Philando Castile

[Bad Ninja]

I personally keep my DL and registration/insurance card readily available and always have it ready for the officer by the time he reaches my window, and I keep my hands on the steering wheel or easily visible at all times whether I have a gun or not.
It seems to always ease the officers mind.

Mr Castille could have reacted differently and it may have saved his life.
The officer appeared very nervous and unsure of what was happening and how to handle it.
It was a bad situation handled improperly by both parties.

 

[Bad Ninja]

I believe Castile was reaching for his gun. The reaction of the officer as he more emphatically repeated his command not to reach for it seems convincing IMHO. Yes, a horrible tragedy, but the officer was justified.
I understand I could be wrong.....others correctly posted here we cannot actually see what the deceased was doing, we can only infer it, as I admit I did, from what we can view and hear.

Castile made a bad mistake. If he really wasn't reaching for his gun, what was he doing to make the officer believe he was, and why couldn't he have stopped and asked the officer how to proceed? I know I repeat earlier sentiments; he should have done this first, before he moved.
The officer was obviously shocked badly by this. I feel bad for him, and also Castile's family.

I do not believe a CCW carrying, non felon was going to draw on a LEO at a traffic stop seconds after informing the LEO he had a firearm.
The Officer may have thought he was reaching for the gun in the moment as he did not have time to really assess the logic of the situation in a high stress split second, but we do.
He was reaching for his wallet.
Both men reacted improperly, thus a tragedy occured.

 

[CavalierLeif]

To make this statement, upon which your conclusion is based, you must ignore the contemporaneous statements made by Castile's girlfriend inside the car in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in which she affirmatively states that Castile was following the officer's instructions to retrieve his wallet.

To clarify, what I meant was that once Castile notified the officer that he was concealing a firearm, THEN the officer instructed him not to move.

 

[Hanzo581]

I believe Castile was reaching for his gun. The reaction of the officer as he more emphatically repeated his command not to reach for it seems convincing IMHO. Yes, a horrible tragedy, but the officer was justified.
I understand I could be wrong.....others correctly posted here we cannot actually see what the deceased was doing, we can only infer it, as I admit I did, from what we can view and hear.

Castile made a bad mistake. If he really wasn't reaching for his gun, what was he doing to make the officer believe he was, and why couldn't he have stopped and asked the officer how to proceed? I know I repeat earlier sentiments; he should have done this first, before he moved.
The officer was obviously shocked badly by this. I feel bad for him, and also Castile's family.

So if you say he was reaching for his gun, that means a law abiding CCW permit holder was going to what, shoot the cop? For what?

 

[wally]

What is missing from all this discussion is the truth or falsehood of the allegations that Castile was a drug (marijuana) user. This would make his buying a firearm a felony having committed perjury on the 4473 the and him having a "permit" fraudulent obtained. Of course the officer had no way of knowing it makes it moot for his behavior, but this would be far from the first time a doper made a bad decision that cost them their life.

The bit about him saying he had a gun and then failing to obey the instructions "not to move" make me instinctively side with the officer. I agree with others who weren't in the jury box that we are speculating, but to me, the most important issue of a possible bad decision by a drug abuser and the officer vilified for it is being ignored.

 

[Hanzo581]

I could not possibly care less if he was a marijuana user. Alcohol is a billion times more destructive and dangerous but you don't see them asking that on a 4473. And this is coming from someone that's never touched weed. Unless a toxicology report said he was under the influence at the time it is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Bad Ninja]

What is missing from all this discussion is the truth or falsehood of the allegations that Castile was a drug (marijuana) user. This would make his buying a firearm a felony having committed perjury on the 4473 the and him having a "permit" fraudulent obtained. Of course the officer had no way of knowing it makes it moot for his behavior, but this would be far from the first time a doper made a bad decision that cost them their life.

The bit about him saying he had a gun and then failing to obey the instructions "not to move" make me instinctively side with the officer. I agree with others who weren't in the jury box that we are speculating, but to me, the most important issue of a possible bad decision by a drug abuser and the officer vilified for it is being ignored.

4473
Question 11e

b.) You are addicted to marijuana, any depressant, any stimulant, any narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.

A prescription for pain meds, sleeping aids, or any medicine listed as a controlled substance whether prescribed or not, would require a "yes".

Answering "no" doesn't mean someone is going to draw on a LEO for no reason after advising said LEO of his legal weapon.

 

[CavalierLeif]

What is missing from all this discussion is the truth or falsehood of the allegations that Castile was a drug (marijuana) user. This would make his buying a firearm a felony having committed perjury on the 4473 the and him having a "permit" fraudulent obtained. Of course the officer had no way of knowing it makes it moot for his behavior, but this would be far from the first time a doper made a bad decision that cost them their life.

The bit about him saying he had a gun and then failing to obey the instructions "not to move" make me instinctively side with the officer. I agree with others who weren't in the jury box that we are speculating, but to me, the most important issue of a possible bad decision by a drug abuser and the officer vilified for it is being ignored.

"Doper" is a funny word. Do you call everyone who drinks an "alcoholic"? If Castile was under the influence at the time of the confrontation, only then do I see how this could come into play - and hardly as a justification of a shooting.

 

[psyopspec]

To clarify, what I meant was that once Castile notified the officer that he was concealing a firearm, THEN the officer instructed him not to move.

I heard no such instruction in the video.

Castile was asked to retrieve X. He announced he had Y. The officer told him not to reach for it. Castile, in his mind, probably thought he was complying by not reaching for Y.

But at no time was there a command to cease action. Stop, freeze, hands where I can see them. These, unfortunately were not issued and a skittish man killed another man who probably thought he was doing the right thing. I wish you were right and those commands of inaction had been used since they might have changed the outcome.

 

[JTHunter]

My quick take:

Officer panicked, and made a massive mistake.

The jury, letter of the law, made the decision that fit the evidence available (There was reasonable doubt). The outcome was likely correct legally, but possibly not morally.

Philandro probably could have reacted differently, as could the officer.

All of that is just based off the evidence available. My heart says there probably should have been a conviction, my head says there was probably reasonable doubt simply based on the lack of evidence.

And that is probably why the officer was "discharged" from the department.

 

[CavalierLeif]

I heard no such instruction in the video.

Castile was asked to retrieve X. He announced he had Y. The officer told him not to reach for it. Castile, in his mind, probably thought he was complying by not reaching for Y.

But at no time was there a command to cease action. Stop, freeze, hands where I can see them. These, unfortunately were not issued and a skittish man killed another man who probably thought he was doing the right thing. I wish you were right and those commands of inaction had been used since they might have changed the outcome.

Semantics play a great part in this. It's one thing to look at the situation from one side versus the other. It's another to weigh one side against the other in the moment (as adversarial as that reads) and that's why I started this thread - it's a very difficult situation to reconcile, and I appreciate all input regarding the interpretation of justice.

 

[wally]

4473
Question 11e

b.) You are addicted to marijuana, any depressant, any stimulant, any narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.

A prescription for pain meds, sleeping aids, or any medicine listed as a controlled substance whether prescribed or not, would require a "yes".

This is incorrect. Using opioids etc. as prescribed within their medically warranted purposes does not make one an addict. "Doctor shopping" to get medically unneeded prescriptions or going to the black market is what makes one an "addict" who'd need to answer "yes".

Legal definition of addiction, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/addiction/ :
Addiction refers to the chronic or habitual use of any chemical substance to alter states of body or mind for other than medically warranted purposes. Common addictions are to tobacco products, drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography.Traditional definitions of addiction, with their criteria of physical dependence and withdrawal have been modified with increased understanding and the introduction of new drugs, such as cocaine.

"Medical marijuana" is a particularly sticky wicket as Federal Law currently stands. The current situation is untenable and should be addressed by a national debate and legislation from congress, not decided by appointed judges.

Personally I believe the pharmacies should be opened up and the medical profession returned to their role as advisors instead their current role as gatekeepers. As to the "dopers", let them die happy on USP pure drugs at fair market prices -- the gene pool is in dire need of some chlorine.

 

[Tommygunn]

So if you say he was reaching for his gun, that means a law abiding CCW permit holder was going to what, shoot the cop? For what?

You and Bad Ninja bring up good points. I offered my opinion with the admission I could be wrong.
Put yourself in the officer's position; you stop a man, he states he has a gun. He goes for it with his hand~~~apparently. It's claimed by others that it was his wallet. In fact let us stipulate he was, in actual fact, reaching for his wallet. But, what has just been brought up?
The Man is armed and he's reaching for it, and he is ignoring orders not to. That must have been what was in the officer's mind. Maybe Castile actually continued reaching for his wallet because he knew he was going for the wallet, not the gun, and thus felt he wouldn't be shot because the officer would see his wallet and then not shoot.
Maybe.
But you see how the facts can be reinterpreted another way?
In court, guilt must be proven by the prosecutor beyond a "reasonable doubt." Unfortunatly, that was impossible to do, and IMHO, the jury reached a legally valid verdict. Remember, not guilty does not mean innocent. It means the jury only could not get past reasonable doubt in this case.

I never claimed omniscience. I wasn't there, everything I've posted COULD be wrong.....but I remain behind what I've stated until facts show I really am wrong.

 

[Hanzo581]

You and Bad Ninja bring up good points. I offered my opinion with the admission I could be wrong.
Put yourself in the officer's position; you stop a man, he states he has a gun. He goes for it with his hand~~~apparently. It's claimed by others that it was his wallet. In fact let us stipulate he was, in actual fact, reaching for his wallet. But, what has just been brought up?
The Man is armed and he's reaching for it, and he is ignoring orders not to. That must have been what was in the officer's mind. Maybe Castile actually continued reaching for his wallet because he knew he was going for the wallet, not the gun, and thus felt he wouldn't be shot because the officer would see his wallet and then not shoot.
Maybe.
But you see how the facts can be reinterpreted another way?
In court, guilt must be proven by the prosecutor beyond a "reasonable doubt." Unfortunatly, that was impossible to do, and IMHO, the jury reached a legally valid verdict. Remember, not guilty does not mean innocent. It means the jury only could not get past reasonable doubt in this case.

I never claimed omniscience. I wasn't there, everything I've posted COULD be wrong.....but I remain behind what I've stated until facts show I really am wrong.

I mean I have never been a cop, unless we have we can only guess what was going through his head. I can only go by general logic. Do "bad guys" announce they have a gun to police often?

 

[Tommygunn]

I mean I have never been a cop, unless we have we can only guess what was going through his head. I can only go by general logic. Do "bad guys" announce they have a gun to police often?

Probably not, but people of all persuasions lie to police a lot, and police sometimes respond to actions in spite of words.

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.....and people don't always behave logically.
With Castile dead, we'll never know the full truth....we can only infer, deduce, and guess what is not in the record.

 

[Bad Ninja]

This is incorrect. Using opioids etc. as prescribed within their medically warranted purposes does not make one an addict. "Doctor shopping" to get medically unneeded prescriptions or going to the black market is what makes one an "addict" who'd need to answer "yes".

Legal definition of addiction, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/addiction/ :
Addiction refers to the chronic or habitual use of any chemical substance to alter states of body or mind for other than medically warranted purposes. Common addictions are to tobacco products, drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography.Traditional definitions of addiction, with their criteria of physical dependence and withdrawal have been modified with increased understanding and the introduction of new drugs, such as cocaine.

"Medical marijuana" is a particularly sticky wicket as Federal Law currently stands. The current situation is untenable and should be addressed by a national debate and legislation from congress, not decided by appointed judges.

Personally I believe the pharmacies should be opened up and the medical profession returned to their role as advisors instead their current role as gatekeepers. As to the "dopers", let them die happy on USP pure drugs at fair market prices -- the gene pool is in dire need of some chlorine.

If you have a running prescription for any controlled substance, for a chronic injury, or even insomnia you must honestly answer "yes".

If you regularly use alcohol you honestly must answer "yes".

That question is extremely vague for a reason.

 

[wally]

If you have a running prescription for any controlled substance, for a chronic injury, or even insomnia you must honestly answer "yes".

What is the basis for your assertion? I've quoted the legal definition of "addiction" that states " for other than medically warranted purposes" I see nothing vague about the question in 11e of the 4473.

There haven't been "running prescriptions" for controlled substances available for a long time. You are ignoring the legal definition of addiction and the part of it about other than medically warranted purposes. My sister has had three back surgeries and one neck surgery, she will probably use Percocet for the rest of her life but she is in no way an addict, the dose is not being increased by her doctor, she doesn't take any on "good days", she doesn't seek out multiple doctors or other sources for it. She would love to not need to take any. It is clearly medically warranted that she have it and she is a lawful user of it.

 

[drk1]

A similar trial -- an officer involved shooting of a person in a car -- concluded for the second time today in Cincinnati, Ohio. You might look into the Ray Tensing trail for some of the background and the officer's body cam footage. In this case, the officer reached into the car to turn off the ignition. The officer said that the citizen reacted by trying to drive away. As a result, he feared for his life as he believed he was being dragged by the car and was going to be seriously injured or die. The first jury was unable to arrive at a verdict. The second jury, which came back today, was unable to reach a verdict. There is already a very vocal and growing public demand for a third trial.

 

[climbnjump]

Castile was asked to retrieve X. He announced he had Y. The officer told him not to reach for it. Castile, in his mind, probably thought he was complying by not reaching for Y.

But at no time was there a command to cease action. Stop, freeze, hands where I can see them. These, unfortunately were not issued and a skittish man killed another man who probably thought he was doing the right thing.

Yes, a clear command to freeze - stop moving at that point might have allowed time to sort things out before they got "hinkey", as the officer called it during his BCA interview. On the other hand, how many of us here would continue digging around trying to find a wallet just after casually disclosing to a LEO that we were also carrying a firearm?

This wasn't Castile's first rodeo - he had racked up 46 prior stops - quite a few of them for driving on a suspended license. Should he have learned from prior experience how to react when stopped? Why did he disclose he was carrying a firearm at that particular instant? Was it because he realized his firearm was about to be exposed in the process of removing his wallet? Perhaps he actually HAD to expose the firearm in order to get to his wallet? If so, why didn't he communicate THAT to the officer?

At the time this event transpired last July, there were numerous FB and YouTube videos posted by Castile's GF showing the two of them smoking pot in their vehicle - some with the child in the back seat. It obviously wasn't something they were trying to hide. Those videos disappeared in the couple of days following the event.

The toxicology report did say that Castile had "high" levels of THC in his system, but due to the way THC is stored in tissues and migrates after death, they couldn't determine if he was actually high at the time of the stop. However, based on the videos and the toxicology report, it looks like he was a regular user.

Did Castile lie about his marijuana use when he filled out a 4473 for the purchase of his firearm? I guess we don't know. But did he also lie on his application for his MN carry permit? It also asks that question. If he did lie, then his much publicized "valid permit" wasn't actually valid. In any event, it didn't factor into the case one way or the other beyond being a talking point on the evening news. Castile hadn't told the officer that he had a permit, his GF mentioned it when she was taking the after-action video and it was found in his wallet later.

Regarding the jury verdict... Some folks are upset that justice wasn't served, others believe "the system" worked as intended. One thing to remember is that jury acquittal of the charges against the officer isn't the same as absolving him of any wrongdoing. It was just that the jury didn't believe the prosecution presented enough evidence to prove those specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Those of you who would like to see the officer punished in some way may still get your wish - the family says they will be filing a civil suit soon.

 

[goldpelican]

Monday morning quarterbacking whether or not someone had a history of drug use, or failed to disclose that on a permit application, is utterly irrelevant to the events that unfolded at the time of his death. The attending officers would not have known that, and even if they did, it doesn't make a lick of difference how to react. "Oh this guy smoked weed in the past, I can shoot him for something I wouldn't shoot a non user for".

 

[Bad Ninja]

What is the basis for your assertion? I've quoted the legal definition of "addiction" that states " for other than medically warranted purposes" I see nothing vague about the question in 11e of the 4473.

There haven't been "running prescriptions" for controlled substances available for a long time. You are ignoring the legal definition of addiction and the part of it about other than medically warranted purposes. My sister has had three back surgeries and one neck surgery, she will probably use Percocet for the rest of her life but she is in no way an addict, the dose is not being increased by her doctor, she doesn't take any on "good days", she doesn't seek out multiple doctors or other sources for it. She would love to not need to take any. It is clearly medically warranted that she have it and she is a lawful user of it.

Using the text of 11e and the legal definition you quoted, its quite clear unless you wish to debate the definition of "chronic" use.
Chronic use of prescribed controlled substances fits the legal definition of addiction and dependence.
See your link.
Chronic use of alcohol does as well.

Make no mistake a Dr's excuse does not relieve one of legal responsibility.

 

[DeepSouth]

The only thing I can say for sure is I'm glad I wasn't on the jury.

Fortunately I don't have to decide anything, and in this case I'm sure glad. It seems to be a terrible situation for everyone involved, no judgment from me.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

To make this statement, upon which your conclusion is based, you must ignore the contemporaneous statements made by Castile's girlfriend inside the car in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in which she affirmatively states that Castile was following the officer's instructions to retrieve his wallet.

There was no imperative to Castile to retrieve his wallet. Even if the question, "Do you have your license and insurance card?" can be interpreted as an imperative, those imperatives were overridden by the later imperative not to reach for "it" after the firearm was disclosed.

Only a fool would put too much weight in the druggie girlfriend's statements. Castile died as the only person really knowing what he was reaching for. Neither the druggie girlfriend nor the policeman who shot him could read his mind.

All concealed license holders should know that you can be killed if you give another person reasonable cause to believe they need to shoot you in self defense. Your real intent is irrelevant. If they have a reasonable belief you are about to bring death or great bodily harm to themselves or another, they can shoot you in self defense. Part of the burden of lawful carry is the burden to NOT ever give anyone else that reasonable belief.

Saying you are armed and then reaching where another armed party cannot see what you are reaching for is likely to give that other armed party great concern. The best practice is to have your license, registration, and insurance in your hand before a policeman steps out of his car on a traffic stop, to have your dome light on at night, and NEVER to put your hands where the officer cannot see them. Should you need to reach for something you did not anticipate needing during the stop, put your hands on the steering wheel, and ASK the officer if it is OK to reach (whereever) to retrieve a specific named item. If that makes him uncomfortable, talk about it calmly and figure out together how to proceed. You may need to step out of the car.

 

[armoredman]

The officer is no longer an officer - immediately after the verdict he was asked for his resignation. This also means he will have no union or city attorney backing him up in any civil suit. This speaks volumes about what the city council and mayor of St Anthony think what actually happened regardless of the verdict...and no verdict is set in stone - even SCOTUS has overruled itself in the last.
I wasn't there, I wasn't in the court room, and I can't really judge too well.

 

[Tcruse]

To make this statement, upon which your conclusion is based, you must ignore the contemporaneous statements made by Castile's girlfriend inside the car in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in which she affirmatively states that Castile was following the officer's instructions to retrieve his wallet.

I suspect that the "girlfriend" was part of the event that caused things to go wrong. She was moving and creating a distraction during the entire event, so not unreasonable to suspect that she could have a weapon and could be another major threat. She should have sat still and kept her hands in plain sight also.
Based on the reaction of the officer after the shooting I question that he should have been a police officer in that it appears that he could no behave in a acceptable and professional manner.
I do strongly object to any discussion that "skin color" had any thing to do with the shooting or affected the behavior of the officers.
I think Casile should not have been shot, but I agree with the jury that the officer's action did not rise to the level of a crime.
My experience with police in this area is that a "carry license" is considered a "good guy" indication.