Verdict in Minnesota

[1989NDN]

The video I saw was the girlfriend's recording (Diamond Reynolds).  Yes it was after the shooting, but Ms. Reynolds gave an accounting of what happened.  She was there; she's an eye witness. Castille was shot reaching for his wallet.  On video, you can hear Yanez saying, "I told him not to reach for it."  Ms. Reynolds said Yanez asked Castille for his ID.  Nothing on video about Castille pulling a gun from his pants.  Seems to me that Castille did nothing to escalate the situation or to warrant getting shot multiple times. I don't have Yanez's testimony about his explanation for why he felt his life was threatened, but the video and Ms. Reynolds' commentary are out there in the public domain and that is what the public is thinking about after hearing that Yanez has been acquitted.  I'm not anti-police and there must have been some evidence to support Yanez's actions, but I have not seen it.  I'm guessing the jury did see or hear such evidence.  They returned a unanimous verdict.  The police department did not agree with Yanez's actions.  They agreed to a work separation with him. The prosecutor must have felt the video was enough to disagree with Yanez's actions because he went forward with a trial.  Perhaps we will hear from the jury in a 20/20 or Dateline episode.

Your comment above:    "As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force."

If that is true, then we need to revisit when an officer can lawfully use deadly force.  It should not be OK to use deadly force when a citizen reaches for his wallet after being asked to do so by that same officer.

Go Indians.  Peace.

[tvc184]

36 minutes ago, 1989NDN said:

................Your comment above:    "As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force."

If that is true, then we need to revisit when an officer can lawfully use deadly force.  It should not be OK to use deadly force when a citizen reaches for his wallet after being asked to do so by that same officer.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 An officer, just like any other person, can you deadly force when a person in that situation would reasonably believe it is needed.  In the case of an officer the Supreme Court of the United States says it it must be viewed from the eyes of an officer and not a civilian. 

[tvc184]

...  and there is no requirement that the person had to be armed.   There is no requirement that the person intended to kill an officer or anyone else.  There only requires a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury, not death. 

[1989NDN]

Therein lies the rub:  the standard of "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  Some officers disagreed with Officer Yanez's belief about his life being in danger, i.e., the police department for which he worked.  They must have disagreed with him because they let him go from the police force.

The standard is flawed if it allows an officer to shoot a citizen reaching for his wallet after being asked to produce his ID.

It would be interesting to read the testimony from the expert witnesses regarding Yanez's actions in light of the standard  "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  I'm guessing each side had expert witnesses and their views were different depending upon who retained and paid them for their opinions.

Did any of the officers on the scene testify?  If so, I wonder if they were asked about fearing for their lives?  I guess they did not fear for their lives, they didn't shoot Castille several times.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

[Kountzer]

 

 

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, 1989NDN said:

Therein lies the rub:  the standard of "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  Some officers disagreed with Officer Yanez's belief about his life being in danger, i.e., the police department for which he worked.  They must have disagreed with him because they let him go from the police force.

The standard is flawed if it allows an officer to shoot a citizen reaching for his wallet after being asked to produce his ID.

It would be interesting to read the testimony from the expert witnesses regarding Yanez's actions in light of the standard  "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  I'm guessing each side had expert witnesses and their views were different depending upon who retained and paid them for their opinions.

Did any of the officers on the scene testify?  If so, I wonder if they were asked about fearing for their lives?  I guess they did not fear for their lives, they didn't shoot Castille several times.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

I saw a video clip on the news the other day, and as I remember, the officer was shouting something like, "Don't move, don't move".   Admittedly, I have no idea where that was at in the sequence of events, so it's not much help in this discussion.  

I'm not saying Officer Yanez is innocent, but please take 5 minutes and watch this video.  It will give you just an inkling of the difficulty in making split second decisions.  

 

 

[Kountzer]

Police work is hard work.  I could not do it.   They make mistakes as do we all.  Much respect just the same.

[Hagar]

7 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

Police work is hard work.  I could not do it.   They make mistakes as do we all.  Much respect just the same.

I'm with you on that.  It takes a special temperament.  If I walked in a home and found some child with cigarette burns, I'd be going postal on someone.  

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, 1989NDN said:

Therein lies the rub:  the standard of "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  Some officers disagreed with Officer Yanez's belief about his life being in danger, i.e., the police department for which he worked.  They must have disagreed with him because they let him go from the police force.

Letting him go was purely political. The term "thrown under the bus" applies here, period. 

The standard is flawed if it allows an officer to shoot a citizen reaching for his wallet after being asked to produce his ID.

It is not flawed and continually backed up by Supreme Court decisions. The written/statutory laws and court rulings almost always side with officers having to control potentially dangerous situations. If an officer has seen something that may be a weapon in a person't pocket and orders the person not to put his hand near the pocket.. but then the guy starts reaching for it, I am assuming that you believe the officer should allow a possible weapon to be drawn and used against the officer before he/she reacts. Maybe the officer should ask the person again to stop and have a debate about whether the person is about to try and kill the officer. The reasonableness as the Supreme Court says, must be viewed from the perspective of an officer having to make "split second" decisions and not debated in a judge's chambers months later. The officer has no such time to deliberate intent of a potential attacker. As to your statement that the officer shot him after asking him to produce his ID is pure speculation. The officer may have asked him for an ID but if he told the guy to stop moving or not reach for something and the guy did it anyway, he opened himself up for the use of deadly force against him. Remember that this guy was stopped as a possible suspect in an armed robbery as backed up by police radio traffic before the stop.  

It would be interesting to read the testimony from the expert witnesses regarding Yanez's actions in light of the standard  "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  I'm guessing each side had expert witnesses and their views were different depending upon who retained and paid them for their opinions.

I really don't think that "experts" are allowed to testify about such things in a criminal trial. A trial is based on facts, not people's opinions. Experts can be brought in to render opinions like distance a gunshot was fired from, DNA analysis, a person's mental status, etc., but not to line up people to proclaim whether the officer was justified or not. That is for the jury to determine. This is not like a lawsuit which has a completely different set of rules of evidence and testimony. 

Did any of the officers on the scene testify?  If so, I wonder if they were asked about fearing for their lives?  I guess they did not fear for their lives, they didn't shoot Castille several times.

I believe there was another officer on scene and I am sure that he testified. I understand that you not understanding the situation and response to it by multiple officers but frankly your statement and speculation is nonsense. Certainly it seems so in what you are implying. All officers might not be in position to see a threat. All officers might not be in position to respond to a threat even if true such as this case. The second officer was likely on the other side of the car and would have to shoot past the woman to hit the man, endangering her. You seem to be implying that if the second officer did not shoot then there was not threat or the first could not be justified. That is utter nonsense. It means neither guilt or innocence of the first officer whether another officer fired or even saw a threat. Is that speculation on my part? Hardly. You see I have been on such a scene when my partner shot and killed a guy about 10 feet in front of me. In this case I clearly saw the threat and agreed with it and had to testify in front of the grand jury. A guy was in a business in a standoff with four police officers. After a couple of hours he tired of the entire incident and started walking toward officers with about a 12 inch blade butcher knife and a bowl of boiling hot grease to throw in the officer's eyes to escape. All officers (including me) gave him ground backing away trying not to shoot him. The law does not require any retreat however we were trying to keep from shooting. The officers eventually ran out of room and were backed into a corner with the only option left to either stop him at that point or allow him to get to the public which was crowded around the incident. The guy stopped briefly for a few seconds when I yelled at him one last time. He looked at me and then stopped toward another officer while drawing the bowl of hot grease back in what looked like an attempt to throw it in the officer's eyes. That one officer fired a single shot, killing the man. Another officer to my right said that he had shot but in fact he had not. Under the extreme stress of the incident he thought he had pulled the trigger. Of four officers on scene, the only one that shot was the one that the guy stepped toward. Had that officer missed or if it would not have immediately knocked the guy down, I am fairly certain that all officers would have opened fire within another second or so... and as one officer believed he had done.

I have been on duty but not on scene twice when multiple officers where on the scene of deadly force police shootings. In one case there were four officers. Two claimed that they saw a gun in the guy's hand but the other two officers did not see the gun. What happens to the claim that officers get their stories together or always agree? In that case the gun was found but two officers did not see it. That doesn't mean that it did not exist or mean that the officer that shot was not justified.  

Does that have anything to do with this case? Absolutely not other than to show that if another officer saw or didn't see a threat, it has nothing to do with other officer's responses, according to what position that they were in. As far as my knowledge, I have been declared an expert in court by a judge in a criminal trial. I teach Penal Code and arrest, search and seizure as the college police academy as a state licensed instructor. Arrest, search and seizure in the use of lawful detentions, use of force, statements made by the accused, etc., based on the US Constitution (4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments), the Texas Constitution, state law and federal laws.

It does not mean that my opinion is correct however it isn't based on a Facebook law degree. It is based on more than 30 years of experience, 25 years of instruction at the college level, 2,000 plus hours of additional training and court decisions based on the highest court of the land.

With that, I have seen nothing that the officer was correct and have never said that he was correct. I have seen nothing that showed the officer was wrong however. From what I have seen that has been made public, it is simply inconclusive. In criminal law, inconclusive is not guilty. 

I would love to see evidence that shows clearly one way or the other but I doubt that is it coming. Unfortunately I believe that some people do not believe that constitutional protections do not apply to police officers. They want guilt based on innuendo, wishful thinking, politics or a dislike of the law and not facts that can be shown in a court of law.  

Again, this officer might be as guilty as any person that has ever lived. On the other hand, he might have been not only found not guilty in court because of a lack of evidence, he might have actually been correct. I have yet to see anything that leads me to either conclusion. 

 

 

.

[1989NDN]

The PD throwing Yanez under the bus is speculation.  Possible, maybe probable, but unknown.

Ms. Reynolds said Castille told Yanez that he had a gun, Yanez asked Castille for ID, and Castille reached for his wallet.  That is based on what a witness (Ms. Reynolds) heard at the scene.  More than pure speculation, but not conclusive evidence. It is some evidence. That is why I said in my first post that the jury must have seen or heard something more.

Regarding the standard: Reasonableness of a particular force, including deadly force, is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than someone with 20/20 hindsight.  Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation). An allowance for split-second decisions is just that, an allowance, or part of the equation.  An allowance for split-second decision making is not a blank check for the officer to use deadly force and then say, "I had to make a a split second decision, thus, I'm not at fault." Reasonableness is the issue.  Was it reasonable for Yanez to shoot Castille?  None of us know with certainty.  All I have to evaluate is what Ms. Reynolds said in her video.  I would like to see additional evidence, but I was not on the jury. The jury must have seen or heard something more than the video.

Revisiting a standard that allows someone to be shot when reaching for a wallet is not nonsense. The Supreme Court has overruled precedent in the past. It's not commonplace, but it has happened.  Plessy v. Ferguson used to be the law of the land; it's not now.  Illinois v. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas regarding the test to be used for determining probable cause. Before the Miranda, an officer was not required to read anyone his/her rights.

Like you, I would like to see conclusive evidence one way or the other.  I do believe that constitutional protections apply to police officers.  I do not want the guilt of anyone based on innuendo or wishful thinking or politics; and, I don't want citizens getting shot when reaching for their wallets.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

[tvc184]

Plessy was a case about civil rights from the 1800s. Yes that was overtired. So was Dred Scott from before the Civil War. 

 Then you mentioned Gates which set a new precedent alright but strangely since what we are talking about, gave the police more authority. 

 Yes a new precedent is always possible. In this case I think it will be unlikely for a long time in the future. In any case we are stuck with the laws at hand, not what might happen 50 years from now. 

 Why do I think that? Look at some fairly recent cases (not like your 1800's example). . In Plumhoff v. Ricksrd  The police shot into a car that was fleeing. They not only killed the driver but they completely innocent passenger. In a lawsuit the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a unanimous verdict that the police officers did not display on a lawful use of force.  That was in 2014.  

From just a few weeks ago in 2017, we have another unanimous verdict frim the Supreme Court. In  Los Angeles v. Mendez  The police went into a backyard on an unverified tip looking for a wanted person. They unlawfully entered a shack and confronted a man and woman who were living there.  The man was not the suspect. The man had a BB gun in his hand and the police shot both the man and woman. Even though the officers created the situation and even though they had made illegal entry, the unanimous Courts said the use of force was justified.  

In 2015 Texas DPS trooper Mullenix shot and killed a man during a high-speed chase. He got on top of an overpass and fired into the oncoming car  that was not threatening him after being given an order by his supervisor not to do so. The trooper said I'm going to disable the car and instead shot and killed the driver. In an 8-1 ruling the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trooper. Mullenix v. Luna. 

 I listed three cases from the last three years. In rulings on officer use of force in  those cases the combine verdicts were all in favor of the officers in a combined vote of 25-1. 

 In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the Supreme Court said that officers can get the driver out of a vehicle without cause.  In Maryland v. Wilson  they ruled the same thing for the passengers in a vehicle even though the passengers were not lawfully stopped and just happened to be there. 

 I have found that the Supreme Court of the United States can be fairly restrictive with allowing officers to search, particularly in homes, without having probable cause and a warrant.  They have had some fairly recent rulings that have changed the reasoning and lawfullness of a search without a warrant. They have become more restrictive  to what officers are allowed to do.  I agree with those decisions. 

 When it comes to self-defense however I have seen no indication that the Supreme Court will become more restrictive and you can probably see from the rulings that I just listed that is quite the opposite.  When officers are on scene of an incident they have to be completely in control even if the incident is of their own making. 

[baddog]

I think the girlfriend set up the whole thing. Think about it. How many times have you been pulled over by the police and immediately reached for your camera to record it? How many videos have we seen where something bad happens and the video seems to go haywire......not focused on the subject at all. This woman didn't even flinch. She shot everything, cool as a cucumber while her boyfriend was being shot. Simply amazing.

[baddog]

On 6/18/2017 at 5:41 PM, baddog said:

I think the girlfriend set up the whole thing. Think about it. How many times have you been pulled over by the police and immediately reached for your camera to record it? How many videos have we seen where something bad happens and the video seems to go haywire......not focused on the subject at all. This woman didn't even flinch. She shot everything, cool as a cucumber while her boyfriend was being shot. Simply amazing.

Well now, isn't she a peach? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Well now, isn't she a peach? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Wanted to play victim, yet is just another criminal.

[stevenash]

Just heard that the video of the shooting has been released

[1989NDN]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Excerpts from the article at the link above:

The dashboard camera shows the shooting itself -- unlike the Facebook live video that was filmed by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds in the aftermath of the shooting.

The video shows Yanez following Castile's car, then pulling it over. Yanez approaches Castile's car and asks for a driver's license and proof of insurance.

Castile then gives the proof of insurance to Yanez through the driver's side window. Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me."

Castile had a permit to carry his weapon.

Yanez then reaches for his own gun, pulls it from the holster and tells Castile not to reach for his gun. There is shouting, and Yanez screams "Don't pull it out!" before he fires seven shots into the car.

Yanez's defense attorney argued the officer "did what he had to do" when he shot Castile. Yanez testified that he feared for his life after Castile refused to put his gun away.

[1989NDN]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Excerpts from the article at the link above:

During the stop, Castile volunteered, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me."

Yanez told Castile, "OK, don't reach for it then" and "Don't pull it out."

On the squad-car video, Castile can be heard saying, "I'm not pulling it out," as Yanez opened fire. Prosecutors said Castile's last words were, "I wasn't reaching for it."

[1989NDN]

I would link the video, but I don't know how.  Go to FoxNews or You Tube.  It's there.

Go Indians.  Peace.

[tvc184]

 I watched the video. I can see where the jury found the officer not guilty. 

[Fee Dee]

On 6/17/2017 at 8:15 AM, nappyroots said:

I agree 100%. My only move would be to transfer some of my lawyer money to my checking account . 

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

[Fee Dee]

On 6/18/2017 at 10:41 PM, REBgp said:

I'm with you on that.  It takes a special temperament.  If I walked in a home and found some child with cigarette burns, I'd be going postal on someone.  

Yes, police work is hard and sometimes dangerous, all the more reason why you should hire people suited for that kind of stressful job when they make a stupid mistake they should be held accountable just like you and I were on our jobs.

[BS Wildcats]

6 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

Did the officer say he stopped him because he had a broad nose?  Seems like you are making stuff up.  #Fake news!

[stevenash]

4 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Did the officer say he stopped him because he had a broad nose?  Seems like you are making stuff up.  #Fake news!

You must remember, making racial assumptions is acceptable if the one assuming is on the left.

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

You must remember, making racial assumptions is acceptable if the one assuming is on the left.

Fee Dee following the lead of new tobie

[tvc184]

13 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

The words “don’t move”give no legal self defenses options. 

The words “don’t move” followed by a person reaching, do.