When the **** did I bring anything up about a tail light? That's all you sweetheart, I said no such thing. So take that shit and stow it.
You stated he was stopped for a "legitimate reason". While you did not state it explicitly, it's hard to understand to what else you might be referring other than the tail light as you precluded the physical description "match" as being reason for the stop (per your post, a
legitimate stop was made and then, and only then, was the physical description "match" noticed). At that point, the only
other reason given by the police was the tail light being out. Which is not a violation per MN statutes.
So, absent some other to-date yet-to-be-articulated reason, with regard to it being a legitimate stop, it boils down to whether or not a wide set nose, absent any and all other factors, is sufficient to generate RS to stop a car.
Relevance falls to how one handles a police stop, regardless of the reason for the stop. Don't reach for your firearm, don't yell "I have a gun", and when the officer tells you to keep your hands up or on the wheel or on the dash, do it. The girlfriend said he was shot "as he was trying to his hands" whatever that means - what exactly does trying to raise hands look like? She also stated that he A) reached into the pocket with the firearm, B) stated loudly "I've got a gun". The cop echoes those statements. That is supremely relevant. The fact that he was stoned and drunk is relevant because it's A) illegal to carry a firearm under the influence and B) it affects judgement and decision making.
That's got jack shit to do with emotion and everything to do with logic and common sense.
There's no definitive proof to back up your suppositions -- based on your mis-characterization regarding as to the sequence of events ("he pulled them over for a legitimate reason and
then noticed they matched the physical description") I'm very disinclined to take you at face value with regard to whether or not, in your own words, he "blurted it out as he had his hand on the gun, or at least in the same pocket". Especially since the facts of the case presented to the court, uncontested by the Defense, provide that Castile informed the officer in a
calm, non-threatening manner.
Additionally it should be noted that, when initially interviewed, the officer stated "he did not know where the gun was" so he, by
his own testimony could not have (1)
known there actually was a gun [but as Castile himself notified the officer, there absolutely no reason to believe otherwise] (2) known where the gun was, (3) seen the gun, (4) seen Castile's hand on the gun or (5) know if the gun and the wallet were in the same location. And if he didn't know, then how can you make the claim that the officer "echoed", and thus "knew at the time", that Castile reached into the same pocket as the firearm? Furthermore you don't even know what Castile is doing as one eyewitness states he was reaching (a self-serving statement) and another states that Castile was raising his hands -- and there is no video, to my knowledge, to show which side is providing accurate statements.
Also -- you make the claim that Castile was drunk...please cite where Castile was found to have alcohol in his system above the legal limit? The only relation, to my knowledge, drunk driving has to the case is an expert witness the Defense plans to call -- a "Use of Force" expert who has a drunk driving conviction!
You're right, the fact that he was a prohibited person who lied on NICS and his CCL application should be left out - forget that. The fact that it was an illegal gun - not lawfully purchased or owned - is irrelevant. The officer had no way of knowing that and it has nothing to do with the stop, so leave it out... whatever.
Exactly. It had no bearing on the officer's actions. Nor was there a violent history, never mind one known to the officer. So yes, it is completely and utterly irrelevant with regard to the actions the officer chose to take.
Furthermore this issue, specifically with regard to THC in his system, but tangentially to the NICS/4473 (as you associated the two), has already been considered by the court in their rejection of the defense's motion to dismiss with the court finding "A victim’s unreasonable conduct is never an absolute defense to a criminal charge."
And who knows more about policing or firearms than an attorney general, am I right? Choosing to bring charges or not bring charges is irrelevant. It depends on who's in charge, which way the wind is blowing politically, whose ox has been gored, and who's going to take to the streets next week in protest.
It's not about policing or firearms. It's about whether or not the actions taken constituted criminal conduct. The County Attorney, after an internal investigation (which are typically heavily in favor of officers), determined that there was
probable cause that the actions taken constituted criminal conduct and there are sufficient facts to try the officer. The court has rejected the defense's motion to dismiss, affirming that probable cause exists and, based on the evidence presented, the state may indeed prevail at trial.
Based on your expert opinion do most people not have an emotion or two the first time they shoot someone? You think yelling "****" is an acknowledgement of fault? C'mon man. I've never had the displeasure of shooting anyone, but most of the guys I work with have and a scant few don't have a few hangups about it despite knowing they were in the right. People yell **** when they're under stress; their screwup, someone else's screwup, a cosmic screwup with no assignable fault - it's kind of an all purpose word.
It can be an acknowledgement of fault, or, as you state, it can be other things. Based on the fact the officer didn't call in a felony stop for someone he "suspected" of being an armed (and dangerous!) robber, he definitely screwed up for not doing so.
I'm not shifting shit. It boils down to how you handle a traffic stop regardless of the legitimacy. The guy was intoxicated and made a series of stupid choices that EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. on this forum has been taught and trained not to - that he himself had been taught and trained not to mere months before. Does that make it "right" that he died? Does that give the officer a 00 license to kill? Of course not. But it does not mean that there's a massive racist conspiracy, that the officer acted unreasonably given the situation, or that Castile was "murdered".
Regardless, I'm not arguing there is some massive racist conspiracy or that it was 1st degree murder. On the flip side the officer stated he was pulling over someone he suspected of being a highly dangerous armed robber (solely based on a "wide set nose") without calling in a felony stop doesn't add up and brings into question the officer's judgment or the stated motive for stopping the vehicle.
Nor am I arguing that Castile is some saint, innocent or some poor baby. I'm arguing that, based on the evidence and my knowledge, the officer acted incorrectly, irresponsibly, unreasonably and very possibly, criminally. If one is able to provide additional evidence that is credible and counters all of it, I take no issue with revising my opinion and/or argument. I do take umbrage at attempts to slough responsibility off on specious arguments that are demonstrably false, not accepted by the court as relevant or valid, or are unsupported suppositions that, in one instance, are directly contradicted by the officer's own testimony (interview) and in another instance, directly contradicted by the facts of the case as presented to the court.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
