Dai Toruko
SENIOR MEMBER
State investigators release dashcam video of the moment a black motorist was shot and killed, following the Minnesota officer's acquittal of all charges relating to the death. Sarah Jones reports.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
USA logic: let's give everyone guns!
Also USA logic: Let's under-train all our cops to not be able to deal with people with guns!
The "let's give everybody guns" originated because there was no police force in the US when the US Constitution was created. The population was only about 2.5 million scattered over a wide area. Plus repeating rifle/handgun tech was not invented yet. The guys writing it had no clue a day would come where you could have multicartridge gun that could fit in the palm of your hand.
Plus the US wasn't the only country to do this. Mexico and Latin American countries had the same thing.
%99 of police stops ended up with nothing more than issued citations or warnings. And please, I have been to your country when I was active duty. We were told many negative things about your police forces, so before you try to ascribe the worst of humanity to American police, look at your own.USA logic: let's give everyone guns!
Also USA logic: Let's under-train all our cops to not be able to deal with people with guns!
%99 of police stops ended up with nothing more than issued citations or warnings. And please, I have been to your country when I was active duty. We were told many negative things about your police forces, so before you try to ascribe the worst of humanity to American police, look at your own.
This is nothing more than a case of poor police training, not of protecting a 'murderer'. Yanez did not go on duty with the intent of looking for a black man to kill.So you protect a murderer?
7 bullets are way too much for a man that wasn't even aggressive. Sad story!
Look at the highlighted.Reynolds further narrated that the officer said, "Don't move" and as Castile was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm four or five times.
This is nothing more than a case of poor police training, not of protecting a 'murderer'. Yanez did not go on duty with the intent of looking for a black man to kill.
What happened was a combination of many things that made Yanez panicked. I have a concealed carry license. When you tell a police officer that you have weapon ON YOUR PERSON, you have effectively ratcheted up the tension level of the meeting. Any movement on your part, especially your hands, can be construed by the officer as threatening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile
Look at the highlighted.
It does not matter if you are armed or not, keep your hands (plural) in plain sight at all time. Move only when you are told and where you are allowed.
Am not blaming Castile. Am only saying that this is a situation where both sides made mistakes, common sense and procedural, that ended in a tragedy.
Now...Let us research on police problems in your country, shall we ?
State investigators release dashcam video of the moment a black motorist was shot and killed, following the Minnesota officer's acquittal of all charges relating to the death. Sarah Jones reports.
If he would have followed his training the issue would have bean avoided with absolutely no shots fired. If there was truly a threat the other officer would have had his gun drawn in seconds but he never drew his gun.
The man is plainly stating I have a gun and im not reaching for it.
The guy in the car honestly had a reason to be scared as how many men in the news are being shot because officers think they can do what the hell they want and now they can and they now know they will get away with it. A pressidence should have bean set here that was plain murder by an officer who was trained to be cool in high stress situations.
The office with all his training also should have given clear and concise directions to the man like after saying don't reach for your gun he should have said put your hands where I can see them like every other officer says when they feel in danger. Imediatly the officer goes off his rocker and starts yelling don't reach for your gun and in the time frame the man couldn't even have put his hands on the weel or showed his hands before the officer fired his weapon.
You people are saying it's ok for an officer of the law to not take control of the situation and just fire on anyone regardless if they have seen the weapon. Standard procedure would be if you see the wrpon then you fire not before period. In no way shape or form was this situation handled appropriately by the officer. For just that reason this officer should have bean put in jail for misconduct of a police officer and murder.
This guy is nothing more than a 12-yr old trying to pass of as an adult in a subject that is beyond his ken. He is not interested in any details of the case, except for the details that suits his made up mind.He (Yanez) was charged with 3 counts of crime.
1) Second Degree Manslaughter
2) Dangerous discharge of a firearm (to the mother)
3) Dangerous discharge of a firearm (to the child)
He was acquitted all 3 counts of charge and return a not guilty verdict and release immediately, he sign a voluntary separation agreement with St Anthony PD (which is equal to administrative discharge in the Military) and he was not hold liability for any civil/criminal action. He is free to applies another governmental job within St Anthony.
Here is what my wife (who is a JD in Law and a PhD in International Relationship) accounts for the case
One can also argue that the situation is escalating. It was because we can clearly hear the Officer tone gone from clam to urgent, he believe he is in danger at that moment, because Philando did not comply to his instruction.
You and Me are both not Yanez, we cannot think what is inside his head, this is what Yanez said, the problem is, there are no submittable evidence to proof otherwise. So for this case, we will have to believe him. BEcause that is the benefit of the doubt.
Again, we cannot "guess" what might have went thru Philando mind, and the flaw in your argument is that, if Philando is really scare, as what you said, why he disobey an order to "Don't reach for it" Wasn't that is exactly the what the outcome he will get from what he is afraid of? Getting shot by the police?
One thing is that we can speculate, another thing is can we proof that speculation, we cannot proof a state of mind with hard evidence, we can only get what we see, and what we saw is a non-complying of the officer order.
The officer does not go for the gun directly, in fact from the dash cam video, we see he issued 3 warning before firing the shots, and 3 warning in 3 different tone, First one at 0:57 is "Ok, Ok, don't reach for it" then 4 second later "Don't pull it out" and finally at 1:06 shot fires.
Whether or not the officer gave the order "hands where I can see it" is immaterial because the instruction is more clearer than that, the instruction is DON'T REACH FOR IT, and DON'T PULL IT OUT. The instruction is clear which is to stop, there cannot be a misconstrued on the meaning of the instruction. In fact the instruction of Don't reach for it and Hand where I can see it is contradiction of action, because one require movement, the other require to stop the movement
Again, how are you going to proof it? This is just what you think about how this happen, but can you support your argument?
How did you know Yanez did not see the weapon?
How did you know Philando did not react?
What you said is what the court called circumstantial, which if not back up by factual evidence, it's a conjecture, which basically is what you think.
On the other hand, do I think Yanez is right to shoot the man? Probably not, problem is, can you or anyone proof it? You can't because there are no enough evidence to support a manslaughter charge. The Prosecution put out a weak case, and did not proceed with the prosecution in a responsible manner. In fact, my wife said, if the prosecution go for Involuntary Manslaughter, they may actually have a case because you do not need to proof criminal negligent, instead you only have to proof the shooting is unlawful. Which is a lot easier to proof than negligent.
But this is not the case the prosecution is going after, and they lost, there are nothing to it, they present a weak case and lost, That's the deal. It's not about police procedure, it's not about criminality, it's about whether or not you can be proven guilt, and in this case, it does not.