There has been much discussion and outrage over the shooting of Philando Castile by police officer Jeronimo Yanez, particularly since the officer’s acquittal on all charges several days ago.
We humans are a tribal species. The Black community seems to have closed ranks reflexively in favor of the African-American man who was killed; the blue community largely (but not entirely) has taken the side of the Hispanic officer who fired the fatal shots; and much of the concealed carry tribe seems to have automatically taken the side of the deceased, who had a carry permit.
Let’s set all that aside for a moment and look at the facts.
First, when you’re pulled over, it’s always possible that it’s happening because you and/or your vehicle fit the description of someone who has done A Very Bad Thing. In this case, before the pullover Yanez broadcast over the radio that Castile and his car fit the description of a man and a vehicle wanted for armed robbery with a gun. He called for backup, which is why a second officer is present in the dashcam recording of the shooting.
If the officer has reason to consider you, the driver, impaired, you can expect him or her to be all the more cautious in dealing with you. Toxicology screen after death showed Castile to have THC in his bloodstream, and Yanez reported smelling a strong odor of marijuana when he reached the driver’s door.
Castile’s girlfriend did not turn on her famous smartphone livestream until moments after the shooting, and the patrol car camera could not “see” what Castile was doing. A bodycam might well have shown that and solved the question conclusively, but the officer wasn’t wearing one. This leaves us only the perceptions of those who survived to testify. The girlfriend said Castile wasn’t pulling a gun, and Castile was recorded saying the same with his dying breath, but the officer perceived that Castile was drawing a gun, and stated that was why he drew and fired his service pistol.
Here is the dashcam video, from CNN. Subtitles seen on some versions don’t show it, but at approximately the 43 second point, when Officer Yanez cries “Don’t pull it out!” Castile sounds as if he replies “I have to pull it out.” Interestingly, the subtitle on CNN, and even an official transcript, have him saying that he’s not pulling it out. YOU listen, and YOU tell me what YOU’RE hearing.
Some skeptics have said that if Yanez thought the driver of this car might be armed and dangerous, he was negligent in not making a felony stop. He did not yet have probable cause to do so; all he had was a person and vehicle who, among many, matched the description of the robbery suspect. What he did have was probable cause for a traffic stop, with two brake lights out, and he was proceeding from there.
People are dogging the NRA for not joining other groups who’ve made this shooting a cause célèbre. I think NRA made the right call in not doing so. So does concealed carry and gun owners’ civil rights activist Miguel Gonzales, on his blog.
The naïve say, “If the cop wasn’t wrong, why did the city just give Castile’s mother an almost three million dollar settlement?” The cynic will answer, “Because, with a racially charged hot button issue, that’s cheaper than a major civil disturbance.”
There were two sides to this case. Having been both the citizen with a legal gun who was pulled over, and the cop doing the pullover, I’m a card carrying member of both tribes. I cannot find fault with this officer’s actions, within the totality of the circumstances. I can and do find fault with those who ignore the totality of those circumstances.
Dennis: No, there was no mention of a permit by Castile during the incident.
Based on what I know of the law and the facts, the trial result was probably correct. But I share the concern of many that it has become far too easy for innocent people, especially but not only Black men, to be killed by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them.
Liberal Dave,
“Based on what I know of the law and the facts, the trial result was probably correct. But I share the concern of many that it has become far too easy for innocent people, especially but not only Black men, to be killed by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them.”
Like any sane human being, I too, detest any innocent people being killed. I also detest any guilty person not being held accountable for their actions. I also detest when someone is tried and convicted because of biased beliefs of those judging, no matter if those biases are based in facts or not, whether those biases are based on skin color or occupation.
Many folks, like you, have the same notion/feeling, that police are, far too many times, getting away with unjustified murders/assaults. I would love to see the list of those instances. Not a list of officers that were tried and convicted in the media only to be found not culpable when the actual facts were presented to a jury, but a list of clearly guilty officers going free and unpunished.
I’m thinking it would be a very short list. Still friends?
Often what is missing in the analyses of police/civilian shootings is an acknowledgement that quite a few of the dead civilians–most of them young men–did not seem to know how to behave when stopped by the police. In so many instances these young dudes were high on drugs (or alcohol), became defiant, didn’t follow instructions, and moved their hands in ways that suggested they had hidden weapons. Of course, not all of the recent shootings involved these behaviors, but a lot of them did. Thus, one has to wonder, why didn’t the families and friends of these hapless young guys counsel them on how to interact with the police and survive the encounter? During my childhood that information was widely discussed and generally followed by my peers.
Re “freeze”: I have no inside information on why freeze went out of use, but I wonder if Captain Bob might not have inadvertently hit the nail on the head when he said, “It seems to me that everyone who speaks English can understand and react to this word”. Freeze is a colloquialism, a word which has a meaning different than its most exact meaning. Indeed, if you look in the Collins English Dictionary:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/freeze
you’ll find a comment that the use of freeze as a command to stop moving is a “mainly US” usage, confirming it as being a US-English colloquialism not generally used even in other English-speaking countries. In light of that, a person who doesn’t speak standard American English fluently might be confused by it whereas “don’t move” or “drop the gun” are unambiguous.
In light of this, and being a lawyer, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this change was lawyer-driven. But maybe there was some entirely different reason.
Dennis, was this presented to you as being because of it being perceived as a racial slur or was that just the speculation among the rank and file?
Liberal Dave, that was a poor analogy on my part. I was just trying to emphasize the department’s seriousness that officers not use the “freeze” terminology in deadly force confrontations, meaning there was a possibility of censure up to firing if revealed in the internal investigation that follows such encounters. I don’t think it ever was invoked, but the brass wanted us to take it serious.
I have to laugh that here we are, some 45 years later, discussing if the command “freeze” would not be better . How did this change originally come about? Instructors made it very clear that it was an attempt to placate the outcry of anti-police activists of the time who were trying to place blame on officers for giving non-specific, confusing commands to armed minorities in deadly force encounters.(you might check the archives of ACLU/SPLC organizations, as I recall they had input on this push) I do believe that this had also come up in wrongful death civil lawsuits that always follow deadly force encounters and the city’s attorneys were recommending the changes to counter that claim in future lawsuits.
Also, during this period, there was a big effort being made to standardize training and education for police nationwide. The Ford Foundation spearheaded much of this effort, handing out grants to departments that implemented their ideas, and yes they were pushing liberal ideas. (sorry, I couldn’t resist that, but it’s true)
Dennis, you’re operating from a false premise when you say that I think that, “that police are, far too many times, getting away with unjustified murders/assaults”. In many if not almost all of the cases which hit the papers, I agree with the legal outcome which, in those cases where there is an acquittal or mistrial, means that the homicide was justified, at least under the criminal law (which is what we’re generally talking about here). Your statement can also be read to say that I believe that the officers are getting away with intentional murder. While that undoubtedly has happened, it’s not what has happened, in my opinion, in any of the cases which we’ve discussed here involving LEO’s, nor is it what I’ve been talking about.
What I am talking about is a constellation of laws, attitudes, policies, and circumstances, including the ubiquity of guns in our society, which have resulted in deaths which could have been avoidable through different rules of engagement, conduct, legal presumptions, and forethought by the police. But avoidable doesn’t mean legally unjustified.
Spencer: Let me begin by saying that I’ve taught my kids how to comport themselves if stopped by the police doing exactly what they’re told and making no threatening moves. That’s also what I would do myself if stopped. On the other hand, this being a free society it absolutely galls me to treat ordinary LEO’s as if they are members of the Gestapo rather than being Officer Friendly. If I’ve done nothing wrong and am simply driving down the street minding my own business why should I be concerned that my slightest miscalculation or misstep might cause me to be abused or killed? Why should I have to treat an encounter with a LEO differently than I would an encounter with a stranger who stops me on the street to ask directions (indeed, why shouldn’t I have to treat such an encounter with a stranger with more concern than I would with someone who should be there to protect me)? And I’m White and don’t have the long, sad history that Black folks have with LEO’s. With me the grating nature of that need is mostly philosophical, with Black folks doing it has to feel much more like once again bending over like a slave for Master and, worse, teaching their kids to submit to something that feels like that kind of oppression. There’s no doubt that “the talk”, as it has come to be known, is lethally necessary, but it’s just as necessary as giving your kids vaccinations.
@ Liberal Dave,
“What I am talking about is a constellation of laws, attitudes, policies, and circumstances, including the ubiquity of guns in our society, which have resulted in deaths which could have been avoidable through different rules of engagement, conduct, legal presumptions, and forethought by the police. But avoidable doesn’t mean legally unjustified.”
Your statement (above) is an example of the classic, left-wing thought process. The following concepts form the basis for this mode of thought:
1) All humans are good or, at least, want to do good.
2) Therefore, when bad things happen, it cannot be the fault of the humans involved. Rather, the fault must be traced to social or environmental factors EXTERNAL to the humans involved.
3) Therefore, the solution to the problem (as always in left-wing thinking) is to alter, update and change mankind’s society and environment so as to mitigate the source of the problem.
Notice that, in your statement, you blame everything (laws, attitudes, polices, firearms, etc.) except the individuals involved. As I said, classic left-wing, liberal thinking.
You need to understand that many of the commentators to this blog, including I suspect Dennis, are right-wing in their thought patterns. A right-wing individual does not begin with the assumption that “all humans are good” as you do. Rather, a right-wing individual starts with the assumption that “all humans are evil”.
So, when a right-wing individual looks at an incident such as this one, he does not begin by asking where society failed. Rather, he asks “how did these individuals fail”? The right-wing mindset is to first place the blame on the individuals involved before seeking to identify some external source of the problem.
The debates between you and Dennis illustrate the differences between right-wing and left-wing thought patterns. Unfortunately, many people are so wedded to their own personal worldview, whether it be to the right or the left, that they cannot see that the truth is usually in the middle. Hence, we see the left/right polarization that afflicts America today.
Liberal Dave,
You said-” But I share the concern of many that it has become far too easy for innocent people, especially but not only Black men, to be killed by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them.”
If I misunderstood what you meant with that statement, I apologize, but you should admit that the narrative of the left has been that there is an underlying bigotry and racism that is the major factor behind white officer/black citizen confrontations.
TN_MAN,
Yes, I consider myself “right-wing”, but I don’t see people as inherently evil, rather as individuals, capable of both good and evil. Someone who seems predisposed to commit evil deeds is capable of doing good, and the reverse is also true. I believe that everyone, including myself, struggles in varying degrees with this. I do believe that environment plays a big role in that struggle.
Dennis: While some LEO on Black confrontations may stem from intentional acts based in racism, those are probably very much in the minority today. To say that differently, I don’t think that many of the incidents today come from a knowing and intentional desire to victimize people of color. The greater problem with racism today is (and this isn’t limited to LEO’s) is unthinking, subconscious racism and institutional racism. It’s the kind that comes from an actor, in this discussion a LEO, who truly thinks that he’s color-blind but whose actions — some innate and some perhaps directed by policy, law, or culture — reflect something different.
However, when I made that statement that you quote I was truly not thinking only of Black people, which is why I said “especially but not only Black men.” I was _also_ thinking of kids, mentally and emotionally challenged people, people of limited communications skills or abilities, and others (including CCL carriers).
@ Dennis,
The mere fact that you consider the “possibility” that an individual may be evil sets your thinking apart from that of the Leftists. The far-Left political view is built upon the concept that all humans are good and (therefore) all evils in the world MUST arise from factors related to the social order and/or mankind’s external environment.
I did not mean to imply that those with moderate right-wing views assume that all humans are totally evil all the time. I did not mean to imply that right-wingers believe that humans are INCAPABLE of doing good. Rather, that right-wingers accept the dark side of human nature. Leftists (whether they admit it or not) reject the concept of the dark side and (optimistically) want to believe in only the positive side of human nature. Thus, their determined efforts to always place the blame for evil anywhere but on the individual.
Ultimately, the Left-wing vs. Right-wing political debate is just a variant of the old “Nature vs. Nurture” debate. See this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Leftists (in effect) take the “Nurture” side of the argument. They tend to view humans as formless clay that is shaped into its final form by external environmental pressures. Therefore, they believe that the source of all problems can be traced to the negative external forces that interact with and influence mankind. Therefore, ultimately, the way to create their perfect, Utopian world is to gain total control of all political power and then re-shape the world so as to mitigate all the negative forces that they see.
A right-wing individual is more likely to take the “Nature” side of the debate and believe that some people are simply “bad to the bone”.
In truth, both nature and nurture act to shape the individual and to shape a society. Therefore, both the hard-Left and hard-right worldviews are oversimplified models that do not accurately reflect real-world conditions. The most accurate (and stable) political model is a moderate model that considers both the dark side of human nature AND negative external influences as possible factors. The more an individual drifts toward either a hard Left or hard Right worldview, the further he drifts from the truth.
This is why I am distressed at the current condition of American politics which is being dominated (more and more) by hard Left and hard Right fanatics.
TN_MAN,
You are probably familiar with the “pop psychology” popular in the 1970’s, “I’m Ok, You’re Ok”, that I believe explains at least part of the liberal ideology.
im-ok-youre-ok
Don’t know why the link didn’t paste correctly. Try this one.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201610/im-ok-youre-ok
@ Dennis,
No, the reverse is more likely to be true. The “pop psychology” of 1970’s probably leveraged off of left-wing, liberal ideology.
You have to understand that the Left/Right ideology split is inherent in human psychology. It is not, I am sad to say, just a manifestation of late 20th Century pop culture. If it was, we could hope that it would eventually go “out of fashion”. Such hopes are (sadly) false.
Various forms of Left-wing and Right-wing thinking have existed for all recorded history. Note that Karl Marx was active in the 19th Century not the 20th.
In other words, the Left/Right ideological divide is deeply rooted in certain aspects of basic human psychology. Various factors drive it but some of the more significant are:
1) Mankind’s basic fear of death. Knowledge of our own mortality is a powerful driving force behind these political ideologies.
2) The tendency of the human mind, when faced with complex issues, to automatically seek simplified solutions. To reach for a “Silver Bullet” solution. This is an evolutionary trait.
3) The tendency of the human mind to want to believe in “hitting the jackpot”. To believe that a Utopian world is achievable. Note that con-men and politicians (same thing actually 🙂 ) regularly exploit this aspect of human psychology for their profit.
So, the various forms of Left-wing ideology cannot just be put down to 1970’s pop psychology. It strikes far deeper than that!
TN_MAN,
Of course what you say is correct. I probably should have said that pop psychology being taught and espoused during that period is partly to blame for so many boomers buying into the liberal dogma.
@ Dennis,
The Left has been spreading their dogma, by any means available, for many decades now. Not just in the form of 1970’s pop psychology either. Heck, the classic story of “A Christmas Carol” (written by Charles Dickens and first published in 1843) is nothing more or less than a propaganda piece for left-wing ideology. That tells you how far back the leftists have been at work with their brainwashing techniques.
The mainstream media spreads the Leftist dogma daily in their so-called news reports. The schools and universities teach it in almost every class. The current text books are full of it. Numerous government programs are built on it with the structure and related literature all revolving around Leftist ideas. Judges sit on their benches and hand down decisions that are based upon Leftist ideology rather than on the law and the Constitution. Numerous books ranging from pop psychology to child-rearing to self-help are loaded with Leftist ideas. Hollywood regularly makes films that are nothing more or less than propaganda pieces for Left-wing liberalism.
With such a gargantuan effort underway to brain-wash the American People into accepting the Left-wing ideology as the gospel truth, the wonder is not that so many baby-boomers have been taken in by it but that so many still have the intelligence and critical-thinking skills to reject it!
I anxiously await your defense of Mohamed Noor.
It is incomprehensible to me that trained professionals are held to dramatically lower standards than ordinary citizens in the use of force.
And, Mr. Eakin, i just as anxiously await you developing maturity and critical thinking.
Comments are closed.