TexasCHLforum.com

I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for something after being instructed not to.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

WTR wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

What evidence do you have that the driver wasn't reaching for a gun? On what do you base your opinion that the officer overreacted? The only person who saw inside that car was the officer.

The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Chas.

It is a perfect example on how NOT to inform an Officer you are armed.

As Forrest's mother told him: "Stupid is, as stupid does"

'Officer, I want to inform you that I have a gun.... Here it is', bang, dead cop....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

WTR wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

What evidence do you have that the driver wasn't reaching for a gun? On what do you base your opinion that the officer overreacted? The only person who saw inside that car was the officer.

The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Chas.

From the video from inside the car no gun was shown unholstered and the girl friend said he was reaching for his license.

WTR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

WTR wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

What evidence do you have that the driver wasn't reaching for a gun? On what do you base your opinion that the officer overreacted? The only person who saw inside that car was the officer.

The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Chas.

From the video from inside the car no gun was shown unholstered and the girl friend said he was reaching for his license.

If he had allowed it to be upholstered, it would have been too late.

Keith B wrote:

WTR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

WTR wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

What evidence do you have that the driver wasn't reaching for a gun? On what do you base your opinion that the officer overreacted? The only person who saw inside that car was the officer.

The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Chas.

From the video from inside the car no gun was shown unholstered and the girl friend said he was reaching for his license.

If he had allowed it to be upholstered, it would have been too late.

As Keith said if it was unholstered it would have been too late and I am sorry, but the girlfriend had no ideal whatsoever what he was reaching for.

Its shows the officer asked for his license and insurance. I assume his wallet was in his back pocket.

As he was already reaching for his wallet (after asked to provide the license) he then mentioned the firearm calmly while keep in mind a woman and child were in the vehicle.

The officer said dont reach for "it"

Man calmly says "im not"

Shots fired, may i point out ALOT of shots.

Police officer overreacting in my opinion.

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

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.

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

I couldn't play the video on your reference but found a longer copy on another site. This is exactly why two people interpret things differently all the time. My interpretation was that an innocent chl holder was killed, luckily the other passengers were not hurt and lucky that the cop standing on the passenger side door was not shot. I wasn't at the scene so my interpretation is obviously not valid. The jury decided the case for the cop but I believe that the cop was laid off the police force in any event. Two people watch the same event and come up with different conclusions.

Incidentally, the site I watched it on was
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/us/p ... video.html
and the video was 3 minutes longer and the response by the cop was perhaps a little more revealing. Glad I am not a cop.

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.

Keith B wrote:

WTR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

WTR wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:I wanted to share a video released this evening of a Minnesota Police Officer that defended himself during a traffic stop. This video shows what not to do when you are pulled over by a police officer and are carrying a weapon. In my opinion, this tragic event could have been prevented by simply following the officer's clear and simple instructions. The officer seemed calm until he saw him reach for the weapon.

Prayers to the families and everyone involved in this unfortunate event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 3a27e388d5

What evidence do you have that the man was doing nothing but reaching for his license as instructed and not a weapon? Why inform the Officer you are armed and then reach for the weapon? I see an Officer over reacting.

What evidence do you have that the driver wasn't reaching for a gun? On what do you base your opinion that the officer overreacted? The only person who saw inside that car was the officer.

The jury heard the evidence, we didn't.

Chas.

From the video from inside the car no gun was shown unholstered and the girl friend said he was reaching for his license.

If he had allowed it to be upholstered, it would have been too late.

With that logic, any of us that carry should be shot when we provide out LTC so we don't have the opportunity to unholster and kill the Officer.

tx85 wrote:

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.

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? 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).