Dashcam recording of Castile's shooting released.

[arnoldo]

We need a federalized police force to solve this problem.

[Sparko]

We need a federalized police force to solve this problem.

the FBI?

[One Bad Pig]

He was cooperating, he was reaching for his wallet to get out his license like the officer asked him to do. Then the officer said don't pull it out. Well he wasn't pulling the gun out, he was pulling his wallet out like he was asked to do. The officer simply freaked out, never saw a gun, and shot the guy 7 times.

Look, this isn't rocket science. He was reaching for *something*. The cop told him to stop, and he didn't. That's what got him shot. Even you can't be so stupid as to be unable to follow that sequence of events.

[JimL]

Look, this isn't rocket science. He was reaching for *something*. The cop told him to stop, and he didn't. That's what got him shot. Even you can't be so stupid as to be unable to follow that sequence of events.

He was reaching for his wallet, the cop didn't tell him to stop, the cop told him not to reach for his gun, the cop of his own accord decicided that he was reaching for a gun and shot him to death. Anyone watching that video and thinking that the cop acted properly is an idiot. The cop never even saw a gun, you don't just get to assume someone is pulling out a gun and so have the right to kill them. He is no longer a cop for a reason, even the police dept. knows he acted improperly. Rocket science it isn't!

[Teallaura]

He was reaching for his wallet, the cop didn't tell him to stop, the cop told him not to reach for his gun, the cop of his own accord decicided that he was reaching for a gun and shot him to death. Anyone watching that video and thinking that the cop acted properly is an idiot. The cop never even saw a gun, you don't just get to assume someone is pulling out a gun and so have the right to kill them. He is no longer a cop for a reason, even the police dept. knows he acted improperly. Rocket science it isn't!

From the transcript:

JY Hello sir.

PC (inaudible), how are you?

JY Good. Uh reason I pulled you over do you, your brake lights are out. So you only have one activated, active brake light and that's gonna be your passenger side one. Your third brake light which is up here on top and then this one back here is gonna be out.

PC (inaudible)

JY You have your license and insurance?

(pause/background noise)

PC Sir, I have to tell you I do have a...

JY Okay.

PC ...firearm on me.

JY Okay.

PC I (inaudible)

JY Don't reach for it then.

PC I'm, I, I was reaching for...

JY Don't pull it out.

PC I'm not pulling it out.

DR He's not...

JY Don't pull it out.

(gunshots)

The officer is not clear enough with his commands - but the victim isn't complying fully, either.

No one argued that the officer was in the right - the point is that the shooting wasn't criminal, at least the jury had reason to find so.


I don't know that anyone proved marijuana was involved but it certainly reads like the gentleman wasn't comprehending that he needed to stop moving. Marijuana might explain that - or the guy simply had a bad day. In neither case is this okay.

[Darth Executor]

Look, this isn't rocket science. He was reaching for *something*. The cop told him to stop, and he didn't. That's what got him shot. Even you can't be so stupid as to be unable to follow that sequence of events.

The cop didn't tell him to stop reaching for *something*, he told him to stop reaching for his gun, which he wasn't. This is 100% on the cop and if the law didn't essentially allow cops to execute you as long as they claim to have feared for their life afterwards he'd be in prison.

[Terraceth]

This is exactly why we need body cameras on all the time. So that when stuff like this happens, we don't have to try to piece together what happened with a side camera that doesn't catch all of the audio. We'd not only hear everything, we'd see everything.

Okay, body cameras don't always catch everything perfectly, but it'd be an inherent step up.

[One Bad Pig]

The cop didn't tell him to stop reaching for *something*, he told him to stop reaching for his gun, which he wasn't. This is 100% on the cop and if the law didn't essentially allow cops to execute you as long as they claim to have feared for their life afterwards he'd be in prison.

The cop told him to not reach for "it" - which in context is the gun. From the cop's POV, Castile was indeed reaching for *something* - which may or may not have been the gun. If the cop knew he was reaching for his wallet, there's no way he would've shot; if nothing else, you have no idea what an administrative hastle a cop has to go through if he shoots someone. In no sane world is this 100% on the cop; neither side was being very smart here.

[Teallaura]

The cop didn't tell him to stop reaching for *something*, he told him to stop reaching for his gun, which he wasn't. This is 100% on the cop and if the law didn't essentially allow cops to execute you as long as they claim to have feared for their life afterwards he'd be in prison.

I actually agree that the problem originates with the officer - but had the guy simply stopped reaching for anything at all we wouldn't be discussing this.

Not okay - not criminal - extremely sad.

[Bill the Cat]

The elephant in the room is that the victim was black.

It's no elephant at all. One has to immediately assume it was racial in order to call it an elephant.

Yet another hard-to-justify, seemingly racially influenced, killing by the US Police.

SEEMINGLY is the opportune word. There is no evidence provided that can show racism by the Hispanic cop.

“Police killed at least 102 unarmed black people in 2015, nearly twice each week”. “37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/

The number of unarmed black men shot and killed by police in the U.S. last year was less than half the total for 2015... Police used fatal force on 16 unarmed black men in 2016, according to a Washington Post database. That is down from the 36 unarmed black men police had killed in 2015. Police used fatal force on one unarmed black woman in 2016 and two in 2015.

http://www.newsweek.com/police-killi...ack-men-538542

At least five of the unarmed black men killed that year had reportedly tried to grab an officer’s gun or beat an officer with his or her own equipment, she wrote. Two more of the men “were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings.” In one case, a bystander was killed by police—not the suspect. “That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death,” she wrote.

[Carrikature]

Look, this isn't rocket science. He was reaching for *something*. The cop told him to stop, and he didn't. That's what got him shot. Even you can't be so stupid as to be unable to follow that sequence of events.

The cop didn't tell him to stop. He told him not to reach for 'it', which Castile and his girlfriend said repeatedly he wasn't doing. Maybe drop the ad hominems...

[Carrikature]

If the cop knew he was reaching for his wallet, there's no way he would've shot

I don't think this is remotely true. The guy clearly wasn't in control of himself.

[Teallaura]

I don't think this is remotely true. The guy clearly wasn't in control of himself.

I think you're wrong. The problem wasn't that the officer was out of control - it's that he was unclear in his instructions and he lost control of the situation. Castille misinterpreted the continued use of the pronoun 'it' to mean the gun - but the repetition alone should have been a clue to stop what he was doing and get clarification.

The officer appears to have fired because the gentleman kept moving after repeated commands to stop - those commands were NOT clear but they were sufficient that a jury likely concluded a reasonable man (this is a legal construct) would have understood that the important part of the instruction was to stop.

The officer wasn't gunning for anyone. He wasn't freaking out. He simply did a poor job making himself understood and reacted to the perceived threat of an armed individual who is not complying the way the officer expected.

I don't think it matters at all what the guy was reaching for - the officer could not have known what that was. The problem was that he kept reaching when told to stop.

And had those instructions been better phrased, I don't think we'd be discussing this - I don't think there would have been a shooting.

[Carrikature]

I think you're wrong. The problem wasn't that the officer was out of control - it's that he was unclear in his instructions and he lost control of the situation. Castille misinterpreted the continued use of the pronoun 'it' to mean the gun - but the repetition alone should have been a clue to stop what he was doing and get clarification.

The officer appears to have fired because the gentleman kept moving after repeated commands to stop - those commands were NOT clear but they were sufficient that a jury likely concluded a reasonable man (this is a legal construct) would have understood that the important part of the instruction was to stop.

The officer wasn't gunning for anyone. He wasn't freaking out. He simply did a poor job making himself understood and reacted to the perceived threat of an armed individual who is not complying the way the officer expected.

I don't think it matters at all what the guy was reaching for - the officer could not have known what that was. The problem was that he kept reaching when told to stop.

And had those instructions been better phrased, I don't think we'd be discussing this - I don't think there would have been a shooting.

I agree that the instructions were poorly phrased. I disagree that the officer couldn't know what Castile was reaching for when Castile had just asked for license and registration. Every guy I know keeps their license in their wallet, which is almost always in their back pocket. Maybe Yanez didn't know, but Castile reaching back there is well within the realm of normality.

I say Yanez wasn't in control because of how he handled the entire thing. "Don't reach for it, then" is a cavalier dismissal of a major factor in the stop. "Don't reach for it, then" is why Castile got shot, imo. If Yanez had asked where the gun was, he could probably have avoided the whole thing. Further, Yanez jumped to "hand is too wide must be reaching for a gun" which is pretty ridiculous. And repeated responses of "he's not" by both Castile and his gf clearly never registered with Yanez. And if that's not enough, Yanez's statement about Castile's marijuana usage implying a complete disregard for Yanez is downright stupid. That leap is so huge it's not even funny, even if it were based on anything real (it's not). Nothing about Yanez's handling of the stop tells me he had the situation in control, and I think Yanez knew that. He just realized it too late to save Castile's life.

[Teallaura]

I agree that the instructions were poorly phrased. I disagree that the officer couldn't know what Castile was reaching for when Castile had just asked for license and registration. Every guy I know keeps their license in their wallet, which is almost always in their back pocket. Maybe Yanez didn't know, but Castile reaching back there is well within the realm of normality.

I say Yanez wasn't in control because of how he handled the entire thing. "Don't reach for it, then" is a cavalier dismissal of a major factor in the stop. "Don't reach for it, then" is why Castile got shot, imo. If Yanez had asked where the gun was, he could probably have avoided the whole thing. Further, Yanez jumped to "hand is too wide must be reaching for a gun" which is pretty ridiculous. And repeated responses of "he's not" by both Castile and his gf clearly never registered with Yanez. And if that's not enough, Yanez's statement about Castile's marijuana usage implying a complete disregard for Yanez is downright stupid. That leap is so huge it's not even funny, even if it were based on anything real (it's not). Nothing about Yanez's handling of the stop tells me he had the situation in control, and I think Yanez knew that. He just realized it too late to save Castile's life.

Anyone can lie so no, the officer couldn't have known. And he's under no legal obligation to wait to find out, either. It doesn't matter what they were saying - what matters is that the gentleman kept moving when the officer was clearly not happy about that movement.

The officer could likely have avoided the whole thing with clearer instructions - 'stop moving' instead of 'don't pull it out' (his final instruction before firing).

I agree, he let the situation get out of control - but that's not the same thing as being 'out of control' himself.

The victim likewise might have changed the outcome by simply not moving after the officer repeats three times to not reach for 'it' and to not pull 'it' out instead of verbally trying to convince the officer he wasn't reaching for 'it'.

Fault lies with the officer - he is supposed to be in control of the situation - but that fault isn't necessarily a criminal act.



The whole thing is sad.