CNN Vilifies Minnesota Officer Rightfully Acquitted in Shooting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgme6mDXfUg

Last Friday, Minnesota Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted of manslaughter in the shooting death of Philando Castile which occurred in July of last year.  This is a case that never should have been tried and the acquittal of Officer Yanez is a completely just and fair verdict.  Sickeningly, people like CNN’s Don Lemon are portraying it as an extrajudicial police shooting.  Choosing the path of emotion instead of logic, and based on complete ignorance of Law Enforcement methods, they are ignoring Mr. Castile’s culpability and instead focus on what they perceive as the fault of a racist Police Officer.

There is a lot more to this case than the liberal media would have us know, and there are important lessons to be learned; particularly with respect to the responsible handling of firearms and compliance with both the law and lawful directives from Law Enforcement.

You cannot have an honest discussion of Officer Yanez’ culpability in the situation without acknowledging Mr. Castile’s contribution toward creating an unstable situation.  When it comes right down to it, it was Mr. Castile’s failure to display overall compliant behavior that led to the shooting.  Instead of ignoring the evidence and Mr. Castile’s actions as Don Lemon and most of his panel did in their mostly one-sided “discussion,”  let’s examine the facts of the situation that unfortunately ended in Mr. Castile’s death.

The following are summaries of the key actions that Mr. Castile took which demonstrates his responsibility/culpability in creating an unstable and unsafe situation.

Mr. Castile was driving under the influence of marijuana

First of all, let’s not ignore the fact Mr. Castile is guilty of placing his fiance’, her daughter, and the general public in danger by driving under the influence.  Secondly, he is guilty of creating a situation in which it would be obvious to even the most oblivious of Police Officers that he was in clear violation of the law (the odor of marijuana in the car was reportedly apparent).  This is important because when a Police Officer recognizes a clear violation of the law, he/she also recognizes/anticipates the potential for a suspect to flee or resist arrest for that violation.  In a good Police Officer, this will heighten his/her sense of potential danger.  This further results in heightened awareness, either consciously or subconsciously, of an increased threat to his/her own mortality and the mortality of all those in the immediate area.  

It was Mr. Castile who chose to violate the law and drive under the influence; thereby contributing, whether he knew it or not, to unsafe circumstances.

Mr. Castile was carrying under the influence of marijuana

Per Minnesota state law, those who are licensed to carry firearms may not do so under the influence of marijuana.  We have to assume Mr. Castile went through at least minimal training in firearms as part of acquiring his license to carry; including the legal and responsible handling of firearms.  Whether he did or not, it is his responsibility to know and understand the seriousness of carrying a firearm and the laws pertaining to it.

Since the liberal media has (in regular fashion) done a disservice to their viewers and Law Enforcement by ignoring facts and logic, I will briefly explain to everyone why there are laws that prohibit/limit the carrying of firearms while under the influence of drugs/alcohol.  I really shouldn’t have to because it is pretty much the equivalent of explaining to somebody why they should not drive drunk.  But since it is key to understanding the instability of circumstances that led to Mr. Castile’s death, I will break it down for everyone:

Just as a vehicle can be, a firearm is a deadly weapon which should not be carried or operated while under the influence.  The reason: because your decision making ability is affected by drugs/alcohol.  Here is just one example: when an individual is stoned out of their mind, they are more likely to make unsafe decisions; such as reaching around in their pockets after telling a Police Officer they are carrying a deadly weapon.

Mr. Castile is unfortunately guilty of giving too little regard toward the responsible handling of firearms.  What he should have done after informing officers of his firearm was keep his hands absolutely visible and still; this important behavior is generally taught by instructors when acquiring licenses to carry firearms.  I will give Mr. Castile the benefit of the doubt by assuming his decision not to do so may very well have been influenced by the cannabis in his system.  By carrying a gun under the influence, he exposed everyone around him to potential danger.  Again, it was his decision to do so which led to unsafe circumstances.

Mr. Castile demonstrated an overall disregard for the law and lack of compliance with lawful directives

Aside from the infraction-level traffic violation, Mr. Castile broke at least two other important laws: driving under the influence and carrying under the influence.  The former was obvious to officers almost immediately and they became aware of the second soon after.  Mr. Castile began reaching around immediately after telling officers he had a firearm on him.  Though Mr. Castile’s intentions may have been innocent (possibly to hand officers his IDs and/or the firearm), there is no way officers on scene could have known that; they’re not mind readers.  All they knew was they were encountering someone who 1) was probably under the influence, 2) disregarded at least two laws relevant to public safety, 3) admitted he was carrying a deadly weapon, and 4) began reaching around immediately after being instructed not to reach for something.

Once again, it was Mr. Castile’s behavior that led to the overall instability of the situation.  Prior to the shooting, officers on scene had only approximately 40 seconds worth of familiarity with Mr. Castile with which to evaluate the situation.  They did not have time to tell Mr. Castile to make his hands visible before Mr. Castile began reaching.  For officers trying to evaluate such a rapidly evolving situation, Mr. Castile’s overall behavior was not entirely consistent with someone who fully complies with the law.  It had nothing to do his skin color, and everything to do with behavior.

---

That’s not to say that Officer Yanez’ reaction was not at least a little panicked.  Anyone watching either of two videos of the situation can see he was distressed.  But no Police Officer can reasonably say Officer Yanez had no reason to fear for his and/or his partner’s safety at that exact time and place.  After all, this is the standard Police Officers are generally held to; whether a reasonable officer in the same situation could have perceived a threat to life and limb at the time of the incident.

To those of us sitting comfortable watching the video at home in safety and security, it doesn’t seem that Mr. Castile had violent intentions.  We will never know.  What we have to realize is, if he did have bad intentions, he had the capability to kill Officer Yanez within a second.  Officer Yanez knew this and, based on his evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, reacted to what he reasonably believed could be a threat to him, his partner, and the public.

Does all this mean that Philando Castile deserved to die?  Of course not.  The whole situation is absolutely unfortunate.  It’s tragic for both Mr. Castile’s family and for Officer Yanez.  Anyone can see from Officer Yanez’ reaction he never imagined he would end up taking a life that day.  Unfortunately, The Castile family must live without their son and Officer Yanez must live the rest of his life with the fact that he took a life.  Officer Yanez may have been completely justified in his actions but that doesn’t mean he will not have extreme regrets over how the situation turned out.  Nobody here is saying Mr. Castile was a bad person.  People make mistakes and that is understandable.  Unfortunately, Mr. Castile’s mistakes contributed to a situation which resulted in his own death.  Officer Yanez’ actions could be viewed as a mistake also.  But if you are going to be understanding about Mr. Castile’s actions, you must also be objectively understanding of Officer Yanez’ response.

The issue never should have been brought to trial but it was for political reasons.  It is fortunate Officer Yanez was acquitted.  Unfortunate as the shooting was, it was nevertheless justifiable considering the totality of the circumstances. Officer Yanez was not guilty of manslaughter and clearly the jury, after examining the evidence, thought so as well.  Officer Yanez did not demonstrate culpable negligence and there was no evidence to suggest he would have acted differently if Mr. Castile had not been Black.  Mr. Castile mistakenly neglected to adhere to the responsible, safe handling of firearms.  Thankfully, nobody else was hurt.

The liberal media has been reckless in its politicization of this situation to fit their narrative of police brutality.  Consider this irony: the same liberals who are often equally critical of both law enforcement and gun owners, have left the gun owner blameless in this instance.  We have yet to hear from any of the liberal press about Mr. Castile’s unsafe and careless disregard for Minnesota’s gun laws.  Moreover, when it came to demonizing Officer Yanez and Law Enforcement, CNN (among others) was quick to play the “think of the children” card by showing Mr. Castile’s fiance’s daughter in the back of a patrol car.  Yet, they conveniently ignore the fact Mr. Castile placed that very same little girl in an unsafe situation by knowingly driving and carrying a firearm while smoking dope.  They ignored it because, in this instance, their anti-gun narrative did not fit in with with their anti-law enforcement narrative.  The liberal media is truly unprincipled, disgusting, and disgraceful.

~AD

Share This: