Philando Castile and the NRA: It Isn’t Black and White

There have been a lot of stories lately regarding the NRA’s notable silence on the police shooting and verdict in the shooting of Philando Castile, a permit-to-carry holding driver who informed Officer Jeronimo Yanez, who pulled him over, that he had a firearm., looked at the NRA’s silence and, predictably, sees it is a matter of race.

In Philando Castile Should Be the NRA’s Perfect Cause Célèbre. There’s Just One Problem they wrote:

“If Castile had been white instead of black, the NRA would have been rallying behind him and his family since the moment of his death, and fundraising off his memory for the rest of time.”

From The Daily Show, host Trevor Noah opined:

In a story about a man being shot because he was lawfully armed, you would think that one group, one powerful group in America would say something about it. This is a group you’d expect to be losing their goddamn minds about this: the NRA. But for some strange reason, on this particular case, they’ve been completely silent…

Noah then explained why he thinks the NRA has been silent:

The host played footage of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s speech at 2014’s CPAC, where he said there’s “no greater freedom” than defending oneself with “all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want.”

Noah added, “‘Unless you’re black,’ is what it should have said. …”

From our friends at HuffPo we get “The NRA, Champion Of Gun Rights, Failed Philando Castile with reporter Andy Campbell stating:

The National Rifle Association loves to beat its chest after shootings in America. …

But don’t expect the same kind of treatment from the NRA if you’re a black man in America ― even if you’re a registered gun owner like Philando Castile …

Many of these reports cite other cases in which the NRA has come out strongly in favor of armed citizens and defensive gun uses. Andy C. points out:

[The NRA] has a page on its website dedicated to deifying gun owners who stand their ground. NRA reps comment on shootings all the time, with far less restraint.

Yet as is so often the case in situations like this, people are focusing on the trees instead of the forest. It actually took The Guardian, a paper from the United Kingdom, to bring up what I think is the key issue here; it isn’t that the NRA doesn’t like blacks, it’s that they love local law enforcement officers.

From Philando Castile’s killing puts NRA’s gun rights mission at a crossroads:

… But the circumstances of Castile’s killing, including the suggestion by Minnesota’s governor that it would not have happened were he white, puts the NRA’s allegiance to police in direct conflict with its gun rights mission.

Despite its fierce criticism of government overreach, the NRA is largely a pro-police organization: many of its more than five million members, who are predominantly white and conservative, are current or former law enforcement officials …

The NRA was originally founded to teach damn Yankees how to shoot straight. Over the years it has expanded its teaching role enormously, including teaching cops. Back in 1960 (before this OFWG was even born) the NRA established their Law Enforcement Division:

… specifically to provide the law enforcement community with a means to certify law enforcement firearm instructors. Over the last 55 years, we have trained more than 58,000 law enforcement firearm instructors and currently have over 13,000 active certified instructors.

Thus, for over 55 years they’ve been “training the trainers” as well as hosting many other schools and programs designed specifically for training cops. Given this practically incestuous relationship with the police, it’s no wonder that the NRA has chosen to remain quiet on this issue.

But for those who still maintain that this silence is because Castile was black, please explain their silence regarding Madison, Wisconsin PD’s abuse of the “Madison Five”; five white men who were accosted and charged with disorderly conduct for openly carrying at a Culver’s in Madison (this despite the Wisconsin Attorney General’s letter more than a year previous, stating that merely open carrying cannot be construed as disorderly conduct). If the NRA is supposed to only back white folks against police misconduct, where were they in that case?

In fact, where were they for white man Mark Hoffman, arrested 07/23/2013 for legally openly carrying a firearm?

Where were they for permit holding white man Jarrod Kuehn, charged with a felony for having an unloaded gun, encased and locked in his vehicle, in a school parking lot?

Where were they for permit holding white man Ethan Shepherd when he was unlawfully fired for having a gun in his car in the company parking lot?

And that’s just from one state.

So no, the NRA has many flaws, but their lack of support for Philando Castile and his family had less to do with the fact that he was black and much more to do with not wanting to piss off their LEO and former-LEO membership or upset their cozy relationships with cop-shops across the country.


  1. avatar ConcernedCitizen says:

    Think people forgot that the NRA stuck up for Shaneen Allen too.

  2. avatar anonymoose says:

    So clearly we need to drain the NRA’s swamp. This cannot stand. The government and all its agencies are supposed to work for us civilians, not the other way around.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      So… the NRA is a government agency now?

      1. avatar Pat. H says:

        No, the police department that murdered Philando Castillo is a government agency. Conservatives are supposed to be against government (at any level) stomping on gun owners.

        1. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

          Wasn’t murder. Manslaughter, negligent homicide, yes. Not murder.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Indeed, if the officer had been criminally culpable, it would have been manslaughter, not murder.

          It really is counter-productive for those who argue against police abuses to appeal to emotion through such obvious misuse of terms. It is argumentation on the level if the Bullying Mommies. (And it also distracts from legitimate efforts to deal with the real police abuses that exist.)

  3. avatar BradP says:

    Sorry, by being a boot-licker of the LEOs the NRA is pissing off a lot MORE people. If the NRA is going to fight for gun rights, it should fight ALL the fights, even the ones that may be unpopular with some of its membership. All the NRA is doing by being silent is silently endorsing the bad behavior by a FEW of the people that are supposed to protect us.

    1. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

      Absolutely correct. Just because a large portion of the NRA’s membership is current and retired Law Enforcement means that the NRA should ignore what happened?

      I have a conceal carry permit. Should I NOT inform Law Enforcement if I am pulled over that I am carrying? Is this case also about class and not race? If Mr. Castille was wearing a suit and driving a BMW would he still be alive?

      The NRA needs to wake up – the second amendment applies to all regardless of race, socioeconomic status or personal appearance.

      And if you are in law Enforcement and the prospect of someone that does not look like you or is in a different socioeconomic class than yourself and you are terrified of the fact that person might be carrying a gun lawfully, you should look for another line of work.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Did we watch the same video? The cop didn’t seem to particularly care that Castille had a gun. All he said was, “okay, then dont reach for it.” When castille started reaching for his waist band the cop told him two more times and THEN shot him…. for those of you saying that he was reaching for his wallet, watch the video again. The cop asks for castille’s licence and insurance and he gives it to the cop about 15 seconds before the shooting without any fuss. You guys are doing what the antis do and ignore facts to fit your preconceived conclutions…. if you want a bad cop shoot, there are so many out there but this one is smoke.

        1. avatar Reggie says:

          Wrong. Read a transcript of the evidence in the case. Philando gave the officer his insurance, then informed him he was armed. He had not given the officer his license and was reaching for it per the original instructions.

          This is all documented in the court proceedings if you care to verify.

        2. avatar BradP says:

          Like Reggie said. You must have watched a different video.

        3. avatar little johnny says:

          I don’t buy he told him he had a gun and then reached for it…that is just dumb. Seemed to me the cop was way to quick and made the wrong call killing an innocent man.

      2. avatar Fort Cannon says:

        Wellllll. I am carrying concealed and I am a retired cop. When another cop approaches me for a threshold inquiry do I say, I’m carrying a loaded firearm or do I burst out with I have a gun? Neither, I say I’m a cop. They will ask the questions and I will answer. I will not jam my hands in any pockets, make any furtivemovements (movement we are not instructed to do) nor have my girlfriend scream my good intentions. As a rule, especially in public they do not want to see my gun. They want to see the permit, they will guide me through displaying it. Once the gun is visible and in play we are subject to whatever the person that is perceiving a threat is capable of. We are active duty cops and we approach someone do we want them to say “I have a gun?” No, I would like to hear “I have a license to carry a gun.” I will give the directions I feel appropriate. I was not there for the Castille event and do not know if Castille or Yanez was an NRA member. I know if they throw the evidence into a grand jury they could care less about the color of the participants. As to Monday Morning quarterbacking, bashing the NRA or just whining in general and if the cop is bad that accounts for less than 1% of all cops I’ll just wait for the evidence. The NRA did.

        How I researched what it went down. Castille said something to the effect of I have a gun on me. Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and calmly replied, ‘OK’, and placed his right hand on the holster of his own holstered weapon. Yanez said, ‘Okay, don’t reach for it, then.’ Castile responded, ‘I’m not pulling it out,’ and Reynolds also said, ‘He’s not pulling it out.’ Yanez screamed, ‘Don’t pull it out!’ Yanez quickly pulled his own gun with his right hand while he reached inside the driver’s window with his left hand. Yanez removed his left arm from the car and fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. Reynolds yelled, ‘You just killed my boyfriend!’ Castille moaned and said, ‘I wasn’t reaching for it.’ Reynolds loudly said, ‘He wasn’t reaching for it.’ Before she completed her sentence, Yanez again screamed, ‘Don’t pull it out!’ Reynolds responded, ‘He wasn’t.’ Yanez yelled, ‘Don’t move! Fuck!'[31] Castille had been stopped 52 times for M-V violations and if he went through the same act each time it is a miracle he lasted as long as he did.

        So, if this means Jeronimo Yanez was a WASP cop just out to shoot a black man, I’m a ham sandwich. They fired Jeronimo Yanez and I think he has one Hell of a lawsuit against the community. The NRA did the right thing by minding it’s own business and letting the judicial system work. It did. There are a lot of Libtards that do not like the NRA but few true gun enthusiasts. Enough said.

        1. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

          While a jury did find officer Janez not guilty of manslaughter and two counts of intentional discharge of a firearm that endangers safety, he should never serve as a police officer again.

          There is no evidence that he saw a weapon but he still discharged his firearm 7 times into a vehicle with a woman in the passenger seat and a small child sitting in the rear seat. It’s a miracle that neither passenger was hit by a missed, pass through or ricocheted round.

          If you are licensed to carry a concealed firearm and were confronted by a possible threat to your life or safety, would you discharge your firearm in very close proximity to innocent people including a small child? I would not.

          Had officer Yanez’s actions had resulted in an injury or death to either passenger I doubt he would have been acquitted.

          Bottom line – his firing is justified as he is a threat to public safety.

  4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    There have been a lot of stories lately regarding the NRA’s notable silence on the police shooting and verdict in the shooting of Philando Castile, a permit-to-carry holding driver…

    And the more that this canard keeps getting played, the more I’m going to keep pointing out that Castile’s self-admitted marijuana use statutorily rendered him a prohibited person, thereby invalidating his permit to carry. Whatever the rest of the facts of the incident, Castile was not the holder of a valid permit to carry, and was not a lawful gun carrier.

    1. avatar Barry Gales says:

      So you saying that the shooting was right? Regardless he told the POLICE (not an officer) and still got shot.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        No. He is saying anyone who says Castile was lawfully carrying or a lawful gun owner is either ignorant or lying.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        So you saying that the shooting was right?

        Oh, look: someone else putting words in my mouth. Are you making a straw man argument, or merely jumping to specious conclusions?

        1. avatar Barry Gales says:

          I merely asked you a question. I didn’t say you agreed

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          A straw man or a specious conclusion phrased as a question is still a straw man or a specious conclusion.

          Nothing about my comment indicated or even implied your conclusion.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      None of which is actually relevant to the situation.

      He wasn’t pulled over for dope, he wasn’t shot for having dope, the cop didn’t even know about the dope at the time. The dope has become a technical legal argument after the fact.

      No offense here, I understand what you’re saying about the technicalities of legally carrying but I don’t see how that applies to the specific situation at hand.

      If anything, the fact that this argument even CAN be advanced is a sign that we need to seriously reexamine our laws and how we allow government to get involved in our private affairs.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        His point, which I agree with, is that anyone who says he was legally carrying or a legal gun owner is perpetuating a falsehood.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          That’s fine and dandy but it’s still irrelevant to the overall narrative. See my reply below.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          It’s not irrelevant to the point made in the article that the NRA is not supporting a lawful carrier/citizen/gun owner or why the NRA is silent on the issue.

          It is irrelevant to whether the officer was justified in dumping half a mag into the poor bastard.

          They’re two different things. This is just about the worst case to advocate for 2A rights or law enforcement. It is a great case for arguing about them, though.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        None of which is actually relevant to the situation.

        He wasn’t pulled over for dope, he wasn’t shot for having dope, the cop didn’t even know about the dope at the time. The dope has become a technical legal argument after the fact.

        If it isn’t relevant to the situation, then why is Castile’s permit to carry mentioned in every story?

        No offense here, I understand what you’re saying about the technicalities of legally carrying but I don’t see how that applies to the specific situation at hand.

        To the contrary: it is a matter of not letting the other side control the narrative. In this case, the other side is speciously painting the NRA as racist for not standing up for a law-abiding, license-holding gun owner. That narrative is based on a false premise, because, as previously stated, Castile was not a law-abiding, license-holding gun owner.

        We can argue whether or not the NRA should have been more involved, should have made more/other public statements on the matter, etc. But the assertion that the NRA didn’t stand up for a law-abiding gun owner is moot, and therefore the conclusion that NRA failed to do so because of race is specious.

        If anything, the fact that this argument even CAN be advanced is a sign that we need to seriously reexamine our laws and how we allow government to get involved in our private affairs.

        On the other hand, perhaps the Castile incident represents a good example of how the use of controlled substances and the carrying of firearms do not mix, and that the state acted within its authority in prohibiting the possession of firearms by those under the influence of such substances.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I agree with everything up to the quoted language. I don’t really disagree with it either. I just don’t want to imply that I agree with argument Chip forwards but does not explicitly endorse.

          “”If anything, the fact that this argument even CAN be advanced is a sign that we need to seriously reexamine our laws and how we allow government to get involved in our private affairs.”

          On the other hand, perhaps the Castile incident represents a good example of how the use of controlled substances and the carrying of firearms do not mix, and that the state acted within its authority in prohibiting the possession of firearms by those under the influence of such substances.”

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “To the contrary: it is a matter of not letting the other side control the narrative. In this case, the other side is speciously painting the NRA as racist for not standing up for a law-abiding, license-holding gun owner…”

          Here’s the problem: “They” already control the narrative because the media likes their story. Pot plays no role in this whole thing because the media isn’t going to report the story fairly anyway and it’s going to be “racist” no matter what happens. Look at Mike Brown. That shooting was a racist murder apparently.

          The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what the circumstances this “was racist” because that’s the story that moves and reinforces a narrative of police oppression of the “POC” which is something the media loves.

          Further, irregardless of the legality of his carry status or not, the details of this event are lost in the noise for 95% of people. The point is that the guy “wasn’t doing anything that should have gotten him killed”. Even if we accept that pot plays some role in this (which I don’t because it doesn’t matter) possession in his jurisdiction was a misdemeanor unless he had more than 42.5g of the stuff and even then it’s a five year felony. There’s no death penalty case here and therefore “the narrative” will never be what you think it should be. It will always be “guy gunned down when he wasn’t doing anything deserving of death” or “guy gunned down when he wasn’t doing anything deserving of death because racism”. That’s it. That’s the story. It doesn’t have to be true and you and I don’t have to like it but what we do have to do is accept that that’s the narrative because the Left controls the message and we don’t.

          How does that affect the NRA? Well, IRL it doesn’t because the NRA is already a racist organization, remember? They’re the ones promoting a “death culture” in urban areas. They’re the ones “against laws that would save black lives”.

          Again, I’m not arguing the technicality of the law. You’re right. I’m saying that focusing on such a thing is pointless because 1) it’s not part of the larger story and 2) even if it was it wouldn’t matter.

        3. avatar wild bill says:

          And does anyone wonder why the NRA is not releasing a statement on this or other shooting events with questionable facts…our former prez had no problem with statements without facts…causing more problems. Leave the issue to the local court…of course not everyone will be happy…Surprised ….this statement is not directed at any one person or subject….legally speaking…out

    3. avatar Renner says:

      Sorry, that’s focusing on the speck in my eye while ignoring the log in yours. I’m anything but pro-dope, but the major story here is that a jumpy cop murdered a compliant man who said the word “gun”. Castille had a permit, whether he should have been disqualified from having a permit or not is a very small side issue. He certainly wasn’t (to my knowledge) properly convicted of drug use or he would have lost his permit. It would be just as easy to argue that permits to carry are unconstitutional and yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you automatically lose your 2A right if you use drugs.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Sorry, that’s focusing on the speck in my eye while ignoring the log in yours. I’m anything but pro-dope, but the major story here is that a jumpy cop murdered a compliant man who said the word “gun”.

        The topic at hand is the appropriateness of the NRA’s response (or lack thereof) to the incident. The trial verdict itself is discussed/argued in other posts.

        Castille had a permit, whether he should have been disqualified from having a permit or not is a very small side issue. He certainly wasn’t (to my knowledge) properly convicted of drug use or he would have lost his permit.

        Minnesota statute does not require conviction for use of illegal controlled substances in order to be considered a prohibited person. The use itself is a prohibiting act. His permit to carry was invalid, whether or not he had ever been convicted.

        It would be just as easy to argue that permits to carry are unconstitutional and yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you automatically lose your 2A right if you use drugs.

        Now, that is a much more interesting area of discussion.

        The designation of “prohibited persons”, and the issuance of carry licenses, are two separate matters. States may designate “prohibited persons” whether or not they issue carry licenses (and in fact, this has been a significant point of education for people as we try to pass constitutional carry in Indiana).

        Now, on the main, I agree with you about the designation of “prohibited persons”, and generally believe that violent or unstable people should be removed from society, rather than unleashing them on society, protected only by words on paper that designate them “prohibited persons” (and that anyone who has completed a sentence, including incarceration and probation, should have ALL rights restored).

        Similarly, I am opposed to malum prohibitum laws, and believe that the State should concern itself with actual harm caused, instead of pointlessly trying to prevent harm by controlling behaviors. So, I would agree that marijuana use would fall under malum prohibitum, and should generally not be a disqualifier for the exercise of rights.

        But then, we would be right back to holding Philando Castile responsible for his contributions to the outcome of his decision to a) drive, and b) carry a firearm, while c) under the influence of marijuana.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Minnesota statute does not require conviction for use of illegal controlled substances in order to be considered a prohibited person.” – Neither does federal law. 922(g).

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Again, I get the technical point but I find it severely wanting when applied to real life because if we’re going to go down this technical road… well, let’s just take a quick tour shall we?

          I’ve pointed this out elsewhere (not TTAG, at least I don’t think I’ve said this here before) before but I will do it again. Let’s examine the actual language of a 4473.

          “11. e. Are you and unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance? “

          Carefully consider that question. I mean really carefully. You’ll note that the clause “or addicted to” covers “…any depressant, stimulant…” as well as the listed items of of marijuana, controlled substances and “narcotics” as defined by law. But “any depressant or stimulant” includes those which are NOT illegal. If it’s a stimulant or a depressant and it’s legal/uncontrolled it’s still under the category of “any”. Could you be addicted to one? Well, that depends on how we want to define things.

          Generally reading this statement we think of those things as “drugs” or “narcotics” and we say “I don’t do drugs!” but is that true under the actual meaning of the words presented in the question? Nope.

          If you actually parse this sentence in real, honest, actual English, it covers more. Much more. Sleeping tablets, coffee, alcohol, (technically a controlled substance but not really) NoDoze and others are all covered and your use/possession need not be illegal but merely compulsive. Can’t operate without coffee every morning? Well, that makes you an addict and coffee contains caffeine. Caffeine is a stimulant. Being a stimulant it falls under the category of “any stimulant” and the fact that you can’t deal with life without it means you’re an addict. You’re banned from owning a gun under a strict interpretation of this language.

          Ergo, you cannot be a “legal gun carrier” if you require coffee or use something like sleeping tablets regularly and display symptoms of being addicted. Grumpy and not clearheaded without your cup-o-joe? No guns for you. Can’t sleep without your GNC sleeping tablets? Ditto. Use tobacco? You see where this is going.

          That’s where “technical readings” get you. Little words like “or” and “any” mean a hell of a lot when strung together in legal sentences like this.

          So again, do we really want the state this far up in our business? I’d suggest not. The point here isn’t that you’re wrong, and it’s not that the guy wasn’t doing something illegal. It’s that, under a strict interpretation of 11.e a whole hell of a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens who own and carry a gun are “not legal carriers” and have “lied” on a 4473. Personally, I don’t want this kind of technicality applied to my carrying of a gun because it means that when I was a smoker I was breaking the law and that’s just fucking retarded.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If you look at the instructions to the 4473, it is clear the question is referring to 922(g). 922(g)(3) states “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).”

    4. avatar JoeLiberty says:

      Even so, the disturbing part is that this could happen to you. If this person had been a priest, you could get the same result. He reached for his wallet, didn’t listen to the unclear commands, got shot. Jury doesn’t convict because it’s a cop. Can you really look at this and say there’s no way it could have happened without the marijuana? Of course it could.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Even so, the disturbing part is that this could happen to you.

        Yes, I can say with utmost certainty that this exact scenario would have played out differently with me. I don’t smoke marijuana. I would know to keep my hands still and in sight, and to clarify officer instructions. I would know to keep my wallet separate from my firearm. And I would understand that the officer was misinterpreting my actions, was uncomfortable with said actions, and I would therefore cease said actions, until clarifying.

        If this person had been a priest, you could get the same result. He reached for his wallet, didn’t listen to the unclear commands, got shot.

        How do you know he reached for his wallet? And how is that even relevant? What is relevant: how do you know that the officer didn’t reasonably believe that Castile was reaching for the firearm that he had just stated was in his possession?

        Jury doesn’t convict because it’s a cop. Can you really look at this and say there’s no way it could have happened without the marijuana? Of course it could.

        Sure, it could have happened without the marijuana. What’s your point?

        1. avatar Damned Lies and Statistics says:

          Chip, thanks for your replies in these topics. I’ve been looking at all the POTG hate against the officer in this case and have been feeling like something of an outsider. I’ve watched the video many times and read the rest of the statements and it seems abundantly clear that at the very least there is no evidence to say the officer committed a crime; and at worst that it was entirely Philando’s fault (reaching when told not too, being so impaired he could not respond to changing circumstances nor realize the how severely the situation had changed). I’m honestly very confused about the majority of the comments on here – it seems like such a clear case and I’ve seen absolutely no substantive argument for convicting the officer of anything (just emotional comments or people who for some reason think it is a reasonable thing to say “I have a firearm on me” and then reach for something on them after being repeatedly told not to). Like you said above, I really can’t say this same stop would have resulted in my death – I wouldn’t have been impaired and I would have stopped reaching for my wallet (or whatever I was reaching for).

          I usually only comment on posts about statistics on here (hence the name – I enjoy tearing down the anti-gun side’s amateur attempts at statistical analysis), but I just wanted to say I appreciate your comments. I’m glad the whole of TTAG hasn’t seemingly lost their minds.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I think a lot of the hate for the cop comes from two things.

          1. Many are interpreting this as cops get to shot someone if they have a gun on them.

          2. The cop is the professional in the situation and made several errors that lead to the death of Castile. A convincing argument has been made that his actions are negligent to a criminal degree. As the professional, he is responsible for everyone’s safety in this situation. Not just his. He has a heightened duty. He failed in that duty. Castile died as a result.

          Minnesota defines second degree manslaughter as “A person who causes the death of another by by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.” (I deleted and moved around text limiting the statute to the circumstances of the case. the statute is 609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE). I’d have to dig into what “culpable negligence” means and what part Castile’s own negligence plays to determine if he meets the laws requirements for a finding of guilt.

    5. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Every knows the demon weed makes you a crazed killer at the first whiff. I’m surprised that poor police officer made it out with his life.

      It’s taking every ounce of my will not to cuss you out.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Perhaps you should seek professional help for that level of rage.

        Also, your analytical skills are in need of improvement. I never said that “evil demon weed” made Castile do anything in particular. Rather, I said 5hat his marijuana use made him a prohibited person, thereby invalidating his permit to carry and rendering him no longer a lawful carrier.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          And not once did you stop to think as to whether or not that is in any way a reasonable requirement or statute. Just parrot those talking points and handwave away any culpability the police have in murdering people who by every account are attempting to comply in good faith with bullshit laws designed only to entrap us and remove our rights.

          My anger at you is neither irrational nor misplaced. You’re the one that needs help.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You demonstrate why I can’t take Libertarianism seriously. Too many are so consumed with smoking a plant that it becomes their singular, political focus, and the mere appearance of disagreement leads to such a visceral reaction.

          Look, I couldn’t care less who smokes what. But when someone gets so worked up at the mere suggestion that someone who smoked marijuana (typically done to induce an intoxicated state – it’s called getting “high” for a reason) demonstrated an impaired cognitive state, that someobe should seek professional help. Or smoke a bowl. I’m told it helps one relax.

        3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          It is rather amusing of you to claim libertarians are obsessed with weed when you are the one focusing on the marijuana use technicality to downplay police criminality. You obviously know nothing about the libertarian movement: libertarians have been criticizing prohibition against all drugs (not just weed) and the drug war since its inception over four decades ago.

          “when someone gets so worked up at the mere suggestion that someone who smoked marijuana (typically done to induce an intoxicated state – it’s called getting “high” for a reason) demonstrated an impaired cognitive state”

          That just means your suggestions are ignorant and not backed by science, and you are ignorant in both pharmacology and etymology.

    6. avatar CZJay says:

      I guess human rights don’t matter in the US anymore. Both sides seem to consider the constitution to be irrelevant and are constantly arguing against it.

      Wouldn’t a lot of US presidents be a “prohibited person,” as well as the majority of the population? Or is there a certain time period that must past before they are no longer considered “prohibited” from exercising their other human rights?

      I wouldn’t use an unjust law (that removes a human right) to argue for removing another human right… Imagine there were laws making citizens “prohibited” persons if they are a consumer of alcohol [a drug]. Kind of sounds like Sharia law.

    7. avatar CZJay says:

      I guess human rights don’t matter in the US anymore. Both sides seem to consider the Constitution to be irrelevant and are constantly arguing against it.

      Wouldn’t a lot of US presidents be a “prohibited person,” as well as the majority of the population? Or is there a certain time period that must past before they are no longer considered “prohibited” from exercising their other human rights?

      I wouldn’t use an unjust law (that removes a human right) to argue for removing another human right… Imagine there were laws making citizens “prohibited persons” if they are a consumer of alcohol [a drug]. Kind of sounds like Sharia law.

    8. avatar Diane Howard says:

      THANK YOU for pointing out this important fact and detail that so many are conveniently ignoring in this tragedy. The whole incident could have been avoided: (1) Castile should not have been driving under the influence of drugs;
      (2) Castile should not have been carrying under the influence of drugs;
      (3) Castile should have followed correct protocol when being pulled over, that is, he should NOT have stated verbally he had a gun or permit to carry but rather hand over his permit to carry card and put his hands on the steering wheel and wait for directions from the officer. Castile’s death was definitely a tragedy; however, instead of solely putting blame on the officer; how about putting responsibility on Castile himself for the things he did (or did not do) that played a direct role in causing the incident! Thanks again for your comment!

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Tested positive, but was he shown to be under the influence?

        Police, being presumably trained professionals, should control the situation so as not to require that the average citizen adhere to some specific protocol to avoid getting shot. Officer in this case did a poor job of that, regardless of Mr. Castille’s actions.

  5. avatar maxi says:

    We will probably never know what the police officer saw. In this case a direct bodycam footage would’ve been really helpfull. Maybe he was an idiot and reached for his gun. Maybe it was just his ID.

    1. avatar Jake says:

      The cop on the right didn’t react at all until his buddy started shooting. He was in a much better angle to see a draw. That tells me that neither cop saw him drawing a gun.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Yanez was seen to say, in the video that continued after the shooting, that he didn’t see a gun. I believe it came out in testimony again that he never saw a gun.

  6. avatar Pete says:

    Fudds. Could be standing up for a CC’ers everywhere, but they like authority and the status quo more.

    1. avatar lionsfan54 says:


  7. avatar Frank says:

    Race has nothing to do with it, money does. If they come out for the cop they loose a lot of support, for the murdered driver, they loose police support. Yes I said murdered, the cop was wrong.

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      Which mental illness compels you to take the side of a suspected ARMED ROBBER and chronic dope smoker?

      Do YOU make it a practice to tool around town with your kid in an expired registration, uninsured, uninspected vehicle toking on doobies while ARMED?

      1. avatar Charles says:

        Please google “dunning kruger effect” so you can learn a thing or two about yourself. Despite your all caps on the word “armed robber”, it has no bearing on whether or not a person should be killed. It doesn’t even matter if he WAS the ARMED ROBBER – it’s not the cops job to kill the individual. His job is to arrest people when there is reason to do so, allowing a COURT to determine the punishment.

        If he suspected this man was an ARMED ROBBER, he should have immediately told the suspect to put his hands outside of the vehicle. A typical five year old would have used better judgement in this situation. The cop went in trigger-happy, with abysmal training and no ability to think critically, and the expected result happened.

        The nonsense you blabbered regarding dope it just as irrelevant. Is the punishment for weed smoking DEATH? I’ve not heard of any court in the United States in which weed smoking is punished by execution. Again, had this cop not been a wreckless idiot, a court could have given the sentence.

        You have such a complete disregard for human life, that it’s probably not even worth mentioning, but imagine if the bullets had killed the girl in the back seat. She would be dead because a police officer shot at a suspected armed robber upon smelling weed – in a situation which could have all been avoided had the cop told the victim to put his hands where he could see them.

        You would likely blame the victim if his daughter was killed in this incident, but the two things listed by you as his reason for him being “responsible for her death” would be: 1) being an armed robbery suspect (something he has zero control over) and 2) smoking weed.

        People like you are the problem.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The argument, typified by your statement “Is the punishment for weed smoking DEATH,” that all deaths as a result of one’s own action requires the actor to deserve death conflates foreseeable consequences, justifiable homicide, and punishment.

          It is foreseeable that driving around while intoxicated will result in an encounter with the police. It is foreseeable that being intoxicated while interacting with the police may cause a misunderstanding. It is foreseeable that having a misunderstanding between two armed men may result in someone being shot. It is foreseeable that being shot will result in death. Castile’s negligence foreseeably lead to his death.

          Justifiable homicide is when one person intentionally kills another, but is excused for some reason. Self-defense is the typical example, but there are others. This case is a bad example of self-defense, or maybe it’s an example of bad self-defense.

          This case is a terrible example of punishment. It would be a good example if Yanez killed Castile for smoking weed, not because Castile smoked weed.

  8. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    There is NO “Philando Castile & The NRA”, no matter how “they” craft the argument DON’T fall for it. It IS all a “trap” concocted by anti-2nd Amendment Liberals/Progressives to undermine US and get OUR side to take up the torch for THEIR “martyr” who was justifiably “made good” by Officer Yanez.

    The NRA supports “law-abiding” American gun owners NOT dopey ghetto thugs and their mouthy ignorant chickenheads who tool around town between convenience store armed robberies.with their offspring in unregistered, uninsured, uninspected vehicle while smoking blunts.

    Philando Castile + NRA = OXYMORON

  9. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    We don’t fully know what happened and never will. Anybody making a condemnation one way or the other is assuming facts to fit their preferred narrative.

  10. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    The reason they haven’t said anything is that this is controversial among their supporters.

    If the NRA came out on the side of Castile, then the best result for them with the leftists would be to be ignored on this one. A more likely result would be a claim that they were using him or that Castile was a felon* and the NRA supports the right of felons to carry guns.

    Should the NRA be silent on this? Probably not. Just sit there watching the video (that just came out) and come up with all the mistakes both sides made. Issue a statement about how this sort of thing can be avoided. Castile made plenty of mistakes. The cop made plenty of mistakes.

    They could even says something about how 922(g) didn’t help the situation. It didn’t stop Castile from possessing a firearm and did give him a good reason to freak out when approached by police (not saying he did freak out, just had a good reason to panic).

    *Castile violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). 18 U.S. Code § 924(A)(2) makes that punishable by “not more than 10 years.” That’s a felony. Therefore, Castile was an unconvicted felon.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “unconvicted felon”

      Is this a real legal term? Does due process mean anything to the bootlicker crowd?

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m still not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I believe Jeronimo! should do time. Why oh why does the NRA have to weigh in after every jury decision not to my opinion? As mentioned there are LOTS of examples of non-black gun owners getting screwed by corrupt/inept Po-leece. I too believe NRA leadership is fuddish-but I surely appreciate them getting Trump elected!

  12. avatar Steve says:

    A homeowner had a person stop in their driveway and the homeowner approached with caution. The homeowner is armed and aware. The driver of the car says I don’t want to alarm you but I have a weapon, as you do, permitted.

    Same scenario wife and kid in the car, video on.

    I only want directions as my map program does not seem to know this area. Please can you assist, let me grab my phone and show you where I am trying to get to. The driver reaches to his hip (phone is on the console behind the hip) and begins to pull the phone (black case). The homeowner fires four shots killing the driver. In court the same evidence is presented but the only evidence that really matters is “I thought he was pulling his gun, I thought he had a gun.”

    The homeowner is screwed. He is not a cop ‘saying that he saw a gun’. He is a bad gun owner.

    A random person possesses a firearm legally in their state but illegally in the state they are passing through. Even though the firearm is locked away they are arrested and given jail time. A pilot carries an undocumented firearm in an airport. Slap on the wrist. A celebrity quite a few now do the same and say they are sorry. Nothing. ‘We’ are arrested and thrown in jail. Let

    Our elite (term used loosely) are surrounded by armed guards while we are vilified by these same people. Our law enforcement is held to lower standards of law in the courts (or we are held to a unequal higher standard.)

    It is no longer how we should treat the police, how we should advocate for our rights one-by-each. We are in a situation like it or not where our courts have ruled that if you have a permit to carry and the cop is scarred that you might shoot him / her, you are fodder for the news. Different application of law for elite vs. the common man is what the NRA should be fighting. They should be fighting every law that limits ownership. If the argument were reducing gun violence then support laws that punish people for firing a gun when not in self defense. Any law otherwise is disarming plain and simple and supportable if the cases would only be brought with the proper legal grounding.

  13. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    IIRC, NRA was 100% behind Otis NcDonald in his lawsuit against Chicago.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Yep! Conveniently forgotten. Oh and did I mention they helped elect NOT Hillary?!?

  14. avatar W says:

    The NRA does support African Americans, but don’t expect lifelong progressives/ NRA haters to acknowledge that. Their thing is not to be objective but to reinforce feelings of moral superiority among their clan. If you’re a progressive, watching the Daily Show, listening to NPR, or reading Slate is your safe space.

    I’ll mention Shaneen Allen also. Someone ignored completely by the oh-so-empathetic and righteous progressives. Maybe it’s not on them though. Maybe their betters did not tell them what to think about that issue.

    FWIW, the author’s use of “incestuous” seems odd. The NRA is not part of the law enforcement family, so instructing law enforcement or commenting on law enforcement is not an inside-the-family activity. That said, the NRA did have sympathies on both sides–one was a legal carrier, the other was a law enforcement officer who apparently should never have been one.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Castile was not a legal carrier. 922(g).

      Sure it’s a technicality, but so are all gun laws.

      1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        It is amusing how some people on this board suddenly care about the technicality of concealed carriers losing their license when they smoke a plant deemed unsavory by the Washington political elite. Especially when the same people espouse support for constitutional carry.

        Must be hard to be a bootlicking 2A supporter. All that cognitive dissonance.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Must be hard being pinko commie scum.

          There is a difference between normative and positive statements of the law. My first statement is a positive statement of the law. Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together should at least consider the possibility that my second statement is a disparaging normative statement on the (nearly) entire body of firearms laws.

        2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          LOL, pink commie scum. Aren’t we getting defensive now. I must have hit a button.

          “consider the possibility”

          Maybe if you meant it to be disparaging, you ought to say it out loud instead of asking other people to divine your opinion. Especially when lawyers make a living dealing with technicalities.

          Besides, “some people on this board” does not mean you. One other poster on this thread has been particular vocal about this morally worthless technicality… typical straw grasping from mount stupid from that guy. 🙂

  15. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

    Castile is dead (tragically, in my opinion).

    What does Trevor Noah think the NRA should have done? The guy who killed him went to trial, so no need to strong-arm the DA into pushing the case forward… where should their money and effort have gone in this case? What good would it have done?

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    The left will use any rationale, any lie, any bullshit to destroy the NRA.

    Useless tools will do the same.

  17. avatar Manse Jolly says:


    Which case did the Supreme Court rule that law enforcement can get you out of car, put you on ground, and disarm you if a CWP holder?

    Or was just one of the SCOTUS judges giving an interview sometime in last couple of years?

    Maybe I’m remembering wrong or it might have been a State SC.

    Tried searching the interwebs

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Pennsylvania vs Mipps

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      There are several cases ruling that from different appellate courts (federal and state). There are also some ruling the opposite of that. None from SCOTUS.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    I never get tired of hearing the concern trolling by liberals about how we need to stand up for the rights of all gun owners.

    1. But we POTG, as well as the NRA, do need to stand up for the rights of all gun owners.
      The NRA’s silence is unforgivable. They are a bunch of copsuckers.

      And I’m disgusted with all the comments on this page by other POTG who are AGREEING that people should lose their 2nd Amendment rights if they have so much as one whiff of marijuana in their life, even if they’re cancer patients using medicinal marijuana. Yes, are you aware that Federal law, as spelled out on Form 4473, specifically states that MEDICINAL users of marijuana lose all their 2nd Amendment rights.
      So if your mom or grandma is a legal gun owner, then she gets cancer and requires medicinal marijuana to ease the pain, tough shit, she becomes a “prohibited person” who loses all her 2nd Amendment rights — and most of the people on this website are AGREEING with the government’s position on this?!
      Whatever happened to Constitutional 2A rights?
      What happened to the people on this blog who USUALLY defend constitutional rights?
      Why is nobody on this website defending Constitutional rights in the face of an absurd government position that cancer patients on medicine to help relieve chemotherapy side-effects should give up their God-given rights?

      You do realize that you’re advocating people dying of cancer, taking medicinal marijuana, to have their God-given right to self-defense taken away by the state, categorized as “prohibited persons” due to their cancer medicine, and called “felons” if they continue to exercise their God-given right to self-defense.
      I hope you’re aware that not just many, not just most, but EVERY cancer medicine is more dangerous than marijuana, don’t you? My wife is a cancer survivor. My wife’s mother-in-law died of cancer just one year ago.
      Don’t tell me that marijuana is more dangerous than other cancer drugs — it if far, far, FAR, safer.
      Chemotherapy is toxic, that’s why it makes your hair fall out, makes you sick, makes you lose your appetite, lose weight, and often kills you — the chemotherapy kills you sometimes, if it doesn’t kill the cancer, the chemo kills you.
      But if someone decides to use MEDICINAL marijiuana to relieve the symptoms of chemo, you AGREE with the Form 4473 provision that they should lose their 2nd Amendment rights?
      Or (as I strongly suspect), are you just saying that because Philando Castile (the VICTIM here) was black?

      Shame on all of you who say marijuana users, INCLUDING medicinal marijuana users (as Federal law SPECIFICALLY says on the Form 4473) SHOULD lose their 2A rights. Shame on you.
      Have you no shame?

      I hope you don’t have to see your loved ones dying of cancer like I did last year, when my wife’s mother died of cancer.

      1. P.S.: Before anyone points this out, I’m well aware that Philando Castile wasn’t a medicinal marijuana user, that he was a recreational user, but that’s beside the point.

        The point is that so many POTG who commented on this article are AGREEING with the government’s position that anyone who uses marijuana, INCLUDING medicinal marijuana users (read your new Form 4473, it[‘s spelled out on the new form) automatically loses their God-given right of self-defense.
        It’s also an undisputed fact that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and EVERY cancer medicine.
        How many people die of alcohol poisoning, alcohol overdoses? Thousands! How many die from marijuana overdoses? None, or at least the number is pretty close to zero (although anything, including water, can be deadly if you consume too much, like the woman who died from drinking too much water for a radio contest called “Hold your wee for a Wii”, or the teenager who died from drinking three caffeinated drinks within a couple hours, doctors said the caffeine killed him).

        Who is more dangerous with a gun, someone who drinks alcohol, or someone who once in their life, smoked a joint for either recreational or medicinal purposes?
        Hell, anyone who’s had six cups of coffee is likely to be dangerous with a gun, but we don’t take away their 2nd Amendment rights just because they might “abuse” caffeine!
        And for the record, no, I’m not a marijuana user, but I am familiar with the drug (I was in the Army, and lots of troops smoked pot, but the government didn’t take away their gun rights, nor should they have. Hell, I bet 90% of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam used drugs, so should these veterans all lose their gun rights?)

        If you agree that all marijuana users (including MEDICINAL users) can have their 2nd Amendment rights removed for no reason other than the government says “Because I said so,” then you should be perfectly okay if next, the Federal government decides anyone who smokes cigarettes loses their 2A rights, or anyone who EVER drinks alcohol loses their 2A rights, or anone who drinks coffee loses their 2A rights, or anyone using ANY form of prescription medicine should lose their 2A rights (because there are hundreds of prescription drugs that are far more dangerous to use while armed than marijuana). How about people who use Ambien to help them sleep? How about people using over-the-counter antihistamines that cause drowsiness? What if the government said on a new Form 4473 that YOUR drug of choice (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco) or a medicine YOUR doctor prescribed means you get your 2nd Amendment rights taken away without recourse, for life?

        It is truly amazing how many libertarians on this website suddenly turn in favor of big-government regulation, big-government control, and RESTRICTIONS on 2nd Amendment rights as soon as the gun owner whose rights are being denied by the government happens to be a black person!
        Truly amazing, but I’m not surprised — I’m white, but my wife isn’t, so I run into prejudice like this all the time.
        Shame on y’all.

        1. avatar Damned Lies and Statistics says:

          I’m generally very libertarian and think people should be legally allowed to ingest and inhale whatever they’d like to. However, some of the commenters here seem to be rightly pointing out that there is clearly a reason for these laws against being marijuana users and carrying a firearm. Please note that I’m not saying I agree that there should be a law – but likewise I don’t think there should be a law against taking garage-made cocaine. It’s your choice, be as much of a moron as you want.

          BUT, being high clearly impeded Philando’s reasoning. Either that or he was several slices short of a loaf even when sober. I want to believe that he was smart enough (contrary to the evidence presented; him driving high and all) to have followed the officer’s shouted command to not reach, if he wasn’t high. Yet he was high and he continued reaching for something, even after the officer telling him to stop reaching multiple times. To me, this is a perfect example of the dangers of voluntary impairment, especially when doing something that can be lethal if done wrong (driving and carrying a gun).

          So while I think there should be no law against marijuana users carrying, I would hope they would have enough sense to only carry when NOT using – for their sake and everyone else’s.

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Oh yeah weed is the cure-all wonder treatment for every pain or ailment facing mankind.Come to Colorado and see the Mecca of weedom. Our crime has gone up, we have more and more people living outdoors along the rivers, which happened after pot legalization, our children are experimenting with it (and harder drugs) at higher rates and tens of thousands of people are for a lack of a better word wasting their lives away. Smoking dope is pure escapism. On top of that the THC can be medically given in pill form or intravenous at much higher rates that effectively treat the issue on a medical level so don’t tell me it has to smoked. I don’t really care to much if you want to waste your life smoking dope but please stop with the supposed benefits. Other than Frito-Lay I don’t know many here who are very happy with the way it turned out.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        That certainly was a lot of text.

        Does it basically boil down to “I only want to abide by the laws that I agree with?”

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        There is a difference between saying what the law is and saying what the law should be. I and Chip Bennett have repeatedly made the point that anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is a prohibited person. That is a factual statement of the law. I haven’t seen anyone advocate that it should be the law. And as long as the Supreme Court upholds the feds authority to outlaw marijuana and actual hard drugs everywhere, all the time, then we’re going to have a hell of a time overturning 922(g)(3). An as applied challenge might get us somewhere.

        I believe your statement “if they have so much as one whiff of marijuana in their life” is also taking things out of context. I think only the gun hatenest courts would interpret 922(g)(3) as such.

        Should 922(g)(3) be the law? In my opinion, no because it relies on an overly expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. I don’t even need to get to the 2A before I’d say the government doesn’t have the authority to do this.

        “But we POTG, as well as the NRA, do need to stand up for the rights of all gun owners.” I only NEED to stand up for the rights of people paying me to stand up for their rights. Also, I don’t think we should bother to stand up for the rights of all gun owners. We shouldn’t stand up for the rights of a gun owner when it hurts every other gun owner’s rights.

        The strategy should be to expand gun rights. The tactics call for leaving some behind. Should we challenge 922(g)(3) with a guy like Castile driving around high and drunk with a toddler (there is a video of him doing so) who gets arrested for doing that, and gets charged under 922(g)(3), or with a leading citizen arrested for having a medical marijuana card and a registered firearm? Winning the first case would expand gun rights more. The second case is more likely to be won. If we live in a world with limited resources (hint: we do), then we are likely to have to choose between pursuing one or the other. Additionally, even if we have the resources for both, the two cases would probably have contradictory arguments.

  19. avatar Jimmy says:

    I had the exact same type stop the other day for a brake light that was out and when the officer approached I had both hands in the steering wheel in plain sight and the first thing I said after he asked for my papers was I have a weapon on my right hip how would you like to proceed? Point is once you tell him you are armed don’t reach for anything no matter what he said let him make the call at that point on how he wants to handle it

  20. avatar the ruester says:

    Loving how facts matter again. MAGA.

  21. avatar Mike says:

    We will never know what the cop saw him reach for. Wallet or gun
    Criminal act? Probably not. Bad moves by motorist, probably, Bad move/training by Police, probably.
    It has been reported he had been stopped multiple times for traffic violations and had drugs in his system.
    I think Police departments need to train officers how to handle legally armed people. Most cops and motorist I have spoken to report good interactions, but it does not take much for things to go “south”.
    Police need to handle the after shooting better.

  22. avatar Hugo says:

    Using any drug while carrying a firearm can impair your ability to understand and comply with lawful orders from a police officer. It’s stupid and irresponsible. I’m not a LEO but i do appreciate the tremendous stress they face every day. I saw the video and I think the jury got it right. If Mr. Castile had been white, the story would have been ignored by the media.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I’ll certainly agree with your last sentence.

    2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      It is not the media’s fault that white people don’t care when cops murder white people.

  23. avatar Mike G says:

    This is why I don’t inform that I am carrying if pulled over. It is completely irrelevant to a traffic stop and can make a cop irrationally nervous. This cop heard gun, then saw the victim reaching for his wallet for his ID and took that as the victim unholstering.

    No need to inform in my state so I’m not going to go out of my way to make an officer feel more secure by revealing something hidden from his view in the first place. It’s best for the cop to not even know in the first place and have them either write me a ticket or let me go with a warning.

  24. avatar Kyjd75 says:

    Interesting discussion. In Kentucky, if the police run your drivers license part of the info provided the officer is whether or not you have been issued a Kentucky Concealed Carry Permit. Thus any traffic stop involving a CC permit holder and a law enforcement officer in Kentucky (assuming a Ky resident) will result in the officer knowing that the stopped individual is a potential armed person. Is this good or bad considering the hair trigger nature of today’s police? I come from a law enforcement background, as does my wife. But we have real concerns about the training and the shoot first mentality that some officers are demonstrating around the country on a regular basis.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Seems to me that officer training should assume that any particular subject may be armed, regardless of whether or not they show up on a database or inform the officer when stopped. All that the look-up scheme or the laws requiring notification do is inform the officer of the armed people who’ve complied with the law; these are the least likely people to be a problem.

      Had Officer Yanez conducted the stop assuming Mr. Castile to be potentially armed, he might have issued instructions that better addressed that potential and not (apparently) panicked.

  25. avatar PaulB says:

    Philando Castile was an illegal user of marijuana…He could not legally possess a firearm, and should not have been in possession of one when he was stopped. It is an all around crappy situation, but had he followed the LAW…he would not be dead….

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Mr. Castile has already been punished for any crime or misdeed he may have committed, so determining his innocence or guilt is irrelevant unless it relates to whether or not Officer Yanez’s fear was reasonable.

      1. avatar PaulB says:

        It was ILLEGAL for him to possess a gun because of his marijuana use…AGAIN a really crappy situation, but he would be alive had he followed the law…

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “illegal gun”

          You sound like a gun-grabber.

  26. avatar little johnny says:

    This is about right and wrong. The cop was wrong.

  27. avatar C. Z, says:

    All the other cases mentioned, and reasons why they did or why they did not speak are simply noise.

    The NRA should have spoke up in this case. It is concerning that in this case, in this manner, with this specific set of facts that Mr. Castillo died. And the NRA is negligent not to express at minimum a concern.

    It could have been you.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      What should the NRA have said? I agree they should have said something by now. I only think so because this is a national story.

  28. avatar Jen CF says:

    The Officer told him THREE times to stop reaching. When I tell an Officer I’m carrying my gun, my hands don’t move out of their sight until the Officer tells me what to do with them. You can bet that even if I was going to reach for my wallet/permit/license, the very FIRST time the Officer tells me to stop reaching, I am going to become still as a statue.

    Plain & simple, the order to “stop reaching” came after the request for the license. It should have been followed immediately; the previous request for license becoming null the moment he told the Officer he had a gun & the Officer told him “not to reach for it”, to “stop reaching”, and again, “stop reaching”. I have watched that video many times over & cannot see that the Officer was wrong in his actions. He clearly felt Mr. Castille was reaching for his gun & there is no doubt that by the 3rd time the Officer told him to stop reaching, he was disobeying a very specific order.

    I hate that Mr. Castille is dead, but the Officer told him in ever increasing volume to stop reaching. It wasn’t a suggestion, it was a lawful order & was disobeyed 3 times.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Why do you ignore the conflicting order of presenting ID? Isn’t that also a “lawful order”, whatever that means. Maybe you’ll freeze the next time you are accosted by a government thug and he’ll pump 7 rounds into you for freezing, i.e. disobeying a lawful order to fetch your wallet.

      Also, why do you capitalize “Officer”? That is some serious above-and-beyond bootlicking. 🙂

  29. avatar Russ H says:

    It seems a lot of people don’t really know all the facts of this shooting – frankly, I doubt most care as they have made up their minds and went with trying Yanez in the media. Yanez made the stop because Castille looked like the suspect in a recent armed robbery. He used the broken tail light for probable cause to make the stop. Upon walking up to the car, he smelled burnt marijuana. So, Castille has what he thinks may be an armed robbery suspect high on marijuana who is armed. Then Castille says he is carrying a gun but has a permit. This 4 year officer is now very pumped up and scared. Here’s a pretty thorough article on what happened: Wikipedia also has a decent article:

    No one will ever know exactly what happened in that car other than Yanez and Reynolds. The officer says Castille failed to obey his commands – Castille kept moving his hands around, failing to remain still and ultimately grabbing something the officer thought was a gun. The jury declared the officer not guilty, which means every one of them agreed he was not guilty. Yanez was fired from his department the same day the jury made their decision, which I think was done only to appease the public.

    As a retired state trooper, I have my feelings about this shooting but I wasn’t there. My feelings are the officer panicked, likely because he thought he had an armed robbery suspect who was high and said he was armed. It is true that if Castille was smoking/using marijuana, his permit was no longer valid. THC was found in Castille’s blood post-mortem. Just because a person says they are armed and have a permit doesn’t mean they won’t use it against an officer. Based on what I’ve read, I don’t think I would have fired but again – I wasn’t there. I do think Yanez panicked and I would have likely handled the stop differently. Both Castille and Yanez used poor judgement.

    I believe the NRA remained quiet because they didn’t have all the facts either and chose to wait until a verdict came out. Once he was found not guilty, what was the point of taking sides? I think they did the right thing. I also think it is wrong to try people based on what they read/hear on the news – the same news that said Trump would lose the election by a landslide.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      – The APB was so vague that any black male would have matched
      – Yanez never mentioned marijuana until many hours later in an interview after the shooting. The partner did not mention it either. Most likely he committed perjury since cops are now allowed to lie under oath and make up justifications after shooting people. One judge called the cooldown period and the “right” for cops to review findings before giving a post-shooting interview “legalized perjury”.

      THC bloodstream measurements post-mortem have already been discussed in this thread: they are useless for assessing impairment.

      The jury could that Yanez was not criminally culpable under the separate and far more lenient standard for culpability applied to cops. The law allows cops to kill people upon the merest suspicion, this is a planned feature, not a bug. A panicked civilian will have the book thrown at him, a panicked cop gets a pass.

      1. avatar Russ H says:

        “Not guilty.”

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          So was OJ. What’s your point?

          Instead of accusing others of not knowing facts, you should go check your own statements first.

  30. avatar Chet says:

    If the NRA issued a statement, it would be twisted one way or the other. After Castile was shot, they issued a statement. Now, after the verdict and not as an NRA rep but his own opinion, Colion Noir gave his thoughts.
    It won’t matter which way the NRA answers, the media will twist it.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      If they were even halfway competent, they’d know that the media will twist their silence as well. It is particularly easy to criticize the Association when they’re on record that they’d say more, but then fail to do so.

    2. avatar samuraichatter says:

      And in that statement that the NRA issued they stated that they would “have more to say” when the facts came out. So far they have not, even after it/they stated it would. It is an integrity issue. If you don’t want to issue a statement on controversial topics don’t tell people you are going to.

  31. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    As much as I hate to credit the NRA with competence: it’s an ambiguous situation at first, the weenie people will flail no matter what, and you need a contect, message and delivery program to do anything useful.

    It’s like The Donald’s response to the assassination of that Saudi “journalist.” “We’ll have to see…” was the least bad, actually long-term good, response to that one. Like so much else, that turned out to tangle the opposition in their own shoe-laces. The situationally opportunistic response looked prudent.

    Would that the NRA had said “We’ll have to see.” out of situational opportunism, and that they applied situational opportunism for the next steps.

    One statement might be something about re-normalizing armed lawful citizens: good for cops as well citizens.

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