Falcon Heights MN: Woman Films Scene After Police Shoot Her Boyfriend

[Watrdawg]

I don't see this as an infringement upon 2A rights. Not taking any positions since I wasn't there but listening to and viewing the tape leads me to a couple of thoughts. Definitely a training issue, a communication issue between the two and of course we all know a person was shot and killed. To me a 2A rights issue would have occurred if lets say they ticketed this guy and he was not under the influence of any kind and then they pulled his CCW permit and denied him his 2A rights because of a broken tail light.
That's a 2A issue. Denying him his right to keep and bear arms for a bogus reason. My example may be very basic but it illustrates my point. What happened here has nothing to do with 2A rights.

[SomeOtherGuy]

To that end, RE the second part of my post:
"I have no issues with making sure the LEO and myself are kept safe per making sure ID, etc handy and all that, but should an officer decide to handcuff me "for his own safety" would not be OK. I have heard of that happening to people. Putting someone in handcuffs while legally CCWing having broken no laws because the LEO decides it makes he/she feel better would be infringing on my 2A Rights in my view. I do not want to be treated like a criminal having broken no laws because the LEO simply does not trust me."
Thoughts on that?

This is a difficult issue because officer safety is a valid concern and short term stops have been held OK if based on a variety of acceptable reasons. If an officer thinks you look dangerous to start with, you disclose a concealed pistol and they then either take the pistol or handcuff you for their safety, well it's going to be a violation from your perspective and reasonable from theirs. In this fact pattern 99.9% of courts are going to side with the officer.

As a matter of legal theory, hard to put into real-life practice, if an officer did anything adverse to you solely because you were legally armed, that would be an obvious 2A violation. However, in the real world, any officer is going to have some claim that it was not SOLELY because you were legally armed, but for some other reason that has been deemed valid, and a court's interest is going to end there.

This could be a fun discussion for a law school class session but I don't see it producing much of meaning in the real world. The only way I could see that happening is if an officer or department has an extremely blatant practice that can be proven to be unjustified on the basis of being applied on a routine basis to absolutely immaculate witnesses, elderly preachers and the like. I believe there have been a handful of legal victories against departments that took the position of stopping and harassing all open-carrying people, and arresting some of them, in areas where it was expressly legal and circumstances where there was no plausible threat. On the one hand I applaud the OC types for defending their rights, on the other hand there are multiple reasons I'm not among the OC crowd or interested in getting closer to them.

I don't like this result but it's my sense of how things would work under current law articulated by courts.

[Bulletdog]

Thoughts on that?

My thoughts on that: This goes back to the mistaken notion that everyone with a gun is a bad guy, or should be treated like a bad guy. A large percentage of our population, including some police officers, are completely ignorant about guns, gun laws, gun rights, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights in general. Our public schools and the media are working hard to insure that those people remain ignorant. Being treated poorly because you are legally carrying is a direct result of this ignorance and the resultant fear that comes with such ignorance.

Two unrelated thoughts strike me on this topic:
1. I went to a large public high school. After graduation, several classmates went on to become police officers. I've asked several other anti-gun former classmates if they are okay with our friends and former classmates carrying a gun around on their hip all day while they do their jobs as police officers. The answer is universally "yes". I then ask if they are ok with me carrying one around. Its usually "no".

Them: "You don't need one".

I reply that most days neither does our officer friend, and how could they know if I will need one or not? Then we get into the "why" a civilian like me might need one.

Me: Why is it okay for them, but not me or you?

Them: Well because he is trained and you aren't.

Me: What If I went and got the same training he has received?

Them: No.

Me: What If I told you that I already had 10 times the amount of training that he received at the academy, and I practice weekly?

Them: No.

Me: Why not? You've known me for years. Do think think I'm going to just randomly open fire on someone, and our police officer friend is somehow magically immune to this affliction that will suddenly possess me?

Them: Well… ummm.. uhhh…

Me: Why don't you want the good guys to be armed? Do you not think I'm a good guy? What magical powers did our friend pick up in the Police Academy that I don't possess?

From here they either start to see my point and capitulate, or they get angry and start yelling insults. A small percentage will attempt to weasel out of the conversation by explaining that its just how they "feel" about it, and that is when I explain that their irrational, baseless fears do not get to dictate public policy and affect my safety and the safety of my family...

Thought 2:
While traveling through LAX one time, the officer at the check point into the airport asked if we had any guns, explosives, etc… in the car. I told him that I had a unloaded pistol legally locked in a hard sided case, locked inside my luggage. We had to pull over, get out, check IDs, run serial numbers, etc… When everything came back clean and in order, the young officer refused to give back my gun, exclaiming "We can't let you go into the airport with a gun..." I asked why not. "Because…" In a tremendous stroke of good luck, his Sargent walked over upon seeing the commotion and inquired as to what the problem was. Sarge listened to the young man and before I could even interject, he ordered the officer to return my gun. Still the young man hesitated. "Give him back his gun or I will, and you'll be relieved of duty pending further education". With sweaty, shaky palms my gun was handed back to me and I was free to go, as the Sarge shook his head with obvious disdain for the rookie.

By pure dumb luck, the Sarge shared the same last name as a good friend of mine. I asked. He was my friend's cousin. I thanked him for his service and complimented him on the good sense that apparently runs in his family.

[TAZ]

I don't see how this is a 2A issue. Probably why the NRA or any other larger 2A organization hasn't jumped in. Not sure which organization did so.

Not sure what he handed the officer, but if it was his license and registration what was he reaching for? Did he give the officer his LTC so the cop knew he was legal?

I see the cop put his hand on his gun after Castile tells him he has a gun. Not an unusual thing, especially given they were looking for an armed robbery suspect. Cop tells Castile to NOT reach for it. Cop then reaches into the vehicle as if trying to control Castile from reaching the gun. Then he shoots him.

I have no idea what went on inside the car, but a jury didn't find anything to convict upon.

I don't believe that Castile was shot because he was exercising his 2A rights. Based on what is available, I feel that Castile was shot because he did a number of stupid things at the same time. Kind of like violating multiple safety rules. The more you break, the harsher the end result.

Castile was STONED.

Castile was carrying a gun while STONED.

I think Castile was carrying a gun while stoned that wasn't in a holster.

Castile was driving a car while STONED.

Castile couldn't follow simple commands. Presumably cause he was stoned.

That's a lot of simultaneous stupid things to do.

This is the reason why when you're carrying a gun you must stay calm and use your HEAD.

I've been pulled over 2x with my gun since getting my LTC over 20 years ago. Both times I kept my hand on the wheel. Had all my paperwork ready in hand BEFORE the cop got to my window. Handed my DL, LTC and insurance when asked. Hands back on the wheel. Waiting for the officer to tell me what to do. Both times they just asked where it was I answered VERBALLY without moving my hands. Both times they said don't reach in that direction and I won't reach for mine. We smiled at each other and life went on smoothly. Now some people say that it's wrong to have to walk on eggshells cause you're armed and that's a 2A violation. I'm not in that boat.

If we start seeing cops cuff folks for having a legal gun on them or confiscating the legal guns. Yeah, that's where I begin to draw the line at infringement.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Yet you are discussing color and feeding into the bullshit as well.

You do realize the officer in question in this shooting is not White yet once again this shooting is being sensationalized that the victim was only shot due to his, well as you put it "color".

As far as "feeding bullshit" I'm not the one with a "#" and propagandizing another officer involved shooting for political turmoil.

[M Sadler]

The video shows what happens when a human being who's clearly not prepared for the situation he's in is overwhelmed by panic. The terror he displays is palpable.

Given the jury instructions, which are narrower than the crack on an ameoba's ass, it would have been stretch for the jury to convict. Yanez is done and will always be "that guy". The only bone I have to pick with the trial was the judges refusal to allow the jury to have a transcript of Yanez's testimony. He said that a review of evidence wasn't allowed and they must rely on their “recollection of the evidence”. While notes are allowed, even a juror who was copious note taker using short hand couldn't have transcribed his testimony. I'd hate to be a defendant or plaintiff in MN with this rule in place.

[kwelz]

The video shows what happens when a human being who's clearly not prepared for the situation he's in is overwhelmed by panic. The terror he displays is palpable.

Given the jury instructions, which are narrower than the crack on an ameoba's ass, it would have been stretch for the jury to convict. Yanez is done and will always be "that guy". The only bone I have to pick with the trial was the judges refusal to allow the jury to have a transcript of Yanez's testimony. He said that a review of evidence wasn't allowed and they must rely on their “recollection of the evidence”. While notes are allowed, even a juror who was copious note taker using short hand couldn't have transcribed his testimony. I'd hate to be a defendant or plaintiff in MN with this rule in place.

This hits on a lot of points that are ignored by others.

A few other points.
1: I am not sure what he handed the officer at first but it was confirmed he still had his ID on him and this was what he was reaching for.

2: One of the bullet wounds was too his right hand. Which means he couldn't have been reaching for the firearm and be shot in that hand.

3: You don't have to be white to show racial bias.


Now. Personally I think this has less to do with Race than it does with a cop who just didn't have the mindset to be a cop. He panicked. His body language and tone of voice show that. Castile sounded calm and collected. The officer was stuttering from the start.

I do think it is a 2nd amendment issue in one way. How the police interact with us. Would this interaction have gone the same way if he had been white? No clue. What I do care about is that a CCW holder with no criminal record was shot and killed in his car by an officer who appears to not know how to do his job.

[T2C]

Regardless of the experience, race, gender, mindset of the officer, were these two issues proven untrue in court? Did Philando Castile have a firearm laying in his lap? Did he fail to comply with instructions to not move? Does anyone have a link or links to court documents or video of court testimony that addresses these issues?

Were the points covered in this news story disputed in court? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNIWAGeHcSw

Unless you deal with high stress situations day in and day out, your voice may go up a few octaves when faced with someone who is armed, legally or not. If a firearm is present during a traffic stop, an officer may be a bit nervous.

[SHIVAN]

2: One of the bullet wounds was too his right hand. Which means he couldn't have been reaching for the firearm and be shot in that hand.

Sorry, but the facts and then the conclusion do not match.

This is all that fact tells us:

Fact: His right hand was struck by a bullet.
Conclusion: His right hand was struck by a bullet.

[wahoo95]

Looking for the info but I seem to recall Yanez himself first statements saying he didn't see a gun or know where it was but that seems to have changed by trial time.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk