Nowhere in the trail record does the officer testify he SAW A WEAPON.
according to this article he said he testified he saw the weapon. He said “I was able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand, and that’s when I engaged him,” Yanez told the jury. linky
I wish the trial transcripts and squad car video were released, Im a little unsure what to think without a little more info.
First of all, Castille only stated that he had a gun on him. He did not say that he had a concealed carry.
Secondly, Yanez testified that he didn't know where the gun was until he saw part of it while Castille was supposedly getting his license.
Thirdly, I think that Yanez probably lacked the experience and should not have been or ever again be a police officer. Officer Yanez should have been better with his instructions to Castille. If Castille wasn't stoned, he could have thought thru the situation better asking for better instructions before reaching for his license that was apparently in the same pocket or near where is gun was and if not high could have remembered his concealed carry training better.
according to this article he said he testified he saw the weapon. He said “I was able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand, and that’s when I engaged him,” Yanez told the jury. linky
I wish the trial transcripts and squad car video were released, Im a little unsure what to think without a little more info.
Exactly we always seem to have nothing but the equivalent of hear-say. The same thing the protesters have.
One thing that never gets mentioned during these internet discussions . . .
Court precedent, all the way to the SCOTUS, has held the standard to be what a reasonable police officer would do, not what a reasonable person would do.
That's important, because what LEOs see, how they are trained to react, how much time they have to make a decision and react, their experience with similar situations or with the alleged perpetrator, or intelligence info about perpetrator intent/motive . . . most citizens have to real appreciation of it.
Combined with the fact that the jury gets to see and hear more than what the liberal media bombards us with, THAT is why the verdicts often don't match public opinion.
Originally posted by Boondawg: I get the feeling Police Officers are scared/on edge/apprehensive of young black men. I don't know if that summation is limited to only white Police Officers or not. Do black officers feel the same way?
If it's true, it's a shame that color is even seen as an indicator.....in anything. Especially character.
I wonder if cops use any priors they are aware of as an indicator of said character? Or is all "black" character simply grouped as one?
To a white mind, is black automatically scary, untrustworthy, unpredictable?
I'm sure it involves multiple levels of identifying a threat, identifying intent, location, time of day, vehicle, other occupants, signs of intoxication or being high, any and all actions taken and not taken by those stopped by police. Seeing them grab a gun in their shirt would for sure do it. (IF) that's what actually happened.
Some I'm sure are indeed scared because of all the media and the fact that it has inspired people to shoot cops.
Originally posted by Threedog: This is kind of what I am getting at. Either/or ...
We are supposed to take your small mind as gospel, ?
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: ... the latter requires a serious critique of how African-Americans are treated in this country. Is it really their responsibility to overcome all of the additional burdens that they have simply because for centuries black culture was sculpted by the racist white man? How can an entire group of people change their culture in one generation when they have been segregated for centuries, left behind by all of our institutions, abused by police forces, lynched, excluded from our economic success, and forcefully denied a proper education?
Yes, really it is. The black man enslaved other black men, and then sold them.
How did Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and Nobama all overcame all of the additional burdens that they have simply because for centuries black culture was sculpted by the racist white man?
" Someone needs to teach these black kids how to behave around police officers that think they are a threat from their skin color."
I agree. For lack of a less offending word, theyre generally just stupid. Last year if anyone remembers, I had a black kid in my driveway throwing rocks at my windows. I yelled at him and he charged me at the door grabbing my arm. I immediately pulled my handgun and stuck it in his face and ORDERED him off the property. He STILL wanted to argue What the hell is with these people ? Screw BLM...all they are are thugs who want everyone to support other thugs. They have not done ONE good or productive thing for anyone in any circumstance. All they have done is incite each other.
according to this article he said he testified he saw the weapon. He said “I was able to see the firearm in Mr. Castile’s hand, and that’s when I engaged him,” Yanez told the jury. linky
I wish the trial transcripts and squad car video were released, Im a little unsure what to think without a little more info.
Trigger happy cop should have gone to prison. I was in fear for my life he said and walked free.
Otoh, I've put the car keys on the top of a car before and left my hands outside the window with the dome light on. Someone needs to teach these black kids how to behave around police officers that think they are a threat from their skin color.
Mr. Castile actually says, "I'm not reaching for it". Then he gets shot.
I'm assuming what got him killed was:
He was suspected in the cops mind of being involved in an ARMED ROBBERY. The officer is already on edge. Mr. Castile makes matters worse with his actions...
A) He had his hands in his pockets. B) He didn't follow his CCW training, he should have kept his mouth shut and hands visible unless the officer was going to search him (MN is not a state where you have a DUTY to inform the officer you are carrying.) C) If he choose to inform the proper way would NOT be, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." (Personally I tell them the second they walk up and instruct me to put my hands, which are dangling outside the window, inside the vehicle.) D)This guy didn't deserve to die, but he was clearly hard headed. 52 police stops and 86 Citations to the tune of $6588.00
Combined with the fact that the jury gets to see and hear more
The thing that they (jury) will hear from defense and the officer over and over, and enunciated is "Ah feared fer mah life" and that's all they (or anyone else) has to say.
From a family member with close to 20 years on the job as a LEO with a nearby police dept:
quote
If you ever have to shoot someone at night, make sure the first thing you say when you call 911 is, I feared for my life. It works for us and it'll work for you Uncle Don.
The thing that they (jury) will hear from defense and the officer over and over, and enunciated is "Ah feared fer mah life" and that's all they (or anyone else) has to say.
From a family member with close to 20 years on the job as a LEO with a nearby police dept: [QUOTE]If you ever have to shoot someone at night, make sure the first thing you say when you call 911 is, I feared for my life. It works for us and it'll work for you Uncle Don.
[/QUOTE]
I could write a book on what a travesty this post is. So naïve . . .
Ok, first thing is to get your ID and CCP out and in your hands. Now roll down your window and hold both hands on the steering wheel or out the window. DO NOT MAKE ANY SUDDEN MOVES AS THE OFFICER APPROACHES. Tell the officer that you have a weapon and where it's located. Ask him how to proceed. Let the officer control the situation. Again, do not make any sudden moves. Do exactly as you are instructed especially if he already has a gun drawn. Keep your hands in sight at all times.
As I understand it, the officer approached the vehicle and was told by the victim that he had a gun. The officer said to not reach for it but the guy said he was only getting his ID and then reached for his wallet which is near where the gun was located. For some reason the officer thought the victim was a threat and the jury agreed.
Thanks for that response. You're right here, there are plenty of other options that he could have done and I spoke too soon with that snip. As mentioned in the thread he could have held his hands out of the window, sat with his hands on the steering wheel until given explicit instruction to move, or even not mentioned that he had a gun on his person.I wasn't clear on the intent of my comment there which is to say I don't know that there would be a reasonable expectation to generate the officer's reaction there.
I have a unique interaction with an officer that put all this into perspective for me some years ago when I was in my second year of college. I got pulled over and I knew it was for an expired tag. I happened to be on my way to get that fixed, but I knew that didn't really matter to the officer. When he came up to the window he found me with the keys visibly out of the ignition and hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel. He asked for license and registration so I reached to my lap where they were sitting in wait and handed them over. I replaced my hands on the steering wheel and he says "You can take your hands off of the steering wheel" I replied "That's ok, I feel more comfortable with them there." Imagine my response when he looks at me and says "Well now you're making me nervous." I froze for a moment because I couldn't imagine how he'd be nervous from that. From what I've been told, and what I've seen iterated time and again whenever something like the Castille case happens, putting your hands on the steering wheel is an easy way to show that you're not a threat. Doubly so if the keys aren't in the ignition. I honestly don't know how long I sat there before taking my hands off of the steering wheel. The rest of that stop went off without incident. I got my ticket (because the officer that had pulled me over the night before for the same thing hadn't filed the paperwork for that ticket -.-) and I was on my way.
From that stop I learned that it doesn't matter what context you're coming from, only what the officer perceives. For whatever reason me having my hands on the steering wheel triggered a nervous response from him. If he had escalated the situation he could have used the same logic that something about the stop caused him to be nervous/fearful/whatever needs to be said to have a case. The problem is that there is no way I can read what will be "threatening" to an officer. I'd bet my next paycheck that the thought process for Castille was something along the lines of "I'm not reaching for my gun, I'm getting the ID that he asked for, so I'm obeying what he said" when the officer told him not to reach for it. He made it clear (again from his perspective) that he wasn't reaching for the weapon. For whatever reason it seemed like a threatening situation for the officer and he reacted accordingly.
When I made that comment, that's what I intended to get around to. I don't think anyone in that same situation would have expected to garner that reaction from, in their pov, following the orders that the officer gave. I need to not type so quickly next time.
Knowing someone who knows someone that is LEO does not give you the understanding to what the decision making process is for an officer on the street.
It is what I was trying to emphasize a few posts up -- the standard is what an officer would do, not what a person would do. That officer will have training, experience, and information that you don't -- and have to use all of it to make a split second, life or death decision. But, that does come out in court, that is why we see so many acquittals.
And your relative is using a 'tongue and cheek' response to what is a very real requirement of all shoots from a legal perspective --- the person doing the shooting needed to be in fear of his/her life, or the life of another, from death or serious bodily harm. Comes down to the HONEST PERCEPTION of the person shooting . . . and a cop's perspective will be different than an accountant's, or a politician's, or a reporter's, or whatever.
cop, before getting out of the car/cruiser already had this guys rap sheet up.. This was like his 50th stop.. A known hot head with a rap sheet to go with it.. 6500.00 in fines.. This was not some run of the mill guy they stopped.. He was quite known by the po po. After 50 stops he should've known what to do about his gun, and not screwed around..
Tell officer you have a gun on you, put hands out window, let officer open door and you get out when told to with hands up.. and let the officer get the gun(s) not that hard.. but add hot head.. and well..
I'm willing to bet that in your long long hard-scrapple life you've been called a lot of things. I'm also willing to bet that "naïve" isn't one of them.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 06-21-2017).]
Knowing someone who knows someone that is LEO does not give you the understanding to what the decision making process is for an officer on the street.
It is what I was trying to emphasize a few posts up -- the standard is what an officer would do, not what a person would do. That officer will have training, experience, and information that you don't -- and have to use all of it to make a split second, life or death decision. But, that does come out in court, that is why we see so many acquittals.
And your relative is using a 'tongue and cheek' response to what is a very real requirement of all shoots from a legal perspective --- the person doing the shooting needed to be in fear of his/her life, or the life of another, from death or serious bodily harm. Comes down to the HONEST PERCEPTION of the person shooting . . . and a cop's perspective will be different than an accountant's, or a politician's, or a reporter's, or whatever.
He was referring to an automatic 'get of of jail' defense. I know my nephew well..this is not the first time he's alluded to such a 'magic bullet' (no pun intended). He was also inferring that the same defense is available to anyone, as long as they say the magic words. "I feared for my life" regardless of what emotions they felt at the time of the event. It has simply become the defacto defense/excuse for any time a trigger is pulled.
I've said it before, and will repeat it now. I don't buy it--not for a moment.
That 'defense' is used way too often, by people from all walks of life.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-22-2017).]
He was referring to an automatic 'get of of jail' defense. I know my nephew well..this is not the first time he's alluded to such a 'magic bullet' (no pun intended). He was also inferring that the same defense is available to anyone, as long as they say the magic words. "I feared for my life" regardless of what emotions they felt at the time of the event. It has simply become the defacto defense/excuse for any time a trigger is pulled.
I've said it before, and will repeat it now. I don't buy it--not for a moment.
That 'defense' is used way too often, by people from all walks of life.
I don't know your relatives, but I do know what you have quoted him as saying is not true. At least not an argument that will get anyone out of jail free, or out of court or off the hook. To simply fear for your life is NOT a legal defense. Take for example people who fear Rollercoasters. If they fear so much for their lifes, they could just shoot the operators? No.... How about people who are afraid of gang members? Can they just shoot them? No..... To qualify as a legitimate self defense argument, there has to be a real fear of the immediate and imminent threat of death or great bodily harm If this is not demonstrated in court, that individual will loose the case. Fear for life IS NOT and NEVER WAS a get out of jail free card. It is followed by demonstrating the need to harm another person.
Taking a human life should never be predicated on or based & justified by emotion. Not anger, not fear, not bloodlust or anything else. period
I agree 100%. This is exactly my argument, to use "I feared for my life" the person has to prove that he or she accually believed their life was in great danger. Just feeling scared is never enough to be a get out of jail free card. All kinds of crazy stories are told in court, some are true and some are lies. But the bottom line is that court cases are like a complex chess match between legal teams. Sometimes the good guys (the ones telling the truth) loose and the bad guy (the ones lying) wins. Sadly court cases are handled more like a game than accually serving justice.
I agree 100%. This is exactly my argument, to use "I feared for my life" the person has to prove that he or she accually believed their life was in great danger. Just feeling scared is never enough to be a get out of jail free card. All kinds of crazy stories are told in court, some are true and some are lies. But the bottom line is that court cases are like a complex chess match between legal teams. Sometimes the good guys (the ones telling the truth) loose and the bad guy (the ones lying) wins. Sadly court cases are handled more like a game than accually serving justice.
No, they don't have to prove it. In this country, all they have to do is state it. It's up to the prosecution to prove they were not scared--not the other way around, and since no one on this earth other than the officer or other shooter (civilians use the same defense) really knows what the emotional state was the moment the trigger was pulled, that's a virtually impossible task. That "I feared..." line is immediately stated to the initial internal investigators and invariably released to the public at some point--usually by dept spokesman or chief of police, which takes us right back to the obvious that it is in fact the primary & defacto innocence defense. A person's emotional state should never play into this at all and how it ever got started to begin with much less to this point is beyond my understanding.
Do a google search by pasting the following line into the search box and you will see just how often and how important this line has become over the last 5-10 years: "I feared for my life"
The standard for being "in fear of death or serious bodily harm" is much like the "expectation of privacy" in Government intrusion cases: Society (defined by the jury, if someone is being prosecuted) must be willing to grant it and/or accept it. There is a reasonableness standard to the 'in fear' defense, just like there is a reasonableness standard when someone claims a search or arrest was unlawful because they had a right to privacy that was violated by the Government.
Also remember, there are nuances to the laws that vary in every state. For instance, "fear of death" standards, as defined by both statute and by society/jury, are going to be much different in Texas than in New York.
All of this plays a factor in courts. We just don't see it in the headlines. So, it might be prudent to consider that the jury knew more than us, and perhaps . . . just perhaps . . . an acquittal was reasonable.
The standard for being "in fear of death or serious bodily harm" is much like the "expectation of privacy" in Government intrusion cases: Society (defined by the jury, if someone is being prosecuted) must be willing to grant it and/or accept it. There is a reasonableness standard to the 'in fear' defense, just like there is a reasonableness standard when someone claims a search or arrest was unlawful because they had a right to privacy that was violated by the Government.
Also remember, there are nuances to the laws that vary in every state. For instance, "fear of death" standards, as defined by both statute and by society/jury, are going to be much different in Texas than in New York.
All of this plays a factor in courts. We just don't see it in the headlines. So, it might be prudent to consider that the jury knew more than us, and perhaps . . . just perhaps . . . an acquittal was reasonable.
I agree, in court the jury will decide if the "shooter" was justified or not. The "shooter" will have MUCH more to say about the incedent than "I was afraid for my life". I do not believe for an instant that Don is correct about his stand. That is: that just saying a few magic words "I feared for my life" gets people out of jail. I also think it is absurd to suggest that prosecutors have to prove a person "was not afraid". All they have to do is convince the jury that the shooting was not justified.
And what is the usual standard for justification in these type cases?
It is called "reasonable person". "Would other reasonable people do the same thing if faced with the same situation?" Think of it like this, fear is an emotion, correct? So, what causes fear? Fear is caused by a stimulus, or fear is the reaction to stimulus. So would that same stimulus cause the same reaction in other reasonable people....jurors specifically. But that is the easy part of the case, defending the actions of the shooter is a different story. The actions of the person is not necessarily a result of the emotion of frar, people overcome fear all the time and don't resort to harming people who scare them. The reason fear alone is not a defense is because scaring people is not a capital crime. There has to be an effective argument that a person believed that great bodily harm or death was eminent at the time of the shooting. The defense attorney will spend very little time arguing "fear" the emotion. The defense will spend time defending the use of lethal force by demonstrating that at that instant in time, the defendant believed that life or limb was eminently endangered. This argument takes days, weeks or months, BUT to prove a person was "in fear" is easy to do and all shooting cases would end within hours. To sum it up Don, people who shoot in self defense are tried based on their actions, not on weather or not they "feared for their life". They are put on trial to defend their actions and prove that the actions of another person caused them to shoot. I have said this before, some people are so focused or tunnel visioned that they don't even recall fear during a shooting. So if fear is a defense, then could the lack of fear cause legal issues in court? What about other emotions, like racism? Is an open and admitted racist automatically guilty of murder if they shot in self defense?
You know the "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law"? Well in a shooting you need to say "I feared for my life" as a starting point. The rest is up to police, lawyers, and the court system. Contrast this with someone who says, "I shot him for the hell of it". Your motivation is important. It's not the end-all-be-all and everyone knows it.
1. Then why, is the "I feared for my life" so important?
2. What does it accomplish and why is it the very first thing thrown out at press conferences and interviews in both civilian self defense cases (home invasions) and LEO shootings?
3. Since you think it is of marginal importance, am I correct in assuming you would be in strong favor of seeing this defense tactic not be allowed going forward?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-23-2017).]
You know the "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law"? Well in a shooting you need to say "I feared for my life" as a starting point. The rest is up to police, lawyers, and the court system. Contrast this with someone who says, "I shot him for the hell of it". Your motivation is important. It's not the end-all-be-all and everyone knows it.
How about "I shot him because I was angry." ?
Or "I shot him because it gave me pleasure" ?
Why is only the emotion of fear a 'reasonable' validation?
You know the "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law"? Well in a shooting you need to say "I feared for my life" as a starting point. The rest is up to police, lawyers, and the court system. Contrast this with someone who says, "I shot him for the hell of it". Your motivation is important. It's not the end-all-be-all and everyone knows it.
I disagree, you do not need to say anything to the media and you don't need to say "feared for.my life" because the "fear" is not required to defend yourself in court. Belief is required, belief in eminent danger is required. People might be saying "fear" to defend themselves in the court of public opinion? But NOT a court of law. A person can brag about a self defense shooting and still not be found guilty of a crime. In the case of beaten spouse cases, the shooter gains much support and sympathy from emotional outbursts. I just think the wise thing to do is let your defense team do the talking and avoid making statements in the media. People can also be totally indifferent to the loss of life and still not loose a self defense case.
Why is only the emotion of fear a 'reasonable' validation?
Are you insisting that an emotion is a reasonable validation?
Do you have any link to a law in your State that says fear is a validation? A link to any State law that says fear is reasonable validation for lethal force?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-24-2017).]
Originally posted by maryjane: Do a google search by pasting the following line into the search box and you will see just how often and how important this line has become over the last 5-10 years: "I feared for my life"
This copy paste is significant and comes from the link I posted. The SCOTUS made no mention of fear.
quote
In the future, the court ruled, a cop could only use deadly force if they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."
Fear is not required for the use of deadly force, "belief" is required.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-23-2017).]
Are you insisting that an emotion is a reasonable validation?
Do you have any link to a law in your State that says fear is a validation? A link to any Star law that says fear is reasonable validation for lethal force?
Certainly not, and in fact, I believe and always have believed, that the whole "I feared for my life" thing is nothing more than a sham perpetrated upon potential jurors, the general (and extremely gullible) public, and the news media.
(see how that works? You asked me a question, and I answered it.
Now, let's see if you can do it..
I'm asking, those who say it is unimportant: If it's so dang unimportant, why is it so prevelant, and would everyone else like to see this ridiculous crap be gone?
1. Then why, is the "I feared for my life" so important? (it obviously is to an awful lot of people, since it makes up a good portion of their defense)
2. What does it accomplish and why is it the very first thing thrown out at press conferences and interviews in both civilian self defense cases (home invasions) and LEO shootings?
3. Since you think it is of marginal importance, am I correct in assuming you would be in strong favor of seeing this defense tactic not be allowed going forward?
Certainly not, and in fact, I believe and always have believed, that the whole "I feared for my life" thing is nothing more than a sham perpetrated upon potential jurors, the general (and extremely gullible) public, and the news media.
I don't like to hear people say they feared for their life.
quote
(see how that works? You asked me a question, and I answered it.
Now, let's see if you can do it..
I am sorry Don, I saw those questions but I thought you asked them to Hudini
quote
I'm asking, those who say it is unimportant: If it's so dang unimportant, why is it so prevelant, and would everyone else like to see this ridiculous crap be gone?
Honestly Don, I would be putting words in people's mouths if I gave some kind of absolute answer. I can only guess why they do it.
quote
1. Then why, is the "I feared for my life" so important? (it obviously is to an awful lot of people, since it makes up a good portion of their defense)
"So important"? It isn't. I guess that this is how people sum up the totality of circumstances. They say that the threat of bodily harm or death scared them? Or they believe that saying "feared for my life" makes the testimony or claims of danger more clear?
quote
2. What does it accomplish and why is it the very first thing thrown out at press conferences and interviews in both civilian self defense cases (home invasions) and LEO shootings?
I doubt that it is the very first thing they throw out. But again saying it does drive home how sincere the person is about the claims of danger they faced?
quote
3. Since you think it is of marginal importance, am I correct in assuming you would be in strong favor of seeing this defense tactic not be allowed going forward?
No, you see Don I don't believe this is accually "the" defense. The defense is explaining why they feared for their lifes.
Why can't they just be honest and declare they lost control of their emotions and pulled the trigger?
No one 'needs' the "Ah feared for mah life" BS. Not military (it would most likely get you a "cowardice in the face of the enemy" charge), not the police, not the homeowner.
If it isn't the defense, then why do they keep saying it? I just don't get it. Why would anyone even admit they had lost control of their emotions and therefore control of the situation? None of it makes any sense to me at all...unless, it is to solely influence a jury.
I'm all for eliminating a threat, but only because the threat is there, not out of fear.
Why can't they just be honest and declare they lost control of their emotions and pulled the trigger?
No one 'needs' the "Ah feared for mah life" BS. Not military (it would most likely get you a "cowardice in the face of the enemy" charge), not the police, not the homeowner.
If it isn't the defense, then why do they keep saying it? I just don't get it. Why would anyone even admit they had lost control of their emotions and therefore control of the situation? None of it makes any sense to me at all...unless, it is to solely influence a jury.
I believe that "I feared for my life" is a factual statement, NOT "THE" defense. Who are you or I to say they were not in fear? Who are you or I to say they lost control when we not even there? Who are you or I to say what they can and can't say? I see you putting words in the mouths of those people, words that may not be accurate. You are projection your beliefs onto the situations.
quote
I'm all for eliminating a threat, but only because the threat is there, not out of fear.
In the future, the court ruled, a cop could only use deadly force if they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."
This is the criteria the SCOTUS defined as acceptable for a legal use of deadly force. If this criteria is not met then it is a homicide. People who have been put on trial for a questionable shooting and subsequently been acquitted, have met this MANDATORY requirement. EVEN IF all you hear in the media is "I feared for my life". The trial lasts so long because arguing this MANDATORY "motive" IS THE defense.
?
What the hell is with these people ? Screw BLM...all they are are thugs who want everyone to support other thugs. They have not done ONE good or productive thing for anyone in any circumstance. All they have done is incite each other.
