Quote:http://gotnews.com/breaking-mn-cops-newp...shootings/

 

The author of the article presents other circumstantial evidence I dont find convincing.  However, my point is, what if it's true that police will be able to tie him to the robbery?  That changes things.

 

You don't think that provides a motive for Castile to draw his weapon?  The license is irrelevant if the guy committed armed robbery.

 

I don't know that I really trust the article, but it does raise a few questions.  People seem to like to jump to conclusions without knowing all of the facts.  An officer doesn't draw and/or fire his weapon unless there is reason to do so.  The "anti-cop" segment of this board seems to think that all cops are bad, and that they are out to "execute" somebody solely based on race.  That's not only an absurd point of view, it's part of the problem.

 

Something about this whole case doesn't add up.  If the guy tells the police officer that he's armed without producing the proper documentation (driver's license and permit) the guy was either stupid or up to no good.  If I recall correctly, the girlfriend is the one who supposedly blurted out that the guy had a permit.

 

Now me as a police officer, I would be on alert if I know that people that I'm interacting with in close proximity are armed.

 

Here is the thing though, and what I think might have happened.  This is my speculation based on what we know.  The officer supposedly instructed him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.  He started to go for his wallet to produce identification, and the gun was on the same side of his waist that the officer saw him moving his hand towards.  The officer saw the weapon and told him not to go for it.  The guy (and the girlfriend) know that the officer sees it, but he (the guy) doesn't say anything.  It's possible that the guy wasn't going for the weapon and was in fact going for his wallet and driver's license.  When the officer yells "not to go for it" and "take your hands off of it" that's when the girlfriend blurts out that he has a permit.  At that point, all the officer sees is someone putting his hands near or on a weapon.  He reacts by "stopping the action" and is immediately traumatized because he had to discharge his weapon and most likely took a human life.

 

Again, that's just the scenario that I envision and believe what happened.  Were they pulled over for a taillight or because he matched the description of somebody wanted?  Those reports aren't very clear and definitive.  Regarding the article, it's possible that the vehicle matched the description of a vehicle involved in another crime.  I doubt that "tax stamps" can be linked to a certain group of cigarettes, especially a group at a convenience store or a gas station.

 

The bottom line is, I don't think that the officer fired his weapon because he thought that the subjects were involved in some other crime, and I certainly don't think that he did so because he was trying to "execute" the victim.  To me, based on what we know it looks like the officer felt a threat and took steps to protect himself.

---