. As always, total intellectual dishonesty from you. Or is it just mindless ignorance? It is rather hard to tell. 🙂

        • Honesty? You are as honest about cops as Al Gore is about the climate. You will step around honest facts to get to your cherry picked “facts”.

          And you admit to calling communist soldiers “freedom fighters”. Nobody but a communist or a fool would call them that. Now that we’ve established that you’re a commie fan it explains your hatred of the American .gov and its institutions.

          You really wanted to see hillary in the white house, didn’t you. It would have advanced your statist desires to the next level.

        • “And you admit to calling communist soldiers “freedom fighters”

          Not quite. I was kind enough to correct you by providing the relevant context (Vietnam colonialism) that you deliberately omitted in your rampant dishonesty. I have never said “all communists are freedom fighters”, as you seem to claim. Classic lie by omission. You cannot know what honesty is since you constantly lie.

          “You really wanted to see hillary in the white house, didn’t you.”

          I challenge you to provide a single shred of evidence that I voted for or supported Killary in any way whatsoever. She is, after all, the more militarist candidate.

        • You praise communist soldiers as freedom fighters then try walking it back. Of course hillary, very much a socialist, was your preferred candidate. And like a true communist you throw her under the bus for her failure.

          A communist supporter calling somebody else a liar. That’s rich. The ends justify the means, I suppose.

          You’re well and truly out of the closet now, bubba. Keep telling your anti .gov and anti tyranny lie while serving the biggest tyranny known to the human race.

          How can I prove anything, other than your admission of being a communist sympathizer? You guys lie about all your motives and movements.

          How can I know what you did in the voting booth? Take your word for it? That’s covered under the whole communist thingy.

        • Why do you insist on lying? Oh wait I know, it’s because you don’t have anything else to offer.

          Just like your claim of supporting Hilary, post a quote of me stating that all communists are freedom fighters, as opposed to the actual context of the Vietnam war, which you ignore like the liar you are.

          “walking it back”

          Now that’s projection.

          I am sorry you still don’t realize you fought on the bad guys’ side in Vietnam. Most people get wise after four decades of hindsight. Not you though. 🙂

        • You’re right about some folks getting no wiser. Communism is a failure that killed millions and you call their soldiers freedom fighters.

          You would make goebbels blush.

        • “You’re right about some folks getting no wiser.”

          Yes, that would be you, as already stated. Still waiting for you to provide quotes to back your accusations. 🙂

        • No accusations. memorial day post you stated that communist soldiers were freedom fighters.

          You’re out of the closet now. All your lies about being against .gov tyranny are exposed as lies. You just want the tyranny to be communist.

        • “memorial day post you stated that communist soldiers were freedom fighters.”

          If you know the exact date, then finding the quote and providing a link should be quite simple.

          Why can’t you do simple things?

        • What in the shit does your link to the NYT story on another case have to do with the Yanez trial?

          As the case went to trial, how does an initial review change the outcome?

          You’re a special kind of broken, aren’t you?

        • The Slager trial was brought up elsewhere in this thread. Got the streams crossed. The point stands though: you ask how ten jurors can disagree with me, the Slager case had one juror who literally stated he would not convict cops. So much for jury integrity.

          Back to Yanez. So, ten jurors didn’t find the cop culpable even though he gave the order then shot Castile when he obeyed. Forget a low bar… there is no bar whatsoever. Can you imagine a non-government anointed civilian getting this kind of special treatment?

        • Don’t need to look it up or quote the memorial day article. You’ve just in this thread called the viet minh freedom fighters. Viet Minh were communists. Communists are freedom fighters in your world.

          Even though they murdered, “re-educated” millions and forced many more to flee and risk their lives in rickety boats.

          Your use of the phrase “freedom fighters” to describe these state murderers is very telling about your true beliefs and mindset.

        • “Don’t need to look it up or quote the memorial day article. You’ve just in this thread called the viet minh freedom fighters. Communists are freedom fighters in your world.”

          Try looking up a “superset” in logic theory. Even senile old people can learn things, I have faith in you. 🙂

          “Even though they murdered, “re-educated” millions and forced many more to flee and risk their lives in rickety boats.”

          You might want to look up the butcher’s bill of the US military in Vietnam and their allied despots in South Vietnam. As in, the people you fought for.

        • As long as we’re clear about this. You see communist soldiers as freedom fighters. Which puts the lie in your mouth every time you proclaim some one a statist.

          So, have you always been a communist, or a supporter or is this just a recent thing? Would you call communist police and soldiers “thugs” or is that just for free folk like here in the US? Or would you be afraid to use the internet to express yourself once you get your communist .gov in place?

          As for the butcher’s bill. You shine over your communist brethrens bloodbill to focus on American soldiers. As I’ve said.
          It’s obvious that you don’t care about millions being killed. You just want to be one of the one’s ordering the deaths.

        • You are not clear about this, or anything at all. I’m guessing senility, but I will not discount regular addle-mindedness.

          Communists can absolutely be freedom fighters in some circumstances. For example, the Yugoslav resistance against the Nazis, the Chinese resistance against the Japanese, the Viet Minh, and the ANC. Many of the French resistance factions had communist ideologies. Communists are not *always* freedom fighters, and your lie of omission on that important distinction has been well documented.

          Now that the history lesson is out of the way, know that recognition is the first step to recovery. You wasted your life fighting for the bad guys in Vietnam, deal with it. 🙂

        • Communist are always communist. Joe Stalin. Mao. They fit your discription of freedom fighters, when they fought the germans and the japanese. But between the 2 of them they murdered more people than hitler. hitler, like your freedom fighting communists is soaked in innocent blood.

          But you go ahead and have your fantasy. In your mind those blood soaked murderers are freedom fighters. Gives great in sight to how your mind works.

        • Can you actually rebut the given examples, or are you sticking with your laughably infantile black-and-white worldview and running your mouth with no logic and no historical references? Wait don’t answer, it’s a trick question.

          You just can’t teach people who do not want to learn. 🙂

        • Wow. Just wow. You got up this morning knowing you were wrong. You knew you were wrong when you hit the key board. Been wrong all day. But still insisting 2+2=5.

          If you’re not a communist there never has been one.

        • Heh, you are such a child. You’re wrong, wrong, wrong! No evidence needed! Totally infantile.

          I did read that old people regress into childish behavior in their twilight years. Case in point. 🙂

        • Aw. You got mad, bro. You never should have outed yourself as a communist.

          Well, you can always shut this name down and come back as another person. Pretend to be somewhat moderate til your left leanings shine thru again.

          After all, the ends justify the means. And when you’re pimping for the greatest murder machine in history you need to be flexible in your tactics.

    • The victim was high on marijuana — which is monumentally stupid if you are armed and driving a car.

    • I am a medical courier here in the Twin Cities. I sure hope I don’t have any in town deliveries tomorrow night. I will turn around and flee if I see crowds. Without having heard the testimony and seen the dash cam video I don’t speculate on it much. It does bother me that it appears they just let him bleed out after though. He didn’t look like much of a threat after those four shots.

    • Yeah it would be too hard for the cops to stop murdering people. They just can’t help themselves.

      • Your anti-cop attitude is going to get you into trouble. If it hasn’t already.
        I’ve dealt with policemen about 20 times in my life and have never had any problems. They were always fair and never out of line and I always treat them with respect. My politeness has saved me hundreds of dollars in tickets that were changed to warnings.

        • You’re lucky. I had cops tear my house apart, damaging my property multiply, and lie about it. I’ve had cops cuff me and leave me sitting with no communication because I was driving a car resembling ine being sought — when they KNEW it wasn’t the right car. And I’ve seen cops cuff a friend and only then come up with a reason/excuse for doing so. And I’ve had a cop invent a reason to issue a summons to appear because he didn’t approve of perfectly lawful behavior in which I was participating. Oh — and I’ve had cops require me to lie or get arrested.

        • No, he won’t get in trouble with the cops. Windbags like him try to cause other people to get in trouble.

          Face to face with a cop. He’s all mellow and cheerful.

        • Yes, if you scrape and bow to your government overlords, they might not rob you after intending to do so.

          How nice of them. 🙂

        • Your anti-cop attitude is going to get you into trouble.

          Your comment underlines the anti-cop attitude. Police are made up of the same population as the rest of the country and unlike LTC holders, they have a union, city, familiar prosecutors, and judges backing the ones that screw up.

          I know most are great. But the blue wall and the blind support of any officer accused of a crime is a problem.

  2. Based on what I have seen and heard of this case, I would have returned a guilty verdict if I were on the jury.

    Here is a question for the people defending the cop:
    If you have a firearm on your hip or in a pocket, how can you possibly retrieve your driver’s license from a pocket without giving the cops rock-solid rationale to claim that they “feared you were reaching for your gun” and were thus justified to use deadly force?

    How do we address this? The only possible answer that I can see is to tell the police that you have to step out of the car with your hands up so that THE COP can reach into your pocket and retrieve your driver’s license. Anything else justifies them shooting you.

    Well?

    • Too bad you weren’t on the jury.

      Remember the Slager mistrial? One juror flat out said “I can never convict a cop”. It only takes one bootlicker.

    • “If you have a firearm on your hip or in a pocket, how can you possibly retrieve your driver’s license from a pocket without giving the cops rock-solid rationale to claim that they “feared you were reaching for your gun” and were thus justified to use deadly force?”

      Really?

      Really?

      Even as a non-gun owner I know the answer to that one.

      • Both hands on the wheel, if you’re the driver. Both hands on the dashboard is you’re a front seat passenger. Point is,,, keep your hands weapon free, and in plain sight. The logistics of your carry permit can then be worked out without pain or suffering.

        Cops normally appreciate law abiding citizens, and those with valid carry permits, are generally assumed to be law abiding.

        • Engine off, keys on dash, window open a couple inches, if evening, interior light on, hands on wheel with DL and insurance card already in the left one.

    • Simple: leave hands on top of steering wheel and ask the cop what to do. Then FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS. How can this be difficult at all?

      Anyone that just says “i have a firearm” AND THEN STICKS THEIR HAND IN THEIR PANTS, AND THEN DOES NOT FOLLOW THE OFFICER’S INSTRUCTIONS, yea they might get shot. Thats how it works.

      Defending this cop in this case doesnt make me a “bootlicker” either btw, but hey at least you folks didnt go straight to being mindless name-calling trolls just cuz you read one article on the internet. Oh wait, yea you did. As usual, the only way to feed the trolls seems to be with more and more clickbait.

      The info Im referring to really comes straight from the document that the prosecution filed that lists the charges and whatnot. Publicly available on the web. Give it a read if you want to learn how NOT to interact with your local LEO.

    • Maybe if he weren’t high as a kite (rendering him a prohibited person), Castile would have come up with a better answer.

      Also, what idiot keeps his wallet and firearm in the same pocket?

      • So “prohibited persons” are liable to be shot even when obeying orders from a panicky, trigger-happy cop?

        What “better answer” were you looking for?

    • A friend of mine told an officer the very same thing, only to have the officer decide he shouldn’t touch my friend so he had me retrieve it. My friend had me squeeze his pants to show his gun, so it would be clear I was reaching for I.D. when I retrieved it.

      • Roymond,

        There is a serious problem with that approach: your friend could easily have two handguns (lots of people talk about having a primary and a backup). Who is to say that you were or were not reaching for your friend’s backup gun?

        Even if you do not have a firearm, cops could claim that they thought you did (because you lied or failed to disclose that fact) and your simple act of reaching for a driver’s license in a pocket was the infamous “furtive movement” that justifies them using deadly force.

        It seems to me that the only solid solution is to have your driver’s license in some sort of carrier in a location that the police can plainly see … and the carrier better be about the same size and shape as your driver’s license. (In other words your driver’s license carrier better be so small that cops cannot reasonably claim that you had a small gun in it.)

        • Simple solution, unless you have a duty to inform, I think it’s none of the cops goddamn business if I’m carrying. If he asks me outright I’m going to tell him exactly what he needs to know but not a femtosecond earlier.

          Actually, that’s just good SOP for dealing with cops…… NEVER ANSWER A QUESTION YOU WEREN’T ASKED

        • Better hope there is absolutely no way your pistol can become uncovered while you are reaching for your identification, or exiting the car if instructed.

        • In Oregon an officer stopping a vehicle calls in the license plate, and the dispatcher will tell the officer if there’s a concealed carry license associated with that plate — definitely if the registered owner has one, but also if anyone at the registered owner’s address has one (if the officer asks, or if there are warrants associated with the address). So they’re going to ask, and though there’s no duty to inform some state patrol officers will get in your face if you don’t volunteer it.

        • “…the dispatcher will tell the officer if there’s a concealed carry license associated with that plate…”

          Some problems with this:

          1. Doesn’t apply to folks like me who don’t have a permit but open carry.
          2. Doesn’t apply to criminals without warrants who illegally carry
          3. Endangers non carry folks that borrow carry folks’ cars
          4. Just because you have a permit doesn’t mean you (or the driver or passengers) are carrying at that time
          5. IDs permittees as potential cop killers (in the cops mind) when they are actually some of the most law abiding
          6. Cops should assume all citizens are equally armed and dangerous until proven otherwise
          7. Doesn’t account for folks that carry with another state’s non resident permit
          8. Etc., etc., I could go on all day about how this is a bad idea

  3. We have a system. Civilized countries do that. Systems. This former cop got his trial and was found not guilty. A lot of butthurt sjw/blm types will wail and cry about it. Our system also allows that.

    Hopefully none of the butthurt types will allow themselves to be manipulated into doing things that get them hurt or killed or charged with serious crimes. A lot of evil folk will use the weakminded, regardless of their suffering, to advance an agenda.

    • And the system used to emphasize that it’s better to let a hundred guilty walk free than for one innocent to be punished. We should keep that in mind any time we think someone got away who shouldn’t have.

    • “Hopefully none of the butthurt types will allow themselves to be manipulated into doing things that get them hurt or killed or charged with serious crimes.”

      Why? Frankly, I’m hoping exactly the opposite.

    • Folks who are pissed off about this or another verdict fail to understand or acknowledge the intricacies of the justice system. Just because the cop might have been ‘wrong’ doesn’t guarantee he will be found guilty. And juries have a long history of sending innocent people to prison who are now being cleared, decades later, by DNA analysis. Our system is far from perfect and will remain so, even though it is the best one we have.

  4. Good Lord Stevie Wonder could see Geeomimo! had no reason to shoot. “I’m sceered” is not justifiable…oh well glad I’m not in Minnesoooota.

  5. I’ve read, or at least glanced at every TTAG headline for at least the past 3-4 years. How come this is the first I’m hearing about this story?

  6. It’s easy not to get shot, but being stoned and stupid makes it harder. The jury listened to the witnesses and saw both videos before deciding to acquit the officer.

    Haters could have clung to the narrative if it had been a hung jury, but it wasn’t.

  7. It was obvious simply from the transcripts of the dashcam that the events did not unfold as the passenger attempted to portray. There was some time between “I have a gun,” “ok don’t reach for it then,” and the shots. The handle of the gun can be seen in the reynolds video, and the dashcam shows it plop to the ground when his body is removed. He was unholstering, not producing ID. Also, his state of mind; it must be understood that he had dope on him that he was high on marijuana therefore his CCL was meaningless and he was going to jail with a gun charge. He was going to shoot the cop and get away.

  8. A bad shoot, and a tragic incident. I know a lot of black men at our office who’ve been stopped multiple times off duty while armed with zero issues. I’ve been stopped off duty while armed with zero issues as well.

    The common ground? Following officer instructions – that simple concept tends to vastly improve life expectancy. More Dead Soldiers can flip out all day, but Manslaughter might have been a more appropriate charge.

    • Awww you felt the need to drop a name. I’m flattered. 🙂

      I do like how your advice is nothing more than “obey or die”. Truly the voice of reason. Also note that your advice got Castile killed (he was fetching his wallet, as ordered).

      • Don’t be, MDS. I think you’re advice is about as useful as Joe Biden’s self defense tips. Your only contributions are criticisms. I’ve challenged you multiple times to give me some advice that I could actually bring to the police officers I supervise, and you could never come up with anything useful. If you’re so good, give me something I can use. Unfortunately, you’ve got zilch. Truly sad. I feel sorry for you.

        And Chip, I consider it a bad shoot. I would dread to be a part of any shooting like this. I have little sympathy for bad guys who’ve made a lifetime of bad decisions, who give me a legitimate reason to shoot. The fear / ability / intent combo that someone is proximately threatening me (or someone else) with serious injury or death and has the will and means to carry out that threat. I don’t want to shoot a stoned black guy who was not threatening my life. Not necessarily a clear cut case of murder like MDS fantasizes about, but nowhere near the completely legitimate shoot where the Cap. police took out the active shooter targeting the GOP.

        Sometimes police get charged, and sometimes they don’t. There are dirty cops / juries / judges / congressmen, etc. I’ve never said the system was perfect, but this case was decided by a jury and not police or a judge. Even though the officer wasn’t convicted, he still lost his job. I’m inclined to think that manslaughter was a more appropriate charge, but honestly I haven’t extensively researched this case. Sometimes prosecutors go too far with charges, and juries simply can’t go there.

        • Do you actually saying criticism needs to come with advice to be legitimate? That is a novel approach at dialectic. 🙂

    • Manslaughter was the charge. “Yanez had been charged by prosecutor John Choi with second-degree manslaughter and dangerous discharge of a firearm, both felonies under Minnesota law.” – From the article.

  9. Sounds like the prosecutor over-charged going for 2nd degree murder. Establish malice aforethought? Manslaughter rather?

  10. It really is kind of ridiculous how often commenters here will talk about rebelling against the system and fighting back. And then, when a situation like this emerges where one of our own (a legally armed member of society,) is gunned down under murky circumstances, you all seem to jump at the opportunity to justify as hard as humanly possible.

    Do I know better than that jury? No, I can’t say I do. But the mental gymnastics you all often go through in order to blame the victim here are disheartening.

    • I’ll take mental gymnastics over errors/ignorance/willful lies. It was quite clear from the dashcam recording that Castile never said anything about a permit. That was the fiction or wishful memory of his girlfriend. Twelve people examined the evidence for days and came to the conclusion that a reasonable person in that situation would have done the same thing. Maybe you think if it had been you, you would have reacted differently. If you carry a gun, you might find out some day. There’s a fine line between showing restraint and getting dead.

      • “Twelve people examined the evidence for days and came to the conclusion that a reasonable person in that situation would have done the same thing”

        No, that is not their conclusion at all. They concluded the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop was culpably negligent under the distinct and separate legal standard that cops operate under. Reasonable has nothing to do with it.

      • A weapon on your person should not be a death sentence. Period. This man was jumpy and likely scared and his lack of restraint cost another man his life. Could the situation have gone better? Yes, absolutely. But we need to start demanding more from our civil servants than just “He had a gun, so I shot him.”

        • There seems to be significant confusion about the actual event timeline. What I gather from all this is the girlfriend declared (without prompting), “He has a gun”. Now, how would the reasonable armed person react? Next, the cop told the driver to not move. Then the driver began to retrieve his wallet (or appeared to be doing so). The cop told the driver not to move. Now, you are the reasonable armed person. What do you do? Is the driver just shifting around? Is the driver trying to release his seat belt (a restraint against boiling out of the car [armed or not])? Is the driver reaching for a weapon? You, the armed citizen have already drawn your gun. You have 1.5 seconds to determine if your life is in danger. Go!

          BTW, I have a visceral skepticism about the honesty and competency of all law enforcement and justice systems.

    • Point of interest: Castile wasn’t “a legally armed member of society.” He was a prohibited person. I saw a video of him driving around with his girlfriend and her child smoking marijuana and drinking liquor.

      Turns out background checks and 4473 forms don’t work. I know a bunch of pot smokers who own and/or possess guns.

      • I like people actually nitpick on the legality of smoking a plant that was banned solely because it was used by the underclasses of society.

        This is the kind of worthless point that law-and-order fetishists obsess over.

        • They’re not racist, but they sure do worry about that reefer madness though. That marijuana turned a good guy with a gun into a murderous bullet sponge. Thankfully a good ole Robocop was there to make the streets safe for my children.

  11. The lack of critical thinking and boot licking is sickening. If the founders where the spineless slaves you lot are, we would be flying the union jack while being without arms and over ran by rapeugees.

    • Are you implying, that if you had been stopped, had informed the cop you had a firearm, you would have proceeded to move about as you pleased because you refuse to act prudently at a moment like that because you are not a “bootlick”?

      • “So when is the insurrection, fellow patriot?”

        I’m thinking…..

        Forget all the SC rulings infringing on the second amendment, before or after Heller/McDonald. First there was Waco. But no revolution. Then there was Ruby Ridge. But no revolution. Then there were Bundy 1 and 2. But no revolution.

        I’m thinking the next revolution will be individual gunfights with police or military, or both, when they go door-to-door confiscating weapons. Patriots trapped in their houses, no patriot communication network to warn the others. Everyone else concerned about their jobs and families. Hhhmmmm.

        If the confiscations are handled randomly, and infrequently, there will be no uprising. Only people hoping the next assault will not happen to them. The fantasy of millions of patriots jamming stores and roads fleeing to the back woods (if there are any available) is just, well, fantasy. Militias of the type existing at the founding do not exist in any meaningful manner. And yes, current military types will attack their fellow citizens. Think not? You do not really know what the military is like, nowdays.

  12. Hooray for Officer Yanez. Now St.Newports (suspected ARMED ROBBER Philando Castile) now joins St. Skittles and St. Swishers in the pantheon of thugs justifiably “made good”.

    Here’s a tip for ghetto gangbangers & their families:

    NEVER rely on a lying chickenhead to be your star witness in a criminal of civil court

    • I don’t think I can reply what I would say to you in person. You might want to think before posting vile crap like that.

      • Head over to The Conservative Treehouse/The Last Refuge, search “Philando Castile”, and you might learn something. Despite what you’ve heard he WASN’T the “altar boy” his family and the Liberal Media claim he was. Castile had a LENGTHY record BUT under Minnesota’s bleeding heart justice system had his crimes (many felony charges) “reduced” to minor infractions which allowed him to continue to hold his CCW permit, a permit which was “under review” and likely to be revoked by authorities, at the time. after all who wants a pothead with a record of DWI/DUI/Unisured/Unregistered/Unlicensed Driver (in addition to Theft/Robbery charges/convictions) tooling around ARMED while intoxicated (high)?

        Castile and his boo (girlfriend/getaway driver) were suspects in the ARMED ROBBERIES of TWO (2) convenience stores, besides stealing cash in each case he demanded cartons of Newport 100’s, he and his car were caught on security video, he and his car also matched the description given by the clerk in the other robbery. After Castile “acted stupidly” (Obama on Cambridge cops) and assumed “room temperature” just what did his boo (chickenhead) have in her hands while exploiting his death for political and financial gain while being helped by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division CRS (Community Response Service) at the press conference, why packs of Newport 100’s of course. And before you say people buy more than one pack of smokes I will let you in on secret. Ghetto-types rarely purchase MORE than one pack and they sure as hell DON’T buy cartons which by the way WAS found in the car after Philando “earned his wings”.

        The fact is Philando Castile was just another Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Freddie Grey, an urban thug whose death could be exploited by Obama, Eric Holder/LorettaLynch and the Fake News/Liberal Media to foment unrest in order to energize their base, enact socio-political gain and drive inner city voters to the polls to win an election.

  13. “this system gave us a jury that was 83% white and 58% male, ”

    St. Joseph’s Minnesota is only 5% black.

    Minneapolis is about 15%. OH WAIT, thats the percentage on the jury.

    And the “system” is called “voir dire”. Someone should take a dictionary with that page open and slam it against that Facebook poster’s head.

    Check the pictures of the rioters: all with their Stalinist printed signs.

    Phuck the Left.

  14. My comment has nothing to do with the shooting or verdict. But I wanted to point out that I was right about Black Lives Matter. It was an organization started by whites. It had nothing to do with equal justice. It was a vehicle to motivate black voters in the 2 years prior to the election. Because of its own racist and violent underpinnings, the election data showed there was a backlash to this particular area of identity politics. Immediately after this shooting, BLM was THE primary protest group in Minnesota. Now, because of the public’s revulsion and proof that BLM no longer serves a useful and effective political purpose they are no longer seen anywhere, nationwide. Their absence in this particular case is especially noteworthy. And yes, it proves my original point. Still, we must be grateful to the electorate for recognizing that BLM is/was an astroturf terrorist organization.

  15. Comment board isn’t letting me reply directly to this comment.

    avatarAccur81 says:
    June 17, 2017 at 04:09
    Oh, Dead, I’ll play.

    You said “All cops lie all the time.” And I responded “I’m a cop and I say 7 x 7 = 49.”

    You’re pretty famous on these pages when it comes to never admitting when you are wrong. I don’t expect you to have the maturity level to change that anytime soon.

    You know dead will make the argument that the “x” is a freedom fighter who stands for the use of the “+” on multiple instances, specifically and historically either the first or the second number, but not directly the quantity of the either.

    • What part of “the Viet Minh were freedom fighters” is confusing to you?

      It’s pretty simple: the French colonialists and then the US-backed despots in South Vietnam were oppressive totalitarians. Therefore their antagonists were freedom fighters.

      Fun fact: Ho Chi Minh asked the US for help against the French but was rejected because the US wanted France to join NATO (which they didn’t). So the US could have easily backed the nationalist resistance and prevented a communist Vietnam, but chose not to and got tens of thousands of Americans killed backing the losing side. Brilliant.

  16. The victim had a CCW issued by the state. Said status shows up when a cop runs the plate. Ergo, cop knew in advance that Mr. Castile had a CCW.

    Pretty clear from the testimony of the EMTs that the handgun was deep in his pants pocket and that there was no way at all that a reasonable person would have thought Mr. Castile was reaching for his sidearm instead of his wallet.

    Cop panicked when he thought he had a “civilian” with a gun. Whether it was because Castile was black or not is fairly immaterial. This was 100% about the demonization of firearms in the hands of the public.

    Clear case of Murder 2.

      • What other evidence?

        Meanwhile an Indiana man was charged with murder when his daughter was killed in a gun demonstration accident. See the double standard? Civilian accident = murder, cop shooting a man for following his orders = not even manslaughter.

  17. This was a bad stop and shoot, period. This Superman x-ray vision that spots suspects in car from behind, is bs point one. So is it lame excuse one or lame excuse two about a tail light?

  18. The gun fell out of his pocket, seen on dash video.

    A cop had to dig deep in his pocket to get the gun.

    Am I missing something here? Apparently.

    • Conflicting evidence is common. Eyewitness testimony is some of the most trusted evidence. It is also often very wrong.

  19. As a black open carrier I have been stopped in my car for failing to turn on my head lights soon enough. I kept my hands on the steering wheel and told the officer I hand a gun. While seated my shirt was covering the gun.
    He was totally surprised when I told him that. He only wanted to see my drivers license. He said he didn’t want to see my permit, when I asked him.
    He ran my information and then let me go with just a warning.

    If you are stopped by a policeman and you have a gun dont make any sudden movements.
    After you self Identify as having a gun, wait for further instructions from the cop. This is not submitting to a cop. It’s trying to not get shot in a misunderstanding.

    This is not a racist cop. But it is a black person who didn’t understand his personal responsibility when carrying a gun.

  20. Thjs shooting was absolutely indefensible. The officer should have been convicted. The victim would have had a better chance of survival if he had shot the cop as he approached the car. When driving while legally armed becomes a death sentence SOMETHING must be done and soon!!!

    • He wasn’t legally armed. He was a self-confessed pot smoker (and high at the time of the incident), rendering his carry license invalid. If you can’t even get that point accurately, of what value is the rest of your analysis?

      It is likely, IMHO, that the jury determined that the officer reasonably believed the deceased to be reaching for a firearm, in direct contradiction to lawful instructions given by the officer.

      It really boils down to little more than that.

      • I agree with Chip. I don’t know if the shoot was good. I do know that there was plenty of evidence for a jury to vote not guilty. I haven’t seen all the evidence, and I don’t want to. I’ll trust the justice system on this one.

  21. Also worth pointing out is that the Afghans considered the Tailban and AQ to be foreign invaders. Hence the existence of the Northern Alliance and it’s assistance to the US.

Leave a Reply

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