Buford wrote: »
Concealed carry is legal here it's all about where you live. If you live by a population center forget about it but up on the northern side a permit is available and valid state wide.
Cheetoh734 wrote: »
Late to the party here. I have been considering this a lot since social media has been blowing up about it. I think the jury got it right...I think "justice" here is for that officer to lose his job and never be hired in an LEO capacity at any level again. I think a very large monetary settlement ($5million+) and a public formal apology by the police chief and city/state leadership be issued to the family of the deceased as well as a review of the training policies as it relates to instances like these.
I do NOT think putting the guy in jail would have been the answer. I would think there would have to be malicious intent, or a chain of behavior, that was corrected by leadership, that this officer willfully ignored in order to merit prison. I don't believe you can ask someone to do the job, a very dangerous job, and then hang them out to dry if it was a mistake, even a fatal one. For me, I'll assume it was a terrible mistake unless they can prove otherwise, which by the jury's decision I don't believe they could.
bobbyrlf3 wrote: »
Dashcam video has now been released. Listening to Yanez after the shooting provides context, but it still doesn't demonstrate that his actions were appropriate, IMO.
Like I said, I'm no alarmist, but this is really troubling. We can't see in the video what the officer saw that led him to believe that Castille might shoot him, but the general tenor of the interaction does not convey confrontation, or conflict, or hostility. These situations jump off quickly; I get that. But this was too quick for me.
I can't honestly say what charge I would have voted to convict on; I'd have to read the laws of Minnesota more closely to determine that.
I definitely agree that he shouldn't be a cop. Beyond that, the video doesn't show malicious intent.
JasonMPD wrote: »
If he said he had a gun, then reached down with numerous commands to keep his hands visible, all apparently not obeyed, at what point is the officer supposed to act? The gun half way up, first shots? First hit to the chest?
He already handed over his ID and permit. What else would the deceased have to reach for? He wasn't asked to get out of the car. Why would he reach for his seat belt? And the officer had a suspicion the deceased was a possible armed robbery suspect. The image of the actual robber look strikingly similar to the deceased.
A jury of his peers made a decision. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
CHIRO1989 wrote: »
The officer was acquitted on all charges, might be some riots tonight.
shootbrownelk wrote: »
When do the burnings and lootings begin? I haven't been following this, but I can just imagine. As well as a huge settlement for his family.