It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police audio: Officer stopped Philando Castile on robbery suspicion

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The audio has been released and the rumors have been confirmed. From the Star Tribune:

Police audio: Officer stopped Philando Castile on robbery suspicion


Police recording doesn't cover shooting itself.


Specifically, there are 103 seconds missing between the end of police audio and the beginning of the passenger's live streaming.


The officer decided the car looked suspicious. He radioed to a nearby squad that he was going to pull it over and check IDs of the driver and passenger.

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” he said casually, according to police audio obtained by the Star Tribune. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just because of the wide-set nose. I couldn’t get a good look at the passenger.”


Apparently, the officer(s) may not have followed proper protocol for the more risky felony stop than a simple traffic stop:


Albert Goins, an attorney who assisted the Castile family in the hours following the shooting, said that if Castile were indeed a robbery suspect, officers would have initiated a felony traffic stop, which “does not usually involve officers walking up to your car and asking you to produce your driver’s license.”

“A felony stop involves bringing the suspect out at gunpoint while officers are in a position of cover and having them lie on the ground until they can identify who that individual is,” he said.


I hope those who know better than me will confirm or refute that.

There are several audio files at the link:

Audio: Officers discuss stopping Philando Castile's car

Audio: Scanner report of shots fired in Philando Castile incident

Audio: Scanner audio of incident response to Castile shooting




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you once more for context.

Shouldn't "stop" be more like "murder"? at least "kill"



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you once more for context.

Shouldn't "stop" be more like "murder"? at least "kill"


It was sure the end result, but hopefully not the original intention.

It's the part about possibly not following proper procedure that bothers me most. If he presumably had reasonable cause to believe these were the armed robbery suspects, then he also reason to believe he was armed. But by not executing a proper felony stop, he put everyone's life at risk. Including the dead man.

I hope someone clarifies that for me.

And this is why we need better training and better practices for officers to use that will reduce risky situations for everyone involved.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Again, I wonder if they lied to Castile and Reynolds about the reason for the stop.

They were clearly still in the car in the video filmed after the shooting.

If they did lie, then the understanding between the two parties was completely different.

Telling the officer he had a gun during a routine traffic stop is a bit different than telling an officer he has a gun during a felony stop.
edit on 19Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:42:57 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Again, I wonder if they lied to Castile and Reynolds about the reason for the stop.


I'm pretty sure they did. Bad business.


They were clearly still in the car in the video filmed after the shooting.

If they did lie, then the understanding between the two parties was completely different.


These officers were approaching the driver as an armed felon in their head and heart... the driver just thought it was a simple traffic stop.


Telling the officer he had a gun during a routine traffic stop is a bit different than telling an officer he has a gun during a felony stop.


Yup. For everyone involved.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
its safe to assume those 103 seconds of missing audio will never see the light of day.

what a country!



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Pulling over robbery suspects alone, and suspects with a kid in the back seat? Do they train officers to be stupid or is that their excuse. This makes me really angry. It could have been anyone of us.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Pulling over robbery suspects alone, and suspects with a kid in the back seat? Do they train officers to be stupid or is that their excuse. This makes me really angry. It could have been anyone of us.


statistically, 'during traffic' stops, no. not any of us, but i dont want to drift.

if this was an open shut case, we wouldnt be where we are today. remember, no one is still guilty of any crime at this juncture. neither cop or suspect. and both deserve justice.
edit on 12-7-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
its safe to assume those 103 seconds of missing audio will never see the light of day.

what a country!


I really really hope you're wrong -- but I'm not holding my breath.

I was disappointed that the Star Tribune did not explain more about those minutes... why were they not released with the rest of the audio? Is there any more? Or was his mic turned off? Did the police retain them pending completion of the investigation? Does the Star Tribune have them?

So many questions answered... so many new questions raised.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


Do they train officers to be stupid or is that their excuse.


Apparently the previous police chief wasn't especially concerned with proper procedures and safe practices.... this will have your hair on fire:

Gun Activist Says He Warned PD Involved In Philando Castile Shooting About Shady Traffic Stops



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
you should know that if a person, in this case the cops, are convicted in the court of public opinion, this case youtube, there is usually more to it than the prosecuting video recorder wants you to know.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz


if this was an open shut case, we wouldnt be where we are today.


It might be... we just don't have all the information yet. And I'm always suspicious of selective leaks and releases from the agencies investigating their own.


remember, no one is still guilty of any crime at this juncture. neither cop or suspect.


I have to respectfully disagree. There is no doubt that an officer took a life... that he absolutely violated a person's inalienable right to life. He is already guilty.

However, because he also has an inalienable right to life -- and to defend that life -- he has a right to offer evidence to justify taking that life in defense of his own.

In my opinion, based on what I know, by initiating the confrontation in the manner he did, this officer contributed and/or created the dangerous situation. I do think he has some criminal liability. Definitely not first degree murder charges. He didn't wake up that morning and say, "I think I'll murder Philando Castile." But lesser charges, such as reckless manslaughter.

However, I think he could also make a very good case that his superiors were actually negligent in proper training and procedures, thereby jeopardizing the lives of every officer and citizen.


and both deserve justice.


Definitely. But at this point, we know that one party is dead and the other party killed him. We have to wait to find out exactly what that justice should look like.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Do we know if there were dash cams and if the cop was recording audio? I'm very much on the fence with this one.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I thought the female was driving.

She is on the driver's side while he bleeds out on the passenger side..



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

the officer is innocent of any wrong doing until proven guilty, as was the suspect/victim. ( in this country)


its not an open shut case, otherwise i suspect one side would be quick to show that the officer was right and daemonize the suspect with even more onslaught.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: baddmove

Camera flipped the image. It confused the crap out of me the first 30 seconds. I was wondering where they found a right hand drive car that big.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

I don't think the cop shot him because he judged him guilty. I think they were on high alert after an armed robbery and when he had a gun in his lap it pretty much would put anyone on edged. then he moves to get ID and paper works touches the gun. I mean the cop is not a mind reader. He can only go by body language at that point.

But if you were the cop and you approached a suspect and he had a gun in his lap and moves in a way to take hold of it what would you think?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: baddmove
I thought the female was driving.

She is on the driver's side while he bleeds out on the passenger side..



She was not. What you saw was reversed.... He was the driver



But heres my point of the whole thing... "Wide set nose" and " I couldnt get a good look at the passenger" but " They look like two people involved in a robbery"


This folks, is police talk covering up a prejudiced traffic stop. Its to cover his ass in case the driver should sue for being racially profiled in case he tried to fight ' the ticket'. The problem in this case was 'the ticket' was murder. There is no way in hell that cop thought he was pulling over a robbery suspect based on 'wide set nose' and ' cant get a good look'. And this is further proven by the fact that he in no way approached the car under a possible felony suspect procedure.


Nevermind the fact that there was a child in the car. Thus negating any robbery suspicions.

Give. Me. A. Break.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: odzeandennz

I don't think the cop shot him because he judged him guilty. I think they were on high alert after an armed robbery and when he had a gun in his lap it pretty much would put anyone on edged. then he moves to get ID and paper works touches the gun. I mean the cop is not a mind reader. He can only go by body language at that point.

But if you were the cop and you approached a suspect and he had a gun in his lap and moves in a way to take hold of it what would you think?
The gun was sitting on his lap now?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1


Do we know if there were dash cams...


There was a dash cam; the video has not been released.


...and if the cop was recording audio?


I don't know. I have not been able to find a source for the audio. Does the dash cam have audio?


I'm very much on the fence with this one.


Given what we know, I believe the officer could have and should have done better. I don't want to see the officer hung out to dry though. I want better training and practices, that reduce risks for all parties involved.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join