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.


Officer Charged in Philando Castile Shooting

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: reldra

Obviously, this officer's life was never in danger, but an innocent man is dead because the officer "feared" it "might" be. Too very subjective words.

I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, it was a wrongful death. But I'm not sure the officer hasn't been wronged as well.

I would like to know how officers are trained to deal with legal gun owners/carriers. I would also like to know how gun owners are instructed to deal with LEO. It just seems to me that one way to avoid such unnecessary killings is to have a specific protocol or procedures that should be established, well known and understood by all parties, and practiced diligently.

I would also think that if there is not an established protocol, that the officer has some legitimate grievances against his department. I don't want to see individual officers held responsible for the gross negligence and incompetence (or worse) of the department. Especially now that low IQ officers specifically are being recruited and hired, that do not have the thought processes and reasoning skills to exercise good judgment in such situations. It's not like the LEO brass don't know that members of the general public are legally (and Constitutionally) carrying weapons and that officers will inevitably encounter such individuals. Officers also deserve to know when they have to use their firearms that they have done everything possible to protect life -- not endanger it.

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:23 AM

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Edumakated

I wonder what the description was that he matched?

Read the article I linked. It also includes pictures.

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:49 AM
Huh. An officer gets charged for a bad shoot and ATS barely registers it. Isn't that sooooo weird?

Looking at the sentencing guidelines my guess is if they manage to convict, he'll get several years probation and a hefty fine. I doubt he'd spend much time in a cell, if any.

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

as is the case for everyone who wrongfully kills someone else. a fine and a slap on the wrist. and thats if the killing wasnt justified.
at least he was still getting a paycheck this entire time up until now. the system is solid.

edit on 17-11-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 11:04 AM
a reply to: odzeandennz

Do you get suspended without pay whenever your boss thinks you MIGHT have done something wrong?


Thought not.

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:54 PM

originally posted by: Deny Arroganceircumstances.
If that is all they could come uo with for a charge, they have a very weak case.

You obviously haven't practiced much felony criminal law, have you? Charging only manslaughter is a very good tactical idea, not any indication of a weak case. Manslaughter is very, very much easier to prove than murder. To convict of murder requires proof, with the attendant risk of non-persuasion, of additional elements. A jury can hang on the instructions regarding premeditation and/or special circumstances. Murder, as the top count, is an all or nothing proposition. If, at the trial, the prosecutor asks the judge to also instruct on "lesser includeds" of manslaughter or negligent homicide, the weight of authority is that that defendant can object and prevent the jury from having that option. So, if the jury is not inclined to call the cop a murderer, he walks free. It is much easier to convict of a crime requiring only gross negligence and/or recklessness with a conscious disregard of the risk of death, than a crime requiring a premeditated intent to cause death. And yes I am a lawyer and former judge, now retired.

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:18 PM

originally posted by: Edumakated
TheConservativeTreeHouse has phenomenal research on this case. I'd suggest reading if you really want the details of what actually happened.

Castile Case

Long and short of it is that the victim was pulled over because he fit the description of an armed robbery suspect. He may not have been the suspect, but that is why the officer was probably jumpy to start. Throw in Castile not complying and you have a recipe for someone getting shot.

I can't say if it was justified or not, but I do know that the media isn't telling the entire story.

No, it wasn't "phenomenal research" but yet another failed internet detective on a witch hunt.

The gun was the bulge in shorts - the paramedics found it there as they were moving him later.

The thing in his lap is not a gun; could be a seat belt or wallet. Only one gun was recovered, so it wasn't a magical second gun.

They pulled him over under suspicion of armed robbery but failed to conduct the stop like a felony stop. This not only endangered their safety, but the safety of the people in the car. The cops were under a heightened state thinking it had an armed robber, while the civilians were thinking it was a normal traffic stop.

Castille's admission of having a gun triggered all the alarms for the heightened state of the cops, but he thought this was just another stop (of the many he has suffered).
edit on 13Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:22:31 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in