MN - Philando Castile, 32, shot by police officer, 6 July 2016 #1

[human]

Thanks! Glad to know I haven't completely lost my marbles yet, it's hard to keep so many stories straight, especially when the seem to keep changing.

I can see what is being said as a problem. But saying the gun was never shown and that the officer never asked for it does not affect her saying that PC had one and had a permit for it.

I wonder if this had happened before on stops. That he said he had a gun and a permit?

 

[sds71]

Diamond Renoylds will be on MSNBC with Tamron Hall in a few minutes.

Interview may be taped and re aired because of press conference

 

[Beyond Belief]

So is it my understanding the second officer was at passenger side window and witnessed all of this?

 

[rob]

I can see what is being said as a problem. But saying the gun was never shown and that the officer never asked for it does not affect her saying that PC had one and had a permit for it.

I wonder if this had happened before on stops. That he said he had a gun and a permit?

Why would you say it? Unless they asked to search the vehicle or you already had it out?

 

[i.b.nora]

Why would you say it? Unless they asked to search the vehicle or you already had it out?

You would say it because you are black and you are being stopped by a police officer. It appears to be a no win situation however, at least in that jurisdiction.

 

[Beyond Belief]

What would have caused Ms Reynolds to "yell" as per the original video tht Castile had the permit? Did the yelling and his movement cause the officers reaction? A shot in the direction of the moving arm is another action that signifies something. I'll be glad when all the facts finally surface theres more to this.

 

[barcode]

I interpreted the gun was out meaning when LE had their guns out not PC's gun

There are two ways to interpret this, hard to say but my take is the officers gun was out the entire time, so in that respect...when the gun was out would refer to PC's gun

 

[Everyday Grace]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...gun-traffic-stop-girlfriend-article-1.2706987

Philando Castile was shot and killed during a Minnesota traffic stop last Wednesday.

Philando Castile never presented his handgun during last week's deadly traffic stop in Minnesota — and the cop who killed him didn't ask if he was armed, the victim's heartbroken girlfriend said.

"The gun never came out, it could never be a threat. He didn't ask about it, he didn't know it was on his person," Diamond Reynolds said in an exclusive interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Possible that her reference here can be interpreted to say that the officer did not know that the handgun was on Castile's person as opposed to under the seat, tucked under the driver's leg, or elsewhere in the car.

A permit to carry in Minnesota does not require a person to conceal or not conceal a handgun. I haven't found anything that says a holster is required in Minnesota if one is carrying on one's person.

If I have a permit to carry a pistol do I have to conceal the pistol?

No. Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act is a permit to carry law, not a conceal and carry law. The pistol does not need to be concealed, but can be concealed.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/pages/permit-to-carry-faq.aspx

IMO, it will prove to be an important point as to where exactly Castile's handgun was when the officer shot him.

IF the officer saw the handgun and IF the officer perceived what in his mind was reasonably a threat to his life, that will be likely be sufficient to satisfy the "objective reasonableness" standard set by the US Supreme Court. It appears to me that is precisely the direction the officer's attorney is heading.

Via two decisions, which we'll dig into here, the Supreme Court set the bar in such a place that a police officer can open fire if she or he believes the suspect poses a threat to the officer or the community. That's from the 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner.

At the same time, the court has granted officers -- based on the circumstances and their states of mind at the time of the arrest -- significant leeway in dictating whether a use of force was justified. That ruling came four years later in Graham v. Connor.

Hindsight is 20/20, right? Well, an officer's split-second decision-making during a heated moment is not. Enter the "objective reasonableness" standard, by which police use of force is measured today.

Citing the 1973 federal appeals court decision in Johnson v. Glick, the court noted that not "every push or shove" is excessive, "even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers."

The ruling continued, "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/us/baton-rouge-alton-sterling-when-police-use-of-force-justified/

That piece was published by CNN after Alton Sterling, but before Philando Castile.

The legal points regarding use of deadly force are relevant in both cases, as well as any officer involved shooting.

I'm not saying I have any set opinion at this time as to whether this officer was justified in using deadly force. Just wanting to point out what the established legal position is.

Not saying that is "right" or "wrong" in moral terms, but it is what it is when it comes to how officer involved shootings are generally scrutinized under a legal microscope.

Does it give LE too much leeway? That's one of the questions that is part of the broader debate of the relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Law enforcement is not limited to those legal standards when they look to determine justification in shootings. Some forces consider other factors. Some will look at them strictly under these legal precepts.

And here we are.

 

[rob]

You would say it because you are black and you are being stopped by a police officer. It appears to be a no win situation however, at least in that jurisdiction.

Does LE search the car for every stop of a black driver?

 

[human]

Why would you say it? Unless they asked to search the vehicle or you already had it out?

Because it is the smart thing to do? It seems that people who deal with the concealed permit thing say you.should inform LE if stopped. I posted a link to this earlier.

 

[human]

Aren't dour shots a little excessive?

 

[SweetT]

Why would you say it? Unless they asked to search the vehicle or you already had it out?

I am a gun owner and have been told that if I have gun in my car and am pulled over that I am supposed to inform officer that I have a weapon in my car. Also weapon cannot be loaded while in the car. Honestly that is what I have been told but wonder if it is something that I have to do or not now. I never travel with my gun so it has never been an issue, it is strictly for home protection. I also do not have a conceal carry permit, but have thought about getting one so I can take it in my purse.

 

[Beyond Belief]

I think so Human. But they seemed to have been aimed at the arm which is better than head shot. Perhaps the officer was in control of his aim rather than just a panic shot.

 

[drjones]

I am a gun owner and have been told that if I have gun in my car and am pulled over that I am supposed to inform officer that I have a weapon in my car. Also weapon cannot be loaded while in the car. Honestly that is what I have been told but wonder if it is something that I have to do or not now. I never travel with my gun so it has never been an issue, it is strictly for home protection. I also do not have a conceal carry permit, but have thought about getting one so I can take it in my purse.

it depends where you live or are travelling, some states require it and some do not.

 

[drjones]

re: the amount of shots and where they were placed

you aim center mass and shoot until the threat is eliminated - not dead, until there is no longer any threat

 

[Tillicum]

Aren't dour shots a little excessive?

Has it been confirmed that there were four shots? The girlfriend has claimed 3 shots, later claimed 4 shots and later still claimed 5 shots. I really hope we get some facts confirmed soon. I understand the girlfriend could've been confused but IMO that only concerns me more that she could've confused other specifics she has told us in regards to events leading up to the time her live video began. I am not looking for a way to defend LEO, I just want to know the facts before I form an opinion.

 

[Everyday Grace]

Has it been confirmed that there were four shots? The girlfriend has claimed 3 shots, later claimed 4 shots and later still claimed 5 shots. I really hope we get some facts confirmed soon. I understand the girlfriend could've been confused but IMO that only concerns me more that she could've confused other specifics she has told us in regards to events leading up to the time her live video began. I am not looking for a way to defend LEO, I just want to know the facts before I form an opinion.

I don't think the number of shots fired has been publicly established as fact.

I just looked at the most recent Star Tribune articles and don't see it there.

Lack of transparency contributes to tensions at times like these, IMO. More open disclosure won't eliminate tensions, but any reduction through reasonable practices can only be a plus.

But then, I am becoming more and more of a disciple of David Brown with each passing day, so there's my bias.

 

[Beyond Belief]

If you are listening to MSNBC you should have just heard Castiles funeral will be on thursday. His body will be driven by horse and carriage to the school after the services.

<modsnip>

 

[Woodland]

Fwiw, it's very painful from here to watch y'all split hairs on what happened recently here, in LA, in Dallas and all previous incidents - you know what I'm talking about. It's all tragic and unbelievable for a world power or what was a world power. I use to worship the US of A in what I perceived as a united power to come together and be strong.

Some are not listening to what the core problem is, although it seems more are speaking out on it than before - denial won't help to get back what you all once had. Imo, you are on the brink of an implosion. Please don't let that happen.

I sincerely wish, in the lyrics of a Bob Marley song, you can all get together and be alright. One love. You can't change the make-up of your country, nor should you. Black, white, yellow, red, gay, not gay - everyone has a place.

Waiting for the Dallas thread to re-open to post the same - that thread should have never had a reason to close, but some, or many allowed it. It is a reflection of a divided country.

Jmo.

 

[Cannonball3804]

I don't think the number of shots fired has been publicly established as fact.

I just looked at the most recent Star Tribune articles and don't see it there.

Lack of transparency contributes to tensions at times like these, IMO. More open disclosure won't eliminate tensions, but any reduction through reasonable practices can only be a plus.

But then, I am becoming more and more of a disciple of David Brown with each passing day, so there's my bias.

When you talk about transparency and open disclosure, are you talking about it being a two-way street?

Not just the citizen, but LE should be forthright about their concerns and reason for the stop. IOW, don't tell the citizen you're stopping him for a minor vehicle infraction when in fact you're wondering if he just committed armed robbery.

A citizen cannot read LE's thoughts any more than they can read ours. It's a recipe for disaster that PC, as soon as he heard broken taillight, probably relaxed inwardly and assumed that stop 53 was going to be just like the other 52. He would have likely acted very differently if he had known the real reason for the stop from the beginning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk