State investigators release dashcam video of the moment a black motorist was shot and killed, following the Minnesota officer's acquittal of all charges relating to the death. Sarah Jones reports.
He (Yanez) was charged with 3 counts of crime.
1) Second Degree Manslaughter
2) Dangerous discharge of a firearm (to the mother)
3) Dangerous discharge of a firearm (to the child)
He was acquitted all 3 counts of charge and return a not guilty verdict and release immediately, he sign a voluntary separation agreement with St Anthony PD (which is equal to administrative discharge in the Military) and he was not hold liability for any civil/criminal action. He is free to applies another governmental job within St Anthony.
Here is what my wife (who is a JD in Law and a PhD in International Relationship) accounts for the case
Why not guilty on Second Degree Manslaughter?
The charge of second degree manslaughter would have seen Yanez have a degree of culpable negligence leads to the discharging his service pistol and ultimately killed Castile.
Here are the points Prosecution suggested the reason motivated for a 2nd Degree Manslaughter by Ramsey County Attorney John Choi
"Philando Castile was not resisting or fleeing."
"There was absolutely no criminal intent exhibited by him throughout this encounter."
"He was respectful and compliant based upon the instructions and orders he was given."
"He volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm -- beyond what the law requires."
"He emphatically stated that he wasn’t pulling it out."
"His movement was restricted by his own seat belt."
"He was accompanied, in his vehicle, by a woman and a young child."
"Philando Castile did not exhibit any intent, nor did he have any reason, to shoot Officer Yanez."
"In fact, his dying words were in protest that he wasn’t reaching for his gun."
The defendant argument (or would be argument) are as follow
-While Philando Castile was not resisting or fleeing, he disobey Yanez instruction by reaching for the firearm
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; No Criminal Intent Exhibit by Castile cannot predict his next move. Which is gesturing at that point.
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; Same as above
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; Registering that he had a handgun in good faith does not mean anything.
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; I can reach for the gun while telling you I am not reaching for the gun
-Not Applies/Non-Material; He can still access to the glove box where his gun were kept
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; Family present have no bearing on what he might do next
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; Same as 2,3 and 4
-Not Applies/Circumstantial; Same as 5
The charge of Second Degree Manslaughter have to come with a clause Reckless Endangerment. According to US law, Reckless Endangerment is defined as
A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all of the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
Now, when we decided in this case, he (Yanez) pull out his pistol with intent to shoot Philando, which mean the consequence is clear to Yanez, Yanez does not wave his pistol in front of Philando to scare him or playing with his sidearm in front of Philando, that would be an example of Reckless Endangerment.
So to convict him, the prosecution have to demonstrate the action of Firing into Philando is not in the interest of the officer. Ie Yanez have motivation to shoot and kill Philando. But not simply the shooting is unlawful.
The Jury report after the finding cited the Prosecution did not meet the burden of proof require to convict Yanez. If we look at the point Persecutor made above, in deed the burden of proof does not met, because most of these point the prosecution made is circumstance
There are no criminal intend exhibit by Philando does not mean he will not commit any crime(ie shooting the officer) later on at the traffic stop, all criminal are innocent before proven guilty, which mean criminal intent prior to a crime may or may not commit is a moot point. So does him being respectful to the officer, that was not a true indication on whether or not he will shoot the officer, there were case precedent set forth when a police officer stopped a person who appear cooperative but ended up shooting the officer. He volunteer for the firearm is not related to the charge, something he does not require to do, but done it anyway. In fact, by doing so, it escalating the whole incident. About he insist he is not pulling out the firearm, this is immaterial because he could have reach for the firearms and saying he wouldn't. And him with his family is not a reason why he would not shoot a Yanez.
In all, it's about the prospective from the Camera Evidence to the actual event happening, Yanez warned Philando 3 times before he pull out his sidearm, and in this sequence, after Philando said "I do have a firearm in the..." Yanez Replies is "Ok, don't reach for it then" then followed by "Don't Pull it out" and, another "Don't Pull it Out" before pulling his sidearm and fire at Philando at close range. The Warning from the first to last is for 10 seconds.
In this case, the jury given the verdict that 10 second and 3 warning is ample enough and clear enough (as we can hear it clearing from the squad car, then Philando must have heard it clearly too) to allow Philando to stop his action and the fact that Philando continue on with this action, lead to the police officer reaction. Whether or not Philando is pulling out his weapon is immaterial as there are no witness to contest this fact by either party (We Cannot see clearly whether or not Philando is pulling his firearm from the video) and both Philando wife and Yanez gave contradict account, which mean the benefit of the doubt goes to Yanez.
In summary, since Yanez pull over Philando with a legitimate reason (Broken Tail Light) Yanez thought Philando fit the description of a armed robber, and subsequently learn that he has a firearm in his car, Yanez warned Philando not to reach for it, 3 warning and 10 seconds of warning satisfied the jury that there is ample consideration for Philando Action, thus, dissolving the responsibility for the officer. Hence a Not Guilty Verdict.
Since Manslaughter is not guilty, which mean the shooting is lawful, that means the discharge is necessary, which also dissolve both dangerous discharge charges
If he would have followed his training the issue would have bean avoided with absolutely no shots fired. If there was truly a threat the other officer would have had his gun drawn in seconds but he never drew his gun.
One can also argue that the situation is escalating. It was because we can clearly hear the Officer tone gone from clam to urgent, he believe he is in danger at that moment, because Philando did not comply to his instruction.
You and Me are both not Yanez, we cannot think what is inside his head, this is what Yanez said, the problem is, there are no submittable evidence to proof otherwise. So for this case, we will have to believe him. BEcause that is the benefit of the doubt.
The man is plainly stating I have a gun and im not reaching for it.
The guy in the car honestly had a reason to be scared as how many men in the news are being shot because officers think they can do what the hell they want and now they can and they now know they will get away with it. A pressidence should have bean set here that was plain murder by an officer who was trained to be cool in high stress situations.
Again, we cannot "guess" what might have went thru Philando mind, and the flaw in your argument is that, if Philando is really scare, as what you said, why he disobey an order to "Don't reach for it" Wasn't that is exactly the what the outcome he will get from what he is afraid of? Getting shot by the police?
One thing is that we can speculate, another thing is can we proof that speculation, we cannot proof a state of mind with hard evidence, we can only get what we see, and what we saw is a non-complying of the officer order.
The office with all his training also should have given clear and concise directions to the man like after saying don't reach for your gun he should have said put your hands where I can see them like every other officer says when they feel in danger. Imediatly the officer goes off his rocker and starts yelling don't reach for your gun and in the time frame the man couldn't even have put his hands on the weel or showed his hands before the officer fired his weapon.
The officer does not go for the gun directly, in fact from the dash cam video, we see he issued 3 warning before firing the shots, and 3 warning in 3 different tone, First one at 0:57 is "Ok, Ok, don't reach for it" then 4 second later "Don't pull it out" and finally at 1:06 shot fires.
Whether or not the officer gave the order "hands where I can see it" is immaterial because the instruction is more clearer than that, the instruction is DON'T REACH FOR IT, and DON'T PULL IT OUT. The instruction is clear which is to stop, there cannot be a misconstrued on the meaning of the instruction. In fact the instruction of Don't reach for it and Hand where I can see it is contradiction of action, because one require movement, the other require to stop the movement
You people are saying it's ok for an officer of the law to not take control of the situation and just fire on anyone regardless if they have seen the weapon. Standard procedure would be if you see the wrpon then you fire not before period. In no way shape or form was this situation handled appropriately by the officer. For just that reason this officer should have bean put in jail for misconduct of a police officer and murder.
Again, how are you going to proof it? This is just what you think about how this happen, but can you support your argument?
How did you know Yanez did not see the weapon?
How did you know Philando did not react?
What you said is what the court called circumstantial, which if not back up by factual evidence, it's a conjecture, which basically is what you think.
On the other hand, do I think Yanez is right to shoot the man? Probably not, problem is, can you or anyone proof it? You can't because there are no enough evidence to support a manslaughter charge. The Prosecution put out a weak case, and did not proceed with the prosecution in a responsible manner. In fact, my wife said, if the prosecution go for Involuntary Manslaughter, they may actually have a case because you do not need to proof criminal negligent, instead you only have to proof the shooting is unlawful. Which is a lot easier to proof than negligent.
But this is not the case the prosecution is going after, and they lost, there are nothing to it, they present a weak case and lost, That's the deal. It's not about police procedure, it's not about criminality, it's about whether or not you can be proven guilt, and in this case, it does not.
