10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
Independent. Anti-War. Unbought.

The Castile Doctrine: Cops Without Consequences

by | Jun 22, 2017

The Castile Doctrine: Cops Without Consequences

by | Jun 22, 2017

On June 16, a jury acquitted St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez of all charges in the 2016 killing of motorist Philando Castile. That acquittal was, in a sense, also a death sentence — not for Yanez, but for future motorists unfortunate enough to encounter cops like him.

No, this is not a “bad cop” story. It’s a sad tale and I actually feel sorry for Yanez. But the facts are what they are.

Yanez killed Castile. The killing was caught on video and neither Yanez nor his attorneys denied it.

His defense (that he feared for his life) was based on ridiculous grounds relating to the smell of cannabis and the presence of a child  (“I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?”).

Reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm justifies a self-defense claim. Yanez’s fears were far from reasonable, especially in a trained law enforcement officer whose partner was mere feet away and whose subject of interrogation was peaceful and compliant right up to the moment Yanez shot him.

Castile had informed Yanez that he possessed a concealed weapon and a permit for it, and was following Yanez’s orders to produce the permit when Yanez panicked and fired.

Key word: Panicked. His fear wasn’t justified. It wasn’t reasonable. It was unthinking and irrational. That made him culpably negligent in the killing.

Jeronimo Yanez should have never been issued a badge, a gun, a patrol car, and authority to pull over and interrogate motorists. But he was. That’s a failure of pre-employment psychological screening.

Once Yanez DID receive those items and that authority, the responsibility for what he did with them became his as well. Yes, it was a heavy responsibility, but one he voluntarily assumed and failed to fulfill.

The jury, in relieving him of the consequences of that failure, continued a sad tradition of holding law enforcement officers to a lesser standard of conduct than ordinary Americans. In doing so, they made the world a safer place for cops who shouldn’t be cops — and a more dangerous place for the rest of us.

Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

View all posts

Recent Articles

Recent

The Inescapable Smear of ‘Antisemitism’

The Inescapable Smear of ‘Antisemitism’

Last week, Bill Kristol’s son-in-law Matthew Continetti wrote an op-ed about the midterm elections for The Wall Street Journal titled “Anti-Semitism is on the Ballot.” “Rising antisemitism isn’t only a problem for Democrats. No one who travels in Republican or...

read more
USAID Was Never Only A Leftist Project

USAID Was Never Only A Leftist Project

Over the last year, a common narrative has circulated through conservative commentary about Latin America’s political shifts. Washington dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the argument goes, and conservative candidates began...

read more
The UAE’s Audacious Play To Co-Opt the United Nations

The UAE’s Audacious Play To Co-Opt the United Nations

The word “audacity,” defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as “courage or confidence of a kind that other people find shocking or rude,” is, as its definition suggests, construed mainly in personal terms, and often, as with Barack Obama’s “the audacity of hope,”...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This