9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.”
Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.”
Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
Based on a cursory reading of the article OP linked, my take away was that Yanez thought Castille was reaching for his gun and gave verbal commands for him not to reach for it, when what he meant (and should have said), is something more along the lines of "PLACE YOUR HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL" or "DO NOT MOVE" or "SHOW ME YOUR HANDS". Castille apparently understood the literal meaning of the officer's instruction not to reach for his gun, and assumed it was ok to keep reaching for his license, because he wasn't reaching for his gun. He apparently did not consider that, after being told more than once not to reach for the gun, the officer might be continuing to tell him that because he thought he was still reaching for the gun. Yes, Castille and Reynolds both told Yanez that he wasn't reaching for the gun. But I don't know how much impact saying that would have had on me if I was in the officer's shoes (quite frankly, saying that you're not doing something as you in fact do that very thing is a cheap distraction tactic, and I'd be wary of that).
Looks like there were mistakes on both sides of the equation here. Any reasonable gun owner should exercise a little caution and be mindful of your body movements during a police encounter. It's just common sense. I do think the officer is more responsible for the outcome than Castille is, so please don't think I'm trying to lay the blame on Castille. I have some very serious concerns about the actions Yanez took (and I'd like to hear from the other officer present).
But my take on this is that the jury balked at convicting a man of a criminal offense when he likely believed (wrongly or not) that another man was reaching for a gun. I will not render an opinion here as to whether Yanez should have been convicted of a criminal offense (because I don't know enough about the case, and MN state law).
Comment