Patterico's Pontifications

6/19/2017

David French: Jury’s Verdict In Philando Castile Case Was A Miscarriage Of Justice (Added: Dash-Cam Video)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:41 am

[guest post by Dana]

Following the acquittal of Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez of manslaughter charges in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, David French makes a very compelling argument that a miscarriage of justice occurred. I’m copying liberally from his post as it’s so well worth the read:

In considering the rightness of the verdict, pay close attention to the transcript of the fatal encounter. Here it is, via CNN:

9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.

9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.

9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.

9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.

9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.

9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.

9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.

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.

9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”

9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.

9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!”

If you read carefully, you’ll note that it appears that the officer shot Castile for doing exactly what the officer told him to do. Yanez asked for Castile’s license. Castile told him that he had a gun, and the officer – rather than asking for his carry permit, or asking where the gun was, or asking to see Castile’s hands – just says, “Don’t reach for it then.”

At that point, Castile is operating under two commands. Get his license, and don’t reach for his gun. As Castile reaches for his license (following the officer’s orders), and he assures him that he’s not reaching for the gun (also following the officer’s orders). The entire encounter, he assures Yanez that he’s following Yanez’s instructions.

…[T]he evidence indicates that Yanez was afraid for his life. He thought he might have been dealing with a robber (a fact he apparently didn’t tell Castile), and he testified that he smelled marijuana. But Castile was following Yanez’s commands, and It’s simply false that the mere presence of a gun makes the encounter more dangerous for the police. It all depends on who possesses the gun. If he’s a concealed-carry permit-holder, then he’s in one of the most law-abiding demographics in America.

French thus concludes that no matter what caused Yanez to panic and react as he did, he should have been held accountable:

I understand the inherent danger of police work. I also understand the legal responsibilities of men and women who volunteer to put on that uniform, and the legal rights of the citizens they’ve sworn to protect and serve. I’m aware of no evidence that Yanez panicked because Castile was black. But whether he panicked because of race, simply because of the gun, or because of both, he still panicked, and he should have been held accountable. The jury’s verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

According to reports, Yanez will not return to active duty in St. Anthony.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

The squad dash-cam video has been released, It’s awful to watch in every way. Consider this a warning. Here’s the question: “It’s clear that Yanez believed he was in danger — listen to the escalation between his calm “Don’t reach for it, then” to his second “Don’t pull it out!” before he fired (all of which go by quite quickly). But was that belief reasonable from the movements Castile was making? Bear in mind that if someone is drawing a weapon despite repeated commands not to, the officer is dead if he doesn’t react quickly.”

168 Responses to “David French: Jury’s Verdict In Philando Castile Case Was A Miscarriage Of Justice (Added: Dash-Cam Video)”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (023079)

  2. The world learned of Philando Castile’s death through a grim livestream launched by his girlfriend seconds after Castile was shot five times by a police officer. Many were outraged by what they saw as Diamond Reynolds’ outwardly calm voice described Castile being shot after reaching for his wallet.

    But no video existed of exactly what happened inside the car in the key seconds before Reynolds began filming, leaving a jury to decide whether to believe Officer Jeronimo Yanez’s testimony that Castile was pulling out his gun despite his commands and he fired in fear for his life.

    this is interesting and perhaps insightful

    i’m glad this miscarriage of justice didn’t happen in chicago

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. IF the situation was as presented, Jeronimo Yanez should be convicted of something less than First Degree Murder and more than accidental death. But the person who0 hired Yanex, the people who trained him, and the last person to review his fitness for work should be on trial for dereliction of duty. Yanez should not have been an armed representative of the government.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  4. It sounds like officers in that town have little or no training on dealing with carry-permit holders. There should be a well-known protocol here, pretty much a catechism, for, ah, disarming the situation calmly and peaceably. I’m sure there is one (living in California makes it difficult to know), but Yanez sure didn’t follow it.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  5. French also threw Zimmerman to the mobs as,Well, seems to be a pattern

    narciso (9b6052)

  6. I don’t know what it is that Philando Castile should have done differently.

    Maybe it would have been better not to mention the gun. Or later, or if he had thought Officer Jeronimo Yanez would spot the gun anyway, to stop what he was doing when Yanez told him don’t pull it out.

    He wasn’t pulling it out, but Yanez thought he was, because he thought the gun was where Castile’s hand was (was it?) because Castile had mentioned it gratutiusly – because otherwise why mention the gun?

    And Castile didn’t say anything – like “That’s not where the gun is” or “I’m not pulling out the gun” which would at least have given Yanez a chance to say something else. He didn’t pay attention to what things could have looked like from Yanez’s perspective.

    Yanez could have perceived that whole thing as a trick to get him not to react when Castile pulled out his gun.

    Now that’s a little irrational, because nothing had led up to it, but for all Yanez knew he could have stumbled upon an escaped prisoner who had killed a prison guard getting out and stolen his gun, and Yanez had no confidence in his own eyesight and reflexes.

    Another possibility for Castile: Put his hands up and ask to be frisked. But Castile would have to really, really, not trust the judgment of the police. But if you don’t trust their judgement – and he didn’t, because he mentioned the gun – maybe do that all the way.

    I’m not sure this is a miscarriage of justice. The law acquits people for honest mistakes, as long as they are genuine. It’s really biased for the defendant – i.e. you don’t send someone to jail for twenty years uness etc. That’s for all homicides. But on the other hand we can’t have people getting shot and killed in ordinary traffic stops because the policeman doesn’t know how to handle a slightly ambiguous situation.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  7. I thoroughly concur with Narciso (cue the righteous sitcom applause), the one-time NT-darling French would have learned the hard way had he thrown Yanez to wolfdom prior to a November ballot.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  8. Castile may have acted like a child does who is told to cross at the green, and does so even when he can see a car bearing down on him which might run him over.

    Because he’s following instructions and the car would be in the wrong if it ran him over.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  9. R.I.P. Bill Dana, comedian best known for playing the character José Jiménez on The Ed Sullivan Show

    Icy (a03ee9)

  10. And repeating for those with the home game, Helmut kohl.

    narciso (9b6052)

  11. Icy, thats real damn cool for this thread, /sarc

    Happy, there was an optically if not procedurally similar case in the Chi’ with Dante Servin an “urban pioneer” homeowner who killed one of his neighbors in the West Side North Lawndale neighborhood when she and her crowd did not disperse during a night of loud partying. I almost repeated that scenario in the early morning of the last 4th of July when some peeps were setting up their barbecue and were playing their radio at the park across a street from my mom’s house.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  12. the unlegal july 4th fireworks in the park across the street are pretty intense cause of they all buy the loud ones

    i stay inside away from the windows

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. Now, truly, all the ‘Mercury’ astronauts have left us.

    Bill Dana’s ‘Jose Jimenez’ character is part of America’s history from an era long gone. Dana’s routines on TV and later popular comedy LPs, portraying an anxious astronaut were so humorous to the ‘Original Seven’ that the first words radioed by Deke Slayton to America’s first astronaut, Alan Shepard– who was known to impersonate Jimenez during training– were, “You’re on your way, Jose!” Dana was later made an honorary astronaut and invited to Shepard’s memorial at NASA when he passed away in 1998. And Dana’s comedy LPs– usually recorded at SF’s famed ‘Hungry I’ are still engaging.

    Ad Astra, Bill Dana —‘You’re on your way, Jose.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. When the police pull you over, put both hands on the top of the steering wheel and keep them there. Forcefully instruct any passangers to remain silent unless specifically addrssed.

    Focus your attention on the officer, demonstrate a cooperative attitude, tell him if you have a concealed carry permit, and wait for his orders before you slowly move only one hand in compliance.

    Remember the decision in the Yanez case and don’t allow confusion and fear to cost your life.

    ropelight (f923af)

  15. Also, make sure you’re not black. /sarc

    Leviticus (efada1)

  16. Eight Justices (all but Gorsuch) voted. They split up very widely:

    ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–A, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined except for Part II, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–B, III–C, and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

    Joining in the “judgment” means that Justice agreed that the Eight Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed. Seven of the eight participating did that, and the eighth, Thomas, dissented only in part from that judgment.

    The number of Justices writing or joining in an “opinion,” by contrast, indicates how strong a precedent is set by the reasoning and rationale expressed for coming to that result. If there is a majority of the participating Justices (still five in an eight-member panel like this), that becomes the “Opinion of the Court,” meaning it’s strong precedent.

    There was such a majority for Parts I, II, and III-A of Alito’s opinion, comprising himself and everyone else participating (8/0). On Part II, it was only 7/1, but that’s still a majority and thus part of the “Opinion of the Court.”

    But Parts III-B, III-C, and IV were only joined in by Alito himself, plus Roberts, Thomas, and Breyer, and thus must be considered only a four-Justice plurality opinion, which isn’t binding precedent that must first be overruled before it can be ignored (in theory, if they’re being intellectually honest about overruling, which sometimes they aren’t).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. BAH. Sorry, I misread one bit, and thus got a detail wrong (#16):

    Contrary to what I wrote, Thomas joined in the judgment — the result, the affirmance of the Eighth Circuit’s judgment — entirely. What I wrote above about his limited joinder in Alito’s opinion was correct.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  18. i am a strong black woman with a remarkable ability to post my comments in the correct thread

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  19. There remains a distinction between conduct that is in violation of Castile’s constitutional rights, and conduct that is so wanton and reckless as to warrant a conviction under a criminal statute.

    On the latter question, we commit the determination to 12 jurors who saw and heard not only the evidence, but the manner and demeanor of the witnesses who testified.

    French did not.

    That’s why we don’t have criminal verdicts based on transcripts of witness testimony.

    The 12 jurors made a collective decision that all of them could support — that the state did not prove the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That is the very definition of “justice”.

    French has written extensively about civil rights, but so far as I can tell he’s never been a trial attorney or had any experience practicing criminal law.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  20. And posted this (#16), and its correction (#17), on the wrong thread entirely. D’oh! Re-posting corrected version there.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  21. Liviticus, you are such a knee-jerk racist pig. Your preconcieved self-expressed prejudices disqualify you from the presumption of rational thought. It would be a travesty for you to be allowed to practice the law, you don’t know what it is.

    ropelight (f923af)

  22. @ swc (#19): I agree with you in general. One simply can’t compare officer-involved shootings to one another on the basis of a facts checklist. The whole point of a jury trial is to try each case on its own facts, one at a time, without regard to some arguably similar defendant who’s been in the dock before or might be in the future. Assuming the trial judge gave both sides a fair trial, stayed within his discretion in making evidentiary rulings, and gave the jurors a correct set of instructions and questions for their use in rendering their verdict, and assuming no illegal outside influence and that the jurors didn’t commit juror misconduct, then our system very deliberately commits this type of decision, regarding the allegedly criminal shooting of a citizen by a government law enforcement official, to juries like this one.

    Questions of intent, and knowledge, and hindsight judgments about the reasonableness of judgments exercised in a split second — those are all poor things to decide based on internet polling or public sentiment.

    Consistent with all that, however: If I speculate, based on only what I know from press accounts, how I might have voted were I hypothetically on the jury: I’d have convicted. That’s holding the officer to a pretty high standard — basically that he ought have used extra care to make sure he wasn’t misinterpreting what was being said once he’d been told that Castile was legally carrying. Anyone else observing the case is free to come to his or her own guesswork on this. It’s an appropriate subject of civil public discussion, and everyone on all sides ought hope that somehow, the discussion of this case might somehow create some additional sensitivities among LE officials and people with concealed-carry permits. But I’d never presume to substitute my post-hoc guesswork, without having seen a single witness or exhibit in the courtroom, for that of the jurors who did. I still believe that this system, with all its flaws, is the best reasonably available.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. Whatever, bootlicker. Go find a Trump tweet to suck.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  24. (#23 for ropelight, obviously – as though “bootlicker” didn’t give it away)

    Leviticus (efada1)

  25. I’m unpersuaded yet that race played any substantial part in these tragic events or in Castile’s trial.

    I nevertheless object to, and emphatically disassociate myself from, the ad hominem spew from ropelight in #21. It reconfirms my own opinion of ropelight, whom I try very hard simply to ignore. But not on this occasion, for that comment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  26. @22 — I understand your POV, but what I would point out — and not for your benefit because you are already well aware — is that making informed speculative judgments based on press reports to form a determination in your own mind about guilt or innocence is dissimilar to the experience of actual jurors in one critical respect. It is divorced from the concept of “deliberation” by the 12.

    My experiences in trying 50+ federal criminal cases to verdicts were that the collective “wisdom” of the jurors was often times at odds with what I thought, or what the agents’ thought, were the keys to the case. I can’t tell you how many times jurors explained to me their thought processes in reaching certain determinations and I thought to myself “Well, that never really occurred to me.”

    So I think its unfair, and does not accurately reflect the process for determining guilt or innocence for any of us, individually and uninformed by the views of others charged with making the same determination, to reach any judgment on what we might have decided.

    IMO, any time a jury comes back 12-0 for acquittal on a charge which the government chose to press, and for which it was able to craft the presentation of its case, its not close.

    Hung juries are close – reasonable minds could disagree.

    But when 12 citizens say “no crime proven”, that is the antithesis of a “miscarriage of justice”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  27. I think the issue here is whether “bad” police work is tantamount to criminal conduct. The fact that it resulted in the loss of life isn’t sufficient IMO to reach that conclusion.

    Did Yanez act unjustifiably? Look like it.
    Did Yanez act unreasonabley? Yes.
    Did Yanez act recklessly? I’m not sure the facts support that.

    The fact that the other officer didn’t react similarly to Castile’s movements isn’t conclusive (as French seems to believe), as they had different vantage points.

    And I think I disagree with the proposition that because Castile’s conduct in carrying firearm while possessing a lawful permit to do so imposes any burden’s on Yanez in the manner he engages with Castile.

    A lawful permit holder carrying a concealed weapon might be less LIKELY to use the weapon to injure an officer, but that’s not the same question as to whether he’s less ABLE to injury the officer.

    I don’t think the law does, nor should it, place any onus or burden on an officer when they come into contact with a lawfully armed citizen. I think they are justified in dealing with a lawfully armed citizen at the outset of the contact in the same manner they interact with an unlawfully armed citizen — the protocols they follow are intended for officer and public safety. The mere presence of a firearm — lawful or not — increases the risk of an unintended outcome. IMO, the onus for that circumstance is on the citizen who armed themselves.

    I happen to have family members who have carried or do carry firearms lawfully while going about their everyday lives. They have current/former law enforcement backgrounds.

    What they do when they are stopped by law enforcement who do not know them is to IMMEDIATELY announce they are armed and why, and where the weapon is located. They then await further instruction, and before acting first confirm that the officer understands they are armed. Normally the command is “Show me your credentials”, and the response is “they are in my wallet/pocket/purse”, and the Officer says “Ok go in there and get them out.”

    Was that too much to ask that Castile should know? Probably. Its not something that most citizens would know to do. But that explanation is offered from the standpoint of a law enforcement officer whose radar goes wild when they are told there is a gun involved, and then works through the steps which are intended to deliberately turn that radar way down again so the contact can continue without unnecessary anxiety.

    At the point where Yanez fired, his anxiety level over the presence of a gun was still way up there.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  28. Thanks, swc. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written in #26 & #27 above, and indeed have had comparable experience with juries I’ve observed to those you describe from your own personal experience.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  29. Re this, with which I particularly agree:

    What they do when they are stopped by law enforcement who do not know them is to IMMEDIATELY announce they are armed and why, and where the weapon is located. They then await further instruction, and before acting first confirm that the officer understands they are armed. Normally the command is “Show me your credentials”, and the response is “they are in my wallet/pocket/purse”, and the Officer says “Ok go in there and get them out.”

    Castile got the first part of this approximately right, but not the rest, and yes, that’s undoubtedly a contributing cause to the tragedy, maybe the most important one. I’m guessing he’d been instructed to follow exactly the drill you recommend as part of getting his CCL, but he was impaired (also his voluntary decision), and he almost assuredly fell short of the standard that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances (here, a reasonably prudent person with a CCL and a handgun) ought follow.

    But before rendering anything more than a partially informed wild guess (as I did above) anywhere other than in the comments section of a blog, I’d certainly want to hear the testimony and the witnesses who testified about this officer’s training and its extent, the department’s policies, and all the rest of the information relevant to what a reasonable officer in his shoes might have done or found justifiable. It’s absolutely fair to hold a law enforcement officer to a different, and indeed higher, standard of care and reasonableness than we use to judge the reasonableness of a civilian’s actions. My assumption is that this jury was correctly instructed on the law and on the standards it should use, though, so I don’t disagree with your overall conclusion that their verdict may indeed have been absolutely appropriate.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  30. In 2015 French wrote an article about Racial Disparities in Gun Violence.
    After reading that article I’d guess that Castile had the bad luck to fall into 2 conflicting demographics.

    First Castile had licensed carry and was part of a law abiding demographic.
    Second, Castile belonged within the demographic most likely to use a gun in a violent crime. A demographic that hit 52 percent of homicides despite being 13 percent of the population.
    Statistics say that black males 14 to 35 living in urban environments are extraordinarily responsible for violent crimes involving handguns.

    Yanez seems to have been very very afraid of a younger weed smoking black male with a hand gun.
    He was not able to muster the emotional resources to be clear and calm when faced with with odds that this was a bad situation.
    Statistics overwhelming show most cops choose better than Yanez.

    steveg (e26619)

  31. Recklessness is a very tricky concept, especially when its applied in criminal cases. Its a significant step beyond negligence or misconduct.

    And the definitions I’ve seen which have been used in criminal cases don’t really help. It’s one of those concepts that every juror is going to have a different POV on what the threshold is, and when conduct steps over it.

    Finding a standard that all 12 jurors can agree on for purposes of establishing “recklessness” — where criminal intent is clearly lacking — is the step upon which many law enforcement prosecutions collapse.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  32. Hatefulfeet, are you a big Orrin Hatch fan, now that he’s confessed to pranking Sen. Ben Sasse (with a variation on Rickrolling)?

    Sasse has a long history of hating the band, which recently made a Rolling Stone readers’ poll for the top 10 worst bands of the 1990s.

    Sasse responded to Hatch’s tweets, jokingly calling his comments about Nickleback “hate speech.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  33. Normally the command is “Show me your credentials”, and the response is “they are in my wallet/pocket/purse”, and the Officer says “Ok go in there and get them out.”

    Not to pick nits, shipwreckedcrew, but if the officer responded “Show me your credentials” and then shot me as I was reaching for them, I would be pretty pissed (or, more likely, pretty dead). In that situation the officer had better be very clear in his or her language and ask, “Where are your credentials/license/registration/etc.?” and then make the determination whether or not the subject being interviewed should reach for them. I only mention this just to emphasize how the choice of language used becomes vital in a case where a subject is armed, and it is why we need officers who can maintain a cool head and not panic in these situations.

    JVW (42615e)

  34. I’m not surprised. The odds were that he would be acquitted. Not because he was innocent. He is guilty as hell, and maybe even of murder if he manipulated the victim into making a suspicious move so he would have an excuse to shoot him. Because the fix was in from the beginning.

    Most of the time, in most places, prosecutors prosecuting a policemen is like Don Corleone prosecuting Luca Brasi. Their heart is not in it. Cops are their soldiers. And it’s not hard to throw a case. Just ease back on the prosecutor’s tricks. Don’t excuse jurors you think are pro-defense. Don’t “prepare” your witnesses with the testimony you want them to give. Pretend to cross-examine the defense witnesses. Give a lukewarm closing argument (with your fly open optional).

    And they don’t get any help from the other “hitmen”, other cops, to manipulate the evidence and slant their testimony, to give them the edge they need to push the case over reasonable doubt. We saw that in the Zimmerman case.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. The cops on the scene in Zimmerman gave no help to the prosecution. They stuck to their story that the shooting was righteous even when called as witnesses by the prosecution.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. David French ignores the officer’s reported statement that he saw Castile’s gun – more than a mere furtive movement. Plus, saying “I’m not drawing my gun” etc., is a known tactic to cause a delay in an officer’s response time.

    The other officer not firing means nothing.

    Reading the tea leaves, I continue to suspect that Castile intended to produce a “Gotch’a” video by provoking the officer.

    After all this time, from the news reports, it is not clear whether the claimed permit was a permit to carry.

    cm smith (28d309)

  37. Wisconsin has no other permit. They laugh at Illinois’s FOID. And it had permitless open carry before it had permit concealed carry.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. So it would seem by castile and his girlfriends social media posts, they were certainly provocative but if you insist in seeing things solely thigh the crumple/julian prism which was how this story was presented.

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. Yanez seems to have been very very afraid of a younger weed smoking black male with a hand gun.
    He was not able to muster the emotional resources to be clear and calm when faced with with odds that this was a bad situation.
    Statistics overwhelming show most cops choose better than Yanez.
    steveg (e26619) — 6/19/2017 @ 3:41 pm

    Weed smoking + gun = not law abiding and possibly impaired.

    My dad’s impression of 70’s cop shows was one cop yelling “hold it!” and the other “drop it!”

    Pinandpuller (30f385)

  40. I keep my DL and CCL on a lanyard around my neck in case I encounter cops or robbers. I wear it outside my shirt if I think I might get pulled over or open carry. I usually only open carry when I see NJ or MA plates on the car at the next gas pump. Or a Megabus at the truck stop.

    Pinandpuller (30f385)

  41. My dad’s impression of 70’s cop shows was one cop yelling “hold it!” and the other “drop it!”

    Not the cops, but that instantly reminded me of this.

    Dave (711345)

  42. OT @ nk, if you’re following this: I just finished A Planet for Texans aka Lone Star Planet, which I again thank you for recommending. I’ve already shared this free e-book with my oldest son, recently licensed, who’s added it to his “to-read” list on his Kindle, and I’m likely going to send it along as well to some other Texas lawyer friends.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  43. RIP – Otto Warmbier

    mg (31009b)

  44. You’re welcome, Beldar. I’m glad you liked it.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. mg, I guarantee you’ll love it too. It could have been written personally for you, given your opinions of politicians. And it’s free because the copyright lapsed, not because it’s vanity press. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20121

    nk (dbc370)

  46. As I understand the Warmbier case, he got suckered into going to North Korea by a ComIntern-like group operating out of Germany, whose purpose is to recruit Communist sympathizers as spies in the West. I guess he balked, and they framed him on a chickensh!t charge, and at some point they cut off the oxygen supply to his brain. Leaving the plastic bag on too long will do it. Don’t click that link if evil upsets you.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. There’s always
    “Don’t move, get on the ground”
    “Or stop resisting” which means “stop flinching when my partner whales on you with his/her baton”

    steveg (e8c34d)

  48. #39
    The FBI counts Hispanics as white when it comes to homicides.
    So a white cop killed Castile and a white guy killed a muslim

    One more of the things Trump should change is this stupidity.

    steveg (e8c34d)

  49. # 51 said it perfectly

    william elbel (647cbe)

  50. French said it was shameful that some conservatives wanted the Seth Rich murder to have a serious investigation. Pretty sure he sided with Gentle Giant and the rioters in Ferguson as well.

    jcurtis (16c2c4)

  51. #53 So he did not want an investigation into Seth Rich? Wow. I guess another coincidence death surrounding the Clintons.

    Another “Conservative” who when forced to actually pick sides when the going gets tough, picks Leftism over messy, imperfect Rightism.

    Like the idiot from national Review who feels more comfortable with unelected bureaucrats calling the shots then a duly elected President.

    Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    #49 So Warmbier was a lefty who was thinking “cool” until it literally hit him in the face? Geez, our Colleges really fail at teaching what Leftism is. Anyone going to NK is a bit crazy and moreso if not something very specific related to Govt-to-Govt sanctioned actions.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  52. #49, At least it was not water boarding. Now that is a crime against humanity. Letting them breathe between dousings is much worse than the garbage bag.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  53. #56 Any chance we can send Lena Dunham and half of Oberlin to NK for humanitarian reasons?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    We Americans can sure use all the help we can get.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  54. Two lesbians sweet-talked me into sneaking a marijuana plant (they said it was mint) past customs for them on my first trip overseas alone. I didn’t get caught, either. I was a clean-cut, innocent-looking kid. Which is why they picked me, I guess. Lefty ideology may not have been what induced Warmbier to go. Naivete, definitely.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. #57 Circ reasoning. Reason he was likely “naive” was Communism is all awesome and stuff. So of course he was “naive.” He never bothered to understand what NK was and none of his Social Group thought it profoundly insane.

    From what I can read he was cut from the same clothe that produces dip sharts who wear Che T-Shirts. I asked one once if I could wear a Hitler T-Shirt instead of Che Shirt and he got all sorts of offended being Jewish and stuff. I tried to explain but he had a Graduate Degree from Columbia. I guess mass murdering political adversaries is not quite as meaningful to him (and other lefties) when you agree with the murderer.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  56. they did something to his brain

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  57. @44 Dave

    I imagine Tex Cobb gets felony stopped once a week from looks alone.

    Pinandpuller (1fd5e6)

  58. @51 steveg

    Under the Biden rule they were three letters: ded.

    Pinandpuller (1fd5e6)

  59. The FBI counts Hispanics as white when it comes to homicides.

    the fbi is a corrupt perverted and deeply anti-american enterprise

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  60. @57 nk

    Steve-O got in a spot of bother smuggling personal use pot around in Europe. For one he almost choked to death trying to swallow the condom and two because he broadcasted it. And at the end of the day he’s Steve-O.

    And two lesbians have like twice the cargo space of a man.

    Pinandpuller (1fd5e6)

  61. Beldar, you hadn’t encounted H. Beam Piper before? Lone Star Planet is hilarious and has political ideas that need implementing.

    SPQR (156f39)

  62. john mccain lacks a moral compass

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  63. Was there no homicide crime with a gross negligence standard, rather than a recklessness standard, that Yanez could have been charged with?
    Because this looks to me like an officer who panicked and unreasonably thought he was in danger.

    Nick M. (d6362a)

  64. @ nk (#48): mg might not appreciate that book, since (spoiler alert!) some lawyers & politicians & diplomats might survive the ending.

    @ SPQR (#64): I’m in nk’s debt for the introduction, and you’re right that some of the book’s ideas are newly timely. Some of them, though — for example, judges who pack on the bench — have always been part of Texas jurisprudence & lore.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. I’m flattered Beldar, I thought you would be above reading my boorish crap.
    Will read, nk. thanks.

    mg (31009b)

  66. #25, Beldar, it was unnecessary for you to disassociate yourself from my comment at #21, no connection to you existed, not even a remote one.

    However, now that you’ve voluntarily taken a position – parts of which I regard as a combination of ‘axe grinding’ and ‘virtue signalling’ – I acknowkedge my remarks were intemperate, I withdraw them (in so far as they relate to the practice of law) and I thank you for directing my attention to them.

    Please continue to interrupt your practice of ignoring me when conditions warrant it. Thanks again.

    ropelight (f923af)

  67. nk

    Speaking of Texas did you ever read Job: A Comedy of Justice?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  68. It only took nine million to throttle McCain back on warmongering?

    “Righteous bucks!” Sean Penn-Fast Times at Ridgemont High

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  69. @57. Meh. Those tours can be tricky, nk. When we were leaving Soviet Russia back in the day and passing through their ‘customs’ to board an Aeroflot ‘junkjet’ back to the UK, we were ordered to turn in all loose Soviet currency. I’d stuck a few paper rubles and coined kopeks in my shoes under the linings to keep as souvenirs and was dressed similar to you- clean cut- for the era and managed to get the stuff out without being searched. A classmate of mine was dressed more in tune with the times then, longer hair, scruffed up, wearing a floor-length ‘military’ styled overcoat– and the Russian officials jumped all over him, tore apart his luggage and thoroughly ‘vetted’ that overcoat–lining and all- and confiscated the few rubles and kopeks he had on him before letting him board. He was pretty shaken up. It was quite a sight.

    _____

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words Of Wonder:

    “I want you to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment; cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it; save the plan.” – Richard Nixon, March 22, 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. The one thing I really miss from the pre-internet era was the eight dollar gamble on an airport gift shop novel.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  71. @74 DCSCA

    His airport departure was still light years ahead of James McAvoy in The Last King of Scotand.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  72. @68 Nick M

    The ROE were much tighter in Iraq and those guys had more cause to be jumpy.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  73. And because Nabra is also African American, born in America to Egyptian immigrants

    I don’t think M Night Shaymalan could write something that convoluted.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  74. I was disappointed in the verdict. Living in St. Paul, I got to hear a lot of the details.

    What strikes me as unreasonable is the Officer Yanez is standing at or to the rear of Castile’s left shoulder, if Castile is drawing a weapon with his right hand from his right pocket, he has to twist around to the left to bring the weapon to bear. Now as far as I can determine, the weapon was still in the right pocket of Castile when his body was removed from the car. Paramedics stated it fell out of his pocket. I think that Yanez’s fear was unreasonable at that point. If the weapon was out of the pocket, I would think differently.

    Additionally, Yanez fired seven times at a range of less than 3 – 4 feet away. I would think that the last 3 or 4 shots were unreasonable, against someone who did not have a weapon, out of pocket yet.

    A juror called into a local podcast hosted by Walter Hudson. He indicated that the decision was difficult and that there were no winners. He also indicated that the early votes were 10 – 2 for acquittal, with the the two jurors of color voting with the majority. I don’t know if the prosecutor really questioned the reasonableness of each shot or not.

    Loren (66de82)

  75. it seems like the only milieu in which these gorgeously competent public servants who retire at 50 with lavish pensions are held accountable is that of public opinion

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  76. #81 Not even that.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  77. The cop should have told the passenger to show his hands, rather than saying not to reach for the weapon.

    That said, when the cop says don’t reach for it, twice, in an increasingly agitated voice, you show your hands anyway.

    I say that as someone who has had cops point guns at me twice in my life. I showed my hands right away, both times.

    I don’t understand the universal view that this cop is guilty of some crime. I see it as a tragic misunderstanding combining bad police tactics and poor judgment on the part of the passenger.

    Patterico (c60007)

  78. Poor judgement shouldn’t get you shot during a traffic stop, just saying.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  79. Patterico (c60007) — 6/20/2017 @ 2:50 pm

    That said, when the cop says don’t reach for it, twice, in an increasingly agitated voice, you show your hands anyway.

    taht would be disobeying his instructions:

    His instructions were:

    1) To take out his license and registration etc.

    2) Not to take out his gun. I don’t know if it is clear that he was NOT pulling out his gun, but if he wasn’t, well the cop didn’t say don’t pull out your hand, but don’t reach for your gun.

    How was Castile supposed to know that Yanez didn’t have X-ray vision?

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  80. Update: Police dash-cam video added:

    The squad dash-cam video has been released, It’s awful to watch in every way. Consider this a warning. Here’s the question: “It’s clear that Yanez believed he was in danger — listen to the escalation between his calm “Don’t reach for it, then” to his second “Don’t pull it out!” before he fired (all of which go by quite quickly). But was that belief reasonable from the movements Castile was making? Bear in mind that if someone is drawing a weapon despite repeated commands not to, the officer is dead if he doesn’t react quickly.”

    Dana (023079)

  81. Poor judgement shouldn’t get you shot during a traffic stop, just saying.

    Depends on the situation and just how poor the judgment. Poor judgment shouldn’t get you eaten by a lion at the zoo, but it can happen.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  82. My wife got stopped at the notorious Trinity Lane interchange (ULB) when we pulled off 65S for some Taco Bell coming back from Franklin, KY. She went looking for and found her DL before I could caution her.

    Black female UC cop came up and said we had a tail light out. She was surprised my wife already had the DL out, but not alarmed. I scrolled thru my phone while she did her thing, hands in view. UC cop came back and allowed me to get out and confirm.

    There’s an O’Reilly’s right next door to TB. Fixed it Ate. Continued on living life a quarter of a mile at a time.

    One thing I don’t like about Davidson county is that some of the unmarked cop cars don’t have gov plates on the back. Maybe they use those cars to sit on drug houses.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  83. It’s still hard to get past the fact that an officer fired multiple times into a car with a little girl sitting in it. And hard to understand why Castile didn’t put both hands down n the steering while.

    Dana (023079)

  84. How many people will die because their self-driving car betrays them during a stop?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  85. That cop is going to have to live the rest of his life with profound hearing loss. That alone is good reason not to dump half of a mag.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  86. “I don’t understand the universal view that this cop is guilty of some crime.”

    – Patterico

    I think there’s a lot of frustration at the idea that cops receive special treatment in these sorts of situations, be it from their employers or prosecutors or even juries. Yanez was acquitted by a jury of his peers, and removed from active duty by his department, and I think both of those outcomes are acceptable. That said, it’s difficult to imagine that many private citizens would get away with shooting someone simply for handling a firearm in a situation like this.

    There’s also a lot of frustration in the pattern of the dead. How many Second Amendment activists have been shot by police at Second Amendment rallies, what with all the gun-touching and gun-waving that goes on there? It begs a serious question about which traits are causing these officers “reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury,” and how in the world those traits, when seriously scrutinized, add up to “reasonable” at all.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  87. The next to the worst case scenario where you leave your hands in sight is the cop arrests you for resisting or failing to obey and you let lawyers sort it out.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  88. I think there’s a lot of frustration at the idea that cops receive special treatment in these sorts of situations, be it from their employers or prosecutors or even juries. Yanez was acquitted by a jury of his peers, and removed from active duty by his department, and I think both of those outcomes are acceptable. That said, it’s difficult to imagine that many private citizens would get away with shooting someone simply for handling a firearm in a situation like this.

    It’s not the same. Cops have a duty to confront people breaking the law. Other citizens do not.

    Patterico (c60007)

  89. It’s still hard to get past the fact that an officer fired multiple times into a car with a little girl sitting in it.

    I’m not sure what difference that should make if an officer thinks he is in danger.

    Patterico (c60007)

  90. @92 Leviticus

    There are plenty of videos out there of off duty and out of town cops getting out during a traffic stop and arguing with the other LEO’s.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  91. The TSA vigorously searches little kids with cancer and in wheelchairs so why should a kid in a car seat get a pass on scrutiny?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  92. Patterico

    In general, what is your opinion on these pretext stops? Is there an alternative? Are they big government where the rubber meets the road?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  93. “Gun-touching”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  94. 87, thanks for the hat tip, Pin. Interestingly enough, I had to hit the local Oreillys to get a headlight bulb last night – made it by 9.57 ahead if 19.0000pm closing.

    urbanleftbehind (9db048)

  95. I’m not saying it was a good shooting, mind you. I’m saying the jury probably had more information than any of the rest of us.

    Patterico (c60007)

  96. “It’s not the same. Cops have a duty to confront people breaking the law. Other citizens do not.”

    – Patterico

    Assuming it’s not, for the sake of argument, there is also the frustration about the pattern of the dead.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  97. “Gun-touching”?

    – Beldar

    How would you characterize what Mr. Castile did?

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  98. I accept that there will be conflicting accounts of what he did, obviously, but we need to be very very careful about how low we set the bar for an “objectively reasonable” police killing.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  99. daddy please don’t it wasn’t his fault he means so much to me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. there is also the frustration about the pattern of the dead.

    There’s certainly a pattern to the dead that make the national news. But whether that’s a fair representation of police shootings as a whole remains unproven.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  101. It would help if they kept stats, I think.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  102. trading cards

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. I’m saying the jury probably had more information than any of the rest of us.

    Patterico (c60007) — 6/20/2017 @ 4:04 pm

    That’s true.

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. It would help if they kept stats, I think.

    Ha, the NRA doesn’t agree with you.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  105. Ha, the NRA doesn’t agree with you.

    Let’s see a link where the NRA has come out against keeping stats on police shootings.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  106. It’s not the same. Cops have a duty to confront people breaking the law. Other citizens do not.

    When a confrontation over a broken tail light leads to the death of an innocent citizen. Something in the system is very broken. As citizens we should be asking very serious questions about the training and recruitment of officers given license to bring deadly force to bear on our behalf.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  107. Ditto #100.

    @ Leviticus (or anyone; I address this not just to him but to anyone else capable of discussing it civilly, of course):

    I think I understand what you mean by the “pattern of the dead.” I’m not arguing that there is no pattern. I see all sorts of patterns in modern American society that concern me every day. And I’m guessing you might know, or know of, or will quickly watch, the song from the musical play Avenue Q about how everybody’s a little bit racist. “No one’s really color-blind/It’s a fact we must face.” I associate myself with its lyrics. So with those premises, upon which I hope we can agree (at least for purposes of argument, perhaps? and I will entertain suggestions for revisions):

    Why is it that the left assumes the sources of these disturbing patterns, their underlying problems, are things that ought to be — or even can be — solved by government, instead of by individuals and their miscellaneous and diverse voluntary associations, all of which have in common with each other that they don’t ultimately compel things at bayonet point?

    I hear people assert that there is still “systemic racism” within government. Well, no one can reasonably doubt that there are varying degrees of systemic racism within the individuals who put on their pants one leg at a time and go to work for a government paycheck every day, including our police. But for the life of me, I can’t spot anything else that needs to be changed with the way our government works to prevent further Fourteenth Amendment violations against blacks. And I see instead a whole lot of deliberately race-based, supposedly “remedial” policies and rules and proposed legislation and public rallies and movements and social media and talking heads — all of which seem to me to have in common that they want to have the government sort citizens by race.

    What is it specifically, then, that you want to do to change governments — rather than hearts and minds of its citizenry — to improve on the disturbing patterns we see in society? Do you have some suggested changed to government which you think might reduce the comparatively high death rate of blacks per capita in police-involved shootings, for instance?

    The idea of Obama’s DoJ swooping in to take over local police departments scared the crap out of me with the precedent it set. Whatever those people were doing, trying to help defuse racial tension was not one of them, and they’ve generally had the opposite effect IMHO.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  108. We do have some data, Leviticus. The Washington Post has been keeping stats for two years, and analyzed it from the standpoint of shootings by race adjusted by population.

    On the other hand, Heather Mac Donald of The Volokh Conspiracy took the same data and argued the appropriate method to analyze it is shootings by race adjusted by crime rates:

    In fact, as of July 9, whites were 54 percent of the 440 police shooting victims this year whose race was known, blacks were 28 percent and Hispanics were 18 percent, according to The Washington Post’s ongoing database of fatal police shootings. Those ratios are similar to last year’s tally, in which whites made up 50 percent of the 987 fatal police shootings, and blacks, 26 percent. (The vast majority of those police homicide victims were armed or otherwise threatening the officer.) But Butterfield could be forgiven his error, given the virtually exclusive media focus on black victims of police officers.

    Does the actual distribution of police victims confirm the Black Lives Matter allegation that policing is lethally biased? That depends on the benchmark chosen for assessing police actions.

    Typically, activists and the media measure police actions against population ratios. Given that blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, a 26 to 28 percent black share of police gun fatalities looks disproportionate. But policing should be measured against crime rates, not population percentages, because law enforcement today is data-driven. Officers are deployed to where people are most being victimized, and that is primarily in minority neighborhoods.

    In America’s 75 largest counties, comprising most of the nation’s population, blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants, and 45 percent of all assault defendants — but roughly 15 percent of the population in those counties. In New York, where blacks make up 23 percent of the city’s population, blacks commit three-quarters of all shootings and 70 percent of all robberies, according to victims and witnesses. (Whites, by contrast, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings in New York City and 4 percent of all robberies, though they are nearly 34 percent of the population.)

    DRJ (15874d)

  109. Chuck, you should make the effort to educate yourself. A simple Google search:

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en_US&q=nra%20opposes%20collection%20of%20statistics&newwindow=1

    Same applies to your doubt about the ‘pattern’ of police shootings.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  110. It’s still hard to get past the fact that an officer fired multiple times into a car with a little girl sitting in it.

    I’m not sure what difference that should make if an officer thinks he is in danger.

    Patterico (c60007) — 6/20/2017 @ 3:38 pm

    I’m not saying it should make a difference if that were the case. I’m saying it simply on a human level. Can we take a minute to do that even if the officer were found to have acted well within reason, and lawfully so? It’s simply hard to get past that – a little girl, with her whole life in front of her, was within a few, small feet of her father being shot and killed by a police officer. That’s a violent and tragic situation with a very long-term messy impact on her in days and years to come. And I’m glad to take a minute to think about that aspect of thir horribleness.

    Dana (023079)

  111. I think it’s the broken windows theory of policing, Spartacvs.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. When a confrontation over a broken tail light leads to the death of an innocent citizen. Something in the system is very broken. As citizens we should be asking very serious questions about the training and recruitment of officers given license to bring deadly force to bear on our behalf.

    That is a silly analysis. Go back and look at statistics or videos of cops who were killed and see what the reason for the initial stop was. It doesn’t matter. And to act as though it does is tendentious and does not aid rational discussion in the slightest.

    Patterico (c60007)

  113. As usual Spartacvs, no they wouldn’t. Annually guns are used more to deter crime than commit one. Over 200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend themselves. That’s just women. The US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world at 88.8 per 100,000, yet the gun homicide rate of 4.8 per 100k is lower than many countries that make gun ownership illegal.

    In fact FBI statistics (yes, they do keep stats, did you really think they didn’t?) show that states that have concieled carry reduced murders by and average of 8.5%, rapes by 5%, agg assault by 7% and robberies by 3%. In fact 4 out of 5 criminals asked said they were for banning guns. I’m sure even leftist idiots can figure out why.

    However, I would recommend that you remain disarmed. We don’t need more shootings of innocent Republicans by leftists who cannot control their natural aggressions.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  114. I’m not saying it should make a difference if that were the case. I’m saying it simply on a human level. Can we take a minute to do that even if the officer were found to have acted well within reason, and lawfully so? It’s simply hard to get past that – a little girl, with her whole life in front of her, was within a few, small feet of her father being shot and killed by a police officer. That’s a violent and tragic situation with a very long-term messy impact on her in days and years to come. And I’m glad to take a minute to think about that aspect of thir horribleness.

    I can agree that it’s sad. I don’t think that helps us assign or assess blame, though. Not that you were saying it does.

    Patterico (c60007)

  115. It’s more than broken windows DRJ. It’s a major source of funding local police forces and governments by focusing on target populations see Ferguson.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  116. Yes, let’s put the focus on the tail-light as if that’s the problem. Let’s ignore the cop’s duty to enforce laws, including those regarding tail-lights, or trivialize that duty. Let’s pretend that the triviality of the individual pieces in the chain of events leading to a tragedy somehow proves it wasn’t a tragedy, it was someone’s deliberate malice.

    That’s obscuring the issues in smoke, Sparty. That tail-light didn’t shoot anyone. It wasn’t anything’s proximate cause, it was just one of uncountable cause-in-facts. You’re using disingenuous rhetoric to make insinuations about facts you can’t prove, which makes you … DING DING DING! … the troll of this thread.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  117. I misspoke.

    It’s causes-in-fact.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. And there it is! Ferguson! Invoked ritualistically as a talisman by the very most disingenuous of Lefties as a self-proving example of something awful and horrible, something worth rioting over, something that was a national disgrace.

    It was a tragic shooting but a righteously, absolutely justified one. And it’s been willfully, continuously, and disgustingly exploited for partisan political purposes, including race-baiting and incitement of racial violence, by the Left. Are you going to tell us some lies about Ferguson, Sparty? You’ll get your hat handed to you, but that’s never stopped you from saying stupid things before.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. Does the FBI keep stats of police shootings, Hoagie? I’m not sure. I’d like to read it if you can find it.

    Spartacvs, using police enforcement to generate revenue is a problem in some communities. However, to me, that doesn’t undermine the theory behind the broken windows policing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  120. @117 Patterico

    It most certainly does matter. I dare say most interactions by law abiding citizens with law enforcement occur during traffic stops. Are we all subject to summary execution by trigger happy cops? Castille was a law abiding citizen going about his business (all be it with a broken tail light) when he was shot to death by a trigger happy cop in broad daylight with no provocation whatsoever. The officer is culpable as is the police force that trained him and the township that employed him. Perhaps it will take a few devastating civil judgments before those responsible for police recruitment and training take the issue seriously.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  121. It’s remarkable how quickly someone who argues in bad faith like Sparty can poison a civil discussion. I’m disgusted with him, but I’m finding a lot of other comments quite interesting. I’ll try to just ignore him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. Beldar

    Let’s pretend that the triviality of the individual pieces in the chain of events leading to a tragedy somehow proves it wasn’t a tragedy, it was someone’s deliberate malice.

    I’m not claiming deliberate malice on anyone’s part. I’m saying this was an instance of gross negligence, and not just by the individual police officer involved.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  123. And then I read: “Castille was a law abiding citizen going about his business (all be it with a broken tail light) when he was shot to death by a trigger happy cop in broad daylight with no provocation whatsoever.”

    Dear lord, even the prosecutors who just tried to convict Castille would retch at the prospect of trying to peddle that overblown and false line of garbage.

    There’s another pretty good indicator, in fact, of an appropriate boundary in civil discussion: If you’re arguing something so outrageous that even your side’s lawyers wouldn’t let your words be put anywhere near inside their mouths, then you’re a troll.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  124. Beldar. You are quick to fly off the handle and ascribe the worst motives to civil argument. I suggest you take a breather and play what’s in front of you not what you imagine confronts you.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  125. Castille was a law abiding citizen going about his business (all be it with a broken tail light) when he was shot to death by a trigger happy cop in broad daylight with no provocation whatsoever.”

    I assume you watched the video

    Law abiding citizen – check
    Shot to death – check
    Trigger happy cop – check – did you watch the video?
    No provocation – check

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  126. @ Spartacvs,

    It most certainly does matter. I dare say most interactions by law abiding citizens with law enforcement occur during traffic stops. Are we all subject to summary execution by trigger happy cops? Castille was a law abiding citizen going about his business (all be it with a broken tail light) when he was shot to death by a trigger happy cop in broad daylight with no provocation whatsoever.

    This is absurd. To suggest that Yanez was “trigger happy,” and that Castile played no part in what happened, is to not have watched the dash-cam video nor read the timeline of events, and to have relieved all capability and agency of Castile as an adult and citizen. One who went through required training to legally carrying a firearm.

    Dana (023079)

  127. How many shots did the officer fire Dana?

    What was the provocation that led the officer to discharge his weapon?

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  128. This seems a reasonable assessment (with our limited information):

    I see it as a tragic misunderstanding combining bad police tactics and poor judgment on the part of the passenger.

    Dana (023079)

  129. Chuck, you should make the effort to educate yourself. A simple Google search:

    You should read the links before you post them. The NRA is opposed to the Centers for Disease Control collecting stats on gun crime. It doesn’t say anything about collecting stats on police shootings, nor does it say anything about opposing the FBI or other law enforcement agencies collecting stats.

    People here aren’t as stupid and dishonest as you.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  130. I’m not off the handle, Sparty, but I do see your dishonesty. Anyone who can assert “no provocation” — a categorical, a pegging of the needle on something which is a major contested factual issue in the trial, which was the subject I’m sure of a large preponderance of the evidence and argument — is arguing in bad faith. I’ll call it when I see it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. Bad police tactics, training and recruitment. More than enough to justify a civil suit and a hefty judgment against the officer involved, the police force and township.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  132. It’s remarkable how quickly someone who argues in bad faith like Sparty can poison a civil discussion.

    Beldar, I’m pretty sure Spartacvs used to hang around here using the name imdw. You can see the same sort of dishonest argument and goal-post shifting in both.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  133. So what provocation justified the shooting Beldar?

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  134. I’m done with you, Sparty, on this topic. I’ve moved on to mocking you on another thread now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  135. I’m done with you, Sparty, on this topic. I’ve moved on to mocking you on another thread now.

    Pussy

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  136. Pussy

    I have never endorsed banning people on blogs, partly because once you start it’s a slippery slope of why-this-guy-not-that-one. But given that such has been the fashion here regarding never-never-trumpers, why those guys and not this one?

    WTP (094b61)

  137. Philando Castile: Taillight. Dead.
    Walter Scott: Taillight. Dead.
    Samuel DuBose: Front license plate. Dead.
    Eric Garner: Selling cigarettes. Dead.
    Freddie Gray: Riding his bike away from police. Dead.
    Sandra Bland: Failure to signal lane change. Dead.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  138. @133. Dana, that does seem a fair assessment.

    Obviously the adrenalin was pumping squeezing off seven shots at close range in rapid succession– but if memory serves, Yanez had to be scanning three individuals, Castile, Reynolds and a child in the back seat so his situational awareness was pretty full. It was just bad all around– and the current climate was just one more element in the back of everyone’s mind.

    @82. Yeah, Patterico, that gets your attention in life. Happened to me once- LAPD cops ‘in training’ out near LAX– at a stop sign of all places in the middle of the day, as I was going food shopping. The ‘new guy’ — apparently recent ex-military- was still jumpy given his stance– pulled his piece and took aim. Did what you did. My hands went up off the steering wheel for them both to see and I froze – both stunned an scared. Did exactly what they asked as his partner cooled him down; then an apology came. Then it was over. All of a minute but an encounter that stays with you for years.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. 142. Spartacvs (2db708) — 6/20/2017 @ 7:16 pm

    Philando Castile: Taillight. Dead.
    Walter Scott: Taillight. Dead.
    Samuel DuBose: Front license plate. Dead.
    Eric Garner: Selling cigarettes. Dead.
    Freddie Gray: Riding his bike away from police. Dead.
    Sandra Bland: Failure to signal lane change. Dead.

    In that list:

    Walter Scott was running away from that policeman. Now that did not give the policeman a right to shoot at him, but it was more than tailight problem. There was also a problem with the registration, and he faced being impirsoed for failing to pay child support which he couldn’t d because he kept on getting arrested and losing jobs, which did not affect the obligation imposed on him to pay child support.

    Eric Garner died as a result of asthma, which he tried to ignore (he didn’t have an inhaler) and/or a heart attack, and the police and EMS thought he was playing possum as a means of civil disobedience or protest, as people sometimes do. So he didn’t get medical help fast enough, or the right kind. Being taken down to the ground may have possibly triggered it. What the policeman did would not have killed a healthy person, and it only started the medical emergency with him. Now they could see he was fat and not that young, and they didn’t have to end the arguing so fast.

    Freddie Grey died because he was handcuffed in a police van, and stood up while the van was moving. Technically, the police were supposed to seat belt him – instructions had recently been issued to do that, but they weren’t taken seriously, and it was also sometimes impractical, which didn’t bother the people who issued the instructions.

    People have confused the issue because Freedie Grey also claimed earlier to need some assistance and then not.

    Sandra Bland committed suicide. She was not killed. She had no reason to. She maybe had heard too much about racism so she thought she was going to lose her job and maybe thought they’d frame her.

    Sammy Finkelman (8ac22c)

  140. Philando Castile: Taillight. Dead.
    Walter Scott: Taillight. Dead.
    Samuel DuBose: Front license plate. Dead.
    Eric Garner: Selling cigarettes. Dead.
    Freddie Gray: Riding his bike away from police. Dead.
    Sandra Bland: Failure to signal lane change. Dead.

    Spartacvs: rudeness to Beldar. Banned.

    Patterico (c60007)

  141. whaaaa?

    Mr. Spardapus is our new friend

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  142. If Ossoff had won no doubt a Trump bashing thread would be up and running already.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  143. @ blah,

    If Ossoff had won no doubt a Trump bashing thread would be up and running already.

    Blah (44eaa0) — 6/20/2017 @ 7:59 pm

    Are you suggesting that Handel won because of Trump? Perhaps she won in spite of Trump. Perhaps she won because Georgians didn’t take kindly to all that money pouring in from out of state to support someone who couldn’t even vote in the election because of where he lives. And perhaps, Handel won simply on her own damn merits and because she was the best candidate. Do you think that is possible?

    And I’ll add, since I’m a bit irritated with your implications, JVW put up a new post just a little while ago about an interesting matter in California. I put one up a brief one earlier about a foiled terrorist attack. Our host is on a post-trial vacation, and none of us get paid to do this. So when we write a post, especially an involved one, it takes a lot of time, energy and research. So maybe, just maybe, none of us have any of those in supply right now.

    Dana (023079)

  144. Perhaps she won in spite of Trump.

    Bingo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. Dana, Dana, Dana! Why disappoint poor Blah? Let’s give him what he wants.

    In November, the Republican won in Georgia’s 6th by 62-38. After only six months of Trump, the margin went down to 53-47. This was obviously a referendum on Trump and an early indicator of the damage he is inflicting on the Republican Party.

    nk (dbc370)

  146. In the Avocado thread, kishnevi points out that Trump carried the district by only 1.5% in November, to Price’s whopping 24%. Trump was a drag then — he squeaked through on Price’s coattails — and he’s a bigger drag now, is what it looks like to me.

    nk (dbc370)

  147. You see, Georgia’s 6th is the white suburbs of Atlanta, where the smart white people live.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. Well that’s one way to look atvit, the other is six months of combined. Gift has yielded gornusch.

    narciso (d1f714)

  149. Heh. nk, I put up a post about the GA election. Who am I to disappoint!

    Dana (023079)

  150. I’m teasing Blah. All politics is local, no matter how the Democrats are trying to spin their “moral victories” when they lose by only 6%. The House Republicans collectively got the highest percentage of the popular vote in November, higher than Trump, and even higher than Hillary.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. I wondered how David French would react to the video:

    The video reaffirms my opinion. The shooting wasn’t justified. It wasn’t reasonable.

    Dana (023079)

  152. Here is the transcript of the BCA interview with Yanez. Pgs 12-14 are interesting to read in light of the dash-cam video having been released.

    Dana (023079)

  153. That is interesting. If he considered the guy a robbery suspect he should have had him get out of the car, first thing. Not asked for license and registration. But again, it seems as though (according to the officer) the guy kept making furtive movements after the cop orders him not to reach for the gun. You don’t do that.

    Once again: juries have access to a wealth of facts that Internet readers don’t always have.

    Patterico (c60007)

  154. On page 10 (347-356), Yanez said:

    Um, I wanted to pay attention to that because we had a strong armed robbery last week uh which involved two African American males um, one having a firearm and pointing it at the clerk and then the other uh the victim told me that he also had a firearm but I wasn’t able to see it when the video was reviewed. Urn, so I was sitting at a intersection and I see a white vehicle. I can’t remember what kind of vehicle it was. Um but I see two occupants. What I believed was two occupants inside the car. And I couldn’t make out the passenger. But I knew the passenger had a hat on. And 1 couldn’t make out if it was a guy or girl. I just knew that they were both African American and the driver uh appeared to me that he appeared to match the uh physical description of the one of our suspects from the strong arm robbery, gunpoint.

    Then on page 11 (377-382) there is this by Yanez:

    And, I told him that the driver appeared to, match the physical description of our suspect from the strong arm robbery and I told him that I wanted to wait for Officer, I told Officer Kauser that I wanted to wait for him um for backup. Uh just in case cuz I didn’t know who I was pulling over.

    I just knew that the driver matched the physical description.

    If Yanez believed the suspect to be a possible match for having been involved in a strong arm robbery the previous week, wouldn’t that indicate to him that a strong likelihood of a gun being in the car (on the body of the driver or passenger)? And if so, it’s interesting that Yanez went right up to the driver’s window, took his hand off of his holster, leaned in before his partner is visible by the car (where he stands on the sidewalk in what seems to be an unconcerned manner).

    Is this how officers would normally approach a car with a possible suspect in a reported strong arm robbery?

    Dana (023079)

  155. The more people get killed by cops during a simple traffic stop, the more people will consider getting pulled over by cops a life-threatening event. That’s obviously not good for the police or anyone.

    I wish cops would stop asking for registration, since it is often kept in the glove compartment. Can’t police call it in to verify the car’s registration anyway? If not, maybe everyone needs to start keeping their registration in their wallet/purse instead. It would keep everyone safer. I’m going to start doing that.

    Tillman (a95660)

  156. 85. From Robert VerBruggen in National Review:

    “Bear in mind that if someone is drawing a weapon despite repeated commands not to, the officer is dead if he doesn’t react quickly.”

    Jeronimo Yanez was wearing a bullet roof vest, which would protect him , say 85% of the time even if a buller was fired.

    https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/County%20Attorney/Yanez%20BCA%20Interview%20Transcript%207.7.16.pdf

    From Line 107:

    JY I have a, pretty visible uh exterior vest carrier or bullet proof vest…

    Sammy Finkelman (8ac22c)

  157. 161. Tillman (a95660) — 6/21/2017 @ 7:31 am

    161.The more people get killed by cops during a simple traffic stop, the more people will consider getting pulled over by cops a life-threatening event.

    What was really life-threatening was mentioning he had a gun. This is clearly not always the best advice. If the officer won’t normally discover the gun, silence is better. But mention it before he does, if he is likely to. Except be careful what you are doing before you mention it.

    There should be another “rule”:

    After mentioning a gun, always make sure that it is not perceived as a threat. And also right before mentioning it.

    Also, apparently, per shipwreckedcrew at #27, mention where it is, and assure yourself that that officer understands where it is, or rather where you say it is.

    And when asked to get the license and registration, DO NOT do that; that is, do not go ahead and take the officer’s instructions literally and comply. But get confirmation that what you are about to do with your hands and other parts of your body is OK with the police officer. But don’t be too dramatic. This may help.

    Sammy Finkelman (8ac22c)

  158. That sounds like good advice Sammy. I always try to make sure my hands are in the officer’s plain sight at all times too.

    Tillman (a95660)

  159. The officer already had the paperwork although the driver had no license as it had been suspended.

    I assume you all have seen this video.

    If I had a gun in the car, I would keep my hands on the wheel throughout the stop.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  160. 165. Mike K (f469ea) — 6/21/2017 @ 10:37 am

    The officer already had the paperwork although the driver had no license as it had been suspended.

    So he knew he was going to be arrested? Searched? Or what? What happens? I presume he wouldn’t be allowed to drive off.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  161. In this interview with a juror, he said the initial vote was 10-2 for acquittal:

    Dennis Ploussard said the two jurors, who were white, were holdouts on acquittal. He said the jury spent an entire day breaking down the legal definition of culpable negligence before the two relented Friday afternoon.

    ***

    Ploussard told KARE 11 that there were “a lot of factors” that entered into the decision to acquit but “basically it was the way the law was written. We dissected it for at least five hours to put it in layman’s terms so we could understand it .. understand what it meant.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  162. Our host wrote:

    Once again: juries have access to a wealth of facts that Internet readers don’t always have.

    I emphatically agree. I’ll add that more than once, and I’d blush to say how often, I’ve seen juries catch pertinent factual details — important ones — when they’ve examined documents and physical evidence which none of the lawyers (including the judge) had previously noticed or argued.

    In one case, in particular, in interviewing jurors after their verdict, they pointed me to something they’d found which I and my opponent had missed. I made a mental note, and sure enough, after my opponent successfully appealed and got a new trial to take another bite at my client’s apple, that same bit of evidence was again offered, and again admitted into evidence without objection. I was able to exploit the fact that my opponent — a much more experienced jury trial lawyer who’d inexplicably stopped interviewing jurors! — hadn’t caught the point this time either:

    After the closing of evidence and the court’s charge to the jury, after my opponent had made his initial round of argument to the jury — and knowing he’d get one more very brief chance at rebuttal after I’d finished — I walked to the table on which the evidence was piled and picked up the particular piece of evidence that the first jury had flagged for me. “And if you have any doubt about how you should answer Question Number 3,” I said, “then if you don’t look at a single other piece of evidence closely back in the jury room, be sure to take a very, very close look at this piece — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25.” My opponent instantly went from having an unknown unknown to a known unknown: He knew I had him over a barrel, but he knew it would only make it worse if he went over to the table himself and started looking at that exhibit (it was a detail which wouldn’t be reflected in his copies, nor in mine, but only on the original). So he ignored it and blustered about something else even harder in his rebuttal.

    And yeah, the second jury reacted to this piece of evidence exactly the same way the first one did.

    Don’t — do not — underestimate the abilities of twelve citizens, good and true, drawn from the community. I believe in this system, not because it’s perfect, but because it’s the best anyone’s come up with yet, and properly appreciated it has some amazing merits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4641 secs.