Officer involved shooting of person carrying legally.

[scrubcedar]

http://www.startribune.com/officer-y...ing/401898565/

I couldn't find any threads on this but I found numerous articles including the NY times.

Does anyone have any information on this? My main questions are did he have a CCP or was this an open carry situation that was legal in this state?

[Aguila Blanca]

The article says that Castile told the officer he had a carry permit. If this is the same case, I remember a while back there was a video being circulated of a shooting by a police officer, that was recorded by the victim's girlfriend. I'm sure it's on Youtube and you should be able to find it.

[scrubcedar]

Yes, this does seem to be the same case then. The reason I questioned him having a CCP is that this is the only article of the ten or so I read that mentioned he had a permit. The media bias that so obviously exists leads to some interesting holes in reporting.

[motorhead0922]

Previously discussed here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=577789

[scrubcedar]

Thanks motorhead. I was having trouble believing this flew by under the radar. Amazing that it has gotten so little coverage considering.

[44 AMP]

Amazing that it has gotten so little coverage considering.

Not really. Considering the way our news sellers work. Lots of things since last summer more important to the newsies than a single shooting, like, um.. the election, for just one.

[scrubcedar]

Lots of things since last summer more important to the newsies than a single shooting, like, um.. the election, for just one.

Actually 44amp that's why I asked the question. Lot's of juicy ways this could have been used as a political football. Vote for us because... The victim was a minority=reflex action cry Racism. In this case It would be hard to disprove and that normally means run the story now, ask questions later.

The other thing that could have been used here was "Those CCP's just get innocent people killed if he hadn't had that gun he'd still be alive today! Vote for us if it saves even one innocent life it's worth it!".

We're now getting to the point where we can follow this story and learn more about the officer's motivation as a part of the trial, so the truth as he saw it will probably come out.

As you are right and they didn't run with it, I'm wondering what I didn't see in this story that they did see. These are standard and normal tactics that I've never really seen them deviate from. What gives?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

As you are right and they didn't run with it, I'm wondering what I didn't see in this story that they did see.

I've pondered that. I think the key factor is that the officer is Hispanic, therefore another minority. The media can't righteously play this one off as a white cop shooting a black male ... so they don't play it at all. Minority vs. minority doesn't get much traction.

[Double Naught Spy]

Actually 44amp that's why I asked the question. Lot's of juicy ways this could have been used as a political football. Vote for us because... The victim was a minority=reflex action cry Racism. In this case It would be hard to disprove and that normally means run the story now, ask questions later.

You know, the media has been doing their job for a few hundred years now. They know how to spin a story if it is worthwhile. No, it really could not have been used much as a political football. This was nothing more than a singular, local incident of a cop who may have overreacted to a situation. It is unfortunate, but when you consider how much news is produced every day, how many stories that get written, this just does not have any real carry appeal isn't apt to sell in the long term and certainly not on a national scale.

[Al Norris]

To answer a question or two...

In the article referenced by the OP, on the right, next to the photo, is a link to the criminal complaint ans statement of probable cause: Yanez complaint

In that affidavit we discover the real reason for the stop. We find that not only was the victim armed, but that a search of his wallet yields his drivers license and his carry permit.

We also see that the officer did not follow dept procedure. The other officer at the scene does not help to corroborate Yanez at all. The basis for the Man-2 charge. The angle of the shots also endangered not only the passenger in the front seat (the victims girl-friend) but also the child in the rear seat - the basis for the next two charges.

If the affidavit is to be believed, the officer will not be given qualified immunity.

[44 AMP]

the officer will not be given qualified immunity.

If true, he should not be. This is the real problem with police shootings, and our 24hr "if it bleeds, it leads" news cycle today.

Time, and presentation to the public. The press dutifully reports the shooting, (with varying levels of accuracy), people get upset. During the time needed for a valid investigation, the shooting drops from the public eye, and WHEN/IF the officer is found guilty (of anything) it's much later, months, or longer, and it's not reported (usually) as headline news, the way the shooting was.

Often its only a tiny blurb buried in background clutter, so what the majority of the public SEES is the officer didn't get punished. And, also, when the victim is an easily recognized minority, (no matter what they actually did, or didn't do) the public perception of the police is even worse.

[scrubcedar]

Interesting. The link to the complaint was not there when I originally posted the article. It makes clear pretty much all of my questions, but raises new ones.

In the previous thread about this they discussed what might have gone wrong. Now we know.

This was pretty clearly the officer making multiple deadly and or nearly deadly mistakes and he sure looks like he will be successfully prosecuted for them. No gun was drawn, and certainly spraying that many rounds in a car occupied by two people who showed no signs of being a threat was completely unacceptable.

The mods prefer not to reopen the old thread so how about now that we know what occurred we answer the question a lot of us here are interested in, namely how do I keep the modern, not in any way funny, version of Barney Fife from endangering me and my loved ones in the car with me.

I can start a new thread if need be, what do you think?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by 44 Amp

If true, he should not be.

Oh, I'm also sure that his defense attorneys will argue for immunity. Probably will not win that tiny battle, as it is the State that is charging him.

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

The mods prefer not to reopen the old thread...

We don't mind re-opening old threads, if there is new information to be had. Necro-threads are generally shut down because the guy that resurrects them is just asking for things already stated or just wants to make a general comment on the subject matter.

It's what happens next that becomes a pain. Several people (or even a bunch), who have never seen the thread, will then jump in with their 2 cents. Most often, these folks will not have read the thread, or if they did, never noticed how old the thread was.

... so how about now that we know what occurred we answer the question a lot of us here are interested in, namely how do I keep the modern, not in any way funny, version of Barney Fife from endangering me and my loved ones in the car with me.

I can start a new thread if need be, what do you think?

My personal opinion would be to start a new thread, describing the situation and what you want to discuss about it, in the General Discussion Forum. I don't believe such a thread is relevant in any other area of TFL.

[JN01]

I think the key factor is that the officer is Hispanic, therefore another minority. The media can't righteously play this one off as a white cop shooting a black male ... so they don't play it at all. Minority vs. minority doesn't get much traction.

You are forgetting the "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman (I know, not a cop, but the media tried to play it as if he was a pseudo-cop, rent-a-cop, cop wannabe, whatever.)

[Glenn Dee]

First off, just because the victim has a CCW and legal gun dont mean that he didn't rob the store, and the officer didn't know he had legal gun until after he made the stop. Without knowing more about robbery, the description given, what the victim looks like, and a whole lot more information I dont think anyone can make an intelligent argument either way...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dee

...Without knowing more about robbery, the description given, what the victim looks like, and a whole lot more information I dont think anyone can make an intelligent argument either way.

Which is exactly why there's still nothing to discuss here.

[Frank Ettin]

I probably need to add this.

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

...The link to the complaint was not there when I originally posted the article. It makes clear pretty much all of my questions, but raises new ones.

In the previous thread about this they discussed what might have gone wrong. Now we know....

No, we don't know.

A complaint is only the charge against the defendant. It's not fact. It only the allegations the prosecutor thinks he can prove, and he will need to prove them. It is only the State's side of the story, and the defendant still has his side of the story.