Both the squad car audio transcript or the day-after testimony disagree with the Yanez’s testimony on the stand, so I can understand why the jury wanted to see them and the defense wanted to block them. However, I don’t understand why the judge would go along with it?
The jury did get to see the dashcam video, as well as the video filmed by Castile’s girlfriend right after the shooting.
Possibly, that’s why I was looking for clarification.
I’ve parsed it a few times, and it seems he is saying that the transcripts could cast doubt on the guilt without understanding the context that they were in. But that doesn’t make much sense from a defense strategy.
I think the “which would cast doubt on guilt” modifies ‘context’, and not ‘transcripts’.
or applies to ‘context’, or whatever the grammar name is 
The context is what casts doubt on guilt, and the defense wants to add that context.
Regards,
Shodan
This may be just another example of bad reporting. Juries can usually see anything that was introduced as evidence in the trial. It may be that the videos were introduced but transcripts were not. Anybody know if the transcripts were evidence in the trial?
Ah, I get it now. Maybe it needed a comma? (This morning I shot an elephant wearing my pajama’s. I will never understand how it managed to get into my pajama’s.)
That makes sense then.
Well, at least the sentence makes sense, I am not sure that I agree the ruling makes sense.
They have seen the video, and have access to the video, if the transcript is just easier to understand parts of what are bieng said, or is easier to take notes on, then I don’t understand why it was denied. It is not introducing new evidence, it is just putting it into a more easily collated form.
Yes, this. Apologies for any lack of clarity.
[Officer Geronimo Yanez cleared of all counts in Phillip Castile’s killing.
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CASTILE_SHOOTING_OFFICER_TRIAL_MNOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-16-16-54-20)
I have no words.
To think I was getting hopeful that we’d turned a corner on cops getting off the hook. I guess as long as you have THC in your system, no matter how low, your forfeit your right to life.
The NRA’s silence on this whole thing is even more telling. All lives matter indeed.
The only (semi) reasonable part of it.
[/quote]
Despite the acquittal, the city of St. Anthony quickly announced it would dismiss Yanez, saying the public “will be best served” if he leaves the force. The city’s statement said they would offer a voluntary separation agreement.
[quote]
At least he is off the force.
Despite the acquittal, the city of St. Anthony quickly announced it would dismiss Yanez, saying the public “will be best served” if he leaves the force. The city’s statement said they would offer a voluntary separation agreement.
No it would be reasonable if they had fired him immediately.
The jurors came to the only just decision and I commend them for their impartiality. The fact is that Philando Castile died because he made a very stupid move. When you tell a cop that you have a firearm you need to keep your hands in sight at all times, put them on the dashboard of the car and leave them there until instructed otherwise. What you do not do is start fumbling for your ID. What is the cop supposed to do in those circumstances? Just hope that the guy doesn’t pull out a gun?
The decision to prosecute here was purely political, a genuflection to the public which is always convinced in cases like this that they know far better than the jury what happened. The family of the slain man is obviously devastated by his death. It deserves sympathy. What is does not and cannot deserve is the sacrifice of a police officer to make them feel a little better. That would not be justice, it would be revenge.
The statement of the Governor that Castile died because he was black is as outrageous as it is untrue. Cops would have reacted identically if a white suspect had behaved in the way Castile did. Do you honestly believe that a policeman would think he was safe because the guy with his hands out of sight is white? “Oh, this man won’t pull out a gun and shoot me because he’s white.” Anyone who really believes that cops think that way is a complete idiot.
Each case of death at the hands of police should be examined individually. You do not get to be an innocent victim simply because of your race. Equally you are not automatically guilty of a crime because the person you shot is black. Officer Yanez did nothing wrong. That the police department is firing him is quite understandable however, though regrettable. He could not be an effective police officer with the mob still baying for his blood.
Fuck you, you fucking pile of shit. Why don’t you go back under whatever fucking rock you crawled out from.
In what way was Philando Castile not innocent?
Got it – you assume that the cop is definitely telling the truth, even though he says he thought it was a robbery suspect but didn’t treat the traffic stop as though it was a robbery suspect. You assume that the victim’s wife is lying.
And no, I don’t think cops think the way you describe. Nonetheless, I think some (whatever their race) may have some unconscious bias that leads them to be more scared and nervous and jumpy around black people (especially black men), and therefore more likely to draw their weapon when they otherwise wouldn’t, and then more likely to pull the trigger. All without realizing it.
Licking Trump’s asshole has left him cognitively impaired, apparently. Maybe it’s the taste.
It’s a criminal trial. You assume the suspect is not guilty until proven otherwise. It wasn’t
proven he was guilty, nor that he was lying. This isn’t complicated.
The assumption that, because someone is on trial, they must be lying, is neither legally nor morally justified.
That’s the reason for the “(semi)”.
It would have been best, IMHO, if he had faced some level of punishment under criminal law.
Failing that, he obviously does not have what it takes to be a cop, so he needs to be removed from the force before he shoots someone else.
I was challenging a post that assumed the officer’s account was true and that the wife lied. Your post is arguing with a straw man.
He enjoys building those, almost as much as he enjoys tearing them down.