UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/philando-castile-shooting-m...

Now whilst I'm no advocate of the use of drugs whilst driving, and particularly not with kids in the car, who in their right mind thinks this is a reason to shoot someone 7 times and kill them. How on earth was this guy acquitted ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

It is notable at least that a court case was brought and that the officer was sacked. That more of these cases are making it to a jury is positive, even if the jury's verdict seems unfathomable.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What. The. F*ck.

Guy has audacity to smoke pot in front of family... Police officer has audacity to kill him in front of family.

That just screams murder plain and simple. And the officer knew it.

In reply to wintertree:

A voluntary separation agreement, whatever that means.

In reply to GarethSL:

So was Marijuana found in the car? The officer says he smells it in the transcript.

Probably not - as if it had been found it would have been produced in evidence in the trial? I can find nothing in the Wikipedia page of the incident that suggests anything was found.

So the supposition that he smoked in front if his daughter (if the bit about smelling marijuana is even true) has no basis. Dangerous to jump to conclusions eh?

In reply to Malarkey:


Deadly even!

I hadn't thought of it in that regard, the pot smoking may even be a myth.

Either way that is some horrendous character judgement!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Acquitted? This man was ACQUITTED?! There is outright video footage of him MURDERING someone, and a completely bonkers explanation he gave for it, and he walks free?

I am infinitely glad I live in a civilised country with a (mostly) functional legal system, rather than whatever barbaric state the US legal system seems to be in ...

In reply to wintertree:


One free allowance of blatant murder before you have to leave the force?
It seems to me the guy was, at best, mentally unfit to be a police officer.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I don't think that was actually the defence!

The defence was that the police officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect was reaching for his gun. It seems unlikely (from what I've read), but the bar is 'beyond reasonable doubt', so it is possible that this is the 'correct' verdict regardless of whether or not it is right.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:



I'd say unfit to hold a penknife let alone a gun.

In reply to MarkJH:



How many outraged posts before the above, pointing out the facts of the case? Seems some UKC forum members are happy to join the lynch mob without knowing the facts.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I suspect most people have read the linked article and read the following defense from the killer

“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?” he said.

And most will have seen the video in which the victim, having been asked to produce his licence,warns the killer that he has a gun and tries to assure the officer he's not reaching for it.

So despite what the victim said, the killer decided he couldn't trust him to comply with his request because he was high, so shot him 7 times to be on the safe side.

From the moment he was pulled over, his fate was sealed. No other course of action he could have taken could have saved his life.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Again, that wasn't his defence. An armed man on drugs would clearly present a different level of threat (and unpredictability) than the average motorist. That is relevant to the defence, but it wasn't actually his defence.


That isn't clear from the video. After being asked for his licence, the suspect clearly passes something out to the officer, who is looking at it before the action that leads to the shooting. He may have been reaching for his wallet (as claimed) or it may have been the gun. In either case, the prosecution had to prove that the officer didn't have a reasonable belief that he was in danger; not that he was correct in his belief.

In reply to MarkJH:


Exactly. My brother did jury service in the UK recently and had to acquit someone of rape for this reason.

In reply to gethin_allen:

If I lived in that area and that (ex) policeman started getting agitated in any manner, would it be reasonable for me to empty an automatic pistol into him just in case he was going to go barmy (again) ??

In truth I hope at least that he lives in fear of such a response.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I think people are just appalled that the actions of the officer are considered reasonable and legal. The 'facts of the case' are that this was a routine stop and the victim did not do anything wrong, if you think what you saw and the outcome was in any way acceptable then I can only assume you are trolling or have a f*cked up moral compass.

In reply to Tyler:


I don't think that even that is established with certainty. As far as I can tell, there isn't anybody arguing that what happened is 'acceptable'. The debate is whether or not the actions of the officer were criminal or not. I haven't seen all the evidence (as seen by the jury), but I can see circumstances in which the jury might consider the conduct of the officer to fall short of criminal negligence even if it was unjustified.

In a country where citizens are allowed to carry weapons (and where many police officers are killed on duty), then events like this will happen from time to time. I wouldn't consider that to be a price worth paying, but the US seems to think it is. Carrying a firearm when impaired through drugs or alcohol seems similarly reckless in my opinion.

In reply to MarkJH:

I was reacting to RR's "outraged" comments as though it was unreasonable to be outraged at what we've seen/read.

That's obviously the case but it makes some of us feel that the burden of proof seems too high.


Agreed.
1. Has it been proven that this is what he was doing?
2. If it has been how does that relate to the shooting?
3. Is it illegal in this state to carry a fire arm when impaired through drink or drugs?

In reply to Tyler:

Sorry, I see what you meant, and I agree.



Yes, he had a gun on him, and tested positive for THC, though this doesn't necessarily mean he was impaired.

It shouldn't really, but it does add some credibility to the defence. It is clear from the video that his (the suspects) mention of the gun is almost concurrent with the movement that leads to the shooting. I can easily imagine that someone not thinking straight might want to show the officer what he was talking about or wouldn't appreciate that reaching into his pocket after making such a statement was a really dangerous thing to do.

Not sure. Apparently there is a question on the licence application form about whether or not you take illegal drugs so there was some legal debate during the trial regarding whether or not he actually had a valid licence if he lied on the form. Seems a bit of a side issue in any case, as someone who was drunk would be just as incapable of responsibly carrying a firearm.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if he smelled of drugs, reached for his wallet or whatever. Look at the video of the cop and his complete lack of self control as he fires. He's dancing on the spot FFS! He was not a suitable choice of person to hold a firearm in a situation like that. He reacted without any sort of professional control of himself from the moment he apparently felt threatened. His fault or that of his employer? The fact that he walks free baffles me, but what baffles me even more is no reference that I've seen to imcompentence and the reasons behind it.

In reply to GarethSL:




I dont think it was, I think he was lucky to get off the manslaughter charge but I dont think it was murder.

He had a gun and was grabbing at something.

He fired too many times, too quickly, but Castille was a fool to even move his hands once he said he had a fire arm. An NFL player released a video last year advising young black men on how to behave and act in these situations when you have a gun and its basically just both hands on the steering wheel, let the officer handcuff you (for your and his safety), then let him remove your gun and do all the checks.

But why have a gun on you when you are just cruising around in your car..

Of all the Police shootings I think this is less clear cut, I can see how the officer did fear for his life due to the close proximity.

In reply to Tyler:

He resembled a suspect in a robbery and had a tail light out, so the officer was justified in making the stop but supposedly it should have been a felony stop and not treated as a routine stop.

We don't know what happened, if he was grabbing for the gun, only the officer, Castille and the girl know the truth there. The other officer seems to far back to get a view. I cannot see how you can say Castille did nothing wrong, we really don't know.

I'm glad the officer is off the street but don't know what else he did.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Because that's what they do in the USA

In reply to Roadrunner5:

He's been cleared so we have to accept the verdict but you are wasting your breath if you think you will convince me that the officer acted in a reasonable or proportionate manner even if you take every word that the officer says at face value (which I don't, too many holes to go into here).

In reply to Tyler:


I dont think we should and never said you should.

And I said I'm glad he's fired but I can see why the jury had reasonable doubt.

Sadly, in a society full of guns police shootings will happen. The way to reduce them is get handguns off the streets but that isn't going to happen so for now kids killing themselves, accidental shootings and police shootings are just the norm here.

In reply to Hat Dude:


I don't know anyone who does and live in a state with very very lax gun laws.

I was in my local gun shop last week and a few were openly carrying there, other than that its pretty rare to see anyone with a gun.

I took my physics class to a firing range for a gun safety demo and some fire arm training. They should at least know how to handle and make a gun safe if they are to live in a society like this but people rarely just carry them out of habit, especially up here which is a mix of liberal and conservative.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I love this, so casual, just like you were buying some cheese for lunch

In reply to Roadrunner5:


If you'd have been present at this incident you would not have seen this guy carrying a gun either.

In reply to MarkJH:


Assuming this bloke was stoned, I'd say that would make him less of a threat, have you seen that state of a stoner? reaching for the gun would take 30 seconds or more.

In reply to gethin_allen:

"Yes, officer, I have a license here somewhere, no idea which pocket its....sorry, what did you ask me for again...oh, yeah...license...yep...maybe....damn, wrong pocket...that's a gun...must be in the other...."

Meanwhile neurotic cop has filled you with holes before you've even got to grips with the concept of being pulled over.

In reply to NottsRich:


An astute question. If a failure of workplace training and proficiency reviews were responsible for either (a) the officer performing a normal stop with a felony mindset instead of performing a felony stop or (b) killing an innocent person in a routine traffic stop then one could argue more blame lies with the employer. With reference to UK law I might consider corporate manslaughter or whatever equivalent applies to state agencies.

I tend to assume these shootings happen because officers are genuinely scared for their lives and not that they are wontonly malicious. This suggests systemic failures in procedure and/or training.

You can always blame the alleged actions of the dead victims/suspects and the fear of gun violence in the USA but at some point you have to ask not where the causal blame lies but what must change to stop the deaths. The police can't fix gun culture, but they can change procedure and training. Perhaps it's just to expensive. The politicians should be trying to fix the underlying problem of gun culture.... I know I know...

In reply to Chris the Tall: I wonder about other countries that have armed cops and a general population who are able/possibly carrying guns - do they have incidents like this?

And is race relevant here - would a white man have been shot so readily?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Incredible that it must be a terrifying experience being pulled over by police in a supposedly civilised country.

In reply to thermal_t:


It can be.

I'm not going to lie I'd be nervous if my daughter was dating a young black guy in 17 years time.

But generally no. Apart from once in Texas late at night the police have always been great.

I got stopped a few weeks back for possibly speeding, no ticket, and he was super polite, no threat at all. Most are like that. But I live in rural NH where the only crime is opioid related.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


If you mean the stupid was too great for him to avoid his fate, well maybe but that just isn't what happened here.

The cop made several mistakes but these were fairly minor. He didn't treat it as a high threat stop, so didn't draw his weapon, force the guy out of the car etc. That may have lulled the victim into a false sense of security but isn't a huge mistake.

As soon as a gun was mentioned the cop should have sorted that out first and left the papers til later. In his evidence the cop says every time he's stopped someone with a gun before they've known the drill and put their hands on the wheel and not moved. The cop didn't insist on that this time, so that was a mistake on both parts but a much bigger mistake on the part of the victim because he spooked the cop

Both cops say that the victim, turned away from the cop to access his wallet/gun and that is obviously a no-no.

The nurse who cut the trousers off the victim confirmed that the wallet and the gun were in the same pocket, so the victim should have said that to the cop, not reached for the pocket containing both items whilst claiming he's only going for one of them!

The cop's been sacked for a minor mistake and a panic reaction.

If you're going to carry a gun (and shirley that's a big IF) then you really have to know what to do when you're challenged on it.

The jury here seems to have been able to sort out the facts quite well but it's got to be horrible thinking that a different jury could take the opposite view and send you to jail because some numpty with a gun acts a bit dumb.

In reply to winhill:
So basically you're saying the bloke got himself shot and the cops mistakes were minor, trivial?

In reply to winhill:



I would have thought that shooting somebody like that was an absolutely mahoosive f*cking mistake!

In reply to winhill:

Brilliant piece of apologism there!

In reply to winhill:








There's a massive difference in the balance of power you are ignoring here.

The cop is professionally trained to deal with these situations. So surely the onus is on the police to direct clearly and not on the civilian to 'know what to do'.

Also the cop has his gun raised, whilst the civilian has a gun in his pocket and is seat belted in, in a confined place. The cop has freedom of movement, a finger on the trigger, there is only one winner if the man draws a gun. He also has back up on the other side of the car, not to mention the man is high and reacting quite slowly to events.

The man was not reaching for his gun (in his speech, and likely in his mind), all you get if you tell a man not to do what he's not doing is an response such as 'I'm not doing that', you need to provide a positive direction, and then judge if the person is not complying.

The cop backed himself into a corner when he lost it and started panicking, he actually had all the power to de-escalate.

Unfortunately, this is what you get when you have poorly trained armed police having to deal with potentially armed citizens at every stop and search.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Interesting piece on the liberal red necks Facebook page.

Why the cop just let him bleed out. This seems to happen a lot. They basically cuff them and wait for help from other EMS, not great and that should be illegal.

Lots of forces are doing more de-escalation training now so they do recognize it's systemic failings not just rogue cops.

In reply to FreshSlate:
"
The man was not reaching for his gun "

We don't know that. Obviously it makes no sense if he did but that car was essentially a black box, we just have say so.

It's a bit like the ched case again. What he did was clearly wrong but is there clear evidence? I'm not supporting him but I understand why a jury couldn't convict him.

In reply to Roadrunner5:





Don't get me wrong I'm not reaching for a murder / manslaughter charge for the cop, not in the American system anyway. However his handling of the situation fell far below what I would expect for a police officer.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



The cop wasn't in a position to provide assistance because he was a panicked, gibbereing wreck.

His partner was protecting the four year old girl who escaped her car seat and ran.

There's a great podcast all about this case called 74 seconds, This link goes to the episode about the dash cam footage but all the episodes are worth a listen.

The dashcam video
http://one.npr.org/i/533758510:533758512

In reply to Jimbocz:

Thanks for posting - very interesting

I believe black youths in the US are now being advised to have ID in clear plastic wallets attached to their belts, so that when the police demand to see it there can be no cause to assume that they are going for a weapon.

The victim here had his documents in the same pocket as his gun - not very sensible, rather unfathomable to a brit, but perfectly legal in the US. He tried to warn the officer of this, but the officer panicked and started shooting within 4 seconds.

Hearing what a wreck the officer is you can start to understand why a jury might find it difficult to convict, though I still think they should have done (caveat - not heard the rest of the evidence)

I suppose the really scary thing is that such a trigger happy person should have a gun, let alone be a police officer

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Or does some combination of bad training, institutional culture and personal job experience turn some people more trigger happy on the job?

For all my strong views on the high rate of civilian killings by US police, I think I would become a nervous wreck if I tried to do their job.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Can't see the relevance of any imbalance, it was a manslaughter charge not murder.


The guy was wrestling with a cop over a concealed weapon, at some point he has to realise that is the wrong thing to do.


I think the jury realised this just a red herring, the guy wasn't being compliant, like a gun holder should be.


Like I said he made mistakes but his first reaction to the guy not complying was to try to stop him by putting his arm in the car. Again a no-no when he should have stepped away from the victim but it showed the jury that his first reaction was to try to stop him peacefully. In order to be culpable for 2nd degree manslaughter it has to be shown that the cop had created an unnecessary risk to life, by struggling with him first he demonstrated he was trying to stop things before he unholstered his gun.


This is buying into gun culture. The cop was well trained and was highly thought of during training and had been in similar situations before (this is all in the transcript evidence).

Gun culture says that these types of situations are manageable and must be caused by rogues when the truth is that you can't train cops to be automatons and these mistakes are an inevitable result of gun culture.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The child's words say it all!

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40375423/philando-castile-girl-4...

What an incredibly brave little girl.

In reply to GarethSL:



There's something incredibly worldly-experienced about that little girl - far beyond the expectations for her years. My little girl is 4, nearly 5 and is very bright, but is very naïve when compared with that video. It gives the impression that the little girl in the video regularly inhabits a world that exposes her to things no 4 year old should be exposed to. Very sad.

In reply to Rampikino:


What I found amazing about that little girl
Is how quick she unbuckled herself from her car seat and bailed out the back door.

In reply to Rampikino:

It's heartbreaking, isn't it?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Very.

Poor kid, fearing her mother might get shot too.