Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby yukonjasper on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:29 am

My belief is that the race connection I'd only a factor in that there was a similarity to an armed robbery suspect.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
User avatar
yukonjasper
 
Posts: 5823 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: eagan

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby ijosef on Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:58 pm

I haven't posted in a long while, but I thought I'd add that I know the brother of the Officer who was recently acquitted. I used to work with him (he was a colleague of mine when the shooting actually happened) and a great guy in general. I really felt for his family, as his parents - his PARENTS - were getting death threats. Enough of the threats were serious enough to have a squad car outside their house for a couple of weeks. However one may feel about Officer Yanez and what happened, what does the guy's family have to do with it? That's something that really bothers me.

The Castile family already got the $3m settlement, but they indicate that they plan to sue Yanez. I wonder if he'd be indemnified by the police department or the city or if he'd be on his own.
ijosef
 
Posts: 883 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Rodentman on Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:28 am

Now it's just about the money. Once the acquittal is reached, that should be the end of it.

Also, IMHO the jury of peers is a crock. We should have a 3 judge panel instead, and thus remove jury nullification. It's no longer about "justice" it's about who can manipulate the feelings of the jury to get a covfefe or an acquittal. I can see Yanez having to move out of this area but I cannot see the man and his family's life destroyed. That isn't justice. Non peaceful demonstrations, of ANY kind, should be shut down at once. No roads blocked, fires set, or damage done.
User avatar
Rodentman
 
Posts: 2740 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:22 am

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Randygmn on Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:43 am

Rodentman wrote:Now it's just about the money. Once the acquittal is reached, that should be the end of it.

Also, IMHO the jury of peers is a crock. We should have a 3 judge panel instead, and thus remove jury nullification. It's no longer about "justice" it's about who can manipulate the feelings of the jury to get a covfefe or an acquittal. I can see Yanez having to move out of this area but I cannot see the man and his family's life destroyed. That isn't justice. Non peaceful demonstrations, of ANY kind, should be shut down at once. No roads blocked, fires set, or damage done.


Congratulations, you've just rewritten the Constitution. You're no different than the filthy anti-gun crowd and worse, the FUDDS, because.......FEELINGS!!!!
Randygmn
 
Posts: 901 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:52 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby MJY65 on Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:48 am

ijosef wrote:
The Castile family already got the $3m settlement, but they indicate that they plan to sue Yanez. I wonder if he'd be indemnified by the police department or the city or if he'd be on his own.



I heard them talk about the suit after the criminal trial, but assumed that the settlement was the end of it. Have they actually talked about an additional civil suit since then?
MJY65
 
Posts: 1068 [View]
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:35 am

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Ghost on Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:07 am

MJY65 wrote:
ijosef wrote:
The Castile family already got the $3m settlement, but they indicate that they plan to sue Yanez. I wonder if he'd be indemnified by the police department or the city or if he'd be on his own.



I heard them talk about the suit after the criminal trial, but assumed that the settlement was the end of it. Have they actually talked about an additional civil suit since then?

I bet their attorney is a happy camper
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8246 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby ijosef on Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:27 pm

MJY65 wrote:I heard them talk about the suit after the criminal trial, but assumed that the settlement was the end of it. Have they actually talked about an additional civil suit since then?

Both rags in the Twin Cities reported that they intended to sue Yanez personally, although this was before the $3M settlement was announced. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the settlement was already in the works at the time. They may be seeking to at least have some form of what they consider to be justice, even if it's a civil court declaring Yanez liable for Castile's death. It would be similar to what the Goldman family did when they won the civil suit against OJ Simpson.

Of course there's are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to civil judgments (which is understandable since most folks never have to deal with that situation). When you win a judgment, some folks think that the judge writes you a check that comes right out of the defendant's bank account. In reality, a judgment is just a legal declaration that the losing party (debtor) owes the winning party (creditor) a sum of money. The judgement also gives the creditor a variety of legal tools to collect the judgment if the debtor doesn't pay voluntarily, such as garnishments, liens, etc. These tools are not unlimited, as laws carve out certain exemptions for debtors (property that a creditor cannot touch).

Of course you can't get money from someone who doesn't have any, and there are others who do have means to pay a judgment but are savvy enough to avoid collection. OJ Simpson paid relatively little on his $9 million judgment (which has now ballooned to over $30m because of interest) and the NYC subway shooter Bernie Goetz hasn't paid a dime on his either. Judgments also don't last forever - they eventually expire, depending on state law (although they can be renewed in many cases).

Of course if Yanez is found liable and gets saddled with a massive money judgment, he could file for bankruptcy. If he has to defend himself in civil court, I'm guessing that the police union won't pick up the tab for a lawyer. He would likely be broke, and chapter 7 could be an option. Although intentional torts are typically ineligible for discharge in bankruptcy, a wrongful death claim based on negligence might not be. Imagine Reynolds or the Castile family winning a huge judgment, only to have a bankruptcy court wipe it out.

I am not an attorney and none of the above should be construed as legal advice
ijosef
 
Posts: 883 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Rodentman on Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:39 pm

Randygmn wrote:
Rodentman wrote:Now it's just about the money. Once the acquittal is reached, that should be the end of it.

Also, IMHO the jury of peers is a crock. We should have a 3 judge panel instead, and thus remove jury nullification. It's no longer about "justice" it's about who can manipulate the feelings of the jury to get a covfefe or an acquittal. I can see Yanez having to move out of this area but I cannot see the man and his family's life destroyed. That isn't justice. Non peaceful demonstrations, of ANY kind, should be shut down at once. No roads blocked, fires set, or damage done.


Congratulations, you've just rewritten the Constitution. You're no different than the filthy anti-gun crowd and worse, the FUDDS, because.......FEELINGS!!!!


I'm entitled to my opinion, and if you don't like it you know what you can do about it.
User avatar
Rodentman
 
Posts: 2740 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:22 am

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Randygmn on Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:32 pm

Rodentman wrote:
Randygmn wrote:
Rodentman wrote:Now it's just about the money. Once the acquittal is reached, that should be the end of it.

Also, IMHO the jury of peers is a crock. We should have a 3 judge panel instead, and thus remove jury nullification. It's no longer about "justice" it's about who can manipulate the feelings of the jury to get a covfefe or an acquittal. I can see Yanez having to move out of this area but I cannot see the man and his family's life destroyed. That isn't justice. Non peaceful demonstrations, of ANY kind, should be shut down at once. No roads blocked, fires set, or damage done.


Congratulations, you've just rewritten the Constitution. You're no different than the filthy anti-gun crowd and worse, the FUDDS, because.......FEELINGS!!!!


I'm entitled to my opinion, and if you don't like it you know what you can do about it.


No one questioned whether or not you're entitled to an opinion. Of course, an opinion expressed in public is always open to the analysis/criticism of others. Wouldn't you agree? I couldn't imagine that after your response, that you'd deny another of their opinion. Or perhaps I'm wrong. After all, you're willing to deny other citizens their constitutional rights of judicial due process, so anything is possible.

It's always possible to identify a FUDD. Most of their pistols have a cylinder. Most of their long guns have walnut. And most of their ideas regarding the constitution are fashioned in such a way as to only protect themselves. Thank God they've almost been entirely purged from within leadership of the NRA and have been exposed for what they really are, within the larger "gun community".
Randygmn
 
Posts: 901 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:52 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby usnret on Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:59 pm

I really don't see how he has rewritten the constitution. It seems like you think that only your opinion matters and everyone else's doesn't.
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: Always cheat and
Always win."
GLOCK Certified Armorer
User avatar
usnret
 
Posts: 921 [View]
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:41 am
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Rodentman on Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:56 am

...nevertheless he persisted...
User avatar
Rodentman
 
Posts: 2740 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:22 am

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Sorcerer on Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:18 am

Haven't we bemoaned that judges are legislating or attempting to write law from the bench the last 8 1/2 years. Have we not seen convictions over turned because the judge got something wrong. How many times have we we seen judges at all levels, injecting there own interpretation of the law bases on there own ideals. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Even at that how many innocent people are in prison, and why didn't a judge fix that. It would be much easyer to bribe, pressure 3 verses 12.
Sorcerer
 
Posts: 798 [View]
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby Randygmn on Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:25 am

usnret wrote:I really don't see how he has rewritten the constitution. It seems like you think that only your opinion matters and everyone else's doesn't.


Eliminating a jury of one's peers is constitutionally protected and a significant part of our judicial systems due process. That's not an opinion.
Randygmn
 
Posts: 901 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:52 pm

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby usnret on Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:48 am

You can chose a trial by just a judge.
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: Always cheat and
Always win."
GLOCK Certified Armorer
User avatar
usnret
 
Posts: 921 [View]
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:41 am
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: Philando Castile case. Officer charged

Postby ex-LT on Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:54 am

Randygmn wrote:
usnret wrote:I really don't see how he has rewritten the constitution. It seems like you think that only your opinion matters and everyone else's doesn't.


Eliminating a jury of one's peers is constitutionally protected and a significant part of our judicial systems due process. That's not an opinion.

Sixth Amendment - U.S. Constitution wrote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Where, exactly, in the Sixth Amendment, does it guarantee a "jury of one's peers"?
DNR Certified Firearms Safety Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Instructor - Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun
NRA Endowment Life Member
MN Gun Owners Caucus Life Member
Member Post 435 Gun Club
User avatar
ex-LT
Inspector Gadget
 
Posts: 3470 [View]
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Lakeville

PreviousNext

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron