Police sent warrant to Facebook for information on Philando Castile’s girlfriend
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
One of them is how many people are willing to believe absurd theories in order to justify this murder.
Castile was a law-abiding citizen, with a job, a girlfriend, people who cared about him, and no criminal record. Why would anyone believe he would reach for a gun with an officer pointing a gun at his chest? Why is that even a claim that can be taken seriously?
So many people say, "We can't know what happened in the car." Unless you believe a rational, by all accounts kind-hearted, adult with no history of violence or crime would suddenly decide to have a shootout with cops with a little girl in the car, we can know what happened in the car.
What must you think of black men to believe a story that is so absurd on the face of it? I've heard the argument that it was the gun that made it possible for people to believe the officer's version of events. But, would anyone believe this story if it had been a white man in his 30s in the same situation?
And, how horrifying must it be to wake up each day, as a black man in America, knowing that a jury of Castile's peers believes that at any moment any black man could snap and go on a murderous rampage? That's the only thing I can come up with that makes any of this work; that white America still believes black men are inherently dangerous.
I'm horrified by every police execution of an innocent person, and one shouldn't have to be a perfect citizen to not be subject to being killed by police. But, this one is the most stark example I can think of where there is no excusing it, and no way to assume the officer had legitimate reason to be afraid (aside from Tamir Rice, a 12 year old with a BB gun, who was given mere seconds from the time of arrival of police on the scene before he was gunned down...by an officer who also faced no consequences).
You have to believe black people are inherently dangerous to believe the police officer's story on this. And, a jury did just that.
> There were just two black people on the jury of Castile’s supposed peers. Juror One was a young African American man who “works as a shift manager at Wendy’s and personal care attendant for his mom.” He expressed some lack of faith in the criminal justice system, reportedly expressing a belief that “the wealthy and powerful could get off in the legal system because they could hire better attorneys.” Juror 8 was an 18-year-old Ethiopian American who has lived in the U.S. since age 10. The Tribune notes that “the defense tried to strike her due to unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal system, but the judge denied the attempt.”
> The rest of those selected for the jury were overwhelmingly middle-aged white Minnesotans, many of whom expressly stated support for police or a belief in the infallibility of the criminal justice system.
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/23/the-philando-castile-jury-wa...
Anyway, I'm heartbroken and deeply disappointed in America right now. I'm most disappointed in every white American who will defend this officer, and all the others like him, based on a deep-seated belief that black people are always criminals and never to be trusted.
> Castile was a law-abiding citizen, with ... no criminal record
I was wondering whether you could explain your definitions of these two terms, "law-abiding" and "criminal record".
In another window, I have open information from the Minnesota courts system about a case where Castile was convicted of a misdemeanor. It appears to me that this case (which is just one of many, many cases) directly shows your claims to be evidently false. I was hoping you may clear up my confusion. Thanks.
Philando Castile had been pulled over 52 times in 14 years for minor traffic violations.
So, let's talk about that. Black folks have been saying for years, "We are being unfairly targeted in traffic stops." Now we have a case where it is obvious a black man had been unfairly targeted for traffic stops, and people are using that targeting to justify his murder. So, he was treated unfairly by cops for 14 years, and then he was murdered by a cop, and to make white folks feel better about it, they say, "Well, he was no angel. Look at all these times he was stopped for traffic citations."
I'm a white middle-aged man. I travel a lot, all over the country. I've been driving with an expired vehicle registration for nearly a year (mostly because I was out of the state, and not required to re-register until I got back...though I've stretched the bounds of that loophole, and you can be pulled over in many states for having expired registration, even from out of state). I don't have a license plate on the front of my ugly old truck, as required by law in the state where my vehicle is registered. I've probably got other violations going on, too; I'm towing a 34 year old travel trailer. I'm sure it's got something wrong that could be interpreted to be a violation (it passed inspection, but that was nearly two years ago, and a cop that wanted to be an asshole could probably find something questionable). Nonetheless, I don't fear for my life, even with all of these factors.
Finally, in most jurisdictions, a traffic citation is not considered a criminal matter. Having traffic tickets is not a criminal record otherwise we'd all be criminals. I've got a dozen traffic stops and speeding tickets in my past...when I drove a shiny new 350Z, I got stopped a half dozen times in three years.
Having a concealed carry permit in most states means you have passed a criminal background check. Police officers know this. It should make them more relaxed to know they're interacting with someone who has had safety training, gotten a background check, and qualified for a concealed carry permit. In Texas, having a concealed carry permit allows you to bypass security checkpoints and metal detectors at some government buildings.
Regardless of all of that: I don't care if someone has committed crimes. Police cannot execute them. That is not how our justice system works. It is a crime for police officers to execute people, no matter what crimes that person has committed in the past (though, again, it is utter disgusting bullshit to suggest Castile was a criminal). Police officers who cannot keep their cool when interacting with an extremely calm auto driver should not be out there on patrol, putting innocent people at risk. Officers and departments need to be held responsible for putting dangerous, unpredictable, people on the street.
So, fuck off with your shitty demeaning racist trolling. (That's what I really wanted to say, but I figured it'd be better to explain why your trolling is dishonest to people who might not immediately grasp the subtleties of the polite racism you're throwing down.)
I was curious whether you had a working definition of "criminal record". For example, perhaps you reasonably exclude "petty misdemeanors", a category of offenses which is not punishable by jail time in Minnesota; many traffic offenses fall under that category in the state. However, as mentioned, Castile's record goes beyond petty misdemeanors. As part of my research into the topic, I found that the New York Times is not willing to say "no criminal record", presumably because they believe it is false.
"Law-abiding" includes more than just convictions. For example, I was curious whether your definition excluded drug offenses, as the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law in the United States. (Possession of sufficiently large amounts remains a felony in Minnesota as well.)
Instead my clarifying question was called "shitty demeaning racist trolling". Besides being unproductive, I believe your comment violates the site guidelines.
I encourage you to assume good faith in your fellow commenters. I in fact support the criminal punishment of officer Yanez in this case, and my judgement suggests that the outcome of the jury trial is unjust. However, I am strongly opposed to attitudes and comments such as your own, which I feel make sincere discussion of facts impossible. I hope that you come to agree on some of these meta points.
Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. It is misdirection to put the blame on anyone who is murdered by a cop for having crimes in their past. It does not matter. Cops can't just murder anyone they want, even people who have committed crimes.
Every article I've read on the subject says Castile had "minor traffic violations". That was what I've been basing my assertions on. If it's more than minor traffic violations, I don't know about it...but, don't really care, unless the violations showed a history of violence. You're not asserting it is a history of violence, either, so why does it matter to this case, or any other, when an officer loses their cool and murders someone?
The officer clearly had no idea about Castile's past in the video, because they don't even know who he is. They're asking for ID, and then shoot him within seconds of asking. So, no matter how many crimes he did or didn't have, it can't have played any role in the officer's behavior. Again, it does not matter. Cops shouldn't be able to murder people with impunity.
If Castile smoked pot and got caught, I don't blame him for it. Black folks are multiple times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than white people, even though white people use drugs more. I've smoked pot in places where it was illegal. I've never been busted for it; probably partly because I'm a white middle-class man. I'm not willing to call him a criminal over that.
"Possession of sufficiently large amounts remains a felony in Minnesota as well."
Why mention this? Are you saying Castile had a felony in his past? Or, is this just another way to make vaguely ominous noises about the criminality and dangerousness of a black man who was, by all accounts, a gentle dude just trying to get by? It's the little things like this that make me doubt your sincerity and good intentions in this conversation. You keep making vague noises about, "I've looked at his record and I see many things." Say what you mean. Don't raise the specter of criminality in Castile's past and make scary noises about felonies and the NYT not saying "no criminal record". That feels like the dog-whistle that sites like Breitbart use all the time to demonize people of color.
My point all along in this conversation and others is that a black man is presumed guilty in the US, by police and the white general public. Your comments are proving that point. So what if he smoked weed? Does that mean everyone who's smoked weed deserves to be executed in the street? I mean, I hate Seth Rogan as much as the next guy, but he doesn't deserve to be murdered by a cop. So what if he had some vehicle violations? I've already admitted to enough crimes to be executed under that rule.
I really do try to assume good intent, particularly on HN. But, man, you're making it hard.
If I'm wrong about him having no criminal record say so in plain language. The articles I've read said he had minor traffic violations. Your comment was an intentionally vague, "Well, actually..." and I find that obnoxious and misleading. It looks like a dog-whistle, to me. If it wasn't intended that way, you should try to be more clear in the future.
Do the police just get to go to a judge and literaly say "blah blah blah we want a warrant" and the judge goes "OK"? Because it sure does feel like it sometimes.
In this case FB seems to have done right by its users (or tried to). However is that always going to be the case? Are they always going to be willing, are they always going to find their rebuttal in the hands of someone who is friendly to their argument?
That's bad enough now, but several people on HN know Holocaust survivors, or lived in countries with oppressive regimes.
That’s a bold claim. If we watch the video, we can see the officer repeatedly saying “stay away from the gun.” It’s not clear what’s happening, but I can at least say I don’t know for sure what did in this tragic case.
The officer panicked. Whether he saw something he deemed suspicious or not, he was clearly not trained or ready to deal with the situation at hand.
We need to stop excusing deaths. Period.
He asked for proof of insurance and ID, and then once Mr. Castile informed him of his weapons permit, Yanez said "don’t pull it out". However, to someone who isn't intending on pulling out his concealed-carry weapon, "don't pull it out" does not adequately and unambiguously signal "stop moving". Mr. Castile was obeying the command to show his ID and also had acknowledged the order not to pull out his gun. Yanez did not even entertain the possibility that Castile might not be reaching for a gun -- and the phraseology Yanez used is indicative of that. Had Yanez wanted Castile to stop moving altogether, he should have issued an unambiguous command to that effect; such as "stop moving" or "hands on the dashboard" or "put your hands out the window now".
Yanez got himself all worked up and panicked before even making contact with the people in the car, issued verbal commands that were obeyed to the letter, shot up a compliant person, and then gave weird excuses about the smell of marijuana during questioning. Yes, someone in Castile's position could have stopped moving altogether when hearing "don't pull it out", but it really shouldn't be up to people stopped by police to try to reverse-engineer an officer's intentions and de-escalate the situation to avoid being shot by a nervous policeman. Obeying commands should be sufficient to not get shot up.
Regardless this is all us trying to put ourselves in that situation when none of us were in it, the videos don’t conclusively show what he was doing, and the officer wasn’t worked up / nervous from the start – he started off very calm.
We can only speculate on the situation, without living it and fully seeing it how can we judge one way or the other? Clearly there’s a larger problem with so many black people in prison and killed by cops in this conntey, but to do justice you have to look at every situation individually.
The escalation happens in about 5 seconds from "don't reach for it man" to rapid-fire shooting. Castille's demeanor is not at all threatening yet Yanez stated that he thought Castille didn't care about human life because there was a marijuana smell in the car and Castille's daughter was also in the car.
That said, cops are asked to do a difficult job and to enforce bad laws that pit them in a war against certain communities. The laws need to change, then fewer police and civilians will die needlessly.
Then we end up with not only dead civilians but also dead cops because some angry individual decided to ambush and kill the nearest representative of the boys in blue.
This like as not kills decent people who wanted to help their community and as a nice side effect makes cops more fearful and therefore MORE likely to shoot more innocent people which riles up the populace and makes them more likely to shoot cops.
The only way to short circuit this bad day is for federal authorities to punish the cops that communities wont. Unfortunately with the current administration that is laughably unlikely. Up next a bunch more dead people.
In fact, he had his seatbelt on. He did the right thing and even let the officer know he was legally allowed to carry a gun.
Nobody thought he was reaching for a gun, except (maybe) the dangerously unhinged officer who shot him.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2016/09/11/Weirton-...
> Jack Dolance, an attorney for the Williams’ family, said that how and why Mr. Mader was fired “is pretty clear evidence of their policy and that the way they feel [the shooting of Mr. Williams] should have been handled. Not only do they think he should have been shot and killed, but shot and killed more quickly. "
What in reading between the lines for why they acted the way they did is money. My guess is the city administration believes a shot and possibly dead police officer would cost them x monies and that a black man holding a gun doesn't have much of a recourse especially if he is dead.