Family of Philando Castile gets $2.995 million without filing a lawsuit

[LordKiran]

His being "impaired" has zero bearing on what the payout should be. First, being high on pot doesn't at all equate to him having done anything stupid to increase the danger of the situation. So, first you must prove he actually did something specific to contribute to the outcome, and whether he was high or not is largely irrelevant. Second, even if he acted in a way the made the outcome more likely, that is only relevant if he created a situation that made the cops reaction reasonable and valid. Just because he might have done something that could make an irrational, panicking, incompetent cop more likely to shoot, doesn't reduce the cops' liability or what the payout should be.

I disagree. A jury could determine that a drug could impair a person's ability to comprehend and react to a cop's instructions. Telling the cop he has a gun and then the cop saying don't reach for it then could easily be impaired while high. But it won't get to that question since they settled.

Maybe, but first you have to establish that the victim was intoxicated to begin with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

His being "impaired" has zero bearing on what the payout should be. First, being high on pot doesn't at all equate to him having done anything stupid to increase the danger of the situation. So, first you must prove he actually did something specific to contribute to the outcome, and whether he was high or not is largely irrelevant. Second, even if he acted in a way the made the outcome more likely, that is only relevant if he created a situation that made the cops reaction reasonable and valid. Just because he might have done something that could make an irrational, panicking, incompetent cop more likely to shoot, doesn't reduce the cops' liability or what the payout should be.

I disagree. A jury could determine that a drug could impair a person's ability to comprehend and react to a cop's instructions. Telling the cop he has a gun and then the cop saying don't reach for it then could easily be impaired while high. But it won't get to that question since they settled.

I love Cop Shooting fan fiction.

 

[ronburgundy]

His being "impaired" has zero bearing on what the payout should be. First, being high on pot doesn't at all equate to him having done anything stupid to increase the danger of the situation. So, first you must prove he actually did something specific to contribute to the outcome, and whether he was high or not is largely irrelevant. Second, even if he acted in a way the made the outcome more likely, that is only relevant if he created a situation that made the cops reaction reasonable and valid. Just because he might have done something that could make an irrational, panicking, incompetent cop more likely to shoot, doesn't reduce the cops' liability or what the payout should be.

I disagree. A jury could determine that a drug could impair a person's ability to comprehend and react to a cop's instructions. Telling the cop he has a gun and then the cop saying don't reach for it then could easily be impaired while high. But it won't get to that question since they settled.

While an irrational jury mislead by lying lawyers and "experts" might decide that, there is no reasonable basis to draw that inference with any confidence required by law. Unless they are on a drug scientifically established to always severely impair the most basic comprehension skills (and no such evidence exists for pot), then the intoxication does no more to demonstrate actual impairment than the mere fact of some uncertain level of intoxication during sex proves a person was raped. The defense would still need to show actual direct evidence of impairment and wrongful/stupid/reckless actions by the driver, and if they could do that, then the fact that intoxication might have contributed to why they engaged in those actions is moot. And even then, the question comes down to did any demonstrated actual actions by the driver make the shooting significantly more reasonable and less reckless on the part of the officer. Only then, should it impact the judgment in either a criminal or civil case.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I disagree. A jury could determine that a drug could impair a person's ability to comprehend and react to a cop's instructions. Telling the cop he has a gun and then the cop saying don't reach for it then could easily be impaired while high. But it won't get to that question since they settled.

While an irrational jury mislead by lying lawyers and "experts" might decide that, there is no reasonable basis to draw that inference with any confidence required by law. Unless they are on a drug scientifically established to always severely impair the most basic comprehension skills (and no such evidence exists for pot), then the intoxication does no more to demonstrate actual impairment than the mere fact of some uncertain level of intoxication during sex proves a person was raped. The defense would still need to show actual direct evidence of impairment and wrongful/stupid/reckless actions by the driver, and if they could do that, then the fact that intoxication might have contributed to why they engaged in those actions is moot. And even then, the question comes down to did any demonstrated actual actions by the driver make the shooting significantly more reasonable and less reckless on the part of the officer. Only then, should it impact the judgment in either a criminal or civil case.

Except driving under the influence is against the law, Why? Because it impairs your abilities and your judgement. And if it had gone to a civil case it certainly would have to medical testimonies on how much his THC content affected his ability to obey the police officers orders.

 

[ronburgundy]

While an irrational jury mislead by lying lawyers and "experts" might decide that, there is no reasonable basis to draw that inference with any confidence required by law. Unless they are on a drug scientifically established to always severely impair the most basic comprehension skills (and no such evidence exists for pot), then the intoxication does no more to demonstrate actual impairment than the mere fact of some uncertain level of intoxication during sex proves a person was raped. The defense would still need to show actual direct evidence of impairment and wrongful/stupid/reckless actions by the driver, and if they could do that, then the fact that intoxication might have contributed to why they engaged in those actions is moot. And even then, the question comes down to did any demonstrated actual actions by the driver make the shooting significantly more reasonable and less reckless on the part of the officer. Only then, should it impact the judgment in either a criminal or civil case.

Except driving under the influence is against the law, Why? Because it impairs your abilities and your judgement.

So does using a cell phone. Had he been on the phone at the time, would that make him being shot more valid? There is zero difference in the relevance of his drug versus being on the phone. And in both cases, they are not illegal because they always impact every judgement but because they have some probability on impairing judgment sometimes. Being emotional impairs judgment too. Would the fact that he was sad about his mothers recent death warrant his family getting less $ for him being shot?

The fact that he has done something illegal was why he was pulled over in the first place, and not disputed. So, the fact of being under the influence being illegal is irrelevant. Any form or cause of impairment would be equally relevant, or more accurately equally irrelevant without any direct evidence that in this particular case he did in fact make poor judgments in responding to the cop that make the shooting more justifiable.

And if it had gone to a civil case it certainly would have to medical testimonies on how much his THC content affected his ability to obey the police officers orders.

And there would be zero valid science to support any claims that the THC did in fact impact his judgment in any way relevant to his interaction with the cop. There is zero data that would allow for such an inference. At best, they could say that maybe it might possibly have impacted some aspects of his cognition, but with no idea whether it did impact any actions relevant to the case. Sadly, the irrational puritanical bullshit against drug use that you apparently support would likely impact some jury members to make an unreasonable and unscientific judgment that he was bad for being on drugs and thus deserved what he got. Sadly, being stupid is a far bigger and more common hindrance on judgment than drugs.

 

[Playball40]

And those can be prescribed too. Adderall is an amphetamine.

WTF? I've been pulled over for having a tail light out (on my way to get a replacement bulb). Should I have been afraid? I've been told my nose is broad.


Castille had THC in his bloodstream, according to the autopsy. THC can last in the blood stream at high levels for 12-24 hrs. It is wrong to assume he was high.

And with other drugs this gets even sillier, amphetamines can last days in your system.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm with Bronzeage on this one...what was it about his drug use that makes it appropriate to assign blame to him for getting shot?

Because it made him not realize the problem with what he was doing.

Maybe the Police Officer has smoked some marijuana. That could be why he pulled his pistol and shot Philando, instead of stepping to the rear of the car, where it would have been safe.

The policeman made an error in judgment as a result of panic. Panic is the reaction one has when faced with danger and no idea how to deal with it. Philando did nothing to contribute to his death. A second police officer was standing on the passenger side of the car, with full view. He did not pull his gun and shoot anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quit playing stupid. You know who was impaired that day.

Nobody as far as you or anyone else knows. having something in your system is not the same thing as being under the influence. meth can last in your system days after you consume it. If Castile had done meth earlier that week, would it still be fair to say he was on meth when he was shot? Because from where I sit, that sounds incredibly dishonest.

All you know for certain is that at some point in time, Castile had consumed marijuana. You do not know for a fact that he was under the influence during his confrontation with law enforcement.

I didn't say meth. The issue was pot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While an irrational jury mislead by lying lawyers and "experts" might decide that, there is no reasonable basis to draw that inference with any confidence required by law. Unless they are on a drug scientifically established to always severely impair the most basic comprehension skills (and no such evidence exists for pot), then the intoxication does no more to demonstrate actual impairment than the mere fact of some uncertain level of intoxication during sex proves a person was raped. The defense would still need to show actual direct evidence of impairment and wrongful/stupid/reckless actions by the driver, and if they could do that, then the fact that intoxication might have contributed to why they engaged in those actions is moot. And even then, the question comes down to did any demonstrated actual actions by the driver make the shooting significantly more reasonable and less reckless on the part of the officer. Only then, should it impact the judgment in either a criminal or civil case.

Except driving under the influence is against the law, Why? Because it impairs your abilities and your judgement. And if it had gone to a civil case it certainly would have to medical testimonies on how much his THC content affected his ability to obey the police officers orders.

I don't think it was a matter of ability to obey, but rather to realize what the police were seeing.

The problem we generally carry guns and wallets in similar locations. The cop told him not to pull out his gun. He knew he wasn't pulling out his gun and thus didn't change his behavior when he should have understood that the cop thought he was going for his gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And those can be prescribed too. Adderall is an amphetamine.

And with other drugs this gets even sillier, amphetamines can last days in your system.

Whether it is prescribed or not has nothing to do with an impaired charge. Note how many medicine bottles say not to drive while taking the medicine?

 

[Bronzeage]

And those can be prescribed too. Adderall is an amphetamine.

Whether it is prescribed or not has nothing to do with an impaired charge. Note how many medicine bottles say not to drive while taking the medicine?

Note how many concealed carry laws say to tell the officer that you have carry permit and are carrying a weapon. This is supposed to prevent unwarranted shootings.

Try as you may, the only thing Philando did that contributed to his death, was to follow the law. If he had never said the word gun, it would have been an ordinary traffic stop.

 

[LordKiran]

Nobody as far as you or anyone else knows. having something in your system is not the same thing as being under the influence. meth can last in your system days after you consume it. If Castile had done meth earlier that week, would it still be fair to say he was on meth when he was shot? Because from where I sit, that sounds incredibly dishonest.

All you know for certain is that at some point in time, Castile had consumed marijuana. You do not know for a fact that he was under the influence during his confrontation with law enforcement.

I didn't say meth. The issue was pot.

There is so much more to my post than mentioning meth which I only did for comparison. Go back and reread.

- - - Updated - - -

And those can be prescribed too. Adderall is an amphetamine.

Whether it is prescribed or not has nothing to do with an impaired charge. Note how many medicine bottles say not to drive while taking the medicine?

<--The Point













<--The Sandpit you've stuck your head into



















<--Your head

 

[Deepak]

Whether it is prescribed or not has nothing to do with an impaired charge. Note how many medicine bottles say not to drive while taking the medicine?

Note how many concealed carry laws say to tell the officer that you have carry permit and are carrying a weapon. This is supposed to prevent unwarranted shootings.

Try as you may, the only thing Philando did that contributed to his death, was to follow the law. If he had never said the word gun, it would have been an ordinary traffic stop.

Too, nothing in the dashcam audio indicated Castile was impaired. He didn't seem confused, or angry, or in any other way afflicted by reefer madness.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Whether it is prescribed or not has nothing to do with an impaired charge. Note how many medicine bottles say not to drive while taking the medicine?

Note how many concealed carry laws say to tell the officer that you have carry permit and are carrying a weapon. This is supposed to prevent unwarranted shootings.

Try as you may, the only thing Philando did that contributed to his death, was to follow the law. If he had never said the word gun, it would have been an ordinary traffic stop.

Should we see how many concealed carry classes talk about how to deal with an officer when you have a handgun in the car? If he had secured it in the glove compartment and not kept his insurance in there things would have been fine.

 

[Malintent]

*BLAM!!!!!!!*

FYI... that was the sound of my head exploding.

It only took 10 years of rationally arguing cops make mistakes and subsequent pressure over accepting the logic for both Loren and Derec to throw us a bone.

OR it can be viewed another way... that it took this long for you to realize that listening to the other side of stories gives a more balanced approach to reaching opinions, and doing so is not "victim blaming".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It only took 10 years of rationally arguing cops make mistakes and subsequent pressure over accepting the logic for both Loren and Derec to throw us a bone.

OR it can be viewed another way... that it took this long for you to realize that listening to the other side of stories gives a more balanced approach to reaching opinions, and doing so is not "victim blaming".

Loren has justified the shootings of a person throwing stones and a naked man suffering from mental illness. Loren has a long history of supporting almost any abusive action by police.

He has established a very very high bar an officer must go above in order to be guilty of a poor conduct.

 

[RavenSky]

Which was?

Question: Was Yanez's BAC checked? Was he screened for whatever medications or drugs he might have had in his system? Because he definitely did not behave rationally.

Quit playing stupid. You know who was impaired that day.

No she doesn't and neither do you unless you are confessing to you being high

 

[bilby]

Note how many concealed carry laws say to tell the officer that you have carry permit and are carrying a weapon. This is supposed to prevent unwarranted shootings.

Try as you may, the only thing Philando did that contributed to his death, was to follow the law. If he had never said the word gun, it would have been an ordinary traffic stop.

Should we see how many concealed carry classes talk about how to deal with an officer when you have a handgun in the car? If he had secured it in the glove compartment and not kept his insurance in there things would have been fine.

Back when I routinely transported guns in the UK, the law required that they be kept unloaded, in a locked steel box, secured to the inside of the boot (or 'trunk' as you leftpondians insist on calling it), with any ammunition secured in a separate locked steel box.

This never struck me as unreasonable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Should we see how many concealed carry classes talk about how to deal with an officer when you have a handgun in the car? If he had secured it in the glove compartment and not kept his insurance in there things would have been fine.

Back when I routinely transported guns in the UK, the law required that they be kept unloaded, in a locked steel box, secured to the inside of the boot (or 'trunk' as you leftpondians insist on calling it), with any ammunition secured in a separate locked steel box.

This never struck me as unreasonable.

I agree with you there. There is only a few cases where you actually need it on you while drivings.

But in the cast of Castile, at worst he was carrying his weapon in his lap or only slightly better carrying it loose in his pocket.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The City of St. Anthony wasted no time in reaching a settlement with the family of Philanro Castile (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/26/philando-castiles-family-settles-suit-city-3-m/427872001/). The family gets $2.995 million and they had not yet even filed a lawsuit.

The problem with the US is that if this case went to trial it would cost a lot more just to run the case and it could go on for years. In such settlements there is generally a statement not admitting any guilt.

Further such cases can perpetuate where the Plaintiff/Claimant benefits from endless Third Party Litigation Funding, which is seen as an investment by the Sponsor.