Talk:Killing of Philando Castile/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Philando Castile. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Can someone explain the 'under suspicion of armed robbery' part?

The introduction claims that one of the reasons behind Philando's stop was because he was under suspicion of armed robbery but the three sources linked near that claim say nothing about that, only that he was pulled over for a broken tail light. I understand that a few sources have noted that possibility, but that should be left to another section and should be noted as such. It paints a false picture that cannot be confirmed at this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.101.186 (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That claim has been removed (before I saw this.) --joe decker ^talk 06:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This claim apparently stems from these reports: [1][2], which is not yet verified (as emphasized by the reporters), and is considerably different from the spin put on it by some websites with a decided point of view. Once (and if) this is verified it can be handled here is an objective and neutral manner. Kablammo (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The robbery cited by the sources took place four days earlier. And in the recording the evening of the shooting, the officer (according to the source) says that the car had occupants that "look like people that were involved in a robbery" and "the driver looks more like one of our suspects just 'cause of the wide-set nose".

A minute and a half later, Mr. Castile had been pulled over and mortally wounded. Kablammo (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And here's Snopes:[3] Kablammo (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is also a recent statement from Yanez's attorney specifically spells this assertion out, it should be noted adjacent to other statements for NPOV. Per the excerpt from The Minneapolis Star Tribune July 11, 2016

"A St. Anthony police officer pulled over Philando Castile because he was driving with a broken tail or brake light and he believed that Castile looked like a suspect from an armed robbery nearby that was reported a few days earlier, the officer’s attorney told the Star Tribune on Sunday." See http://www.startribune.com/lawyer-castile-pulled-over-because-he-matched-robbery-suspect/386221031/ Blanksamurai (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is clear from the transcript of the policeman's statement to the dispatcher that the cop's reason was suspicion of being the armed robber. It seems clear from Lavish's testimony on her video that the cop gave Philando the excuse ("reason") for the stop as a broken taillight, if that is a reliable source. (IMHO, if it be established that she was high on drugs, that could bolster her credibility, some drugs being like truth serum). It is general knowledge that police routinely lie to suspects to enhance their investigation. At this point I don't believe there are yet reliable secondary sources to prove that Philando was or was not the robber, nor whether he had a carry permit, nor whether the cop could see part of a gun on Philando's thigh. I suggest that we hold off on making assertions in this article until there is proof from reliable sources. IMHO, an anonymous single source cited by a newspaper indicates that the newspaper report is not a reliable source as the source it in turn depends on is not reliable. Also we wait for proof as to whether or not a marijuana high played some part in this incident. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

Resolved Issue was resolved. As further information becomes available it may be necessary to revisit. Dane2007 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Scanner audio recording is not yet vetted

The police radio audio that has been published by a Minneapolis TV station just isn't usable to explain the purpose of the traffic stop. It hasn't been acknowledged as authentic by anybody, not the police or the journalists who are running with it, or vetted in any way. We do not know its origin or provenance. The emergence of the audio is definitely part of this story and it warrants mention, but it is essentially a primary source of unknown reliability and we cannot draw upon it as a source of facts until there has been some sort of verification. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It also doesn't tell what the officer said to the passengers. Assuming the scanner audio is authentic, the officer might have used the excuse of a broken taillight instead of saying 'Hey, are you an armed robber?' I have no idea what protocol is, but I would imagine a non-confrontational excuse is probably better than such a blunt question. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's correct and an excellent point. Pretextual traffic stops are permitted in the United States (Whren v. United States). Neutrality^talk 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with this — we obviously cannot include text stated as fact that is drawn from unverified, uncorroborated clip (the authenticity of which the TV station says it cannot verify). I've removed it from the lead until/unless we get confirmation or something more solid. Neutrality^talk 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The StarTribune confirmed the authenticity of the audio tape today see:

Police audio: Officer stopped Philando Castile on robbery suspicion from July 12, 2016 at:http://www.startribune.com/police-audio-officer-stopped-philando-castile-on-robbery-suspicion/386344001/#1 108.171.131.160 (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This is now added. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Information was added to the article by Neutrality. Dane2007 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Did Castile have a permit to carry a gun?

Sheriff says Castile did NOT have a concealed carry permit: https://twitter.com/RamseySheriff/status/751133768048480256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

71.182.245.172 (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Read this article from Snopes. The Ramsey County sheriff only stated that their office did not issue the permit. Another source stated that he obtained a permit when he lived in Robbinsdale, which is not in Hennepin County. Kablammo (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Kablammo, The City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota is in fact in Hennepin County. Please see http://www.robbinsdalemn.com/about. However, a Permit to Carry is usually issued by the County of the resident in Minnesota. However, there are provisions which allow other entities such as judges and the state Attorney General to issue a Permit to Carry for emergency situations. That the Ramsey County made a statement is probably irrelevant.Blanksamurai (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is what I meant to say, but put in a "not".

And as you say, the Ramsey County Sheriff office's denial of their issuance of a permit means nothing by itself. But that office went on to respond to a follow-up inquiry which asked how to find out if he did have a permit issued elsewhere, by linking to this StarTribune piece where it is reported that Castile did have a valid permit. Kablammo (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I therefore have edited the title to this section. Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Star Tribune said that it had one source that said so. The article does not say that the Star Tribune confirmed it, but that it has a source that confirmed it. However, the title of the Star Trib article appears to state it as a truth. This is an important question which I do not think has yet been proven to the public. We should wait to see if it is firmly established one way or the other. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

Done Information was added to the article with a NPOV. Dane2007 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No concealed carry permit in Minnesota

Is the source reliable on the concealed carry statement? Did Lavish Diamond say that he had a concealed carry or just carry permit? Minnesota does not have a concealed carry permit. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

See the section directly above this one. The pertinent links are [4] and [5]. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, "The names of license holders are not public under state law." [6] EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains that Minnesota has no concealed carry permit. It is a carry permit, not concealed carry permit. BCA of Minnesota states:

"Under Minnesota law, individuals must obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public. There is no stipulation in the law regarding whether that weapon must be concealed. A permit to carry constitutes a permit to purchase. To obtain a permit to carry, fill out a Permit to Carry Application and submit it to the sheriff’s office in the county where you reside."

PeacePeace (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

I think WP:TRUTH applies here. We report what sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

PeacePeace may be technically correct, but everyone here (Twin Cities) calls it a 'concealed carry permit'. Media, citizens, everyone. 64.211.58.60 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a big deal as to whether it was a concealed carry permit or a plain carry permit. However, the language used does indicate whether or not a secondary source is reliable. A reliable secondary source should speak accurately about the permit, & so should Wikipedia -- IMHO. I don't think that a citation of a secondary source which speaks about "concealed carry permit" in Minnesota, should be used to support a statement in a Wikipedia article. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

Apparently it has now been substantially confirmed that Castile had a carry permit issued in Hennepin County http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/ (PeacePeace (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC))

Thank you for the update. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done Implemented in article per other talks. Dane2007 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

question?

do we sources from the news to see if he was good, or trying to get a gun?184.101.170.69 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're asking if we know from the news whether or not he was reaching for his gun. From Wikipedia's standpoint, it's unclear. We will have to wait until the investigation is complete. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The officer's lawyer indicated that Yanez saw the gun -- not that the atty is a reliable source. That remains the $64,000 question. Was the gun visible? Exactly how, when, & where did Castile move his hands? I haven't yet seen any statement that Yanez (or his partner) was wearing (or not) a body cam. Nor have I seen the dash cam. Whenever these evidences come to light, additions need to be made to the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC))

Pending This will need to be clarified when the information is officially released. Dane2007 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No Body Cam; Where is the DashCam Video?

We wait for the release of the Dash Cam Video, which for some reason, does not seem available to the public yet. Some light may be shed on the availability of the Dash Cam by this internet discussion, which, however, I really do not understand:

"So for example, bodycam video does not exist.

"What about dashcam video?

"The city says that squad car dashcam video from the Castile incident been turned over to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension as part of the investigation.

"While dashcam video is listed as public under Minnesota statute 13.82, there’s an exception for “criminal investigative data.”

"Basically, anything outside of arrest data, (subd. 2), request for service data (subd. 3) and response or incident data (subd. 6) can be considered “confidential or protected nonpublic” while the investigation is active. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s investigation is ongoing, and dashcam video does not fall under those three exceptions – it’s under subd. 31, which is “use of surveillance technology,” as a spokesperson for the agency explained to BringMeTheNews. But all public information, including video evidence, will be made public once the investigation is complete, the spokesperson said." < http://bringmethenews.com/2016/07/13/philando-castile-shooting-what-police-documents-and-data-are-public/ (PeacePeace (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC))

Some early facts

No changes as we don't put opinions in the article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... Philando's case is discussed in the second part of the video: https://archive.org/details/TheTruthAboutTheAltonSterlingAndPhilandoCastileShootings --41.151.9.116 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The opinions of Stefan Molyneux are not notable here. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rejected As stated above, the opinions have no place in this article. Dane2007 (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victim? or just use Philando's name?

IMHO After reading a ton of information on this case, I think that Philando Castile was a tragic victim; a victim of circumstances as having some physical resemblance to a robber (thus becoming a suspect & stopped), and a victim in that he was innocently reaching for his id and made the blunder of announcing while reaching that he had a firearm. I think he was possibly the victim of an overcautious policeman. But all that is my opinion, & while probable, not proven fact yet. So far as I know, it has not been ruled out that he was the robber, nor has it been disproven that he had a gun on his thigh; nor is it certain (so far as evidence I have seen) that he was not reaching for a gun when shot. So I believe none of those possibilities, and I believe that he is a tragic victim, but it is not certain -- I mean victim with the secondary connotation of innocent (technically a victim could even refer to someone guilty of a crime who suffered, but that is not its immediate connotation, at least to me.) Thus I agree with the deletion of the term "Victim" from the heading and the change to his name. That was an improvement in the article. I am indeed concerned that this article might unjustly judge policemen as by & large guilty of racial persecution of blacks, which is unlikely to be proven, and unlikely as a fact. The consequences of promulgating such a belief about cops, has evidently been seen in the murder of white policemen (& also 1 black cop, probably by accident). This article should be careful not to flame the fires of racialism and civil war by painting a biased scenario. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

Any reliable sources using the word "victim?" I scanned a few and that wasn't a word used by AP and other mainstream news outlets. It has nothing to do with Castile, rather it implies the officer committed a crime. It generally goes against manual of style guidelines in the press that covers crime when it's not clear a crime has been committed. Black's Law Dictionary defines "victim" as a "Person harmed by criminal acts"[7]. Another source here has some more history but it's basically the same. There is no question that Castile was harmed but it would be incorrect to use a word that implies he was harmed by criminal acts. I put his name in the section so as not to diminish his death. I don't think it takes anything away and prevents the speculation you went through in your paragraph. I preferred his name over "decedant" or other descriptors and his name makes no judgements. --DHeyward (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dheyward, you're still playing coy. "Victim" does not imply guilt on the officer's part, and by denying the fact that the victim was a victim you take away the presumption of innocence on the victim's part. You're blaming the victim. What's worse, you're playing into the hands (here on this talk page) of someone who... well, if you can't read what the person is trying to say, you are not a very good reader. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Victim absolutely does speak to the culpability of the actor. In fact, the use of the word demands it. I am not denying anything and my edit does not take away the possibility that he is a victim. Far from it. I replaced a POV term with his name. How is this coy or offend anyone? No sources use "victim" in the body of the articles. Some titles do but we know titles are not written by the author of the piece. As you should know, by now, a "victim" has no culpability in their fate. There is no question that Castile was shot by police. There is no question that the gunshot caused his death. The question that remains is whether Castile contributed to his fate or whether the officer is solely responsible. That determination is what governs the common and legal meaning of "victim." It's why "innocent victim" is redundant (should we use "innocent victim" because "victim" somehow conveys less innocence than "innocent victim?"). Inserting the POV that he is a victim before culpability has been established is not an encyclopedic nor journalistic tone. Dozens and hundreds of newspaper reporters have managed not to use the term in their stories and not take anything away from Castile. We might as well use "murder" if we are going to be sloppy with language and meaning (#1 meaning in Wiktionary since you prefer that "An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human. " and only meaning if you wish to discount the legal definition. The officer deliberately shot Castile. Castile died, yet you seem to grasp how "murder" is POV. The word game you are playing with "victim" is akin to saying "we can say Castile was murdered and it doesn't imply anything about the officer that shot him and that by not saying he was murdered, we deprive him of his status." It's pretzel logic and we need to avoid terms like victim and murder that assign culpability until it has been established. Oue sources do it --DHeyward (talk)

We use the common and not the legal definition. WP is not a lawyers encyclopedia.--TMCk (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources that describe Castile as a "victim"

The legal definition really isn't the common definition, if it were, the phrase "the victim of a crime" would be redundant. A victim is a person who suffers harm. You can be the victim of an accident, a victim of circumstance, or a victim of your own stupidity. Castile is the victim of a shooting. Calling him a victim doesn't imply a crime was committed by anyone, and the argument that Castile can't be described that way because he "might have been a robber" implies that the presumption of innocence only extends to the person who shot him. Nblund^talk 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia adheres to BLPCRIME. How is using his name taking anything away from anybody? "Victim of a crime" is not redundant as there are many instances of injury that have no human culpability or . "victim of cancer" or "victim of a tornado" are uses where no person, including the injured party, is culpable for the injury. "Innocent victim" is redundant however and copy editors remove it when thy see it - would you argue that we should use "innocent victim" because "victim" implies less innocence than "innocent victim" and both are commonly used or should we stick with more formal definition that victims are blameless with the outcome by definition? The legal definition is relevant because this is a criminal investigation. Castile was stopped on an alleged violation of law ("broken tail light") and the investigation continues as a criminal investigation. Claiming it's not the legal definition is like claims such as "well, it's not 'rape' rape." Either he's a victim and the officer is solely culpable for his death, or he is not. Even if he is not a victim, there is no inference that Castile did anything criminal. The argument for not using "victim" isn't "he might have been a robber." The argument for not using "victim" is that it places sole culpability for the result on the actor. Victims of "acts of God" are victims because only God is culpable. There is no doubt that Castile died from being shot by police. "Victim" implies that they are blameless. Titles and captions are not reliable sources. Only in the body of the article is where the editorial oversight of a RS maintained. Many stories are submitted without a title. There is a reason it never seems to appear in the articles as a declaration. AP MoS says not to do it. There is nothing POV about using his name and there is plenty of POV when using 'victim.' It's actually more informative and less controversial to use his name and if all those articles avoid the term, why wouldn't we? --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC).

I agree that "victim" is correct and have restored it. This is not a BLP issue; the word "victim" says nothing about motivation. One can be a victim of circumstance, a victim of disease, a victim of mistaken identity, a victim of numerous other misfortunes. Kablammo (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course "victim" says nothing about motivation. It is explicitly about culpability. "Victims" are, by definition, not in any way responsible for the fate that befell them. That's what it means to be a "victim." We know who shot Castile. We know Castile's fate. The undetermined part is whether the officer was justified or not justified. The officer cannot be justified without some action by Castile justifying what he did. The word "victim" means Castile did nothing to cause his fate and therefore the officer could never be justified in killing him. That hasn't been determined yet. How is using his name more POV than a contested use of "victim"? --DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not explicitly about culpability, and its use is not an accusation of murder or manslaughter.

In any event, consensus here is that "victim" is appropriate usage. Kablammo (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The PBS and BBC sources both use the term "victim" in the main body as well as the headline, and copy editors are reliable sources for a question about word-usage. Here are some more (ABC, NBC, Telegraph)

The implication of innocence is not anywhere in any of the dictionary definitions of "victim" we've discussed so far. That's a new assertion, and it conflicts with common usage of the term: this sentence from the New York Times in police shootings, the carrying of a gun by the victim has become shorthand for whether it was justified is incoherent if "victim" necessarily indicates innocence.

It also conflicts with the legal definition: you can be a victim of voluntary manslaughter even if you yourself committed a provocation that led to the killing. Yanez could be found guilty of murder even if Castile was found to act provocatively (if the use of lethal force was unjustified) and Yanez could be found not guilty even if Castile was also found to be acting within his rights (if the courts found that Yanez reasonably feared for his life).

Regarding AP MoS, do you mean the Associated Press Manual of style? I have a 2015 edition, and I don't see a specific entry on the usage of victim. It seems to indicate the opposite of your argument: it says that journalists should avoid terms like "alleged victim" because they can convey undue skepticism about a victim's account. Its unclear to me when we would ever be able to use the term "victim" to describe someone if your standards applied. Nblund^talk 00:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "manslaughter" is a good example. If a person provokes another to beyond reasonable self-control, they are no longer a victim of 1st degree murder. They become culpable for portions of their death. Big difference between being a victim of a 1st degree murderer and being a victim of manslaughterer and your example shows the shooter acting the same way while the person who was shot is the one that determines level of victimhood and whether the action was a crime. It makes sense to withhold the label when the label is what determines whether there is even a crime. The AP MoS made a clarification to the use of "alleged victim" in the cases of accusations of rape and suggested "victim" or "complainant". "Alleged victim" would never have been used if "victim" didn't imply a crime and using "alleged victim" was used only for rape accusations that were contested as consensual in an attempt to balance the accused and accuser. That "balance" was contested and AP updated their MoS. In practice, they don't use victim anymore (they needed "alleged victim" to get past the lawyers and removing "alleged" didn't change that.) (As an aside, read articles on Brock Turner before conviction and look at the contortions to avoid the word "victim" in the body of articles (headline writers are different0 e.g. see [8] - first I found before verdict and look at all the avoidance of the word victim. It's not random chance and after conviction, the contortions stop.). It requires a lot of reads to find "victim" in this (and other) contested shootings as well as crimes that are reported and the act of a crime is contested. Read the sources for this article. the crime part is contested and the vast majority avoid the termvictim. Odd coincidence if it is such common term. I suspect some may have been updated by those seeking their term but I read all the original sources in the "victim" section and not one used victim.

(ec) "Victims" by definition are not in any way culpable for their fate. This is a BLP issue as either the officer is culpable or liable for Castile's death (and Castile is his "victim") or the officer is not culpable or liable. There is no Deus ex Machina in this equation. The officer deliberately pulled out his pistol and fired. Use of the word "victim" is saying that there is no justification that could include any action by Castile - the movement of his hands, the response to commands, etc, are completely irrelevant to the shooting and nothing Castile did gave justification for shooting him - the shooting was completely outside Castile's control. That's the definition. Stop making up conditions that aren't necessary (i.e. "murder" and "manslaughter") because intent of the officer is not related to "victim". The question: "Is it possible that Castile acted in a manner that directly contributed to his death?" If the answer is yes, it's premature to say "victim" as a victim doesn't contribute to their fate. It's already been established the cause of death was the officer's bullet. There is no unseen hand or non-officer caused reason for death. The officer deliberately used lethal force. As an example, in Orlando Night Club, the police (and the shooter) shot patrons/hostages as they exited the breached hole. Those who were shot are "victims." The police are liable for the injuries they caused and the patrons did nothing that justifies getting shot. It's not a random act of nature. They squeezed off rounds that hit people that did nothing that warranted force to be used against them. Note: the police also did not commit any crimes but they (and the city) will be held liable. "Victims" by definition did nothing that contributed to being shot. Contrast with the other end: the Orlando shooter was also shot and killed by police. We can certainly see that he contributed to his own death and it is very obvious that he was never a victim and shooting him did not confer liability to police for his death. In between the very obvious cases like the patrons that were shot by police (obvious "victims") and the shooter that was shot by police (not a "victim"), we have an investigation. That investigation is not complete in Castile's shooting. Our sources do not call him a "victim" in any narrative because it's not complete. They also don't call the officer a "killer" in any narrative. That doesn't mean that the investigation will not conclude either of those possible outcomes, or neither of them, only that no outcome has been determined. Don't use words that are not in our sources, that violate BLP ("victim" means "victim of Yanez" as coroner already determined homicide) and are not neutral.

This is a sensitive subject and there are nuances in language. Consider the following three statements

1. "Castile's killing was unjust,"  or
2. "Castile's killing is not justifiable" or
3. "Castile's killing was not justified."

Each statement uses various forms of the same word yet connect at different levels of emotion or intellect. If you're like me, one feels true, another is premature and one seems false. My humanity says statement #1 is true (it was unjust). My intellect says statement #2 is false (the officer may have seen something we don't know and was justified in shooting) and a combination of both says statement #3 is premature (let's wait and see). Same is true for being "victim." Encyclopedic judgement tells me to keep out the emotional, false, and premature descriptions.

Again, how is using the name "Philandro Castile" not a neutral heading for the background section of Philandro Castile? How is "Victim" a better choice? His name is non-judgmental and is neutral and not contested while "Victim" is not neutral and is contested. --DHeyward (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

""Victims" by definition are not in any way culpable for their fate.". I suggest you buy a new dictionary. That is not how common usage of the word is. Besides, there are plenty of sources that use the word victim.— Strongjam (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Are there any sources besides liberally-biased sources that use "victim"? My guess is that eventually the term victim will be justified in this shooting. But as for now, before all evidence is in, is "victim" better than just using his name if the objective is strict impartiality? Is the issue what is permissible, or what is most objective (connotatively neutral)? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Dheyward, you keep saying they don't call him a victim in any narrative, but I count seven sources that use the term in the main body. I'll add add the AP actually did use the term as well.

PeacePeace, I don't know what you deem "liberal", but the previously cited source would all be considered reliable sources. It's beyond well-supported at this point, but: for the sake of getting this over with, the Washington Times used the term to describe both Castile and Sterling. Nblund^talk 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seven sources vs. thousands that do not? Why aren't we presenting it based on the prominence of its use in reliable sources which is virtually 0? The AP source you cite is actually about WNBA and what the player listed, not the AP; the Washtime is about "office-involved" shootings so enough said on that editorial oversight.. Compare it to similar stories of crime: Brock Turner was accused, arrested, tried and convicted of rape. Here is a typical article before conviction [9]. No mention of the term "victim." It's not dehumanizing not to use the term and the article doesn't diminish the accusation in any way or impugn the person he attacked, but unlike here, the professional journalists and editors know what "victim" means and know that using it is not proper with its definition and it's premature to use it before the process is complete. Post-conviction, the same journalist has no problem with "victim" [10]. Reliable sources avoid it. We should reflect the most prominent use. The name is a neutral, non-judgemental alternative that is more informative than "victim." Again, why would we choose a non-neutral rarely used term when we have a neutral and predominantly used ter. Every source describes him as "Philando Castile" and very few use the term "victim" at this stage in the investigation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Criminal complaint

A copy of the filed criminal complaint against Officer Yanez is available here. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

why is the chonology of the incident messed up

It prematurely jumps into talking about a video tape after the shot, when it should follow the chronology. It's not only misleading, but could be said to be biased editorializing. 97.83.232.236 (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Biased template

@EditSafe: Which part of the article appears to have bias towards a certain viewpoint? -- Dane ^talk 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The general wording of the article seems to be in favor of Castile. I am not fully aware of the story and whether or not he was innocent, but the article seems to be favoring him rather than just stating the facts. EditSafe (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you give an example? Tdslk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the template as no specific concerns are articulated here. Kablammo (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Incident

The dashcam video of the incident has been released. https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf4_1497989015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.125.249.119 (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ID

If you watch the video, the victim hands over his ID. Reynolds side of the story is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.255.246 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Not a secondary source. Also, it is more likely to be the insurance or registration, which was ALSO requested. Per the Washinging Post: "When the traffic stop began, the two men interacted calmly. Officer Jeronimo Yanez, a police officer in the Twin Cities suburbs, greeted Castile and examined his insurance card." -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation for firearm carry license of victim appears to not support claim.

Presently, the citation for "Castile did have a license to carry a gun" links to [32] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/philando-castile-jeronimo-yanez.html .

The contents of that article do not appear to the support the statement that Castile had any form of license to carry a gun.

A pullin (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you A pullin. It is now fixed, using MPR as a source, which will not be altered or put behind a paywall. I will now fix the orphaned ref. Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Done. Kablammo (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I told him to get his hand open

"I told him to get his hand open" - has there been any RS commentary of the fact that the officer is heard to say (as mentioned in our article) that "I told him to get his hand open", yet the dashcam doesn't show this instead suggesting he only mentioned the part about not reaching for it and don't pull it out (which seemed to clear be referring for the firearm). This seems relevant since it suggests Yanez believed he's told Castile not to pick up anything, when he hadn't done so (so there was no reason why Castile should have felt he should cease handing over his documents). Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not guilty?

The info on the side of the page says the ruling is Not Guilty, but the article says it was ruled as a homicide...?

47.40.45.80 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all homicides are crimes. See: Homicide.- Mr X 21:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It merely means a human killing another.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

More Evidence Has Been Released

KSTP reports that more evidence has been released:

http://kstp.com/news/diamond-reynolds-philando-castile-yanez-case-evidence/4521586/

This should be mentioned in the "Aftermath of verdict" section, correct?TH1980 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been done (by another Wikipedian).- phi (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article:

Evidence collected from Castile’s car included a Mason jar containing about 6 grams of marijuana bound in a plastic baggie. The jar was on the front passenger seat. Its lid was in the center console.

173.88.241.33 (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done this. - phi (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Facts are missing

The article describes what happened as a matter-of-fact, unnecessary shooting. A jury just acquitted. There must have been some other information from the trail that put a reasonable doubt in their mind. Instead of just a single line declaring the officer was acquitted, maybe some detail that says why the jury doubted the killing was a murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.225.170 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

He was not charged with murder. He was charged with culpable negligence and intentional discharge of a firearm under circumstances putting others at risk. Read the complaint linked above.

In an interview following the shooting, Yanez never mentioned seeing a firearm. See this article. That is a very important piece of evidence, but the prosecution did not bring this out when presenting their case, and the judge would not allow it to brought during the defense case. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yanez also was permitted to talk about marijuana but there was no indication that he detected it at the scene prior to opening fire, and no evidence to suggest that its use would lead to violence. Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Star Tribune's reporting is not accurate

> Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and calmly replied, “OK,” and placed his right hand on the holster of his own holstered weapon. Yanez said, “Okay, don't reach for it, then.” Castile responded, “I'm not pulling it out,” and Reynolds also said, “He's not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed, “Don't pull it out!” Yanez quickly pulled his own gun with his right hand while he reached inside the driver's window with his left hand. Yanez removed his left arm from the car and fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession.

This is not accurate. Yanez said "Don't reach for it, then" and then "Don't pull it out!" twice. Yanez did not scream at Castile before the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.144.25 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Star Tribune updated its story on 2017-07-04. "This post has been updated to include additional dialogue between Yanez, Castile and Reynolds." The quote should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.157.233 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Castile's race

They reference to Castille's race in the opening paragraph is irrelevant to the case/story at hand as it was decided, in a court of law, that the situation wasn't race related. This is a clear violation of the 2nd pillar, as it creates a false andnl unfair narrative. In contrast, if you look up a case where a white person was shot or injured in similar cases, there is no reference to race. Either race should be included in all similar stories, or it should be omitted from all. As aforementioned, it creates a clear violation and bias. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality means that we represent significant views published in reliable sources. Castile's race is a central part of the controversy and is mentioned in nearly every story about the case (example). If race is widely seen as an important part of the story by reliable sources, it would be a violation of NPOV to not cover that fact. Nblund^talk 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Police", or "perpetrator", or "accused"?

This article has long described Officer Yanez under a section entitled "Police". Yanez was tried for manslaughter and two lesser offenses, and acquitted.

Following the shooting of Justine Damond by Officer Noor, Damand's article described him in a section entitled "Police officers". Noor was charged and convicted, and the title became "Perpetrator".

IP 146.114.194.254 went to this article on Castile, and changed the title of the section relating to Yanez to "Perpetrator", with the edit summary "Following naming convention used in Justine Damond article".

I removed it, and changed the section to "Accused"; the IP reverted me, and I reinstated my edit.

Noor was convicted; Yanez was not. It is incorrect to refer to Yanez as "perpetrator", as that term is used to mean someone who committed a crime. Kablammo (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. "Perpetrator" and "Accused" have two different implications, consequently two different uses. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Shooter"? "Assailant"? Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "shooter" is the most straightforward factual description and would be the most appropriate. Having "victim" and "police officer" as the two sections seems strange to me. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Perpetrator" -> "a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act." Considering that Yanez killed a person based on the sources, I'm rather confident that it would count as all three. If there's any debate over illegal and immoral, it is certainly "harmful", hence still being within the range of "perpetrator". There seems to have been some tampering regarding this article before, but considering that the person who started this section posted elsewhere that s/he "chose "accused" as middle ground" as mentioned here, perhaps this should be reconsidered, and proper terms be used rather than anything else. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:EBD8 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Convenience store armed robbery

The article currently says "The particular robbery to which the officer referred was unclear, but may have been a July 2 armed robbery at a local convenience store, in which the two suspects were 'described as black men with shoulder-length or longer dreadlocks'..."

Actually, various news reports indicate that the robbery in question was definitely a Super USA convenience store on 2 July, and that Officer Yanez was in fact one of the officers who responded to that incident. However, Castile was subsequently ruled out as being one of those armed robbers. I've edited the article to mention these facts. Muzilon (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

identities of participants

Yanez is Latino. Identities would seem to matter. Reliable sources report on the identities of the participants in the incident that is the subject of this article. For instance the Chicago Tribune writes "In closing arguments Monday, defense attorney Earl Gray said Yanez, a 29-year-old Latino officer, 'did what he had to do' in a justified use of force."[11] I don't think editors should be reverting this information.[12][13] Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the comment 'identities would seem to matter'? It is obvious by this individual's name that he is from a Spanish-speaking family. Why is it is necessary for the encyclopedia to single that out and reiterate it? The strange, standalone references to both this and the victim's traffic violations read like a clear effort to minimize this event as part of a pattern of police shootings against black men in the United States. Each of these items appear irrelevant, misdirective trivia to me. I would like to know what purpose they serve to the encyclopedia, why they indeed 'matter', as you categorize it. 92.99.27.178 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you cannot say what language a family speaks just from their surname. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to report lawyers' arguments. And repeated arrests and/or traffic stops for minor offenses can be and are used either to show bias in who is being stopped, or to reflect adversely on the victim (exemplified in George Floyd article). Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

“Incident”

Hi. New here to talk pages, so please bear with me. Why should the killing of Philando section be titled “Incident”, especially given the context of the proceeding case and it’s ultimate settlement. As a legal scholar, I understand it wasn’t technically ruled a murder but still, “incident”? Lopusr1 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Information to add to article

Information to add to this article:

1) In which of Philando Castile's pockets was a gun found? Was it the pocket of his pants or coat? Was it the left pocket or the right pocket? Which type of gun was it? A handgun? If so, which specific type of handgun?

2) The article says that "Castile gave him his proof of insurance card," but does not say where Castile got the proof of insurance card from. Did he pull it out of his wallet, or some other place?

173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shooting of Philando Castile → Killing of Philando Castile – Per WP:DEATHS: 'Shooting of...' 'Stabbing of...' etc. should only be used when the person in question did not die. In cases where the subject of the article died as a result of the event, page titles should be 'Killing of...' 'Murder of...' 'Suicide of...' or 'Execution of...' depending on the circumstance. This convention was published as part of WikiProject Death in December 2020 to establish a neutral and consistent naming convention around deaths on Wikipedia. All killings by police officers listed on Wikipedia since December 2020 have adopted this naming convention, including Duante Wright, Ma'Khia Bryant, Christan Hall, Adam Toledo, Dolal Idd, Andre Hill, and more. Precedent for moving older articles such as this one has been established with the move of "Death of Eric Garner" to Killing of Eric Garner. A similar move from Shooting of Breonna Taylor to "Killing of Breonna Taylor" is under discussion currently. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 20:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Support inline with WP:DEATHS Melmann 21:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)