Are you quite certain? One of the 50 states gun law aggregation sites says in Indiana you are required to inform when asked. Is that incorrect information?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Another police shooting in MN
- Thread starter foszoe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Are you quite certain? One of the 50 states gun law aggregation sites says in Indiana you are required to inform when asked. Is that incorrect information?
It's like people adding gang signs and kilos to the story.You are right not all gun owners are viewed the same.Some are predictable.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,419
- 149
That is wrong. Now it's debatable if it's legal to lie about it. But it is completely legal to not answer or deflect ie I have nothing illegal.
If you think that is what was actually posted, your reading comprehension is in rough shape.
There is no statute that I am aware of that makes that a requirement.
That is as it should be. We are crossing our fingers for getting rid of it here, there are too many ambiguities in executing its requirements and in its enforcement
ETA: I kind of wish states were required to have an FAQ with definitive, legally binding advice for out of state carriers
ETA: I kind of wish states were required to have an FAQ with definitive, legally binding advice for out of state carriers
Interesting article. He kind of wraps all of the facts we know so far into a nice package.
"On any stop, it is not the driver’s job to figure out what we mean, it’s our job to give clear, easily-understandable instructions. Yanez didn’t do that."
This was what I was most trying to convey with Chip. Instead of the officer trying to tell him to stop reaching for "it" (both parties know "it" means the gun), it seems reasonable for Castile to assume that since he's not reaching for "it", it's okay to comply with the command to produce the license.
Is it really on the police force? On the video Yanez's partner didn't seem all that shaken by Castile "reaching". It perhaps points to the need for more use of force training. But on some level it's still up to the individual to have a command of applying the training in the real world.
It's on Yanez, of course. He, ultimately, made the bad call.
However, maybe there are some training scenarios, or even interview questions, where a police force can determine if someone could react poorly in a high-stress situation. Or make sure the officer is clearer with their intentions and requests of civilians, or generally not p******.
Cops shouldn't be p******, in my opinion.
If nothing else, perhaps some good could come out of police trainers using this as a case study for how officers' actions can lead to innocent people being shot.
disclaimer: by "innocent" I don't mean a perfect person, just someone who didn't need shot.
disclaimer: by "innocent" I don't mean a perfect person, just someone who didn't need shot.
Ya know what, now its my turn to apologize. The link listed above indicates that his license was suspended. Now, I honestly have no idea, as it's been reported differently in several places. So you were justified in bring it up. mea culpa.
I wonder how much they make use of instructional principles in training? Maybe officers here can answer that. When an officer is confronting someone and that person has at least some desire to cooperate, that officer becomes an instructor, a captain, a foreman of sorts in the psychological sense.
I first learned these as being of high importance in teaching skydiving, because the student is under some stress. It is extremely important to not fill a nervous person's head with a bunch of "what not to do" nor to give them any radio commands of "not" or "dont" but rather specifically and clearly tell them what to do. (ie if they are heading towards an obstacle you don't say "avoid it" you say "turn left"). I've since found that applies in other high-stress situations like directing a group of people during a medical emergency.
Heck, it even applies to dogs. If your dog is jumping on someone, barking, etc you can tell him "no" all day and still leave him confused. But if you say "sit" the dog can follow a clear command.
I don't think there is much disagreement that a black person is more likely to be perceived as a danger than a white person. HOWEVER, no amount of discussion is going to get rid of that subconscious bias. Maybe training COULD but it would be complex. Training on how to give commands in much easier and works in multiple situations.
Kut, you've said in this thread that you don't think Yanez committed a crime but he did make mistakes that led to his own fear and resulting in shooting Castile. So I'm wondering now, given Fargo's thoughts on the law I posted under which Yanez was charged, if you still think Yanez should have been acquitted.
I've been arguing pretty much your position, that it wasn't a "good" shoot, but it didn't rise to the level of a crime. I kinda think officers sort of get some benefit of the doubt given the dangerous nature of the work, and it's obvious the officer was fearful (I think irrationally). But Fargo has given a meaning to the words of the law that I did not consider. I'm now leaning towards the belief that perhaps he should have been found guilty. My reluctance to say he's guilty of a crime is mostly because I don't know enough facts to be so sure.
I've been arguing pretty much your position, that it wasn't a "good" shoot, but it didn't rise to the level of a crime. I kinda think officers sort of get some benefit of the doubt given the dangerous nature of the work, and it's obvious the officer was fearful (I think irrationally). But Fargo has given a meaning to the words of the law that I did not consider. I'm now leaning towards the belief that perhaps he should have been found guilty. My reluctance to say he's guilty of a crime is mostly because I don't know enough facts to be so sure.
Yes, based on the totality of the circumstances. Yanez "thought" he was an armed robbery suspect, and he was admittedly armed. He was reaching for something Yanez couldn't see and given Yanez didn't know where the gun was, that's an issue. The only way to debunk Yanez, is to prove that he lying about the thinking Castile was an armed robbery suspect, and him seeing Castile grab something like someone would grab a gun. You simply can't prove otherwise based on Yanez's words, and that's enough to create doubt. Now do I think Yanez really thought the Castile was an armed robbery suspect? no. Do I think Castile was reaching for something like he was reaching for a gun? no. What I think it was that black guy + gun = scared officer, which unfortunately is all too common in LE... and while it's mostly white officers that suffer from that condition, black officers aren't immune to it either. The case probably could have gone either way.
It's covered quite extensively, but sometimes stress overcomes that those trainings. For instance, every officer is told, if your in a group, and have someone at gunpoint, ONE guy takes the lead, and barks out orders, and everyone else STFU. If you have a guy with an axe behind his back, how confused would he be if one guy is going "get on the ground," another saying "drop the axe," another saying "turn around," and another saying "show me your hands?" And yet, I'm sure you've seen shows where that exact thing is happening. Ive seen it countless time. Hell, I've done it myself. Like I said it's is taught thoroughly, but it can often be forgotten in the heat of the moment.
I guess I agree to a point, but I think that there should be some kind of standard of reason and competence where there's a line that can be crossed to make the officer criminally liable. Yanez made some mistakes that contributed to an irrational fear. I understand the black guy + gun = fear. But if Yanez knew where the gun was before he assumed Castile was reaching for it, it likely would have ended better. I'm not a LEO, but when I try to empathize, on a stop, if someone informs me they're armed it seems most natural to just stop everything and ask where it is before proceeding. If Yanez knew the gun was in Castile's right pocket, him then reaching for something in the dash after Yanez told him to proceed in producing his ID probably wouldn't have been so scary.
I think that kind of negligence on the part of Yanez, when it leads to a wrongful death, should probably have some criminal consequences. But I guess given the actual charges, I can see why the jury might have acquitted him.
