Philandro Castile verdict

[Leonhard]

My first instinct would be to stop moving and slowly put my hands on the steering wheel.

This case proves the need for body-cams. Because in the transcripts both Castile and his fiancee both claimed that he wasn't reaching for it.

[myth]

It's not that long. There's no excuse for a cursory reading, particularly when you're going to make a few posts defending the officer's actions.

Perhaps I should have used my words more carefully and said "based on a cursory review of the situation at hand". I read the article and I'm clear on everything it said, or I wouldn't have said anything at all.

To be even more specific, I qualified my statement using the word 'cursory' because I happen to a criminal investigator. I interview witnesses and victims, process crime scenes, and interrogate suspects for a living. Professionally, when deciding whether an action was criminal, I like to dig into the details. This usually means hours of work, sometimes dozens of hours or more. I've been known to write reports that exceed 40 pages in length for a single case, and turn in files that are hundreds or thousands of pages long.

So you might understand why I hesitant to make a definitive statement about another police officer's actions when I'm used to that level of detail, and at this point have to rely on news reports (though I hear they released the video, I'll try to find time to go watch that). I don't trust news reports because, in my personal experience, they're about 40-60% accurate on average. In addition, even with the trial over, the news media will only have information available that was presented to a jury during a public trial. Once again, from personal experience, many times there are significant facts or pieces of evidence concealed from the jury (legally, judges orders and whatnot). That can cut both ways, of course.

But what I'm saying is, if I could look at the whole, original file, I'd happily render a clear opinion for you all. So bear with me if I'm cautious to make certain statements, please.

And to that last point, about me defending the officer's actions. I don't think I've said anything to defend the officer's actions. I'm just trying to give my opinion about the details that are being discussed and help others decide how much weight to give those facts. If anyone thinks my only desire here is to defend Officer Yanez' actions, they haven't been reading closely enough.

[myth]

This case proves the need for body-cams. Because in the transcripts both Castile and his fiancee both claimed that he wasn't reaching for it.

He was apparently reaching for his license. And the officer apparently thought he was reaching for his gun. And there is some camera footage available. IMO, just because they both said he wasn't reaching for his gun, doesn't mean he wasn't reaching for something.

I'm a fan of body cameras, but they don't always show everything. Angles of view can be a problem, lighting problems, glare, poor sound quality, are all issues with body cameras. Sometimes the body camera footage is definitive. Sometimes it isn't.

[Teallaura]

Leo posted the dashcam video here along with a transcript.

[Starlight]

IMO, just because they both said he wasn't reaching for his gun, doesn't mean he wasn't reaching for something.

The officer had ordered him to produce his license and ID. He was complying. Then the officer shot him. And then the officer admitted afterwards (see the transcript in Leo's thread of the video) that he at no point saw the guy's gun and doesn't actually know where the guy's gun is.

[Leonhard]

I'm a fan of body cameras, but they don't always show everything. Angles of view can be a problem, lighting problems, glare, poor sound quality, are all issues with body cameras. Sometimes the body camera footage is definitive. Sometimes it isn't.

That just means we need better body cameras.

[Starlight]

That just means we need better body cameras.

Given the US courts had access to the video you posted which clearly showed the murder, and yet still didn't convict, what makes you think body cameras would help? There could be video footage from 1000 angles and the police and courts and white public would still say "the killing was justified, because the police officer felt afraid. The end. How dare you people be out for blood!"

[Leonhard]

That's actually a question for myth. Lets say you had a perfect full HD recording, showing that Castille had his hands in the air, or alternative maybe his hand was resting on his pocket but not moving... would you still say Yanez should walk free, even in that case? Because he felt fear? Would that be a legitimate excuse, or does the whole case rest on the fact that we can't be absolutely sure what Castile was doing with his hands, despite both him and his partner, both saying that he wasn't reaching for it?

"I wasn't reaching for it" are the last audible recorded word that he ever got to say.

[myth]

The officer had ordered him to produce his license and ID. He was complying. Then the officer shot him. And then the officer admitted afterwards (see the transcript in Leo's thread of the video) that he at no point saw the guy's gun and doesn't actually know where the guy's gun is.

Gross mis-charaterization of what happened. You need to read the transcript in the article OP linked (again?), wherein the officer began giving other commands and screamed the last one before shooting.

I have never once said the shooting was justified. But let's try to use ALL the facts that are known to analyze this.

[myth]

Given the US courts had access to the video you posted which clearly showed the murder, and yet still didn't convict, what makes you think body cameras would help? There could be video footage from 1000 angles and the police and courts and white public would still say "the killing was justified, because the police officer felt afraid. The end. How dare you people be out for blood!"

You're beginning to unravel. Take few deep breaths, snowflake.

"The courts" ? You mean a jury of average citizens?

"White public"? If you have evidence the Castille shooting was racially motivated, produce it. Otherwise, your comment is not germane to this conversation.

Deep breaths. Really, it'll help.

[myth]

That just means we need better body cameras.

We're already using HD body cameras. I'm talking about how a chest-mounted body camera doesn't show what the officer's view is. Or how a sunglasses-mounted camera might show nothing but a rifle while the officer's sight picture is different (looking right at a suspect). Or how light bounces off car windows and makes it hard to see what's behind the window from certain angles. There's a limit to how many cameras an officer can wear, and how good those cameras can be.

[Leonhard]

We're already using HD body cameras. I'm talking about how a chest-mounted body camera doesn't show what the officer's view is. Or how a sunglasses-mounted camera might show nothing but a rifle while the officer's sight picture is different (looking right at a suspect). Or how light bounces off car windows and makes it hard to see what's behind the window from certain angles. There's a limit to how many cameras an officer can wear, and how good those cameras can be.

Its worth a research budget it seems. I get the limitations, though some of those can be improved upon, but at this point I think arguments against bodycams have ended. There's no good reason for an officer who is likely to use deadly force, not to have them.

[myth]

That's actually a question for myth. Lets say you had a perfect full HD recording, showing that Castille had his hands in the air, or alternative maybe his hand was resting on his pocket but not moving... would you still say Yanez should walk free, even in that case? Because he felt fear? Would that be a legitimate excuse, or does the whole case rest on the fact that we can't be absolutely sure what Castile was doing with his hands, despite both him and his partner, both saying that he wasn't reaching for it?

"I wasn't reaching for it" are the last audible recorded word that he ever got to say.

A suspect with their hands in the air shouldn't be shot. If a suspect's hands are not moving at all, I'd say in about 99.9% of situations he shouldn't be shot. I don't think an officer should be allowed to shoot someone ONLY because they are afraid, no.

The standard, at least in my state, is what a reasonable officer would have done in the same scenario. Fear can be relevant, especially if it is justified fear of imminent death or serious physical injury. This part of the conversation, then, revolves around whether Yanez' level offear was justified. I suspect not.

While the whole case may not hinge on whether Castille's hands were moving and what exactly they were doing, that is probably 60-70% the case, yes. Other important factors are (in no particular order, and the least is not necessarily comprehensive): what the officer said, what Castille said, the reason for the stop, whether the officer legitimately thought he was encountering a robbery suspect, and whether Castille was high (remember, the marijuana thing).

[myth]

Its worth a research budget it seems. I get the limitations, though some of those can be improved upon, but at this point I think arguments against bodycams have ended. There's no good reason for an officer who is likely to use deadly force, not to have them.

I agree.

[Starlight]

You're beginning to unravel. Take few deep breaths, snowflake.

"The courts" ? You mean a jury of average citizens?

"White public"? If you have evidence the Castille shooting was racially motivated, produce it. Otherwise, your comment is not germane to this conversation.

Deep breaths. Really, it'll help.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: QuantaFille

That really was uncalled for. You need to calm down.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.