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

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor Derec.

 

[Derec]

Poor Derec.

Why? The cop did make a mistake and the family does deserve some compensation.

I do think the amount of $3M is excessive, but it is not nearly as bad as $1.5M given to the Michael Brown family, because they should not have gotten a dime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Poor Derec.

Why? The cop did make a mistake and the family does deserve some compensation.

I do think the amount of $3M is excessive, but it is not nearly as bad as $1.5M given to the Michael Brown family, because they should not have gotten a dime.

Second this. While the cop was not criminally wrong he did make a mistake.

Since I think Castile's drug use had an awful lot to do with it, though, I think they shouldn't have gotten nearly that much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*BLAM!!!!!!!*

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

 

[Bronzeage]

Why? The cop did make a mistake and the family does deserve some compensation.

I do think the amount of $3M is excessive, but it is not nearly as bad as $1.5M given to the Michael Brown family, because they should not have gotten a dime.

Second this. While the cop was not criminally wrong he did make a mistake.

Since I think Castile's drug use had an awful lot to do with it, though, I think they shouldn't have gotten nearly that much.

How does that work? Did his drug use somehow make Philando seem scarier?

$3million, or so seems a small price to pay for our current "badge plus fear" is a license to kill policy. That is essentially what we have. A policeman is allowed to create a dangerous situation, then we allow him to kill someone, to counter the danger.

Recent verdicts are consistent. A policeman has to grossly fuck up, before the death of a civilian becomes a criminal matter, and even then, if it's not on film, nothing happens.

All the officer has to do is say, "I was scared." Then his supervisor comes out and says, "A policeman has a right to go home to his family," and it's all over.

Philando Castile was just the victim of poor training and poor supervision, an innocent bystander of sorts. We can try and find someway to blame him for getting himself shot, but he really didn't have that much time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

*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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Second this. While the cop was not criminally wrong he did make a mistake.

Since I think Castile's drug use had an awful lot to do with it, though, I think they shouldn't have gotten nearly that much.

How does that work? Did his drug use somehow make Philando seem scarier?

$3million, or so seems a small price to pay for our current "badge plus fear" is a license to kill policy. That is essentially what we have. A policeman is allowed to create a dangerous situation, then we allow him to kill someone, to counter the danger.

Recent verdicts are consistent. A policeman has to grossly fuck up, before the death of a civilian becomes a criminal matter, and even then, if it's not on film, nothing happens.

All the officer has to do is say, "I was scared." Then his supervisor comes out and says, "A policeman has a right to go home to his family," and it's all over.

Philando Castile was just the victim of poor training and poor supervision, an innocent bystander of sorts. We can try and find someway to blame him for getting himself shot, but he really didn't have that much time.

But he was also a victim of his own drug use that blinded him to the danger of the situation.

 

[Ford]

How does that work? Did his drug use somehow make Philando seem scarier?

$3million, or so seems a small price to pay for our current "badge plus fear" is a license to kill policy. That is essentially what we have. A policeman is allowed to create a dangerous situation, then we allow him to kill someone, to counter the danger.

Recent verdicts are consistent. A policeman has to grossly fuck up, before the death of a civilian becomes a criminal matter, and even then, if it's not on film, nothing happens.

All the officer has to do is say, "I was scared." Then his supervisor comes out and says, "A policeman has a right to go home to his family," and it's all over.

Philando Castile was just the victim of poor training and poor supervision, an innocent bystander of sorts. We can try and find someway to blame him for getting himself shot, but he really didn't have that much time.

But he was also a victim of his own drug use that blinded him to the danger of the situation.

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?

 

[Toni]

How does that work? Did his drug use somehow make Philando seem scarier?

$3million, or so seems a small price to pay for our current "badge plus fear" is a license to kill policy. That is essentially what we have. A policeman is allowed to create a dangerous situation, then we allow him to kill someone, to counter the danger.

Recent verdicts are consistent. A policeman has to grossly fuck up, before the death of a civilian becomes a criminal matter, and even then, if it's not on film, nothing happens.

All the officer has to do is say, "I was scared." Then his supervisor comes out and says, "A policeman has a right to go home to his family," and it's all over.

Philando Castile was just the victim of poor training and poor supervision, an innocent bystander of sorts. We can try and find someway to blame him for getting himself shot, but he really didn't have that much time.

But he was also a victim of his own drug use that blinded him to the danger of the situation.

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.

 

[LordKiran]

But he was also a victim of his own drug use that blinded him to the danger of the situation.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But he was also a victim of his own drug use that blinded him to the danger of the situation.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly? Have you even ever smoked weed before? It moften makes you hyper-aware of what you *are* doing. Hence paranoia. What weed DOES make you forget is what you *were* doing in the past.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

Quit being insulting. We do NOT know that either of them were impaired. We do know that the police officer behaved very irrationally and in an incompetent and cowardly--and murderous manner.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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

The NRA?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

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.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

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.