RIOT WATCH Minneapolis BREAKING Officer Yanez NOT GUILTY in shooting of Philando Castile

originally posted by: Edumakated

we know him and Lavish Diamond like to smoke weed from her social media posts, so maybe they were high and didn't understand the officer's commands.

Are you alleging that he couldn't understand the officer and the reason being he smoked cannabis? It doesn't work like that. I've seen people with horrible reaction to cannabis but they aren't typical users... and the worse case has always tied at a panic attack.

I'd hope you haven't dealt with people with worse reactions but at that point, I'd question if they took a laced bag.

a reply to: JinMI

Not true. The only thing Yanez had was Catile's proof of insurance.

In the HCMC emergency department, medical personnel recovered a holster and wallet from one of Castile's pockets, although it was unclear which pocket these items were in at the time of the shooting. In Castile's wallet was his Minnesota Driver's License and his Permit to Carry a Pistol.

SOURCE

So if Yanez had Castile's license then why was it still in his wallet upon arrival to the hospital?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

There was a camera involved in this. It sorted the actual mess out.

Edit: Do Not Star This Post.


Why would you make that up?

There was no police issue camera, the whole case was based on testimony not video evidence.


Poor form.

Good. Maybe he should have listened when he took his cpl class on what Not to do when stopped by police. The rules are very clear.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm not saying that the officer should've been found guilty, I'm not even sure what charges he was facing. However, the idea that it is acceptable to shoot a man 7 times because he may be pulling out a gun is beyond me. If a normal person reacted that way they would be found guilty, no doubt about it. Why should we expect less from trained LEO's?

I don't expect to change your mind. Just wanted to note my disagreement.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Not true. There was dashcam footage that was not released to the public but used in the trial.

Dashcam footage from officer Jeronimo Yanez’s fatal encounter with Philando Castile was played publicly for the first time Monday, showing him fire seven shots about a minute into the traffic stop.

SOURCE

Oh, lord the police officers hunt season is about to begin, I guess in this time and age having a jury of your peers reach a verdict is not good enough if that verdict contradicts those that holds grudges and opinions.

It is what it is, the law has spoken.

Great.

Hillary and Bernie comrades have another so called reason to go destroy peoples property, assault citizens / cops, and act like morons.

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Not true. There was dashcam footage that was not released to the public but used in the trial.

Dashcam footage from officer Jeronimo Yanez’s fatal encounter with Philando Castile was played publicly for the first time Monday, showing him fire seven shots about a minute into the traffic stop.

SOURCE

Fair play, my apologies to Burdman.


Did it "clear up this mess" as was claimed?
Or was it unclear?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Though this is a local story, I was not at the courtroom so I couldn't speak for the content of the footage. And I'm unaware of whether that footage will be released to the public outside of a legal setting. I do expect a civil trial to follow these proceedings though so they may wait till that is finished to release further evidence used during trial.

a reply to: FraggleRock

Just to note...

I was referring to body cameras, not dash cams originally.

That's what is needed to clear these messy situations up.
Practically no one is opposed to them... but it hasn't been done.

Just leaves cases like this open to interpretation with only innuendo supplied by both sides of the argument.

The officer had a gun trained on Castile and Castile did not follow directions. I am not sure else he would have expected to happen. An officer can't take any chances - they have families to go home to as well.

It's pretty simple, if you are given an instruction by an officer with a gun pointed at you it is wise to comply and complain later.

a reply to: UKTruth

Do you know which instructions were not followed? He was instructed to get his license and he was instructed to not reach for his firearm. So if he was reaching for his wallet so he could comply with the instruction to get his license which instruction was violated?

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you know which instructions were not followed? He was instructed to get his license and he was instructed to not reach for his firearm. So if he was reaching for his wallet so he could comply with the instruction to get his license which instruction was violated?

Watch any video of a black guy being given instructions and you will see the clarity of it.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

What does any other situation have to do with the specifics of this one?

originally posted by: Edumakated
This is just a messed up case.

Mr. Castille was a suspect in an armed robbery. He wasn't necessarily the robber, but he "fit the description" and that was one of the reasons they were pulled over. The officer was already jumpy as a result.

Mr. Castille then allegedly told the officer he was armed and the officer told him not to reach for the weapon. Unfortunately, Mr. Castille did... we know him and Lavish Diamond like to smoke weed from her social media posts, so maybe they were high and didn't understand the officer's commands.

Regardless, this seems to fall under the not following instructions tragedy that is so common with these types of cases.

My issue is that the black community activists use these cases to bolster an argument for institutional racism and all we wind up doing is discrediting ourselves. Instead of waiting to see the actual facts of a case, we immediately jump to conclusions and hold up these questionable examples only to have them shot down. It helps no one.

He was a suspect in an investigation?

Did he know this?

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you know which instructions were not followed? He was instructed to get his license and he was instructed to not reach for his firearm. So if he was reaching for his wallet so he could comply with the instruction to get his license which instruction was violated?

He was told not to reach for anything after telling the officer he had a weapon, right?
Why did he tell the officer he had a gun and then reach into the glove box? Pretty stupid.

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

What does any other situation have to do with the specifics of this one?

Look at the video from last week of the black guy with a cpl permit. It went all wrong. They refuse to listen.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408


Fair play, my apologies to Burdman.


Did it "clear up this mess" as was claimed?
Or was it unclear?

No apology needed and no worries.

I thought it was fairly clear, after seeing there is a lot of uncertainty over whether the officer possessed the man's driver's license or not, it may not be as clear as I believed it was. That information is a new wrinkle I hadn't seen previously. It was my understanding that the man had no reason whatsoever to be reaching for anything and the woman's "he's trying to get his ID" was total BS nonsense. The dashcam doesn't clear that up.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Why has the officer been fired if he followed correct procedure? If he did nothing wrong, why is he out of a job now?