Philando Castile Shooting

diomed · 23-06-2017 08:24PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Most - almost all - of these police shootings have logic at their core but people don't want to know about it.

Because the story is made up by the police to cover themselves.

hatrickpatrick · 23-06-2017 08:26PM

Ireland is just as bad, though. I remember a couple of years ago a bunch of Gardai broke down a family's door in the Basin Street flats, to arrest a kid who had been hassling them the day before. Fair enough. Except, they forced the woman into a bathroom, locked the door trapping her inside, and beat the sh!t out of her son with batons before arresting him. He required medical treatment and one of the Gardai had to wipe blood of his baton before leaving the flat. The entire incident's audio was recorded by the mother's friend, who unbeknownst to the Gardai was on the phone with her at the time.

GSOC brought a case, and the Gardai were acquitted basically on the grounds that the kid was a scumbag and had hassled them the day before. As if purely vengeful corporal punishment by law enforcement is regarded as acceptable in Ireland - the kid did something yesterday, ergo the Gardai had the right to beat him up, not in self defence but as sheer cold blooded revenge.

In another case, GSOC brought a case against a Garda and actually won it in court - conviction by jury. The judge imposed a custodial sentence. However, this was subsequently reduced to a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that prison is likely to be especially difficult for Gardai, ergo regardless of what they do, they simply shouldn't go to prison. I can't remember precisely, but I think this was the Waterford case in which four Gardai came across a guy who regularly gave them trouble taking a piss on the side of the road, got out of their van, and teamed up to restrain and physically assault him. Their colleague back at HQ deliberately diverted a remote controlled CCTV camera away from the scene so as to avoid there being evidence against them. All were convicted, but as far as I remember had their sentenced massively watered down in a way that no ordinary citizen guilty of the same offense could expect to.

It's like this everywhere. America is not unique in this regard. What is unique in America is that there's absolutely no independent oversight - if the cops beat you up, it's their colleagues you complain to, it's their colleagues who investigate. Cases rarely even get as far as a courtroom for this reason.

Manic Moran · 23-06-2017 09:50PM

Sand wrote: »

I find it incredible this cop was acquitted. The victim was clearly compliant at all times, non-violent, volunteered the information that he had a firearm and clearly states that 'I'm not reaching for it'. The victim never even raises his voice. His partner at no point looks concerned, guarded or worried.

The cop had no reason to believe this man was violent or a threat to him, it's apparently the first shooting involving a police officer his department has seen in 30 years. Its not a violent war-zone he is policing. But he completely panicked and shot this guy out of total fear - he was almost crying in the aftermath. His testimony was unreliable - claiming he saw a gun when it never left the victims pocket. Its not murder, but this guy should be inside a jail cell.

The Police Department he worked for clearly don't think his actions were acceptable - he was fired. He should have been jailed. He has killed someone due to his own weakness and fear and got away with it. There is something seriously wrong with policing in the US if this sort of clearly wrong killing is given blessing by the courts.

It is down to the standards necessary to convict under the manslaughter charge, which were always known to be high. Realistically there were lesser charges Yanez would have been more likely to be convicted over, but the protests would have been just as loud as they are now after acquittal. To meet the standards, Yanez would have to have been grossly negligent, or reckless. The problem is that (apparently) given the situation as he perceived it, the actions were appropriate and not reckless. He likely perceived incorrectly, but that's another matter, subject to different judicial and non-judicial actions.

Sand · 23-06-2017 10:27PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is down to the standards necessary to convict under the manslaughter charge, which were always known to be high. Realistically there were lesser charges Yanez would have been more likely to be convicted over, but the protests would have been just as loud as they are now after acquittal. To meet the standards, Yanez would have to have been grossly negligent, or reckless. The problem is that (apparently) given the situation as he perceived it, the actions were appropriate and not reckless. He likely perceived incorrectly, but that's another matter, subject to different judicial and non-judicial actions.

That may technically be the case, but it sets a disturbing precedent that a cop can kill someone and the prosecution has to prove it was unjustified and unlawful. The cop has to offer no justification at all other than he felt threatened. Cops are granted extraordinary powers, but responsibility comes with that. I cant believe someone can justify shooting another person based purely on their own perception alone. He may have perceived a threat, but that threat was completely hysterical on his part. I believe lethal force in a policing situation is a last resort and the cop has to justify his decision to kill. His explanation for his actions was wholly faulty and deceitful, and I think his employers showed what they thought about it by sacking him. You use words like reckless and grossly negligent - if these don't describe the cops actions in this case, I would hate to see what it does look like.

His use of lethal force was completely and wholly unreasonable and unnecessary. He got away with it killing a guy at a traffic stop, good for him, but its wholly wrong. There is something wrong if a court gives this cop their blessing for what he did.

CantonasCollar · 23-06-2017 10:41PM

There is an interesting podcast called 74 seconds that looks into this case. Listened to it recently and suspect there may be a few more episodes given a bit more time since the verdict.

hatrickpatrick · 24-06-2017 12:12AM

The law comes at lethal force from the wrong direction in the US. Any time a person kills another person, that action should be regarded as automatically unlawful unless the person can prove that they had a special justification for it. Not the other way around. All the prosecution should have to establish is that this specific individual was the person who pulled the trigger. After that, it should be up to the killer to justify it, with only a tiny, tiny range of passable excuses for doing so.

The fact that ending another human life is regarded as acceptable by default, and that it has to be proven unlawful rather than being regarded as unlawful unless it can be proven that it was an exceptional case, is incredibly depressing. The same sh!te led to George Zimmerman walking free FFS.

Manic Moran · 24-06-2017 02:31AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The law comes at lethal force from the wrong direction in the US. Any time a person kills another person, that action should be regarded as automatically unlawful unless the person can prove that they had a special justification for it. Not the other way around. All the prosecution should have to establish is that this specific individual was the person who pulled the trigger. After that, it should be up to the killer to justify it, with only a tiny, tiny range of passable excuses for doing so.

The fact that ending another human life is regarded as acceptable by default, and that it has to be proven unlawful rather than being regarded as unlawful unless it can be proven that it was an exceptional case, is incredibly depressing. The same sh!te led to George Zimmerman walking free FFS.

Wait. Are you saying that most 'reasonable' countries like, say, Ireland, consider someone guilty until proven innocent in capital cases? That someone up on charges in the Four Courts must prove that they did not unlawfully kill someone, instead of the prosecution proving that they did? The US certainly sees such cases far more frequently, but if the US is coming at the principle from the 'wrong direction', I would argue much of the Western World is as well.

Innocent until proven guilty is a cherised philosophy for a reason. What would happen to your proposition in the case that someone genuinely does kill someone in self defense, maybe in a back alley being used as a short cut, and there is no witness around to prove that the person was justified? It's a terrible idea.

Sand wrote: »

That may technically be the case, but it sets a disturbing precedent that a cop can kill someone and the prosecution has to prove it was unjustified and unlawful. The cop has to offer no justification at all other than he felt threatened.

There is a 'reasonableness' standard, or at least, a 'not unreasonable' standard. See Supreme Court, "Graham vs Connor". "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

IMO, Yanez screwed up by losing control of the situation. Clearer commands like "Freeze" may have helped. However, at the time he shot Castile, from his perspective, he was faced with a man known to be armed, who was (presumably) moving to a position where he could access said firearm, and was not obeying instructions not to reach for it. The position was not entirely unreasonable from his perspective either. Ergo, it failed to meet the standards required for the manslaughter charge.

That said, I believe he made serious errors. Maybe he acted too quickly. Maybe better commands would have helped. I'm sure the civil suit is going to result in significant financial penalties to the next of kin, which will not bring back Castile. Yanez likely is unsuited to continue a law enforcement career. The correct question is of his performance to let it get to that level in the first place.

You use words like reckless and grossly negligent - if these don't describe the cops actions in this case, I would hate to see what it does look like.

Something like practicing quick-draws and accidently firing a round which hits someone. http://www.kcci.com/article/officer-practicing-quick-draw-fires-shot-inside-des-moines-airport/6915913
Shooting in a gunfight by not aiming, sticking the pistol around the corner and firing blind. That sort of thing is reckless and negligent.

His use of lethal force was completely and wholly unreasonable and unnecessary. He got away with it killing a guy at a traffic stop, good for him, but its wholly wrong. There is something wrong if a court gives this cop their blessing for what he did.

The court did not give its blessing. It found him not guilty of the standards of the charge. From the local paper.
http://www.startribune.com/yanez-outcome-predictable-due-to-wrong-charges/428985953/
It’s unfortunate because the prosecutors had a case against Yanez, but they tried the wrong one. He could have been charged with misconduct by a public officer or employee, a misdemeanor offense for acting “in excess of lawful authority,” or intentionally and unlawfully injuring another person. While that charge would not be as serious as the manslaughter and reckless-discharge ones that were unsuccessfully litigated, they would have been easier to pursue and more likely to have resulted in a conviction. Those charges cannot be brought now because the double-jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions bar multiple prosecutions of this kind

All the above said, however, this sort of scenario has been often hypothesised in the concealed carry community, because it very obviously can happen despite the best intentions of all sides. From three years ago, for example, https://www.usacarry.com/furtive-movement-get-you-killed/

“Oops, I’m sorry I killed you” doesn’t count. Yes, you didn’t mean to do it and you are so very sorry it happened, but the guy/gal (or you) is still dead. There is no undelete or redo for the action. There is a large grey area that, should you make the wrong judgment call, can cost you greatly, in many ways. Consider that the movement toward drawing a gun from a back pocket or the back of a waistband is exactly the same movement someone would make toward taking out their handkerchief or their wallet from the back pocket. The movement toward drawing a knife from a front pocket is exactly the same movement one would make in pulling out coins or their keys from the pocket.

This video seems to quite a few years old, and covers the best actions. It gives several very good reasons for not saying 'gun' or 'weapon', which is common advice, even in 'duty to notify' states. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s

I have been pulled over with firearms in the vehicle, and after notifying the officer, and explaining where they were, did not move my hands unless specifically authorised to do so. I think this shooting is at least going to have a positive effect of reminding those who are armed that there are certain 'best practices' to reduce the chance of mistakes like this happening.

Samaris · 24-06-2017 09:11AM

Not driving while black unfortunately does seem to be one of those "best practices" in the US though, and it's rotten. Castile was stopped..what was it, 52 times before the fatal incident? And he was never charged for anything because he was doing nothing wrong. What IS the best way to deal with it? There's nothing in the audio to indicate that he did anything that should have made the officer panic. And that excuse that the cop felt his life was in danger because he thought he smelled marijuana in the car and if Castile and his partner were so negligent of the little girl in the back being exposed to second-hand smoke, something something obviously likely to shoot him. That is a -defence-? That doesn't even make sense taking it at face value. Is this really arguing that a cop can justify shooting a member of the public because "I thought I smelled weed and he said he had a licensed gun." Why are the NRA not up in arms and screaming about a -government employee- shooting a -legally armed member of the public- because he has a gun? Isn't that what they've been shrieking about for years? So when it actually does happen, they seem remarkably quiet about it!

This was a deeply disturbing case and people should remain angry about it. As a side-thing, Trevor Noah, the South African comedian, has been stopped - I think it was eight - times already. His method of dealing with it is to place both his arms on/over the wound-down window. As he said, he'd prefer to look like an idiot than to be shot. Again, America should be ashamed of itself that this appears (and possibly IS) necessary to outsiders.

Edit: Also, poor guy, honestly. I wonder how often he wondered being pulled over if this was going to be one of the small percentage of times it all went awfully wrong? It must have crossed his mind. Probably multiple times. Between that and having to factor in the strong possibility of being pulled over whenever he was out (again, fifty-two times!) and leave time for it whenever he was making a journey, the whole thing has just been bullsh*t.

hatrickpatrick · 24-06-2017 11:42AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait. Are you saying that most 'reasonable' countries like, say, Ireland, consider someone guilty until proven innocent in capital cases? That someone up on charges in the Four Courts must prove that they did not unlawfully kill someone, instead of the prosecution proving that they did? The US certainly sees such cases far more frequently, but if the US is coming at the principle from the 'wrong direction', I would argue much of the Western World is as well.

Innocent until proven guilty is a cherised philosophy for a reason. What would happen to your proposition in the case that someone genuinely does kill someone in self defense, maybe in a back alley being used as a short cut, and there is no witness around to prove that the person was justified? It's a terrible idea.

I'm saying that killing should almost always be seen as unlawful, with very few exceptions. Put it this way: If I steal something from a shop, the prosecution has to prove that I stole it. If I have some justification or mitigating factors, it's then up to me to put those forward. But if the prosecution proves that I stole something, in all likelihood I'm going to be convicted.

Killing should be treated in the same way. 99.9% of the time, killing another human being should be regarded as wrong and illegal, and once somebody has been confirmed to be the one who killed the victim, in my view they should then have to put forward an argument as to why that was justified. By default, with no such argument, killing should be regarded as wrong and illegal.

I don't believe in lethal force except in cases where there is absolutely no other option in order to save another life. Never have, never will. The very concept of "rightful killing" is one I have always had serious trouble with, to my mind that's practically a contradiction in terms.

Captain Obvious · 24-06-2017 12:06PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm saying that killing should almost always be seen as unlawful, with very few exceptions. Put it this way: If I steal something from a shop, the prosecution has to prove that I stole it. If I have some justification or mitigating factors, it's then up to me to put those forward. But if the prosecution proves that I stole something, in all likelihood I'm going to be convicted.

Killing should be treated in the same way. 99.9% of the time, killing another human being should be regarded as wrong and illegal, and once somebody has been confirmed to be the one who killed the victim, in my view they should then have to put forward an argument as to why that was justified. By default, with no such argument, killing should be regarded as wrong and illegal.

I don't believe in lethal force except in cases where there is absolutely no other option in order to save another life. Never have, never will. The very concept of "rightful killing" is one I have always had serious trouble with, to my mind that's practically a contradiction in terms.

Unfortunately the US is not like Europe. It is a gun obsessed and violent place. There are many there who take no issue with shooting at police. Someone mentioned before that it wasn't a warzone. The gun death toll in the US is comparable to a warzone.

hatrickpatrick · 24-06-2017 12:34PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Unfortunately the US is not like Europe. It is a gun obsessed and violent place. There are many there who take no issue with shooting at police. Someone mentioned before that it wasn't a warzone. The gun death toll in the US is comparable to a warzone.

And none of this implies that the onus shouldn't be on a killer to justify their actions in court. We know that this cop did indeed shoot Philando Castile - it should now be his responsibility to justify doing that, because shooting somebody should be considered a crime in and of itself unless the shooter can justify their actions.

EDIT: I'm not just applying this to cops either, BTW. George Zimmerman would be in the same category.

Captain Obvious · 24-06-2017 01:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And none of this implies that the onus shouldn't be on a killer to justify their actions in court. We know that this cop did indeed shoot Philando Castile - it should now be his responsibility to justify doing that, because shooting somebody should be considered a crime in and of itself unless the shooter can justify their actions.

So you believe in a guilty until proven innocent justice system? Or do you mean malice should be taken as a given unless proven otherwise? In any case, isn't that exactly what happened? He never denied shooting him.

wes · 24-06-2017 02:19PM

Flojo wrote: »

It's never going to make sense to you because you've (probably) never walked a mile in their shoes. She knew live-streaming the incident was the only way to be in with a chance of justice for yet another pointless killing. In fact I think it screams bravery rather than it being an "oddity".

You mis-understood me. Look at the post I was replying too.

Anyway I do agree with you btw.

jonsnow · 24-06-2017 03:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ireland is just as bad, though. I remember a couple of years ago a bunch of Gardai broke down a family's door in the Basin Street flats, to arrest a kid who had been hassling them the day before. Fair enough. Except, they forced the woman into a bathroom, locked the door trapping her inside, and beat the sh!t out of her son with batons before arresting him. He required medical treatment and one of the Gardai had to wipe blood of his baton before leaving the flat. The entire incident's audio was recorded by the mother's friend, who unbeknownst to the Gardai was on the phone with her at the time.

GSOC brought a case, and the Gardai were acquitted basically on the grounds that the kid was a scumbag and had hassled them the day before. As if purely vengeful corporal punishment by law enforcement is regarded as acceptable in Ireland - the kid did something yesterday, ergo the Gardai had the right to beat him up, not in self defence but as sheer cold blooded revenge.

In another case, GSOC brought a case against a Garda and actually won it in court - conviction by jury. The judge imposed a custodial sentence. However, this was subsequently reduced to a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that prison is likely to be especially difficult for Gardai, ergo regardless of what they do, they simply shouldn't go to prison. I can't remember precisely, but I think this was the Waterford case in which four Gardai came across a guy who regularly gave them trouble taking a piss on the side of the road, got out of their van, and teamed up to restrain and physically assault him. Their colleague back at HQ deliberately diverted a remote controlled CCTV camera away from the scene so as to avoid there being evidence against them. All were convicted, but as far as I remember had their sentenced massively watered down in a way that no ordinary citizen guilty of the same offense could expect to.

It's like this everywhere. America is not unique in this regard. What is unique in America is that there's absolutely no independent oversight - if the cops beat you up, it's their colleagues you complain to, it's their colleagues who investigate. Cases rarely even get as far as a courtroom for this reason.

Firstly Ireland is demonstrably NOT as bad. The gardai have had one really bad shooting incident in the last 20 years - the john carthy shooting and that was largely because the ERU were following training nthey had received by american law enforcement. By US standards the John Carthy shooting would be as good a shoot as possible but in Ireland there was a massive outcry and it hasnt happened again since.

The gardai have systemic issues but they are excellent with relation to weapons training and discipline.

Secondly, in the Basin Street Beating case the gardai GSOC the DPP and the judiciary all did their jobs. It was the jury that essentially practised jury nullification. That is a deep-rooted class issue for society at large (we saw something similar at play in the Padraig Nally case) and the gardai (as an institution) were blameless here.

Thirdly, the final case you are talking about was in cork. It involved an offduty garda Foley who was told he had a gay looking shirt and then putting the guy in a coma by beating him.He was sentenced but only served one night as apparently there is a practice whereby gardai dont do time. Theres an article on it here

https://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/garda-walks-free-after-entire-18-month-assault-sentence-suspended-24457

Today Foley's Defence Counsel pointed out a mitigation in sentencing that is sometimes allowed for former guards and prison officers, due to the argument that will suffer more when in prison. Judge Ó Donnabháin said that 'we are in a completely different place today to where we were yesterday and if a point had to be made then perhaps it has been made'.

Obviously this is shocking and terrible practice.

Flojo · 24-06-2017 08:36PM

wes wrote: »

You mis-understood me. Look at the post I was replying too.

Anyway I do agree with you btw.

My bad. I quoted the wrong post. Was supposed to be the post you're talking about!

Samaris · 25-06-2017 11:40AM

Given there's been another case only in the last couple of days where a white police officer shot a black colleague joining his group because "he feared for his safety", seriously America needs to sort itself out. Whatever training they're giving the police, it's not working. The US trains its police like a military and appears to instil the notion of "us vs them" rather than "police-us working with and protecting general-society-us". And people keep ending up dead because the police are trained to neutralise anything that might be a threat, including basing on racial factors. Part of that problem is the sheer reaction to the number of people with guns - if they hesitate at the wrong moment, it might be their body on the ground. The whole culture seems to push towards shoot first. That is not healthy. And when certain segments of the population consistently suffer more for it, eventually they will rebel against it. No-one should have to live under the constant threat of being pulled over on traffic stops constantly until some trigger-happy officer panics and shoots you.

Captain Obvious · 25-06-2017 12:44PM

Samaris wrote: »

Given there's been another case only in the last couple of days where a white police officer shot a black colleague joining his group because "he feared for his safety", seriously America needs to sort itself out. Whatever training they're giving the police, it's not working. The US trains its police like a military and appears to instil the notion of "us vs them" rather than "police-us working with and protecting general-society-us". And people keep ending up dead because the police are trained to neutralise anything that might be a threat, including basing on racial factors. Part of that problem is the sheer reaction to the number of people with guns - if they hesitate at the wrong moment, it might be their body on the ground. The whole culture seems to push towards shoot first. That is not healthy. And when certain segments of the population consistently suffer more for it, eventually they will rebel against it. No-one should have to live under the constant threat of being pulled over on traffic stops constantly until some trigger-happy officer panics and shoots you.

It's not the training that is the issue. Self defence is a very valid reason for deadly force. The issue is the climate of conflict and violence that exists in the country.

Samaris · 25-06-2017 12:52PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not the training that is the issue. Self defence is a very valid reason for deadly force. The issue is the climate of conflict and violence that exists in the country.

Yes, but the training appears to be in response to that climate. And the training is not helping. The training is encouraging a "shoot first" response which ends up with innocent or scared people dead as well as the few that are likely to raise hell and start shooting if the police don't.

I don't know what the answer is, but the militarisation of the US police forces has been recognised as an issue for a long time.

The answer cannot be to keep upping the ante or you end up with a situation where the police and the general population consider each other enemies rather than allies. And that's when people start getting killed for ridiculous reasons.

Captain Obvious · 25-06-2017 12:59PM

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, but the training appears to be in response to that climate. And the training is not helping. The training is encouraging a "shoot first" response which ends up with innocent or scared people dead as well as the few that are likely to raise hell and start shooting if the police don't.

I don't know what the answer is, but the militarisation of the US police forces has been recognised as an issue for a long time.

The answer cannot be to keep upping the ante or you end up with a situation where the police and the general population consider each other enemies rather than allies. And that's when people start getting killed for ridiculous reasons.

The police will always be a reflection of society. It's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the police to change on their own. They will only change along with society itself, for better or worse.

ED E · 25-06-2017 01:25PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not the training that is the issue. Self defence is a very valid reason for deadly force. The issue is the climate of conflict and violence that exists in the country.

No, its not.

The issue is the guns.

How many people get shot when Gardai put up MITs checkpoints? Oh yeah, thats right, none. (Yes, they do have guns in very specific circumstances, mainly hunting for drugs).

Captain Obvious · 25-06-2017 01:46PM

ED E wrote: »

No, its not.

The issue is the guns.

How many people get shot when Gardai put up MITs checkpoints? Oh yeah, thats right, none. (Yes, they do have guns in very specific circumstances, mainly hunting for drugs).

Yes the gun culture would be part of the climate of violence I referred to.

darced · 25-06-2017 02:27PM

This post has been deleted.

Philando Castile Shooting

Comments