BLM - "Don't pull it out!" gets somehow interpreted as "you said to get his ID out."

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Well the officer stated that Castiles left arm was blocking his vision, and he also stated he never saw a firearm..

He said that at first, then said he saw the gun.

I still fail to see how this is somehow a "2A matter".

Yesterday, one of your "2A aspects" included passing the Hearing Protection Act.
I view the lack of additional 2A restrictions - something the dems/progs/left desperately want to impose, but now cannot - as very much a positive for the 2A. Beyond that...we'll see what they do. Pass the Hearing Protection Act, maybe. As for the rest, I thought you were smart enough to see and understand that nothing has yet been accomplished upon which any judgement or conclusions could be based. And there is PENTY of time left to accomplish things. As I posted earlier "time will tell".

Are CCW permits are not part of the overall 2A "matters" or "aspects", but passing a law to use suppressors is?

When did he ask for that ID?

At 9:05:38 PM.

He repeated that claim at 9:13 PM during a conversation with St. Anthony Police Officer Tressa Sunde.

I'd like to know what the officer's training was for the instance he realizes he's dealing with someone, seated in a vehicle, carrying a firearm.

My thinking is I can't very well reach for my ID when the officer knows I have a concealed weapon and is telling (yelling at) me not to reach for it. I'm thinking that if there's any confusion, both my hands go back on the steering wheel so the officer sees I'm not a threat.

Unfortunately, that confusion and yelling lasted all of 5 seconds or so.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Seriously. If this was a white guy the NRA would have paid for his legal team and he would be a martyr for the cause.

But because he was black its just one more case of a cop getting away with using poor judgement and another innocent victim being killed.

Colion Noir, a NRA-TV host had some comments on this case:
In the case of officer Jeronimo Yanez [who shot Castile], I don't feel he woke up that day wanting to shoot a black person. However, I keep asking myself, would he have done the same thing if Philando were white? As I put on my Monday morning quarterback jersey, it is my opinion that Philando Castile should be alive today. I believe there was a better way to handle the initial stop. If he suspected Philando was a suspect in a robbery, there were ways to conduct that stop in a way that would have completely avoided the shooting altogether, but Yanez neglected to do so.

Beyond that point, things get a little fuzzy for me. Other than Yanez's testimony, there is nothing I read about the trial or any newly revealed facts to suggest that Philando was going for his gun. However, I don't know what Yanez saw that made him think Philando was going for the gun, I wasn't there, and I only have his words to go by. Sadly, Philando isn't here to tell us other than his last dying statement of, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Personally, I feel because Yanez pulled Philando over under the suspicion that he was a robbery suspect coupled with the presence of a gun, it put Yanez in a heightened state. I feel he lost control of his wits and overreacted. This now brings me to the question of race. Do I think Yanez felt threatened by the fact that Philando was black? It's very possible Yanez was indifferent about Philando's race. However, because of the negative stereotype reinforced in the media about black men and guns, it wouldn't completely surprise me if Yanez felt more threatened by Philando because he was black. This is the same negative stereotype that I've been trying to combat for years now.

Legally, I'm left asking myself, was Yanez failing to conduct a proper felony stop reckless or negligent enough to warrant a Second Degree Manslaughter conviction? As a lawyer, I'm hard pressed to think so. But the young black male in me says hell yes. Admittedly, I don't have all the facts the jury had; I didn't hear the testimony the jury heard. Maybe after hearing his testimony they believe Yanez honestly felt his life was in danger and justifiably so. However, I have to be honest and say, he shouldn't be able to just walk away freely without legal consequence. I just don't know what that consequence should be....

In my eyes, Yanez screwed up big time. I don't feel he was out to take a black life that day, but it doesn't matter because his actions cost Phliando his life. My legal mind can see why they couldn't get to Manslaughter in the Second Degree based solely on the facts at hand, but Yanez walking away from this case a free and clear man is just wrong.
https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR/posts/1386059818110438
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
He said that at first, then said he saw the gun.



Yesterday, one of your "2A aspects" included passing the Hearing Protection Act.


Are CCW permits are not part of the overall 2A "matters" or "aspects", but passing a law to use suppressors is?



At 9:05:38 PM.

He repeated that claim at 9:13 PM during a conversation with St. Anthony Police Officer Tressa Sunde.



Unfortunately, that confusion and yelling lasted all of 5 seconds or so.

I still fail to see how anything in this entire incident is somehow a "2A matter".
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I still fail to see how anything in this entire incident is somehow a "2A matter".

I think CCW permits are a 2A matter. I don't want to speak for you, but it seems suppressors are a 2A matter, but CCW permits (and how you interact with officers while carrying) are not? Is that what you're saying?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I think CCW permits are a 2A matter. I don't want to speak for you, but it seems suppressors are a 2A matter, but CCW permits (and how you interact with officers while carrying) are not? Is that what you're saying?

So the guy had a CCW. What does that have to do with "2A issues?" Is anyone effectively using this incident to promote restricting any 2A rights? I might have missed that if they are.

And I REALLY don't see what the Hearing Protection Act has to do with this incident either. ??
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Chris, are you concerned because more people here side with the officer instead of the CCW holder?
 

black dog

Free America
I think CCW permits are a 2A matter. I don't want to speak for you, but it seems suppressors are a 2A matter, but CCW permits (and how you interact with officers while carrying) are not? Is that what you're saying?

Do you think just CCW permits are a 2nd matter or all permits and licenses to carry a firearm are 2nd issue?
Should legal carriers have the duty to inform anyone including LE they have a firearm?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Do you think just CCW permits are a 2nd matter or all permits and licenses to carry a firearm are 2nd issue?
Should legal carriers have the duty to inform anyone including LE they have a firearm?

All permits (and non-permits in Constitutional carry states).

Should they, no. It's quite obvious the officer was already on edge thinking this guy was a robbery suspect. He said he was "####ing nervous". Not that Castile knew this, but he did what many police agencies tell you to do. That is to tell the officer.

It's sort of a double edged sword though. Don't tell the officer and he probably wouldn't have been shot. But seeing as the officer thought he was a suspect, he was likely going to be pulled out of the car and patted down. At that point, the officer would have found the weapon. Who knows what would have happened then.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Not concerned, just surprised (sort of), but I'm not trying to change anyone's minds.

You seem to be arguing pretty hard for not trying to change anyone's mind. Anyway, as they say in baseball a tie goes to the base runner. And in these situations, the base runner is always the police.
 

black dog

Free America
He said that at first, then said he saw the gun.

.


This is what I read about seeing a firearm.



EAST METRO

Case file in Philando Castile shooting released, dashcam video shows shooting


By CHAO XIONG AND ANDY MANNIX , STAR TRIBUNE
June 21, 2017 - 6:05 AM





712
Days after Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted in the killing of Philando Castile, authorities released thousands of pages of investigative reports and dramatic dashcam footage showing how a routine traffic stop turned deadly in seconds.

It was the first view outside the courtroom of the footage of St. Anthony police officer Yanez firing seven shots into Castile’s car last year, killing him as viewers watched the aftermath on Facebook Live. The July 6 shooting thrust Minnesota into the national debate over police use of force and racial profiling.

Documents released Tuesday also revealed that Yanez couldn’t provide investigators with a detailed description of the driver of the car he pursued, thinking he resembled a suspect in a recent robbery.

Yanez spoke to investigators from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) the day after the shooting, explaining that he pulled Castile over because of a nonworking brake light and in order to check whether he was one of two men from an armed robbery four days earlier.


He didn’t know whether Castile’s passenger, girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, was a man or a woman — only that the passenger wore a hat.

Photo gallery: Warning, graphic images: Evidence photos from Castile shooting scene
Read the transcript of officer Jeronimo Yanez's BCA interview
“I just knew that they were both African American, and the driver, uh, appeared to me that he appeared to match the, uh, physical description of the one of our suspects from the strong arm robbery, gunpoint,” Yanez said in the interview.

“What is that description?” asked BCA special agent Doug Henning.

“Um, it was a [sigh], I can’t remember the height, weight but I remember that it was, the male had dreadlocks around shoulder length,” Yanez said. “…And then just kind of distinct facial features with like a kind of like a wide-set nose.”

The audio recording of Yanez’s one-hour interview was never played by prosecutors during his three-week trial. Prosecutors sought to introduce it late in the trial, but the judge said no. Jurors requested the full BCA transcript of the interview during deliberations but were denied by the judge. The interview also showed that Yanez frequently mentioned smelling burnt marijuana in the car. The issue featured prominently in his defense at trial. Six seconds after Castile told Yanez he had a firearm, Yanez shot him. Castile’s permit to carry was later found in his wallet.

“I thought, I was gonna die,” Yanez later recounted about the moments leading up to the shooting, “and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me. And, I let off the rounds and then after the rounds were off, the little girls [sic] was screaming.”


The video released by the BCA and the Ramsey County attorney’s office starts about 9:05 p.m. as Yanez activates his squad lights to pull Castile over on Larpenteur Avenue near Fry Street in Falcon Heights. A little over a minute later, Yanez fired seven bullets.

Tyrone Terrill, president of the African-American Leadership Council, said the video could further damage community-police relations.

“No, no, no,” Terrill said minutes after viewing the video. “You don’t have to remain calm on this one. You have a right to be outraged. You have a right to be angry. And I would be disappointed if you weren’t outraged, if you weren’t angry. It raises the question — how will you ever get a guilty verdict?”

But some authorities cautioned viewers not to consider the video as a complete record of the events that night.

State Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, called it a “tough, tough video to watch.” Watching it, he said, “just reinforces the speed of the event.”

“It’s these very short but very clear verbal commands to not reach for it. And once you start down that path and the officer interprets noncompliance, it’s going to play out very, very quickly,” said Zerwas, a vocal advocate for law enforcement at the Capitol. “Looking at that video in context of all the information, you can see how the jury could reach that conclusion and understand why deliberations went on for all those days.”


Andy Skoogman, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, said the video provides context “to an incredibly tragic story,” but it doesn’t tell the whole story.

“We can’t see inside the vehicle and, most importantly, we can’t feel officer Yanez’s fear,” Skoogman said. “Obviously, no video can ever show the level of one’s fear, which is a purely subjective measure, differing from one person and one situation to the next. That’s what makes this case so difficult and open to such emotional debate.”

At a St. Paul community conversation set up in the wake of the verdict, 150 people gathered with counselors present. While the pain from the verdict was still fresh, they said, the video reopened wounds.

“I was thinking about that being me,” said Donte Curtis, 24, who cried when watching the video. “I was thinking about that being me.”

Among the data were more than 2,000 pages of documents, photos of Castile’s bloodied and bullet-riddled car and his autopsy, as well as interviews with Yanez, officer Joseph Kauser, his backup that night, and Reynolds.

Yanez met with two special agents from the BCA at 1:42 p.m. the day after the shooting, accompanied by two attorneys, Tom Kelly and Robert Fowler.

In the interview, Yanez said he was nearly three hours into his shift when he saw a white car pass and thought the driver appeared to match the description of one of the robbers.

When Yanez pulled the car over and approached, he smelled burnt marijuana, he told the agents. He didn’t tell this to the driver because, “I didn’t want to scare him or have him react in a defensive manner,” so he told Castile he had a nonworking brake light.


Yanez said Castile wouldn’t look him in the eye and was mumbling. He asked Castile for his license, and as Castile reached down he said he had a firearm, Yanez told the agents. Yanez said he repeatedly told him not to reach for the gun.

“It appeared to me that he had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He still reached down.”

Yanez recalled that Castile kept his left hand on the steering wheel, and the placement of his shoulder blocked Yanez’s sightline to Castile’s right hand. It was at this time that he feared Castile may be reaching for the gun in his waistband or perhaps between the seats. He wondered if Castile may have kept the gun for protection from a drug dealer or someone trying to “rip” from him.

“And at that point I was scared and I was in fear for my life and my partner’s life,” he told the agents. He thought he saw Castile grab something and pull it away from his right thigh. “I know he had an object — and it was dark,” he said. He thought he saw a gun.

But in answer to a question about what he saw in Castile’s hands just after he was shot, Yanez said: “I don’t remember seeing anything in his hands.”
 

black dog

Free America
All permits (and non-permits in Constitutional carry states).

Should they, no. It's quite obvious the officer was already on edge thinking this guy was a robbery suspect. He said he was "####ing nervous". Not that Castile knew this, but he did what many police agencies tell you to do. That is to tell the officer.

It's sort of a double edged sword though. Don't tell the officer and he probably wouldn't have been shot. But seeing as the officer thought he was a suspect, he was likely going to be pulled out of the car and patted down. At that point, the officer would have found the weapon. Who knows what would have happened then.

Contrary to popular belief, Law Enforcement Officers do not make Law.
Some believe they can makeup laws that don't exist...
Just watch Cops.... Lots of Officer made up laws being applied..
Kinna like what you are saying, he was told he was pulled over for a inopperable brake light, you don't pull folks out of a car because of a minor traffic infraction, you don't ask for permission to search or call a dog to sniff a car that's pulled over for a traffic infraction, yet it happens everyday.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
You seem to be arguing pretty hard for not trying to change anyone's mind. Anyway, as they say in baseball a tie goes to the base runner. And in these situations, the base runner is always the police.

If the intent of the forum is to not discuss anything and simply parrot each other, I'll happily oblige. :shrug:

This is what I read about seeing a firearm.
"...I know he had an object — and it was dark,” he said. He thought he saw a gun.

But in answer to a question about what he saw in Castile’s hands just after he was shot, Yanez said: “I don’t remember seeing anything in his hands.”

In the probable cause statement, the officer is on reacord stating,
I was trying to fumble my way through under stress to look and see what it was to make sure uh what I was seeing. But I wasn't given enough time and like I said he had no regard what what I was saying. Didn't follow my direction. And, uh he started reaching out and then pulling uh away from his uh his right thigh. I don't know if it was in his pocket or in between the seats or the center console. But I, I know he had an odject and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out I, a million things started going through my headm And I though I was going to die. And, I was scared because, I didn't know is he was gonna, I didn;t know what he was gonna do. He just had somethin' uh his hands and he, the first words that said tio me were, some of the first words he said is that he had a gun. And I thought he was reaching for the gun. I thought he had the gun in his hand, in his right hand. And I though he had it enough to where all he had to do is just pull it out, point it at me, move his trigger finger down on the treigger and let off rounds. And I had no other option than, to take out my firearms and, and I shot. Um I shot him.

My apologies. I said he saw a gun. In actuality, he though he had a gun in his hand.

I feel for the officer. He was obviously scared, but knew he ####ed up right after I think.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
As sad as it all is, this statement seems to sum it all up:
“It appeared to me that he had no regard to what I was saying. He didn’t care what I was saying. He still reached down.”

End of story.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Contrary to popular belief, Law Enforcement Officers do not make Law.
Some believe they can makeup laws that don't exist...
Just watch Cops.... Lots of Officer made up laws being applied..
Kinna like what you are saying, he was told he was pulled over for a inopperable brake light, you don't pull folks out of a car because of a minor traffic infraction, you don't ask for permission to search or call a dog to sniff a car that's pulled over for a traffic infraction, yet it happens everyday.

I agree 100%, but the officer is the first line of the law. How many times have you seen/heard the "we'll figure it out in court". Officers may not make the law, but they enforce it based on their interpretation.

The legal justification was the brake light, but as you said, and based on court testimony, the officer stopped him because as they made eye contact driving by each other, Castile had a "deer in headlights look" and the brake light was pretext to stop him and investigate possible other crime(s).
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
My apologies. I said he saw a gun. In actuality, he though he had a gun in his hand.

Correction. I thought I read it elsewhere.

“Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me,” Castile volunteered, according to the criminal complaint filed against Yanez.

“I told him, ‘Don’t pull it out,’ ” Yanez testified in court.

Castile reached to his right and made a C-shape with his right hand, Yanez said, adding that he tried to distract Castile, but “he continued to pull his firearm out of his pocket.”

Kelly tried to head off the prosecution’s cross-examination by asking Yanez why he told his supervisor after the shooting that he “didn’t know where the gun was.”

“I was telling [my supervisor] I didn’t see the gun until I saw one,” Yanez answered. “I didn’t know where it was on Philando Castile’s person.”

“You didn’t say firearm,” Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Rick Dusterhoft said of Yanez’s BCA interview.

“Correct,” Yanez said.

“You didn’t say he grabbed a gun,” Dusterhoft said. “… You didn’t say ‘firearm.’ You said ‘object,’ correct?”

“Correct,” Yanez said. “… My mind was all over the place, because I was under a tremendous amount of stress. It was a firearm.”

Yanez asked to handle a replica of Castile’s gun. He stood up, faced jurors, grabbed the gun’s handle with one hand and pointed near his grip. “That’s what I saw,” he said.

“You said ‘barrel’ twice,” Dusterhoft said of the BCA interview. “What I meant was the slide, the top part of the slide,” Yanez explained. “You appear to be unsure of what you saw,” Dusterhoft said a few questions later. “No,” Yanez said, “I was sure.”
http://www.startribune.com/jeronimo...o-defend-philando-castile-shooting/427452083/
 

black dog

Free America
I agree 100%, but the officer is the first line of the law. How many times have you seen/heard the "we'll figure it out in court". Officers may not make the law, but they enforce it based on their interpretation.

The legal justification was the brake light, but as you said, and based on court testimony, the officer stopped him because as they made eye contact driving by each other, Castile had a "deer in headlights look" and the brake light was pretext to stop him and investigate possible other crime(s).

So in essence, he had broken no laws. And with that he never should have been pulled over. The Officer isn't Miss Cleo'...
It seems nowdays it's ok to pull over citizens and just " Fish " and see what floats to the surface.. and arrest them for that..
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So in essence, he had broken no laws. And with that he never should have been pulled over. The Officer isn't Miss Cleo'...
It seems nowdays it's ok to pull over citizens and just " Fish " and see what floats to the surface.. and arrest them for that..

The brake light was supposedly out, so that's a broken law. Just apparently not enough to warrant notifying dispatchers he was conducting a stop.
 

black dog

Free America

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
The brake light was supposedly out, so that's a broken law. Just apparently not enough to warrant notifying dispatchers he was conducting a stop.

Observing any individual light out is adequate justification for stopping a motorist. That's always been true. Or turning without signaling..or not comping to a complete stop... All minor stuff but long understood to be adequate justification for a traffic stop.
 
Top