Another police shooting in MN

[chipbennett]

As long as we're pointing out inaccuracies:

That is an old article and has several things wrong. The pistol wasn't sitting on his thigh it was in his pocket, he did have a valid ccp, and the little girl was in the backseat. That's just for starters.

No, he didn't. He was issued a carry permit, but (under relevant MN statute) that permit was invalidated by his status as a prohibited person, due to his illegal use of marijuana.

 

[chipbennett]

"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.

You seem to think that I don't understand that point; to the contrary: I most certainly do.

It is why I have no problem with Yanez being fired. It is why I have no problem with a wrongful death civil settlement (though I question why the parents of a grown man are getting paid, instead of his daughter).

 

[jamil]

As long as we're pointing out inaccuracies:


No, he didn't. He was issued a carry permit, but (under relevant MN statute) that permit was invalidated by his status as a prohibited person, due to his illegal use of marijuana.

But that didn't enter into any relevance. To what happened. Had things gone the way they should have gone, Castile gets arrested for the marijuana possession, his carry larry gets revoked. Maybe he gets jail time, maybe not. But he's still breathing.

 

[chipbennett]

But that didn't enter into any relevance. To what happened. Had things gone the way they should have gone, Castile gets arrested for the marijuana possession, his carry larry gets revoked. Maybe he gets jail time, maybe not. But he's still breathing.

Then why does it continue to be a part of the narrative?

 

[Fargo]

As long as we're pointing out inaccuracies:


No, he didn't. He was issued a carry permit, but (under relevant MN statute) that permit was invalidated by his status as a prohibited person, due to his illegal use of marijuana.

What statute are you referring to?

 

[jamil]

Then why does it continue to be a part of the narrative?

Similar to what I explained earlier. He had a permit. He is legal to carry until he isn't. Up until the point where he gets convicted and his permit is revoked as a part of having been proven to be an improper person, he is legal to carry. It's relevant because him informing the officer that he has a firearm isn't a reason, even having allegedly smelled marijuana, by itself, for the officer to immediately go into fear mode.

 

[jamil]

What statute are you referring to?

I think he's talking about question 11.e on the 4473 that asks about marijuana use.

 

[Fargo]

I think he's talking about question 11.e on the 4473 that asks about marijuana use.

He references the "relevant MN statute" in post 641 as the basis for his argument. I am curious what statute he is talking about.

 

[Alpo]

Then why does it continue to be a part of the narrative?

Ya know that time (insert person here) was driving after 1/2 quart of vodka and made it all the way home?

He drove the car after he sobered up. Is said person driving illegally since he was drunk driving last week?

Seems to be that the marijuana usage speaks to behavior, not legality of a ccw in his possession. Different animal.

 

[chipbennett]

What statute are you referring to?

624.713. Subdivision 1 (10)(iii): [h=2][/h]The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or, except for clause (1), any other firearm: ...(10) a person who: ...(iii) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in chapter 152;

And also: 624.714. Subdivision 8 (a):

The permit to carry is void at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm...

Similar to what I explained earlier. He had a permit. He is legal to carry until he isn't. Up until the point where he gets convicted and his permit is revoked as a part of having been proven to be an improper person, he is legal to carry. It's relevant because him informing the officer that he has a firearm isn't a reason, even having allegedly smelled marijuana, by itself, for the officer to immediately go into fear mode.

That is not how the MN statute reads. It is the mere illegal use of a controlled substance, NOT the conviction for such use, that renders one a prohibited person.

Note the linked statute, above.

Clause 1 (under 18, with exceptions)
Clauses 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10(i), 10(ii), 11, 12 (conviction for indicated crimes, or pretrial diversion, or a fugitive from the law)
Clauses 3, 5, 6, 10(iv), 10(vi), 10(viii), 13 (judicial determination/due process)
Clauses 10(v), 10(vii) (noncitizen: illegal alien, renounced citizenship)

Clause 10(iii): "is an unlawful user of any controlled substance"

If the MN legislature intended for a conviction to be required, the statutes would have stated such. Instead, it is the use, not the conviction for use, that is disqualifying. (I will also note here that Title 18 of the USC is similarly worded. Unlawful use of marijuana renders anyone, in any state, a prohibited person.)

And, further, once the person becomes prohibited, the permit to carry is likewise statutorily void, under MN statute 624.714(8)(a).

 

[chipbennett]

Ya know that time (insert person here) was driving after 1/2 quart of vodka and made it all the way home?

He drove the car after he sobered up. Is said person driving illegally since he was drunk driving last week?

Seems to be that the marijuana usage speaks to behavior, not legality of a ccw in his possession. Different animal.

Alcohol isn't a controlled substance.

 

[T.Lex]

Alcohol isn't a controlled substance.

Just ask groceries on Sunday.

(Totally bailed from this thread weeks ago, but couldn't pass up that low hanging fruit.)

 

[chipbennett]

Just ask groceries on Sunday.

(Totally bailed from this thread weeks ago, but couldn't pass up that low hanging fruit.)

Well, I assumed that all the non-lawyers would understand that "as defined by relevant statute" was implied...

 

[Fargo]

624.713. Subdivision 1 (10)(iii): The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or, except for clause (1), any other firearm: ...(10) a person who: ...(iii) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in chapter 152;

And also: 624.714. Subdivision 8 (a):

The permit to carry is void at the time that the holder becomes prohibited by law from possessing a firearm...



That is not how the MN statute reads. It is the mere illegal use of a controlled substance, NOT the conviction for such use, that renders one a prohibited person.

Note the linked statute, above.

Clause 1 (under 18, with exceptions)
Clauses 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10(i), 10(ii), 11, 12 (conviction for indicated crimes, or pretrial diversion, or a fugitive from the law)
Clauses 3, 5, 6, 10(iv), 10(vi), 10(viii), 13 (judicial determination/due process)
Clauses 10(v), 10(vii) (noncitizen: illegal alien, renounced citizenship)

Clause 10(iii): "is an unlawful user of any controlled substance"

If the MN legislature intended for a conviction to be required, the statutes would have stated such. Instead, it is the use, not the conviction for use, that is disqualifying. (I will also note here that Title 18 of the USC is similarly worded. Unlawful use of marijuana renders anyone, in any state, a prohibited person.)

And, further, once the person becomes prohibited, the permit to carry is likewise statutorily void, under MN statute 624.714(8)(a).

Thanks. I do have a follow up though. Is MN not one of the states that has made marijuana use lawful under certain conditions? If so, what evidence is that Castille's use was unlawful?

 

[Alpo]

Alcohol isn't a controlled substance.

Picking fly poop out of pepper with that answer.

Let's assume you used mom's percocet prescription because you had a ripping headache. It's a controlled substance you used illegally.

CCW invalid?

Or choose any such scenario you so desire. Pop your old lady one. Domestic battery. She doesn't call the cops. Your ccw invalid?

Seems to me that you have certain constitutional protections until convicted of a crime.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks. I do have a follow up though. Is MN not one of the states that has made marijuana use lawful under certain conditions? If so, what evidence is that Castille's use was unlawful?

It appears that marijuana use is only legal in MN for a very restrictive set of medical uses, including epilepsy and PTSD.

Oh, but medical cannabis use excludes smoking marijuana, under Chapter 311, Section 13.3806(6)(4):

Subd. 6: "Medical cannabis" means any species of the genus cannabis plant, or any mixture or preparation of them, including whole plant extracts and resins, and is delivered in the form of...(4) any other method, excluding smoking, approved by the commissioner.

So, smoking marijuana is per se excluded from any lawful use of cannabis in MN. Ergo, Castile smoking marijuana was by definition, unlawful use.

 

[chipbennett]

Picking fly poop out of pepper with that answer.

Let's assume you used mom's percocet prescription because you had a ripping headache. It's a controlled substance you used illegally.

CCW invalid?

I would suppose so, yes. Though, I suppose once the substance is no longer in your system, you're technically no longer a "user".

If I were taking a Percocet, prescribed or otherwise, I would not be carrying a firearm, regardless.

Or choose any such scenario you so desire. Pop your old lady one. Domestic battery. She doesn't call the cops. Your ccw invalid?

Fed.gov and state laws could be construed as such, possibly.

Seems to me that you have certain constitutional protections until convicted of a crime.

You should take that issue up with the appropriate legislatures. (And, I would agree that domestic violence should be treated no differently from any other accused crime: due process should still apply before denial of rights.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

edit: wrong subforum.

 

[Kutnupe14]

ok, retracted

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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.

So, you think he made that up after the fact? Or, is there no gray area between "THAT'S OUR GUY!" and "He looks similar to the robbery suspect... let's see if he violates so we can pull him over."?

Do I think Castile was reaching for something like he was reaching for a gun? no.

There is ample testimony that Mr. Castile's gun was in his front, right pocket. If his wallet was in his right, rear pocket, how would the motion to retrieve his wallet be different than the motion to retrieve his gun? (note: I genuinely believe he was trying to get his wallet and license out, NOT his gun)

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.

The only other case in my recent memory was in Baton Rouge, were the suspect was both fighting with the police AND going for the gun in his pocket... I.e. a "good shoot" regardless of race. Am I missing some others in the past few years?

FWIW, I'm far more concerned with police shooting unarmed citizens, of all races, for "furtive motions" or "hands in pockets". Though the law protects police in those situations, IMO it should not. I see literally HUNDREDS of furtive motions and hands in/near pockets everyday. There are people with badges who DO NOT HAVE THE TEMPERMENT to be police officers. Though I believe the percentage to be low, any percentage of 765,000 is a large number... Yanez panicked... he is definitely among those who should not be officers.

ETA: "The case probably could have gone either way.". IMO, this case could only have ended in acquittal, given the facts, the charges and the law. IMO, he should have been charged with reckless/negligent homicide and been convicted based upon not conducting the stop correctly, failing to give correct instructions and panicking when Mr. Castile followed the instructions he was given.