It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:13 PM

originally posted by: Boadicea
Another confirmation:

Philando Castile's family reveals his gun permit

The family of a man shot and killed by a Minnesota police officer last week has provided CBS Minnesota with a copy of his permit to carry a firearm.

The permit was issued by Hennepin County, where it is not considered a public record, but Castile's family obtained the document and provided it to CBS Minnesota. It shows that Castile received his permit on June 4, 2015.

There is a pic of the letter accompanying the permit -- but not the permit itself -- at the link.

I'm very curious to know why the Sheriff of Ramsey County believed it was appropriate to tweet that their office had not issued his license. Since CC permits are not public records, and cannot be divulged, there would seem to be no good reason to say anything at all. But they did. On the one hand, it seemed to cast doubt on whether Castile even had a permit... on the other hand, it also seemed to confirm he had a permit by saying they did not issue "his permit."

Oh - thanks for that article.

Besides the permit letter, look at something else in that article:

But attorney Thomas Kelly tells the Star Tribune newspaper that Officer Jeronimo Yanez thought 32-year-old Castile looked like someone police had been seeking in a recent robbery.
Kelly told The Associated Press that Yanez was reacting to seeing that gun when he drew his own weapon.

Ergo, no felony stop.

Yet, they radioed that they were stopping Castile because he resembled an armed robber?

Seems like more support for Reynolds' side of the story... which brings me again to this notion.
edit on 17Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:14:47 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:17 PM
a reply to: Greven

I'm pretty sure you're right. As sure as I can be. At this point, it's my working theory so to speak...

Everything about that stop was bogus and very poorly executed.

posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 06:51 PM

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: bknapple32

which he a permit for.

I've yet to see any actual proof he did. One news source said that someone told them that, they didn't even site them as being LE.

It also doesn't even really matter if he had a permit if he did something stupid with the gun during the stop. A permit lets you carry, not do something stupid.

The man held a job for 14 years working in the school system.

Let's not pretend being a lunch lady is indicative of moral fiber or good choices.

How about proof that the gun used in the robbery isn't the same one that Castile was carrying?

Because these guns really don't look like the same one:

e: Also compare it with this "gun"

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Really doesn't look like the one on the ground, does it?

The white sliver isn't a gleam from metal, but his shirt. That 'gun' blob looks more like the waist restraint from his seatbelt more and more.

NOTE: I've posted this here but figured this discussion might be worth its own thread so as to not distract from this one.

Then why is it so much darker than the upper part of the restraint? lighting in the vehicle looks uniform from above his right arm and below it after all. And his shirt is pretty white so why is there a dark line between his shirt and the "sliver of not gleaming metal" part of his shirt? For that matter why is the "sliver" slightly darker than the white shirt right next to it?

posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 06:55 PM
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I would ask that the discussion over the gun continue in that thread - I don't want to pollute this one.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 04:50 AM

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I would ask that the discussion over the gun continue in that thread - I don't want to pollute this one.

Alright fine. I see you have no rebuttal so I'll leave this safe space of yours.

edit on 14-7-2016 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 06:00 AM
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I see you have no rebuttal so I'll leave this safe space of yours.

That was neither necessary nor appropriate. You were invited to discuss the same topic by the same person... just on a more appropriate thread.

It's called following T&Cs -- remember those? that you agreed to when you signed up? -- and not derailing a thread with off-topic matter. I'm not objecting to any talk about the weapon in this thread, but it's certainly more appropriate in a thread specifically devoted to the weapon.

If you choose not to accept that invitation, and in violation of the T&Cs, and your best shot is to snarkily accuse the other party of doing exactly what you are actually doing... well, it says more about you than the other party.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 06:04 AM

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I would ask that the discussion over the gun continue in that thread - I don't want to pollute this one.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness. I don't have a problem with the discussion here, but you're right that it's more appropriate in a thread specifically about the gun, and probably more posters interested in that thread than here.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 06:25 AM
a reply to: MOMof3

It could have been anyone of us.

For sure. If anyone here has not ever been pulled over, then you have no idea. Over the decades, we've been pulled over legitimately and pulled over for innocently being in a certain place at a certain time but it didn't look innocent to law enforcement.

One memorable event occurred at a border crossing in the early 1980s, when we fit the profile of someone who would bring drugs into Canada; we were being questioned but immediately let go when our 3 year old stuck his head through the curtain over the camper cab window and sleepily asked what was going on.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: desert

Your comment reminded me of an experience that could have gone very badly if the cops had twitchy fingers....

The police had come to my door, and I stepped outside to speak with them because my dogs were going crazy of course. They asked me if I owned a Jeep, I said yes. They asked me where it was, I said my husband had gone to get dinner for us. They started asking me for his name, description, where he went, etc... I was sure they were going to tell me that he had an accident and was dead and they were just confirming they were at the right house. Just as I started to really freak out -- shaking and crying -- my husband pulled up to the house. So my freakout was over (although now I was crying from relief!).

Turns out that another Jeep we had sold a couple years before had been used in a liquor store robbery by some kids. The buyer had never transferred title so they came to us. It would never ever in a million jillion years occur to me that my hubby was out committing crimes... so the only possible reason I could think of for the police being there was that he had been hurt or killed. Later (probably after watching the news or reading ATS!) it occurred to me that if those officers had twitchy fingers and I made one wrong move -- especially given my agitated state -- they could have easily killed me right then and there and said, "Well, we were investigating a robbery and she was acting suspicious and we thought our lives were in danger." And they would have gotten off scotfree. But what was going through their heads and what was going through my head was very very different.

posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 08:02 PM
July 20, 2017

The officer's dashcam footage was released today.

Looks to me like he always wanted to shoot somebody.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in