This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/21/remain-shocked-philando-castille-justice-moral-outrage
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| We must remain shocked over Philando Castile. Justice needs moral outrage | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| A jury recently acquitted Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the 2016 killing of Philando Castile, a beloved school cafeteria worker. On Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office released key evidence, including video from Yanez’s squad car and his interview with investigators. | A jury recently acquitted Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the 2016 killing of Philando Castile, a beloved school cafeteria worker. On Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office released key evidence, including video from Yanez’s squad car and his interview with investigators. |
| Two things are evident from the new material: Castile’s every move was calculated to maintain safety and survive the encounter, and Yanez was responsible for turning the situation deadly. | Two things are evident from the new material: Castile’s every move was calculated to maintain safety and survive the encounter, and Yanez was responsible for turning the situation deadly. |
| Castile was cooperative. He pulled over immediately. He did not try to flee, resist or even complain. When the officer asked for his license and insurance, he handed over proof of insurance. He calmly and politely volunteered: “Sir, I have to tell you I do have a firearm on me.” | Castile was cooperative. He pulled over immediately. He did not try to flee, resist or even complain. When the officer asked for his license and insurance, he handed over proof of insurance. He calmly and politely volunteered: “Sir, I have to tell you I do have a firearm on me.” |
| In fact, under state law, Castile didn’t have to tell the officer about the gun unless asked. He did so to be prudent – for his own safety, that of girlfriend Diamond Reynolds and her four-year-old daughter, and for the officer. Castile had been stopped before – 52 times since 2002 – and likely saw the wisdom in complying. | In fact, under state law, Castile didn’t have to tell the officer about the gun unless asked. He did so to be prudent – for his own safety, that of girlfriend Diamond Reynolds and her four-year-old daughter, and for the officer. Castile had been stopped before – 52 times since 2002 – and likely saw the wisdom in complying. |
| Yanez told Castile: “Don’t reach for it then.” Per the government’s evidence, Castile reached for his wallet. He even tried to explain this, telling the officer “I was reaching for –”, but was cut off by Yanez ordering: “Don’t pull it out,” referring to the gun. Continuing to communicate, Castile responded: “I’m not pulling it out.” Reynolds chimed in, saying “He’s not –”, but Yanez opened fire. | Yanez told Castile: “Don’t reach for it then.” Per the government’s evidence, Castile reached for his wallet. He even tried to explain this, telling the officer “I was reaching for –”, but was cut off by Yanez ordering: “Don’t pull it out,” referring to the gun. Continuing to communicate, Castile responded: “I’m not pulling it out.” Reynolds chimed in, saying “He’s not –”, but Yanez opened fire. |
| The result is that Castile was shot for doing what the officer asked: getting his license. | The result is that Castile was shot for doing what the officer asked: getting his license. |
| For his part, Yanez confused and escalated things. After learning of the gun, he did not instruct Castile to show his hands or ask where the gun was – standard practice, other officers testified – and he didn’t withdraw his request for Castile to produce his license. | For his part, Yanez confused and escalated things. After learning of the gun, he did not instruct Castile to show his hands or ask where the gun was – standard practice, other officers testified – and he didn’t withdraw his request for Castile to produce his license. |
| He didn’t use his flashlight to get a better look inside the car. He only told Castile not to reach for the gun, which Castile denied doing. Yanez unloaded seven shots. One bullet landed inches from Reynolds. Another hit the backseat, where her daughter was sitting. | He didn’t use his flashlight to get a better look inside the car. He only told Castile not to reach for the gun, which Castile denied doing. Yanez unloaded seven shots. One bullet landed inches from Reynolds. Another hit the backseat, where her daughter was sitting. |
| In short, Castile was calm and tried to follow the officer’s commands. Yanez failed to follow standard procedures, lost his composure and reacted out of unfounded fear. | In short, Castile was calm and tried to follow the officer’s commands. Yanez failed to follow standard procedures, lost his composure and reacted out of unfounded fear. |
| Yanez’s defense, however, was not that he mistakenly believed Castile was reaching for his gun. That position could have walked him into a conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which requires “culpable negligence”, unreasonably creating a risk of death. Instead, Yanez testified that he actually saw Castile gripping the gun and pulling it out, against his orders. If true, that would be a complete defense. | Yanez’s defense, however, was not that he mistakenly believed Castile was reaching for his gun. That position could have walked him into a conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which requires “culpable negligence”, unreasonably creating a risk of death. Instead, Yanez testified that he actually saw Castile gripping the gun and pulling it out, against his orders. If true, that would be a complete defense. |
| But there are reasons not to credit Yanez’s testimony. Why would Castile tell Yanez about the gun if he intended to ambush him? The gun wasn’t “fire-ready” – it didn’t have a round in the chamber. Why would Castile pull a gun he could not immediately shoot? And with a child in the car? | But there are reasons not to credit Yanez’s testimony. Why would Castile tell Yanez about the gun if he intended to ambush him? The gun wasn’t “fire-ready” – it didn’t have a round in the chamber. Why would Castile pull a gun he could not immediately shoot? And with a child in the car? |
| Most importantly, Yanez’s testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements. Audio from the scene reveals that Yanez told another officer: “I don’t know where the gun was.” The next day, he told investigators: “It was dark inside the vehicle,” he saw “something” or “an object” in Castile’s hand, and he “thought” it was a gun. At trial almost a year later, that had become: “I was able to see the firearm in Mr Castile’s hand.” | |
| So why did the jury acquit? The government’s burden is high in criminal cases, and it includes disproving a defendant’s claim of self-defense. But other factors may have played a role. | So why did the jury acquit? The government’s burden is high in criminal cases, and it includes disproving a defendant’s claim of self-defense. But other factors may have played a role. |
| In my experience prosecuting police cases, juries are reluctant to convict cops. Although officers feel beleaguered post-Ferguson, jurors still tend to credit their testimony and have a hard time sending them to jail. | In my experience prosecuting police cases, juries are reluctant to convict cops. Although officers feel beleaguered post-Ferguson, jurors still tend to credit their testimony and have a hard time sending them to jail. |
| This dynamic helps explain the hung juries in the cases of Walter Scott in South Carolina and Samuel DuBose in Ohio, and the acquittal in the Oklahoma killing of Terence Crutcher, unarmed black men whose shootings were caught on tape. | This dynamic helps explain the hung juries in the cases of Walter Scott in South Carolina and Samuel DuBose in Ohio, and the acquittal in the Oklahoma killing of Terence Crutcher, unarmed black men whose shootings were caught on tape. |
| There’s also a tendency to devalue and blame the victim. Yanez’s attorneys repeatedly brought up Castile’s marijuana use. Ostensibly, this was to argue that Castile went for the gun because “he was stoned” and could not follow orders. But such evidence also serves to dirty up the victim. It tells the jury, this was not a good person. | There’s also a tendency to devalue and blame the victim. Yanez’s attorneys repeatedly brought up Castile’s marijuana use. Ostensibly, this was to argue that Castile went for the gun because “he was stoned” and could not follow orders. But such evidence also serves to dirty up the victim. It tells the jury, this was not a good person. |
| Yanez also testified emotionally, tearfully at times. “I was scared to death. I thought I was going to die,” he told the jury. He talked about his wife and baby. And he had a parade of witnesses vouch for his honesty. Castile didn’t have the same opportunity. | Yanez also testified emotionally, tearfully at times. “I was scared to death. I thought I was going to die,” he told the jury. He talked about his wife and baby. And he had a parade of witnesses vouch for his honesty. Castile didn’t have the same opportunity. |
| In the wake of this verdict, many people are saying the system worked as it was designed, that it was not built to protect black lives, that we should not be shocked by acquittals. That reaction is understandable. But this case is shocking. Only by maintaining our moral outrage do we have any hope of seeing justice in future cases. | In the wake of this verdict, many people are saying the system worked as it was designed, that it was not built to protect black lives, that we should not be shocked by acquittals. That reaction is understandable. But this case is shocking. Only by maintaining our moral outrage do we have any hope of seeing justice in future cases. |
| Chiraag Bains (@chiraagbains) served in the US justice department from 2010 to 2017, where he prosecuted police misconduct and investigated patterns of abuse. He is now a senior fellow at Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Policy Program and a Leadership in Government fellow with the Open Society Foundations |