BLM: Falcon Heights police fatally shot man

[Wreckem]

What is coming out now is an entirely different story that the one we heard as narration on a video.

The reason the car was pulled over was not for a broken tail light. The car was pulled over because Castile matched the description of a man who committed an armed robbery at a convenience store several days prior.

There is no record of Castile having or applying for a concealed carry permit.

A careful look at the video will show that Castile had a handgun on his thigh and that it appears to match the handgun used in the armed robbery.

So, what's the truth? Perhaps not what you haven chosen to believe as you lick your lips hoping to benefit from this.

I'm going to refrain from voicing my disgust for you.

Seems like you are jumping to conclusions as well. You are basically assuming he was the armed robber when if he was you damn better believe he police would have already confirmed that. As for th CCW, he didn't live in Ramsey County so they wouldn't be he issuer for his CCW.

Let me guess you got your information from a conservative website that also goes on to call him a thug, gang banger, and a criminal with an extensive criminal record. The later is patently untrue as he was a public school employee.

 

[Wreckem]

I doubt racism played a role in the shooting, given the cop is a minority of Latin American decent. Unlike the Lousiana case this wasn't a white cop shooting a black man.

Very few cases like these are actually about overt racism. At best it's instiutional racism. Even then most of these cases are because of lack of adequate training.

 

[bshole]

Very few cases like these are actually about overt racism. At best it's instiutional racism. Even then most of these cases are because of lack of adequate training.

This case was clearly about incompetence. The cop made a very bad life and death decision. He suspected the victim of a crime but then asked for the victim's ID. Any sane person knows that when a cop asks for an ID, the person will reach for his wallet. The cop's mistake means that this rises to the level of manslaughter.

 

[buckshot24]

I doubt racism played a role in the shooting, given the cop is a minority of Latin American decent. Unlike the Lousiana case this wasn't a white cop shooting a black man.

Only whites can be racist? Don't you see how racist this is?

 

[buckshot24]

This case was clearly about incompetence. The cop made a very bad life and death decision. He suspected the victim of a crime but then asked for the victim's ID. Any sane person knows that when a cop asks for an ID, the person will reach for his wallet. The cop's mistake means that this rises to the level of manslaughter.

Do we know this is what happened? I know this is what his girlfriend said.

Assuming this is what happened I agree with you.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This case was clearly about incompetence. The cop made a very bad life and death decision. He suspected the victim of a crime but then asked for the victim's ID. Any sane person knows that when a cop asks for an ID, the person will reach for his wallet. The cop's mistake means that this rises to the level of manslaughter.

Let's wait until the FACTS come out, properly.
You seem to be JUMPING to conclusions.

If anyone CAN'T wait, there are sites such as the following, which seem to paint a completely different story.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/

 

[bshole]

Let's wait until the FACTS come out, properly.
You seem to be JUMPING to conclusions.

If anyone CAN'T wait, there are sites such as the following, which seem to paint a completely different story.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/

That was very compelling. I guess I am now on the fence. The robber looked identical to the shooting victim. I am sorry about the graphic nature of one of the pics. I included it to compare the similarity between the robbery suspect and the shooting victim.

Actually looking closely, the shooting victim had a beard running up the side of his face, the robber did not. That would be physically impossible to grow in 2 days. I think I am off the fence again. It was a bad shoot and the cop screwed up.

 

[LegendKiller]

This case was clearly about incompetence. The cop made a very bad life and death decision. He suspected the victim of a crime but then asked for the victim's ID. Any sane person knows that when a cop asks for an ID, the person will reach for his wallet. The cop's mistake means that this rises to the level of manslaughter.

He had the gun in his lap, the cop likely saw it there and the guy was reaching close to it, if not for it.

 

[bshole]

He had the gun in his lap, the cop likely saw it there and the guy was reaching close to it, if not for it.

So if the sequence was:
1. The cop asked for the license.
2. The victim reaches for the license
3. The cop sees the gun
4. The cop shoots

It would be very hard to convict. I still say that it was incompetent actions of the cop that are the cause. His first actions should have been to secure the suspect. I think manslaughter is still appropriate. The cop never denied that he asked for the license.

I will say that I may be jumping the gun. I will modify my position if the facts dictate it.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

That was very compelling. I guess I am now on the fence. The robber looked identical to the shooting victim. I am sorry about the graphic nature of one of the pics. I included it to compare the similarity between the robbery suspect and the shooting victim.

Actually looking closely, the shooting victim had a beard running up the side of his face, the robber did not. That would be physically impossible to grow in 2 days. I think I am off the fence again. It was a bad shoot and the cop screwed up.

Actually the robber (apparently) did have . . .

had a small mustache and facial hair on his chin

Source:

Anyway, if it is true that the Police thought he was an armed robber, and he had a gun on his lap. They were right to stop/question him and if it goes bad (the suspect ignored requests to be arrested/questioned and/or reaches for his gun on his lap), the police would be shown in a much better light.

 

[bshole]

Actually the robber (apparently) did have . . .



Source:

Anyway, if it is true that the Police thought he was an armed robber, and he had a gun on his lap. They were right to stop/question him and if it goes bad (the suspect ignored requests to be arrested/questioned and/or reaches for his gun on his lap), the police would be shown in a much better light.

The exact opposite has been shown. The cop admitted on film that he had asked for the driver's license. I think my sequence below is what happened:

1. The cop asked for the license.
2. The victim reached for the license
3. The cop saw the gun
4. The cop shoots

This happens over the course of a second or two. It is instinctual. The cop should never have asked for ID. He should have secured the suspect.

Look more closely at the pics. They both have chin hair. What is very different is the beard running up the edge of the chin to the hairline. The shooting victim CANNOT be the robber and your photos prove it. That growth is not a two day growth. It is clearly not present on the robber. Look at the robbers hairline. There is CLEARLY no beard hair connected to it.

The victim and the suspect are very very similar and the cop had probable cause to pull him over based on that. His mistake was asking for ID. It should have been to secure the suspect.

 

[theeedude]

Actually looking closely, the shooting victim had a beard running up the side of his face, the robber did not. That would be physically impossible to grow in 2 days. I think I am off the fence again. It was a bad shoot and the cop screwed up.

That's why you stick with legitimate news sources.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The exact opposite has been shown. The cop admitted on film that he had asked for the driver's license. I think my sequence below is what happened:

1. The cop asked for the license.
2. The victim reached for the license
3. The cop saw the gun
4. The cop shoots

This happens over the course of a second or two. It is instinctual. The cop should never have asked for ID. He should have secured the suspect.

That ties in well with the new story (version of events).

From my original link:

The radio dispatch was . . .

“I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”

So he wanted the ID to begin checking for the armed robber suspect.

BUT I agree, he may still have been too quick to shoot.

We don't know yet (as far as I'm aware), what took place just before and during the shooting.

E.g. If he (the robber suspect) reached for his gun, the Police did what they were forced to do, I guess.

Pity there is no video of it.

 

[buckshot24]

That's why you stick with legitimate news sources.

It doesn't need to have actually been him for this to be significant.

 

[Ackmed]

This happens over the course of a second or two. It is instinctual. The cop should never have asked for ID. He should have secured the suspect.

I agree, it's called a felony stop.

You make commands (with another officer if at all possible) from your vehicle. You tell them to turn off the car, then put their hands out of the window, then open the door from the outside leaving their hands out of the window so you can view them. Once they are out make sure they are facing away, then you tell them to take their right hand while keeping the other up and pull up on their shirt collar and turn slowly. This allows the cop to see if anything is in their waist line under the shirt or else where. Once the cop is satisfied there is nothing there, you tell them to slowly walk back towards you keeping their hands in the air, walking backwards. You tell them to stop in front of your car and get on their knees (camera should always be there and on). Then you tell them to put their right hand on the ground followed by the left, then walk their hands forwards until they are prone. Or you can tell them to cross their ankles while they are on their knees keeping their hands in the air. Then you tell them in either position to interlace their fingers behind their back. This is where the other officer comes into play more, they cover as you handcuff then search. Notice I said tell them, not ask them. You have to tell them and be authoritative.

That is how you do a stop where you suspect someone has a gun and committed a robbery. You don't just go bebopping up to the window and do business. If it turns out you have the wrong guy, you explain to them the situation and apologize to them for their inconvenience. You explain that they matched a description of a dangerous person who committed a serious crime recently in the area. Hopefully they understand, if not then oh well.

If it turns out to be true that the vehicle he was in had a matching tag from the crime that cops were looking for, it changes things a bit. If it turns out that the woman lied, that also changes things somewhat. The Sheriff stated that he did not have a carry permit from them, maybe he had one from another city or bordering state. Maybe not. What doesn't change is that in my opinion if the cop suspected that he was the one from the crime that they were looking for, he should have handled it very differently. If he had done like I explained, there is a very high probability nobody would have been hurt.

 

[bshole]

That ties in well with the new story (version of events).

From my original link:

The radio dispatch was . . .

“I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”

So he wanted the ID to begin checking for the armed robber suspect.

BUT I agree, he may still have been too quick to shoot.

No that was not his mistake. If the victim had been indeed been the robbery suspect and he indeed had a gun in his lap, the cop could easily have been killed. His mistake was not securing the suspect. How can getting the ID of a suspected violent offender be more important than securing the suspect? The procedure is to secure the offender and then and only then check the ID.

 

[bshole]

I agree, it's called a felony stop.

You make commands (with another officer if at all possible) from your vehicle. You tell them to turn off the car, then put their hands out of the window, then open the door from the outside leaving their hands out of the window so you can view them. Once they are out make sure they are facing away, then you tell them to take their right hand while keeping the other up and pull up on their shirt collar and turn slowly. This allows the cop to see if anything is in their waist line under the shirt or else where. Once the cop is satisfied there is nothing there, you tell them to slowly walk back towards you keeping their hands in the air, walking backwards. You tell them to stop in front of your car and get on their knees (camera should always be there and on). Then you tell them to put their right hand on the ground followed by the left, then walk their hands forwards until they are prone. Or you can tell them to cross their ankles while they are on their knees keeping their hands in the air. Then you tell them in either position to interlace their fingers behind their back. This is where the other officer comes into play more, they cover as you handcuff then search. Notice I said tell them, not ask them. You have to tell them and be authoritative.

That is how you do a stop where you suspect someone has a gun and committed a robbery. You don't just go bebopping up to the window and do business. If it turns out you have the wrong guy, you explain to them the situation and apologize to them for their inconvenience. You explain that they matched a description of a dangerous person who committed a serious crime recently in the area. Hopefully they understand, if not then oh well.

If it turns out to be true that the vehicle he was in had a matching tag from the crime that cops were looking for, it changes things a bit. If it turns out that the woman lied, that also changes things somewhat. The Sheriff stated that he did not have a carry permit from them, maybe he had one from another city or bordering state. Maybe not. What doesn't change is that in my opinion if the cop suspected that he was the one from the crime that they were looking for, he should have handled it very differently. If he had done like I explained, there is a very high probability nobody would have been hurt.

Your best post ever. You did a fantastic job of it. I agree 100%.

 

[JSt0rm]

oh good we are attacking the victim now. Good job anandtech!

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

No that was not his mistake. If the victim had been indeed been the robbery suspect and he indeed had a gun in his lap, the cop could easily have been killed. His mistake was not securing the suspect. How can getting the ID of a suspected violent offender be more important than securing the suspect? The procedure is to secure the offender and then and only then check the ID.

That makes sense, I agree. My faith in my original link, has dropped a fair bit.

Maybe that is what the police officer(s) were trying to do. Get him to put his hands out of the window, but instead maybe he reached for his gun. But I'm guessing here, and don't yet know what happened.

Maybe the ID thing is misreporting. Especially by the viral Facebook video, from the girlfriend.

 

[bshole]

That makes sense, I agree. My faith in my original link, has dropped a fair bit.

Maybe that is what the police officer(s) were trying to do. Get him to put his hands out of the window, but instead maybe he reached for his gun. But I'm guessing here, and don't yet know what happened.

Maybe the ID thing is misreporting. Especially by the viral Facebook video, from the girlfriend.

Here is the transcript. What is extremely evident is that:

1. The cop KNEW he had screwed up. That is absolutely and unequivocally true.
2. The cop had asked for ID. He never once denied that fact. The girlfriend repeatedly said that the victim was only complying with a valid order from a police officer.

iamond Reynolds: Stay with me [inaudible yelling in background], We got pulled over for a busted tail light in the back and the police just, he … he’s, he’s covered [inaudible yelling in background], they killed my boyfriend. He’s licensed he’s carried, he’s licensed to carry. He was trying to get out his ID and his wallet out his pocket, and he let the officer know that he was, that he had a firearm and that he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm.

Officer: Ma’am, keep your hands where they are.

Reynolds: I will sir, no worries, I will.

Officer: Fuck!

Reynolds: He just got his arm shot off. We got pulled over on Larpenteur.

Officer: I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his head up!

Reynolds: He had, you told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license. Oh my god please don’t tell me he’s dead.

Officer: Fuck.

Reynolds: Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.

Officer: Keep your hands where they are please.

Reynolds: Yes I will, sir. I will keep my hands where they are. Please don’t tell me this. Lord please Jesus don’t tell me that he’s gone. Please don’t tell me that he’s gone. Please officer, don’t tell me that you just did this to him. You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir.
[Silence]

Officer: Get the female passenger out.

Other officer, off camera: Ma’am exit the car right now with your hands up. Let me see your hands. Exit now. Keep ‘em up, keep ‘em up!

Reynolds: Where’s my daughter? You got my daughter?”

Other officer: Face away from me and walk backwards. Walk backwards towards me. Keep walking. Keep walking. Keep walking. Get on your knees. Get on your knees. Ma’am you’re just being detained right now until we get this all sorted out OK?
[Daughter crying in background]

Reynolds: They threw my phone Facebook. Please don’t tell me, Lord Jesus please don’t tell me [inaudible].

Officer: Let me see your purse. You have any weapons or anything?

Reynolds: No. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend is gone. You can take it off my hand. Please don’t tell me he’s gone. Please Jesus no. Please no. Please no don’t let him be gone Lord.

Officer: Fuck!

Reynolds: He told him to get his license and registration. He told him he was licensed to carry and that he had his gun on him and then he started shooting. He started shooting for no reason.

Officer: Fuck!

Officer: [Yells, screams “fuck” multiple times.]

Reynolds: His wallet and license and registration, you told him to get it, sir [crying]. You told him and he tried to tell you he had a license to carry and was gonna take it off. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend’s gone. He don’t deserve this. Please. He’s a good man, he works for St. Paul Public school. He doesn’t have no records of anything. He’s never been in jail, anything. He’s not a gang member, anything.

Reynolds: [inaudible] and that you cover him Lord. That you allow him to still be here with us Lord. Still with me [inaudible] Lord. Please Lord wrap your arms around him. Please Lord make sure that he’s OK, that he’s breathing Lord. [inaudible] Please Lord you know our rights Lord, you know we are innocent people Lord. We are innocent people. We are innocent people. We are innocent. My four-year-old [inaudible]

http://time.com/4397189/minnesota-shooting-philando-castiles-facebook-live-transcript/

 

[shady28]

You know, all that is on the video is the "testimony" of the girlfriend after the shooting occurred. We know nothing about what preceeded the shooting. Nothing.

It's ridiculous to think that so many people just blindly believe whatever she says, knowing nothing about her.

Here's the girlfriend, in a moving car, with a bottle of whisky.

This person is the source of the allegations against police :

Here's another image from her facebook page - WTF is this :

It appears that Castile was a crip, or a crip wannabe (gang).

 

[bshole]

I do have empathy for the officer. This was not a shooting of malice. Unfortunately that does not absolve of him of his responsibility in this. I believe him criminally liable.

In point of fact, I have much more empathy for the victims in this case. It is truly a tragedy.

 

[bshole]

You know, all that is on the video is the "testimony" of the girlfriend after the shooting occurred. We know nothing about what preceeded the shooting. Nothing.

It's ridiculous to think that so many people just blindly believe whatever she says, knowing nothing about her.

Here's the girlfriend, in a moving car, with a bottle of whisky.

This person is the source of the allegations against police :

We KNOW that the victim had NO criminal record. NONE. We know that the victim was gainfully employed. We know that he WAS a useful member of society.

How in the hell do you think any of that crap you posted in ANY way absolves the officer in this situation? It is a non-sequitur.

 

[shady28]

I do have empathy for the officer. This was not a shooting of malice. Unfortunately that does not absolve of him of his responsibility in this. I believe him criminally liable.

In point of fact, I have much more empathy for the victims in this case. It is truly a tragedy.

The reality is we don't know much of anything.

You keep using the word "fact" when you don't know the facts.

The unreleased evidence, like car cam and what preceded the shooting, will tell a lot more. It's quite possible Castile was told different things than what she alleged, it's possible that Castile did not comply with earlier instructions. It's entirely possible the officer never asked for ID.

You simply do not know.

 

[mxnerd]

You know, all that is on the video is the "testimony" of the girlfriend after the shooting occurred. We know nothing about what preceeded the shooting. Nothing.

It's ridiculous to think that so many people just blindly believe whatever she says, knowing nothing about her.

Here's the girlfriend, in a moving car, with a bottle of whisky.

This person is the source of the allegations against police :

Here's another image from her facebook page - WTF is this :

It appears that Castile was a crip, or a crip wannabe (gang).

So? Does that mean Castile did anything inappropriate at the time? Are cops allowed to act like Batman at anytime?

I don't like gangs, absolutely not. But you can't even prove that Castile is a gang member. Even if he is, you can't kill him on spot for no reason.

And if a cop is too coward and is trigger happy, he shouldn't be a cop.

Even a country like Communist China, their police don't kill people like ours.