I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the case, but Jacob Sullum’s take is pretty good. At a minimum, he should have been convicted of manslaughter, I think.
[Thursday-morning update]
Fear alone is no excuse for manslaughter.
21 thoughts on “The Cop Acquittal”
Comments are closed.
I think the notion we need to adjudicate all grey-area cases like this in the criminal courts is misguided. Any lessons that could be learned to prevent future incidents get lost in the focus on the individuals, and we ensure zero cooperation from the accused. We also have to acknowledge that we put cops in potentially life-or-death situations on a daily basis. Most cops are going to think it unfair that we insist they go to prison over decisions they have a half second to make, even if that decision turns out to be in error.
In 2006 the pilots of Comair Flight 5191 were assigned to take off from a lighted 7,000 foot runway, but mistakenly turned onto an unlit 3,500 foot runway instead. The airplane crashed when it ran off the end of the runway, and the only survivor was the first officer (who happened to be the pilot flying at the time). The NTSB report found the pilots at fault, obviously, but also made several recommendations regarding specific training for pilots, changes to how control towers are staffed, when controllers are permitted to attend to other tasks, and how taxi and takeoff clearances are given. Every carrier has incorporated the new recommendations into their training.
The best person that could have advocated for an NTSB-like approach to police shootings would have been the former president, but he seemed content to align himself with the mob for political reasons. As a supporter of concealed carry rights I would much rather this particular case have been recognized as a tragic lesson in how both police and concealed carriers should comport themselves during interactions. Sadly, I don’t think that important discussion ever happened because the media didn’t seem to care to discuss it.
The video plainly shows that Castile had already given the officer the documents the officer asked for. He then told the cop he had a gun, the cop told him not to reach for it repeatedly and yet Castile reached for “something” anyway, while being told repeatedly not to.
See the video:
@1:39 upon hearing Castile say he had a firearm the officer calmly said “Don’t reach for it then”.
@1:40 “Don’t pull it out”.
@1:41 Officer shouted “Don’t pull it out! he then reaches into the vehicle trying to restrain Castile.
@1:43 shots fired.
He was told to not reach for it. He reached for the firearm, or something, anyway. He was told 2 more times to not reach for it/don’t pull it out. He did not comply.
The jury got it right.
Retired cop here. I have been down a road very similar to this many times. My father, also a cop, has spoken to me on this and we agree on the following. If you are told by a civilian, regardless of the situation, that they are armed, concealed or otherwise, the very last thing you do is ask where the gun is. It is almost as if they hear the question as a command of “Please reach for your gun to show me where it is”. I can not tell you how often I have yelled “STOP”! After beginning to say “Where in the car,,,,,”.
I will not presume to guess where this incident went wrong. I was not there. The best system we know how to make will see it through. I will say this though. I once was at the house of a convicted fellon. He had several loaded weapons in his closet. He tried several times to access the closet explaining that he had the weapons but wanted to be “straight up” about it. Needless to say I never let him near the weapons. Was he being honest? Was he trying to get me to drop my gaurd just long enough to get his hands on the weapons? I later found out that he had assaulted officers in the past with no warning what so ever.
That incident is, of course, not this one. Just food for thought.
they hear the question as a command of “Please reach for your gun to show me where it is”.
This is pre-symbolic language and your assessment is exactly right. It’s not the words that matter as much as it is the situation. You and your dad did exactly what should be done. You considered highly likely situations before you were in them (where how you react is more important than thinking them through since you can’t at that point.)
Thanks for your service and doing the job the way it’s supposed to be done.
Since Castile was not some thug it’s apparent he was not clear on the officer’s instructions. “Don’t pull it out” is imprecise language. While the driver is considering what it might be it’s natural for him to follow through on actions started, especially when his intent is to provide the officer with something he needs.
Pointing his gun while saying “FREEZE!” Would have got the point across much better. Rather than repeating variations of the same unclear phrase three times. Three times meaning he had the time to do it right. Has this officer never role played this scenario in his mind when it wasn’t a life or death situation?
It is very clear that the officer was unbalanced. He had plenty of time to aim his gun without firing. The driver had a seatbelt on as well, restricting his movements.
While I empathize with danger for the officer, this was manslaughter.
I’ve been in situations where this officer would have shot me dead. My good fortune was that mine were professionals.
“Since Castile was not some thug”
Maybe not, but he had been stopped for traffic violations 52 times in the prior 14 years resulting in 86 violations and fines totally over $6000. He also had marijuana in the car on the last stop.
“Don’t pull it out” is imprecise language.
Sounds pretty precise to me.
That’s what she said.
It sounds precise because you’re sitting at a keyboard without any great deal of stress. The real world isn’t like that.
It doesn’t really matter if he was a thug. Every interaction a cop has is a threat to their life. That’s the job.
If feeling threatened was the only criteria a cop would be justified in using deadly force on a whim and that’s clearly not the case.
A threat has to be confirmed or it is at least manslaughter. It is simply not enough for a cop to feel threatened although that can be used as a reason for being over cautious.
To protect citizens a cop must be willing to sacrifice their own life or not take the job. They are going to deal with normal citizens a lot more often than bad guys even in a real bad guy location.
Confirmed means it’s not enough to believe someone is reaching for a gun or even believing they see a gun. They have to know they see a gun and that it is being used as a threat. Holding a gun is perfectly legal and by itself does not justify killing somebody.
A cop doesn’t have to wait to be shot at, but that at least would be confirmation of a threat.
Add to that, in this case, the cop was unquestionably not in self control. He was shaken up by the situation which might be normal for most people, but he’s not just anybody. He’s a guy in a job where being that emotional is simply not acceptable.
There’s a reason he was fired. Which is recognition of this fact.
Ctrot, I need to be more emphatic about this or I’m pretty sure you will not get my meaning. I refer to pre-symbolic for a very precise reason.
Words are symbols that carry meaning which is the study of semantics. however, communication is not just about words.
Written communication is much more about words than verbal communication. The fact is, verbal communication is dominated by things that are not words. Which is why a magician can confidently use this fact to manipulate people.
Retired officer Dave gave a perfect example of this which you should consider carefully.
Each subject is responsible for knowing and correctly following the exact procedure necessary to keep policeman from dumping a clip into subject seconds after subject is pulled over for busted tail light.
Thank heavens for high school civics classes that carefully teach exact procedures for surviving contact with our betters!
I wonder what the cops will do when The Second Amendment is given full faith and credit by every state in the Union, and the chance that almost all citizens, including those driving cars, are armed will approach 100%.
I wonder how many of those citizens will be trained, either in a formal class or by Dad, in how to act during a traffic stop.
I wonder if traffic stops for things that generate revenue instead of causing real problems will become less common.
In this case, the traffic stop seemed to be an excuse, because the cop thought he resembled a suspect.
We had a local officer shoot a driver multiple times during a traffic stop, leaving the driver paralyzed but alive. This shooting happened after the driver closed the driver’s door on the officer and started to drag him with his vehicle after an altercation. The officer was trying to release his K9 from his own car at some point as well.
A grand jury was convened due to pressure from local advocacy groups because the skin color of the officer and the driver were different from each other.
Ultimately, the grand jury declined to indict based on video footage of the stop and testimony from the officer.
This was the second time this particular officer was involved in an altercation that involved a discharge of a firearm (which, on average, is two more times than the average officer in the department).
While the grand jury failed to indict, I indicated to quite a few people that I hoped the department reviewed the incident and, if needed, puts the officer through de-escalation training of some sort.
If statistics show that one or two officers are outliers in the number of heated exchanges, altercations, and discharge incidents, then perhaps it’s time to look at those officers for a root cause analysis and behavioral training.
I’ll leave the kvetching about unions, “the thin blue line”, and “confidential personnel histories” to someone else.
See, for example:
Off-duty officer’s road rage
To have a police chief write a damning report of poor judgment, unprofessionalism, lack of knowledge, and other things, and STILL keep a job? Definitely not a way to build trust between the police and the policed.
RE David French article, he states “The officer asked for his license and told him not to reach for his gun. Castile reached for his license..”
Wrong.
@1.21 officer asks for license and insurance
@1:31 documents are passed to officer
This was BEFORE Castile mentioned he had a firearm.
A misstatement by French doesn’t change the situation.
Yes it does, dramatically. Whatever Castile was reaching for it wasn’t the documents he already handed the police officer. And his “reaching for something” happened immediately after announcing he had a firearm and he continued reaching after he was told 3 times to NOT do so. Police offices are not mind readers, Castile continued to reach for “something” after being ordered not to 3 times, and that is why he was shot.
If you do what a cop tells you to do, keep your hands visible and not reaching for anything your chances of being shot during a traffic stop approach zero percent.
And I do know a little bit about this type of situation. About 20 years ago I caught a man trying to break into my mothers house. I pulled my pistol, pointed it at him and ordered him away from the door. He left the door and walked straight at me, staring right down the barrel of my pistol. I told him 3 times to not come any closer before he stopped. I wasn’t going to warn him a 4th time, another step or two and I would have pulled the trigger. I was not going to give him the chance to attempt to lunge at me and take my weapon.
And officer Yanez wasn’t going to give Castile a chance to pull out his firearm. Nor would I.
You just described a threatening situation where you would have been justified in firing. That not the case in this situation.
Whatever Castile was reaching for…
There’s the problem. The officer doesn’t know what he was reaching for and at that point it does not constitute a threat. Unless the bar for what a threat is is so low a cop can always claim it so. We’d have a lot more dead civilians in that case.
The officer’s claim that he thought he saw a gun is just not credible. It’s obvious he knows he screwed the pooch and is just trying to cover over it. He didn’t see the gun because it was never in the driver’s hand. None of us knows what he was reaching for; that means the threat was not confirmed; and that means it was manslaughter. The cop didn’t control the situation because he wasn’t even in control of himself.
This guy should never have been given the responsibility that many professionals handle every day without killing somebody.
If you do what a cop tells you…
We absolutely agree on this, but you’re not considering what the retired police officer told you. Do you not find Dave credible?