TexasCHLforum.com

Leftist journalists are falling over themselves to claim that the NRA is declining to comment on the Castile verdict because of his race. This dishonest narrative is easily disproven: the NRA never commented on the police killing of concealed carrier Erik B. Scott (Costco Las Vegas incident). Co-incidentally, these leftists never commented on that case either (Scott was white).

WTR wrote:If Castile had been cited three times for having MJ in his car, why hadn't the State revoked his license if the State felt it was so illegal?

Revoked isn't applicable because his permit was granted in 2015, which was after the citations. Presumably they didn't know at the time that he was lying on his application because they didn't have access to the citations for whatever reason. Or perhaps they were aware of the citations (with the last one being from 2008) but assumed that his "no" answer on the application meant that he had stopped using illegal drugs and thus regained his right to possess firearms. Castile's girlfriend testified at the trial that they smoked marijuana daily and had done so for years - which means that Castile continued to be an unlawful drug user and lied on his application in 2015. If he hadn't lied, his application would have been denied.

That you used the words "felt" and "so" is interesting. Are you implying that it isn't illegal for marijuana users to possess guns, despite a clear statute and every Circuit Court so far upholding the statute as constitutional?

This illegal carry because of Federsl law is a red herring as the State was OK with him possessing a license ( States rights you know).

Even if the state permit hadn't been fraudulently obtained, it would only have legalized his carry under state law. Under federal law, it was illegal for him to simply possess firearms. Per the Constitution, a state law cannot override federal law (Supremacy Clause).

For the record, I think marijuana prohibition is as stupid and counter-productive as alcohol prohibition was. However, until such time that marijuana is delisted as a controlled substance at the federal level, it is a felony for marijuana users to possess guns. A felony conviction means loss of gun rights for life. Don't be like this guy:

U.S. v. Yancey, 2010, 7th Circuit wrote:Matthew Yancey pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana but reserved the right to argue on appeal that the offense of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008). We conclude that the statute is constitutional and affirm Yancey's conviction.

Alaska2texas wrote:he then mentioned the firearm calmly while keep in mind a woman and child were in the vehicle.

To a rational person, the notion that someone would attack a police officer with a child present seems ludicrous. However, most criminals are not rational people. Here's a traffic stop in which the criminal beats a female police officer unconscious while his little girl watches.

Police officers can not assume that just because a child is present that they are not in any danger.

If the man meant any harm whatsoever, he probably wouldnt have given the officer a heads up that he was carrying.

Again, most criminals are not rational people. It's not unheard of for criminals to volunteer that they have illegal items in the vehicle before the officer has even finished asking "Do you know why I stopped you?". In this case there was more than one instance of irrational behavior:
Castile had been cited three times in the past for having marijuana in his vehicle, yet he continued to keep marijuana in his vehicle. This is not rational behavior.
Castile was prohibited from possessing guns due to his unlawful drug use, yet he still told the officer that he was in possession of a gun. This is not rational behavior.

I do think that the tragic outcome in this case could have been avoided if the officer had been better trained. However, it could have also been avoided if Castile hadn't been possessing a gun illegally or if he had not been under the influence of an illegal drug (as per the autopsy report) that possibly reduced his ability to comply with the officer's order.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Most media outlets have actively been covering up two facts that the jury learned:

1. Castile was prohibited by federal law -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) -- from possessing guns.

NYTimes wrote:Earl Gray, a lawyer for Officer Yanez, questioned Ms. Reynolds at length about her marijuana use. Ms. Reynolds said she and Mr. Castile smoked marijuana daily, and had done so for years. She admitted that there was marijuana in the car at the time Officer Yanez pulled them over, but she said they had not been smoking.

2. Castile's state carry permit was fraudulently obtained. Even if it hadn't been, a state permit does not override federal law on prohibited persons.

USAToday wrote:Gray alleges in the filing that Castile acted negligently by failing to follow protocols that licensed gun owners are instructed to use during their permit-to-carry classes, actions that led to Yanez firing his weapon. The memo also states that Castile falsely claimed on his permit application that he was not a user of an unlawful substance. He was cited three times in 2005, 2006 and 2008 for "marijuana in vehicle" violations.

"This is critical because unlawful narcotics users are not eligible to own, let alone carry, a firearm on their person," the memo says.

The officer testified that he smelled marijuana as he approached the car (and marijuana was found in the car). The driver told him "I have a firearm" (which any decent CHL class teaches you not to say). Any officer in such a situation would have reasonable suspicion that they are dealing with someone who is committing a felony (prohibited person in possession of a gun).

I'm not saying it's likely the driver was pulling his gun. I suspect he was pulling his wallet. However, the law hinges on what the officer perceived and whether that perception was reasonable (to the average police officer, not the general public). The legal standard that applies here is no different from when police officers shoot people who turn out to be unarmed. What ultimately matters is whether the officer's perception (of being in danger of death or great bodily harm) was reasonable.