The long-delayed release of the Philando Castile video, along with a Minnesota jury’s inexplicable decision to acquit the policeman who killed him, raises basic questions of self-governance in this country. I’ll mention three. First: Is competent, humane policing really that difficult? Second, does our criminal justice system even function in such cases?
Thanks to the obtuseness of Minneapolis’ gay rights leaders and their enablers in the media, a third question arises: Why do liberals keep stepping on their own message — dividing Americans by race, class, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, and now, by profession — all under the banner of “tolerance”?
That’s a lot to unpack, so let’s start with last July’s killing of Castile by St. Anthony Police Department Patrolman Jeronimo Yanez. Although I didn’t hear the presentation of evidence in court, along with millions of other people I’ve now seen the video of the fateful encounter — and cannot fathom the jury’s verdict.
Yes, Jeronimo Yanez was afraid for his life once Castile mentioned calmly and respectfully that he had a firearm with him. The officer’s fear was evident. It’s also obvious that Yanez panicked, and did nothing by the book. He approached the white Oldsmobile he’d pulled over casually, and pleasantly told Castile that he had a broken brake light. What was in Yanez’s mind, however, was that Castile might be a suspect in an earlier armed robbery. So he apparently had two thoughts going on his head at one time.
Thought One: It’s a broken taillight with a cooperative driver, a female passenger, and a little kid in the back seat — a routine stop; nothing to be alarmed about. That seems to be what his partner, who stood on the passenger’s side of the car, believed.
Thought Two: This guy may be a stickup man and he still has his gun with him!
Consequently, Yanez gave Castile conflicting instructions: “Do you have a license and registration?” and…