Here We Go Again – Activist Minnesota Prosecutor Charges Officer Without Grand Jury…

Following the path of Angela Corey (Sanford/Zimmerman) and Marilyn Mosby (Baltimore/Freddie Gray), a Minnesota activist prosecutor named John Choi has made the decision to charge Officer Jeronimo Janez with 3rd degree manslaughter in the shooting case of Philando Castile, without going to a grand jury (pdf complaint below).

The explanation by Choi is quite astonishing, and reflects a rogue decision to satisfy, yet again, the social justice crowd while wasting taxpayer money:

Minnesota – The use of deadly force by a St. Anthony police officer was determined to be unjustified in the shooting death of Philando Castile.  Ramsey County Attorney John Choi made the announcement during a news conference Wednesday morning.


Choi began his announcement by saying that after spending 19 weeks “immersed in the facts and law and thinking about what justice requires in the case,” he said he decided it would be wrong to ask a grand jury to make a decision regarding the case.

He said although he knows some members of the community may not be pleased with such a decision, he said “in order to achieve justice, we must be willing to do the right thing no matter how hard it may seem.”

Choi spoke about what happened the night Castile was shot. Officer Jeronimo Yanez and Officer Joseph Kauser were identified as being present at the scene of the shooting. The investigation revealed Yanez fatally shot Castile.

After careful review of investigation materials, Choi said he considered the meaning of the use of deadly force through the lens of the law.

“Unreasonable fear cannot justify the use of deadly force,” Choi said. (read more)

Here is the Criminal Complaint:

Notice in the criminal complaint everything we previously outlined in our own independent research is 100% confirmed.  {{Giving Middle Finger To Snopes}}

Back Story on Philando Castile Case #1

Back Story on Philando Castile Case #2

JULY 2016 – Against the backdrop of the Minnesota police chief stating in July that Ms. Reynolds claims do not match reality…. and having looked at the video hundreds of times, I’m in agreement with Treeper Nettles who first identified the tri-fold wallet of Philando Castile in the left front pocket of his sweat pants.

Philando Castile - Falcon Heights Police Shooting

When you correct the orientation of the video image (to eliminate mirrored orientation) and then point out the visible location of the hand gun you get this:

mn shooting HANDGUN - WALLET

The wallet was in the left front pocket of his sweat pants (left thigh). Same proximity as the handgun resting part in his lap and part on his left thigh.

Here’s the original video where officer Jeronimo Yanez clearly says:

“Fuck ! … I told him not to reach for it – I told him to keep his hands off it”…

Look for yourself. It is all visible, and it all happens in the first minute of Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds live-streamed video.

Looks pretty clear to me.

Philando Castile - Falcon Heights Police Shooting

mn castile crime scene 4

When you consider that Officers Jeronimo Yanez and Joseph Kauser pulled over Philando Castile (July 6th) because he matched an armed robbery suspect description (BOLO issued July 5th), and considering Castile had a visible handgun and did not comply with the instructions of Officer Yanez….

Well ?…


This also explains why the media and family of Philando Castile are not requesting the dash-cam footage being released. If the Dash-Cam footage were to be released, in conjunction with the visible and forensic evidence, it would exonerate Officer Yanez.

“Fuck ! I told him not to reach for itI told him to keep his hands off it“…

Unfortunately, exoneration of Yanez is exactly the opposite of what the Main Stream Media narrative wants to happen, and what their efforts have been working toward so far. The release of the Dash-Cam would also remove the financial benefit from the lawsuit the Castile family has announced.

The media and Castile family now both have a vested interest in keeping the Dash-Cam video hidden. They’ll claim it can’t be released because of an “ongoing investigation”.

Trayvon Martin 911 Calls

Trayvon Martin 911 Calls

However, when the activists want evidence released, 911 calls, video, etc. history has shown they don’t accept those investigative arguments and they force the releases (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Freddie Gray, etc).

This time the release would be damaging to them. They will accept that “ongoing investigation” position in this case because it benefits their claim.

The media are more comfortable selling a ‘Hand’s Up Don’t Shoot” story, and will never NEVER retract their narrative or admit their mistakes.

That’s why the current rating of the American Media ranks lower than Congress.

CNN spent how many hours analyzing an audio recording from the Trayvon Martin shooting, ending up with the word “coons” – which they later retracted, and said “goons” after the narrative was embedded.

Why won’t CNN use their incredible video technology to show the broadcast public the hand-gun in the lap of Philando Castile? Yeah, odd…

And don’t forget the images the Media sold with the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting. Not a single MSM story ever showed what 17-year-old Trayvon Martin really looked like on the night George Zimmerman encountered him:

TRAYVON-MARTIN-HuffPo largetray - Newest

Left: Media Image of Trayvon Martin – – Right: Actual Trayvon Martin in 2012

This entry was posted in 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Big Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, Death Threats, Dept Of Justice, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

236 Responses to Here We Go Again – Activist Minnesota Prosecutor Charges Officer Without Grand Jury…

  1. rsanchez1990 says:

    Another innocent person will have their reputation ruined and dragged through court before being declared innocent just to satisfy SJW thirst for blood.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Howie says:

    He failed to give the perp a free shot. The one free shot rule is a Social Justice requirement to avoid persecution by Social Justice persecutors.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Re-reading the conversation, I now fully blame cannabis.

    Yanez asked for license and proof of insurance. Castille had his insurance card handy and provided that first. Probably kept in the vehicle, so he had it before his wallet.


    Castille then remembered to announce (typical pot brain delay) and does so. This isn’t a biggie, and no cop would blame Castille’s short delay. HOWEVER, thanks to more typical pot brain delay, Castille resumes searching for his license.


    Officer Yanez tells him to not reach for the weapon. But in a bad confluence of locations, Castille’s wallet, gun, and shoulder harness buckle are all in the same place. Wrongly thinking that Yanez knows what he’s thinking (overassumption of external understanding is another common pot error), Castille keeps looking for his license, which he is sure will resolve things. WRONG. Reaching for a buckle and reaching for a waistband gun (typically sits right next to buckle) look nearly identical. Yanez was almost surely expecting a waistband gun, not a pocket carry (this is why Castille needed to await instructions AND questions).


    Yanez goes edgy, but Castille with a 5-15 second pot delay on many finer points of logic just keeps escalating the situation by not freezing, not verbalizing about freezing, and not doing all the important things they tell you to do.


    To defend this case, pot has to go on trial. Yanez is taking the blame for Castlle’s deadly mistake of carrying while intoxicated.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Did they ever find the alleged CC Permit? Last I heard when the case was in the news, he supposedly had one, but no one could find it and Sheriff said it hadn’t been issued.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I know that his residence county said no, but an adjoining county said something which sounded like a yes. Adjoining county registration is typical, so no biggie. Complaint provides no details, and may be fudging a bit to avoid the point of validity. I simply assume that it was valid, because police procedure should be the same, IMO, after an announcement. Driver or passenger is a possible holder of a valid permit, but continues in whatever state is otherwise justified by the facts, including suspect. Castille would not have been the first innocent CC holder treated sternly as a bank robbery suspect.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. One other point. Common link between Trayvon, Mike Brown, and Castille: all potheads if not actually high at the time. Letting them off on pot is the soft bigotry of low expectations – which the left hopes and expects. It allows socially divisive behaviors to grow and be exploited by the left.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Howie says:

      This Choi character is a menace to Law and Order. Another Social Justice crusader that wormed in to the system. He should meet the same fate as Angela Corey and Nifong.. Unfortunately the damage he will do before meeting his fate is immense.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Howie says:

    Again. The states own evidence exonerates the defendant. I do not see where there is probable cause for a manslaughter due to culpable negligence by the cop.

    The statute
    A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
    (3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
    (4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
    (5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
    If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim’s death.
    I can not find the jury instructions for this offense yet but I imagine the persecutor will never reach the proof ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis. This is another social justice warrior gone wild persecution.
    Especially since the charged under
    (1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another


    Liked by 2 people

  6. wasntme says:

    Why not just follow the process? If Yanez should be charged, the Grand Jury will say so. The fact that Choi is circumventing the process shows he knows he does not have a case.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. jeans2nd says:

    Another unreasonable prosecutor.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. emmett mccarthy says:

    Bypassing the grand jury does, indeed, indicate lack of any credible case. This cop may be smart to ask for a bench trial by a judge rather than a jury trial. That brought justice for the Baltimore cops.


    • platypus says:

      When a case is tried to the court (judge), findings of fact are required. Jury trials do not “explain” the verdict. A court trial is much easier to appeal & win because the record is much better.


  9. tonyE says:

    The main difference here is that it’s extermely unlike that Trump’s DOJ will support this.

    Without the Administration supporting this, and in fact, perhaps even working against this, I don’t see these flames of SJW’s going very far.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. mikeydoo says:

    Officer Yanez says, “I told him to GET his hand off it.” not “I told him to keep his hands off it”… The woman replies with the same verb “GET” He already had his hand on his gun.

    Liked by 1 person

    • To an unclouded mind, what Yanez said (to get hands off gun) is functionally equivalent to “show me your hands” or “stop doing what you are doing which is causing me to warn you”. Typical response is hands up. But to the pot-addled brain, there is a disconnect as the brain fails to connect “I’m doing something” as causative to the policeman saying “stop doing something”. Castille could not connect his own announcement of “I have a gun” to his subsequent rummaging in the area a concealed weapon is typically carried. I have seen this so many times with pot smokers – the assumption that people know what they’re saying, thinking, or doing, when no – THEY are the ones in the ozone.

      Even if we give Castille every benefit of the doubt, and assume he was grabbing his buckle or his wallet, the fact is, he created the dangerous situation himself. It was not much different from stepping into a crosswalk against the traffic lights, and getting hit by a police car. Yes, he used the crosswalk. But no, he did not wait for the lights.

      Liked by 1 person

      • oldiadguy says:


        Excellent, your efforts to piece together what happened by the known facts is very good, but let me help you tweak it a bit. First, you are directing most of your attention towards the actions of Castile. Castile was a secondary actor in this incident, Yanez was the primary actor in this tragedy. Castile is the person who fired the fatal shots.

        Like most here at the CTH you have a pro police bias and if shows in how you are interpreting the facts. You have to back up and approach the investigation without any bias or emotion. Go in with a clean slate.

        Don’t get hung up on the fact that Castile had THC in his system. Nothing in Yanez’s statements indicated that Castile was impaired. Be a Joe Friday, “Just the facts ma’am, just the facts.”

        Look at the orders that Yanez gave to Castile. Yanez asked for Castile’s license and insurance card. Castile complied and gave Yanez his insurance card and then apparently went to retrieve his wallet to give Yanez his driver’s license. Somewhere is this time frame Castile informed Yanez that he was carrying a pistol. This is where things went sideways.

        Look at the sequence of instructions that Yanez supposedly gave Castile and ask yourself this. Were the instructions consistent or conflicting? Did Castile follow the instructions, fail to follow the instructions or could he have been confused by conflicting instructions?

        So that we are on the same page, lets us the PDF at this link.

        Click to access Yanez%20Jeronimo%2011%2016%2016.pdf

        Yanez’s statements are on page 4 and 5.

        It should be noted that before he died, Castile made a dying declaration.

        9:06:04 P.M.-9:06;05 PM – Castile moaned and said “I wasn’t reaching for it”

        Take Care

        Liked by 1 person

        • oldiadguy says:

          “Castile is the person who fired the fatal shots.” That should read Yanez is the person who fired the fatal shots.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I actually have two countering biases here – pro-police and pro-CC. I even learned what I know about CC from multiple kinds of sources – police-skeptical civilians, military, and former LEOs.

          One point made very clear to me by one expert (former LEO) is that announcement changes everything, and that from that moment forward, the permit holder must be ready for new orders. That person’s recommendation was to not even be moving at all at the point of announcing. The long list of examples of stop outcomes – everything from absolutely no change in process (“That’s fine, you didn’t need to tell me. Please give me your license and registration.”) to cuffing the person face-down on the ground (vehicle matched BOLO due to SNAFU) did have one thing in common – officers will treat the additional factor of a known weapon very individually, depending on the situation, and one should make no assumptions about what the police need to do. It was that expert’s belief that the uncertainty is an inherent and assumed risk of CC, and I have come to agree.

          Because announcement changes everything, there has been some debate whether CC permit holders should announce when NOT carrying, since this is typically not required by law, but the information about carrier status MAY be available to the officer before approaching the stopped vehicle. Based on my personal observations in discussions with experts and LEOs, the trend is AWAY from unnecessary announcement, in part because even a negative announcement adds a level of danger to the stop. I think that fact in and of itself shows that police are taking the act of announcement as an automatic concerning event.

          I will say this – I felt grievously sorry that Castille did not have training from people like the ones I’ve consulted. He would be alive right now if he did. This is why I am such a strong believer in CC training, despite the trend away from training requirements and toward lower numbers of training hours. People need to understand that friendly fire is a risk of CC for civilians, just like it is for cops. Just a little training can dramatically lower that risk, PROVIDED THE TRAINING IS FOLLOWED.

          But if I could pass on ONE recommendation to all concealed carriers, it would be this.


          Liked by 1 person

    • oldiadguy says:

      The problem is Yanez had no idea where the gun was according to his statement in the complaint.

      Take Care

      Liked by 1 person

      • The next police steps are typically to ask the person where the gun is, and to tell them not to touch it unless asked, but not always in that order. Apparently, a person at a stop acting spontaneously to show their gun (EXTREMELY DANGEROUS) happens far too often, and the people must be warned to stop.

        THIS is the CC stop dreaded event. Crook produces gun “innocently” to reveal, but in a fraction of a second can kill the cop with it.

        Yanez put his hand on his weapon immediately, but cannot beat the driver’s initiating advantage unless he (Yanez) draws and points, which he did. Proper response by the driver at that point is “hands up”, stop moving, hands on wheel. I am convinced that pot-dulled reflexes are why Castille never stopped looking for the license.

        I would really like to hear the audio, not just read the transcript. I think the audio will demonstrate slurred speech and other MJ speech patterns. The girlfriend’s behavior already does, IMO.


    • oldiadguy says:

      Two important take a ways from that article. The first –

      “Ramsey County Sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. John Eastham said that Yanez was “summons booked” Thursday, meaning he was processed, photographed and immediately released without having to post bond.”

      The second –

      “To those of you who may say this incident was Philando Castile’s fault, I would submit that no reasonable officer — knowing, seeing and hearing what officer Yanez did at the time — would have used deadly force under these circumstances,” Choi said Wednesday when he announced the charges. “I have given officer Yanez every benefit of the doubt on his use of deadly force, but I cannot allow the death of a motorist who was lawfully carrying a firearm under these facts and circumstances to go unaccounted for.”

      Take Care

      Liked by 1 person

      • To Choi I say “Bullshit.”


      • Les says:

        You have to be able to get to your ID and permit BEFORE you get to your gun. That’s where Philando messed up, not the officer.

        The permit was not acquired from the sheriff of the county of his residence and Philando didn’t pay the $10 to update his address in the correct county so I’m not entirely sure his permit was valid. Technically it isn’t if he moved more than 30 days before he was killed.

        What do you think about the last point, oldiadguy? Was his permit valid?

        (I didn’t ask about the first point, having to move your gun to get to your ID and permit because it is obviously a dumb move. Dumb enough to have lasting consequences. Darwin Award kind of dumb.)


        • oldiadguy says:


          Everyone is getting hung up on whether the permit was valid or not. This is a technical issue. The issue is whether Yanez was legally justified in shooting Chastile, nothing else.

          “You have to be able to get to your ID and permit BEFORE you get to your gun. That’s where Philando messed up, not the officer.”

          I don’t follow you here. The pistol was found in Castile’s left front pants pocket by the police after they had removed him from the auto and preformed CPR on him. It was obviously well concealed. While I guess a wallet would fit in the same pocket as a full size handgun that was lying on the ground, it is more likely in his left front pants pocket as shown in the photos above.

          Take Care


  11. jdvalk says:

    It is not “unreasonable fear” to defend one’s self against someone who has a gun in his lap and reaches for it. That this prosecutor would have the evidence presented before us (plus much more) and is still willing to leapfrog the grand jury process seems to me the result of the same PC priorities that keep marring what should be a straightforward matter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Choi clearly has no concept of draw/counterdraw from the police perspective. It is the cop’s duty to stay ahead of any draw status on the part of the driver/suspect, and even more so one who is known to be armed. Yanez stayed ahead of suspect, based on what he knew, saw, heard.

      I don’t believe that was a gun now – possibly sunglasses – but that doesn’t matter. Assume everything Castille said was true. Optimal case for the victim. Was Yanez reasonable in firing? Yes, because using that scenario, as described, I could have killed Yanez by getting off the first shot, even with Yanez drawn and pointed. Think like a perp, and you’ll see how it could be done. Modern police training is to not allow an armed suspect to have the upper hand – ever.


    • oldiadguy says:

      There was no gun in Castile’s lap. The only handgun that was reportedly found was located in Castile’s left front short’s pocket.

      A prosecutor can either issue a charge against someone or can have a grand jury issue an indictment. Since the prosecutor has issued the charge, the case still has to go to either a grand jury or preliminary hearing to see if there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.

      Take Care


  12. oldiadguy says:


    “…Slager created his justification.” How is it creating his justification if, at the time he used lethal force, he really did believe that Scott had the Taser?”

    There is no way to prove that Slager believed Scott had possession of the Taser when he shot Scott. We can get some idea about his belief that Scott was a threat or not by the way he approached Scott after he had been shot. Did you see Slager pointing his pistol at Scott as he approached him or even hold his pistol in the ready position? I didn’t see it. After Slager handcuffed Scott did you see Slager search around or under Scott for the Taser? I didn’t see that either. Instead, we see Slager glance back and then run to the Taser, pickup a critical piece of evidence, carry to Scott’s location and drop it to the ground. So much for securing a weapon and protecting a critical piece of evidence.

    “There are discrepancies between the state agents’ accounts of the interview and the investigator’s account of the interview. The obstruction of justice charge seems like it’s based on that latter. However, according to the SLED agents, he claimed that Scott had turned away at the time he used lethal force. I’m more concerned with how three people can participate in the same interview and emerge with conflicting accounts themselves.”

    It is very common for witnesses to the same event to have different recollections of what was said or transpired. That is why my agency and most others record their interviews. I understand that SLED and most Federal agencies do not record interviews, but I believe that to be a mistake as this case shows.

    “As I stated earlier, he told investigators he moved the Taser before the video reveal. He also told them that he was concerned that someone would come to assist Scott. We can speculate all we want about what his intentions were, but given the order of his actions rather than the actions themselves, it seems like state agents aren’t all that confident that he was intentionally tampering with evidence.”

    I have no idea what the SLED agents thought about the tampering with evidence issue, however, as a former IA Investigator many of Slager’s actions on that video jump out. As I stated early in a previous thread, if Slager was concerned about the Taser, all he had to do was abandon his wounded prisoner and go back and stand guard over the Taser.

    Let’s use the video to see if we can interpret what Slager’s motive might have been post shooting.

    At 0.24, immediately after shooting Scott, Slager is caught looking over his left shoulder back to where the Taser fell.

    Slager casually walks towards Scott while conversing with the dispatcher via his radio, his pistol is down at his side.

    At 0.46, Slager reaches Scott, handcuffs him and does not appear to search Scott or the area around him for the Taser. Further, Slager does not check on Scott’s condition nor does he render him any aid. (Officer safety, evidence preservation and preservation of life issues)

    At 1.10, Slager leaves Scott, trots back to the location of the Taser and picks it up, meanwhile the first assist officer has arrived at Scott’s location. (Prisoner security, preservation of life and evidence preservation issues)

    At 1:31, Slager walks back to Scott’s location with Taser in his right hand and upon reaching Scott, casually drops the Taser to the ground. (Is this action consistent with securing a weapon or a piece of critical evidence?)

    At 2:12, Slager picks up the Taser from where he dropped it.

    At 2:50, Slager removes the magazine from his pistol and appears to check the number of rounds remaining in the magazine.

    (To me this indicates a person who is working on a story of what occurred.)

    At 3:13, the other officer leaves the scene for a short time and during this time, Slager, who had offered not any aid to Scott reached over and with his left hand appeared to check for a carotid pulse on the back of Scott’s neck. (Slager is right handed and has according to reports had received EMT training, yet he checks for the carotid pulse in the wrong location.)

    At 3:35, a supervisor has started debriefing Slager and removes Slager’s pistol from its holster and replaces it with his own. (The supervisor secured evidence.)

    With these facts shown in the video I could build a credible argument that Slager did indeed fabricate a story to justify his actions.

    ““Smoke and mirrors” would be applicable if you really believed this was all an elaborate lie to murder a black man.”

    I don’t believe that Slager set out to murder a black man. What I do believe it is very possible by what is shown in the video and what has come out in the trial, that Slager attempted to create a cover story to hide the fact he had unlawfully shot an unarmed man in the back while he was running away. While this possibility maybe unpalatable to you and many others, I have conducted many police misconduct investigations and I believe this a valid theory.

    ” Given that officers can use lethal force to prevent a suspect’s escape, we have to consider everything that led up to it.

    Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[2], is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.

    According to the testimony of Slager’s supervisors, Slager told them that Scott did not hit him, kick him, scratch him or Tase him. These actions do not indicate someone who is a significant threat to others. As far as Scott having the Taser, we only have Slager’s claim for that.

    Take Care


  13. truthhurts says:

    “It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.” — Tennessee vs. Garner, Section II B, Paragraph 4.

    Officers are trained that if a suspect gains control of a non-lethal weapon (the Taser in this case), lethal force is a legitimate option to defend themselves, not because the weapon itself can necessarily kill you, but because it could render you helpless and the assailant would then be in a position to kill you (by taking your firearm). If Slager believed he ran off with his weapon, this same notion applies to whichever officer (or civilian) encounters him next.

    That he only fired until the threat was neutralized indicates this was a “controlled” shooting. Since he expressed concern to investigators that whoever Scott was screaming his location to on the phone would be coming to assist him, it explains why he didn’t immediately render aid (the scene wasn’t secure), why he retrieved the Taser (something he also expressed to investigators), and why he checked his magazine after (to ensure that he had protection in the event that the person on the phone arrived and posed a threat).

    Slager is right handed and has training as an EMT, but if you look at pictures of his hands from after the shooting, you can see that either his index or middle finger is bleeding profusely on his right hand. Which would explain why felt for a pulse with his left hand. That he didn’t immediately find the exact location in trying to find that pulse, since he wasn’t actively working as an EMT and hadn’t done so in over ten years, isn’t all that alarming.

    If he went over and stood by the Taser, then he wouldn’t have been in a position to render any aid. Would that have changed your perspective of what unfolds on camera? Him standing absentmindedly by the Taser, waiting for help to arrive, as the suspect is bleeding out on the ground?

    The Taser was sitting in plain sight on a dirt path. That’s why he was able to retrieve it so easily. He doesn’t “glance” at it. He stands upright, walks at first, and begins jogging back to it. And it probably wouldn’t take all that much to deduce that Mr. Scott wasn’t lying on top of it, since it would have likely still been in his hands at the time that he fell. That he dropped it by Scott initially “looks” bad. That he holstered it shortly thereafter and told investigators that he moved it and why he moved it (and the glaring absence of tampering charges from those actions) indicates that they aren’t all that confident that those were his intentions. A momentary lapse in judgement after a stressful event isn’t quite the scandal everyone wants it to be.

    “It is very common for witnesses to the same event to have different recollections of what was said or transpired.” So you give this luxury to the investigators who used deception to obtain an interview in the first place, but not the officer who was physically involved in this high stress event? The biggest point of contention regarding this interview is that he didn’t explicitly say how far he had ran. You don’t think that, with everything that had transpired, he didn’t have a strong enough recall of certain details from the event? That his own perception wasn’t compromised?

    “Did you see Slager pointing his pistol at Scott as he approached him or even hold his pistol in the ready position? I didn’t see it.” Right. Because as Officer Habersham testified in court, officers are trained to shoot until a threat is neutralized. Why would he continue to have his firearm drawn and aimed at Scott if he apparently been neutralized.

    “According to the testimony of Slager’s supervisors, Slager told them that Scott did not hit him, kick him, scratch him or Tase him. These actions do not indicate someone who is a significant threat to others. As far as Scott having the Taser, we only have Slager’s claim for that.” If he successfully tased him, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Best case scenario, Slager is incapacitated, and Scott runs off to hurt someone else. In every account of what happened, he indicated that Scott had struggled him, and that he had taken his Taser. That detail never changed between any of his accounts. We don’t only have Slager’s claim for that, since there is evidence mounting to the contrary, some of which I’ve explained to you elsewhere.

    Per pretrial hearings, SLED has revealed that, upon running their own tests, that there is evidence on Slager’s uniform indicating that someone had attempted to use the Taser on him. Also, we know that the trigger on the Taser was pulled six times in less than a minute and a half. Slager claims four of those were his. The other two are unaccounted for. We also have the audio, in which we can confirm that, to whatever extent, Scott DID have the Taser.


    • truthhurts says:

      Twelve prior use of Taser incidents, at a rate of less than three per year, and none of those previous incidents evolved to him so much as drawing his firearm let alone using it Some of those incidents involved alleged murderers and rapists. His department never had an issue with it. Something was different about this event. What was it? Scott grabbing the Taser. What else can an officer deduce about a suspect other than them being a threat if they’ve successfully taken their Taser, regardless of if the encounter was thirty seconds or thirty minutes long? And if Mr. Scott did attempt to use it on him, what does that say about his own intentions?


  14. Molly says:

    Jury selection begins today for the trial of Officer Jeronimo Yanez.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s