We’ve been to this rodeo so frequently there’s a transparent pattern.
Notice anything missing?
♦ There does not appear to be a public call by the family of Philando Castile for the release of the radio dispatch from St. Anthony’s Police department. Why do you think that is?
♦ There does not appear to be a public call by the family of Philando Castile for the immediate release of the Dash-Cam video. Nor is the media driving that transparency narrative as they customarily do in high profile events.
Why do you think that is?
Regarding #1 point above. The only release of the radio communication came from an anonymous leak to a local TV station. The leak provided the essential framework to understand why Officer Yeronimo Yanez stopped the vehicle driven by Philando Castile.
Vis-a-vis the matching description of the 7/2/16 armed robbery suspect:
[…] Employees described one suspect [USA1] to police as a black man with longer than shoulder-length dreadlocks, who wore blue jeans, a green plaid long-sleeved shirt, dark-color shoes with white highlights, glasses and a baseball cap printed with marijuana leaves, the release says. He may have had a mustache.
The other suspect [USA2] was described as a black man with shoulder-length dreadlocks, who wore tan pants, tan shoes with white soles, a green jacket, a green baseball cap and glasses, the release says. He also had some of his hair pulled into a bun through the strap on the back of his hat and had a small mustache and facial hair on his chin (link)
The only way we know the reason for Officer Jeronimo Yanez to pull over the vehicle is because of police radio. The motive for the stop was outlined in the police audio.
“I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”
“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.” (link)
The audio was leaked. Why do you think that is?
Could it possibly be officers within St Anthony PD know exactly what the grievance industry does when they create a false narrative?
Could it be they know the only way to eliminate the false narrative, in essence to counter the lies, is to force the truth into the hands of those who will have no option than to present it ?
The truth and transparency of action has no agenda. However, those who benefit from
hiding shaping the truth benefit from the hiding details, delaying information, and the deliberate obfuscation of facts.
We saw this in every previous case where it was the scheme team or the grievance group who were vested in keeping the truth hidden. (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Freddie Gray and Walter Scott)…. Another familiarity:
“He’s not a gangbanger. He’s not a thug“.
32-year-old Philando Castile Facebook “Crips” Gang Group:
(Click Image Above To Open and Explore)
♦ Issue #3 – The Now Infamous Hand Gun Permit Banter:
The Star Tribune went to great lengths to assert:
Philando Castile had a valid permit to carry a gun when he was shot and killed by a St. Anthony police officer, a source confirmed to the Star Tribune Friday.
[…] In the video, Reynolds said Castile told the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, that he had a permit and was carrying a gun. Yanez shot Castile multiple times.
“He’s licensed to carry, he was trying to get his ID, his wallet out of his pocket and he let the officer knew he had a firearm and was reaching for his wallet,” Reynolds said in the video as a bloodied Castile lay in the driver’s seat dying.
Although the names of gun permit holders are not public under state law, a source confirmed Castile was issued the permit when he lived in Robbinsdale. (link)
The article states: “when he lived in Robbinsdale” and that is past tense.
Do I need to notify the sheriff’s office when I move?
Yes, a permit holder is required to notify the issuing sheriff’s office within 30 days of a permanent address change. Failure to do so is a petty misdemeanor. (link)
How long ago did Philando Castile move from Robbinsdale? Did Philando Castile re-register his address? Was the carry permit, if he indeed had one, valid?
1. Violate instr permit – dismissed
2. No proof of insurance – guilty
3. Basic speed – guilty
4. Driving after suspension – dismissed
5. No proof of insurance – guilty
6. No seat belt use – dismissed
7. No proof of insurance – guilty
8. Impede traffic – dismissed
9. No Minnesota driver’s license – amended charge guilty
10. Driving after suspension of driver’s license – Convicted
11. No proof of insurance – dismissed
12. No proof of insurance – convicted
13. Driving after revocation – Dismissed
15. Driving after suspension – Dismissed
16. No proof of insurance – guilty
17. Speeding – dismissed
18. Driver’s license – failure to obtain new – dismissed
19. Muffler required – dismissed
20. Driving after revocation – guilty
21. Operation of motor vehicle after loss of license prohibited – dismissed
22. Dangerous public road/water – convicted
23. Driving after revocation – convicted
24. No proof of insurance – dismissed
25. Driving after revocation – convicted
26. Seat belt violation – dismissed
27. Driving after revocation – convicted
28. Proof on insurance – Dismissed
29. Driving after revocation – convicted
30. Driving after revocation – convicted
31. Driving after revocation – convicted
32. Seat belt required – convicted
33. Seat belt required – convicted
34. Driving after revocation – convicted
35. Driving after revocation – convicted
36. Driving after revocation – convicted
37. Driving after revocation – convicted
38. Driving after revocation – convicted
39. Driving after revocation – convicted
40. Stop/stand/park vehicle at any place where official signs prohibit stopping – convicted
41. Expired registration – dismissed
42. Snow emergency parking restrictions – convicted
43. Stop/stand/park vehicle on any street/ally, at the same location, for more than 48 consecutive hours – convicted
44. Abandon motor vehicle on any public/private property without consent – convicted
45. Stop/stand/park vehicle on any street/ally, at the same location, for more than 48 consecutive hours – convicted
In Dakota County, he also had some traffic offenses:
46. Driving after suspension – guilty
In Hennepin County, Castile had these violations:
47. Driving after revocation – convicted
48. Display altered/fictitious insurance card – dismissed
49. Driving after revocation – convicted
50. Seat belt required – dismissed
51. Uninsured vehicle – convicted
52. Driving after revocation – dismissed
53. Seat belt required – dismissed
54. Impromper display original plate – convicted
55. Seat belt required – convicted
There were two drug incidents listed on Castile’s record, but both were listed as dismissed by the court system:
1. Possess marijuana in motor vehicle – dismissed
2. Drugs – possess over 1.4 grams of marijuana in motor vehicle – dismissed