General Police Abuse Thread

[Kamakazie Sith]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

Honestly, I think if there were such a video it would have been released. Just for PR reasons alone.

You might be right. If there is one they better release it.

[Flagg]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

Honestly, I think if there were such a video it would have been released. Just for PR reasons alone.

You might be right. If there is one they better release it.

Yeah. I mean I can't think of any reason not to. IIRC, a civil suit (I'm sure one is in the works if not filed already) wouldn't prevent such a video from being released.

[Gandalf]

Has it even been mentioned? I haven't heard reference to it, but Australian news sources just may not have mentioned it.

[Flagg]

Has it even been mentioned? I haven't heard reference to it, but Australian news sources just may not have mentioned it.

I've not heard of one, but I haven't been paying a ton of attention.

[RogueIce]

Has it even been mentioned? I haven't heard reference to it, but Australian news sources just may not have mentioned it.

I've not heard of one, but I haven't been paying a ton of attention.

There's a dashcam video from the officer's cruiser, I've seen that in reports. It wouldn't do much to show what Castille was doing, but you'd know what the officer was doing, what actions he took, what the officer said to Castille and what Castille said to the officer, etc.

[Flagg]

Has it even been mentioned? I haven't heard reference to it, but Australian news sources just may not have mentioned it.

I've not heard of one, but I haven't been paying a ton of attention.

There's a dashcam video from the officer's cruiser, I've seen that in reports. It wouldn't do much to show what Castille was doing, but you'd know what the officer was doing, what actions he took, what the officer said to Castille and what Castille said to the officer, etc.

No, this is about a second video that may or may not exist and if it does whether it will be released and why it has not been at this point. IMO none exists.

[RogueIce]

I've not heard of one, but I haven't been paying a ton of attention.

There's a dashcam video from the officer's cruiser, I've seen that in reports. It wouldn't do much to show what Castille was doing, but you'd know what the officer was doing, what actions he took, what the officer said to Castille and what Castille said to the officer, etc.

No, this is about a second video that may or may not exist and if it does whether it will be released and why it has not been at this point. IMO none exists.

KS just talked about a "second video" and didn't specify much beyond that. As far as what I've been able to find, there's references to only two videos shown in court: the Facebook video everybody's seen, and the police dashcam video that AFAIK was only ever shown in court. Both of these videos definitely exist.

I'm not sure what you're thinking about with a "second video that may or may not exist" - another bystander video or something like that? If so, I've seen no reference to anything like that out there.

[Flagg]

There's a dashcam video from the officer's cruiser, I've seen that in reports. It wouldn't do much to show what Castille was doing, but you'd know what the officer was doing, what actions he took, what the officer said to Castille and what Castille said to the officer, etc.

No, this is about a second video that may or may not exist and if it does whether it will be released and why it has not been at this point. IMO none exists.

KS just talked about a "second video" and didn't specify much beyond that. As far as what I've been able to find, there's references to only two videos shown in court: the Facebook video everybody's seen, and the police dashcam video that AFAIK was only ever shown in court. Both of these videos definitely exist.

I'm not sure what you're thinking about with a "second video that may or may not exist" - another bystander video or something like that? If so, I've seen no reference to anything like that out there.

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

[RogueIce]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

...and that's not at all inconsistent with what I've said it is, the dashcam video. Which is an unreleased to the public video that the jurors saw. It's even consistent with the second half of his statement because the dashcam video would show what happened prior to and during the shooting, before the Facebook video started, which could have provided reasonable doubt.

Which also makes sense for how it's gone unseen by the public this whole time; a "bystander video" would almost certainly have gone up on YouTube long before now.

[RogueIce]

Given I'm well past the edit window, and this is pretty much a separate train of thought than the above anyway, I'm going to repost my thoughts about this here:

Anyway, firefossil over on SV posted the transcript of the dashcam video, here it is:

9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.
9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.
9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.
9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.
9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.
9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at
9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”
9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.
9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!”

Source: CNN

And from the same source, here's what Yanez said the day after the shooting:

Yanez said Castile told him he had a gun at the same time he reached down between his right leg and the center console of the vehicle, the complaint said.
"And he put his hand around something," Yanez was quoted as saying. He said Castile's hand took a C-shape, "like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun."
Yanez said he then lost view of Castile's hand.
"I know he had an object and it was dark," he said. "And he was pulling it out with his right hand. And as he was pulling it out, a million things started going through my head. And I thought I was gonna die."
Yanez said he thought Castile had the gun in his right hand and he had "no option" but to shoot, the complaint said.

Is there reasonable doubt for second degree manslaughter in this? Maybe. Here's the relevant statute for you to make your own judgements:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;

(the rest has to do with hunting, animals and child neglect, none of which are especially relevant here)

So, even if there was reasonable doubt as to his criminal culpability, as this jury found, what about him being fired? I can honestly say I don't disagree with that at all. Yanez handled this situation poorly. His directions were unclear and vague; upon being informed Castile had a weapon, he said, "Don't reach for it." And then later, "Don't pull it out." This is after Yanez told Castile to give him his license and insurance card. Castile already gave him his insurance card, and based on his previous instructions, was now going for his license after informing Yanez he had a weapon. Since Yanez only referred to "it" I feel this produced a lot of ambiguity, both for Yanez and Castile. Castile replied he was not going for "it" - presumably meaning the gun - while still going for his license, which he had been told to do. Yanez yells at him to not "pull it out" and again, Castile assures him he is not.

If Yanez had given a clearer order, like "Stop moving" or "Place your hands on the wheel/roof/whatever" Castile would have (likely) complied and we wouldn't be here. Alternatively, if Castile had continued reaching for his pockets even after Yanez started off with a clearer, direct order, I would feel more comfortable in assigning him blame for what happened. As it is, there was clearly confusion going on between the two, and I have to put a lot of that on Yanez and his repeated unspecific instructions.

During the trial, we had witness testimony from his backup officer, another officer who arrived shortly after the shooting, and the St. Anthony Police Chief who were asked how they would have handled it. Their response was very different.

Kauser also testified that he tells drivers who notify him about a firearm or permit to carry to keep their hands visible, usually by placing them on the steering wheel, and then asks them to disclose the location of the firearm in the vehicle.

...

He [Toran] also testified that when drivers disclose that they have a firearm or permit to carry, he instructs them to keep their hands on the steering wheel and then asks where the gun is in the vehicle.

...

Said during cross examination that he [St. Anthony Police Chief Mangseth] also trains officers to ask drivers who disclose they have a firearm and a permit to carry to keep their hands visible, preferably on the steering wheel, and then asks them the location of the gun in the vehicle.

Had Yanez conducted the stop in this manner, I firmly believe this situation could have been avoided.

EDIT: That said, while I think Yanez fucked up, and bad, do I think this rises to the level of "culpable negligence" as required under Minnesota law? Fuck if I know, I'm not a lawyer. Since I don't know what instructions were given to the jury before deliberations, I can't also fairly say 1) how I would have hypothetically voted or 2) whether I feel their decision was a reasonable one.

[Kamakazie Sith]

RogueIce is correct. The unseen video is the dashcam video. Hopefully it was very substantial otherwise that sounds flimsy.

[Flagg]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

...and that's not at all inconsistent with what I've said it is, the dashcam video. Which is an unreleased to the public video that the jurors saw. It's even consistent with the second half of his statement because the dashcam video would show what happened prior to and during the shooting, before the Facebook video started, which could have provided reasonable doubt.

Which also makes sense for how it's gone unseen by the public this whole time; a "bystander video" would almost certainly have gone up on YouTube long before now.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I'm not claiming some other video is out there, I was always talking about the one KS was.

[RogueIce]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I'm not claiming some other video is out there, I was always talking about the one KS was.

Apparently, I was confusing myself. My bad.

RogueIce is correct. The unseen video is the dashcam video. Hopefully it was very substantial otherwise that sounds flimsy.

From the transcript, it went from the first "Okay, don't reach for it." to the final of seven shots in just seven seconds. I think the dashcam would help in establishing Yanez's demeanor before the shooting, whether he seemed excessively nervous? But probably isn't that critical.

Still, let's take a worst case example: Castile had his gun in his right pocket, near the top of his pocket, and in reaching for his wallet in his back pocket he inadvertently caused the gun to move up and start poking out of his pocket. That, combined with the darkness and Castile moving his hand in that general direction caused Yanez to believe Castile was going for a gun.

So, did Yanez's actions cause that to happen? I say absolutely yes. He could have handled that stop much better, as the two backup officers and his own chief indicated. Why he failed to do so is a mystery. In any event, his being terminated from the department is more than justified and I hope they yank his certification so he can't become another "gypsy cop" - though his notoriety alone should hopefully prevent that. It's one thing to screw up, quite another to do so in a way that seems to go against basic training and procedure and winds up with somebody dead who didn't need to be.

But culpable negligence is the requirement for the criminal charges here. Luckily, I found an article that gives us the jury instructions.

Ramsey County District Court Judge William H. Leary III defined culpable negligence in his jury instructions as “intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonable prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others,” adding the concept includes gross negligence coupled with an element recklessness.

Did his lack of clear directions and failure to follow what seems like pretty standard protocol - two officers from two agencies both indicated they'd handle it the same way, I'm assuming KS you were trained similarly? - rise to the level of gross negligence and an element of recklessness?

Honestly the dashcam transcript, if anything, makes me more likely to answer "yes" to this, so unless the use of force experts the defense brought on were really convincing, or there's some really compelling evidence brought up at trial that I haven't seen yet, or the actual video footage left me with a very different impression than CNN's transcript, I'd probably be voting guilty.

I kind of hope the jurors talk to the press about their decision in detail, sometime. I'd be very curious to know what ended up swaying them to not guilty, especially the two holdouts who changed their minds.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I'm not claiming some other video is out there, I was always talking about the one KS was.

Apparently, I was confusing myself. My bad.

No problem. I think I was using wrong terminology tbh, so I understand the confusion.

[Highlord Laan]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

So now police get the benefit of secret evidence that isn't released during the trial? Would that the rest of us be allowed such a magical defense.

[Flagg]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

So now police get the benefit of secret evidence that isn't released during the trial? Would that the rest of us be allowed such a magical defense.

Of course not. We don't all bleed blue.

[Patroklos]

if by secret you mean everyone involved with the trial got to see it...

[Kamakazie Sith]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

So now police get the benefit of secret evidence that isn't released during the trial? Would that the rest of us be allowed such a magical defense.

I was very clear in my post that the jury saw this video. You best pull your head out of your ass. Also, I know of three seperate videos involving people that tried to shoot and kill my coworkers that remain unseen by the public.

(Interesting trivia - One of those guys only served 17 months in prison for trying to shoot and kill a cop)

The world is more complicated than you realize.

[Flagg]

Well, why isn't it public? I mean the specter of secrecy to protect the police goes away if it's not secret. And I'm talking about police getting shot/shot at as much as the opposite.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, why isn't it public? I mean the specter of secrecy to protect the police goes away if it's not secret. And I'm talking about police getting shot/shot at as much as the opposite.

That's a valid question and I'm with you on that.

[Simon_Jester]

A lot of evidence juries see isn't released to the general public, for a lot of reasons. I'm not especially surprised that videos in murder trials prove to be no exception.

[Elheru Aran]

A lot of evidence juries see isn't released to the general public, for a lot of reasons. I'm not especially surprised that videos in murder trials prove to be no exception.

Is there any reason why they would not do this in such an inflammatory case, though?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know, but there COULD be reasons. Maybe the video footage contains evidence incriminating a third party in another crime. Maybe the footage contains comments that would make BOTH sides of the case look bad, but when viewed as evidence for a specific question of fact tips the case one way or the other. Maybe the person who took the video doesn't want it known they were present, for fear of retaliation, and if it's released to the public that becomes more likely.

[Terralthra]

The dashcam footage was released today. Nothing in the footage exculpates Yanez, imo, and it supports the victim's family's claim: The officer told him to get his license and registration. The victim gave his registration, told the officer he was armed, and reached for his wallet to comply with the officer's request. The officer shot him for following that order.

This matches pretty much exactly what Jon Stewart said regarding Sean Hannity's statement about telling police he's armed. 4:30ish in the video.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So the lesson is, don't tell police you're armed if you happen to be black? They'll shoot you and get off scott-free because "It am dangerous job, cops shot all time!"

Cops should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. It is readily apparent that they aren't.

As to the guy who "only" served 17 months... How many cops have served even that for shooting an unarmed civilian? I'd like to hear if there are any statistics comparing this matter.