MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

NRA Breaks Its Silence on Philando Castile Shooting

Spokeswoman Dana Loesch calls the incident "a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided." But by whom?

NRANRAYesterday the National Rifle Association broke its recent silence on the shooting of Philando Castile, a Minnesota carry permit holder who was killed during a traffic stop last summer by a cop who panicked when Castile reached for the wallet containing his driver's license. "I think it's absolutely awful," NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said during a debate on CNN. "It's a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided." Referring to last month's acquittal of Jeronimo Yanez, the officer who was charged with second-degree manslaughter after shooting Castile, Loesch added:

I don't agree with every single decision that comes out from courtrooms of America. There are a lot of variables in this particular case, and there were a lot of things that I wish would have been done differently. Do I believe that Philando Castile deserved to lose his life over his [traffic] stop? I absolutely do not. I also think that this is why we have things like NRA Carry Guard, not only to reach out to the citizens to go over what to do during stops like this, but also to work with law enforcement so that they understand what citizens are experiencing when they go through stops like this.

Since Loesch, a conservative TV and radio host, explicitly said she was speaking for the NRA, this seems to be the organization's first official statement on the case since the day after the shooting, when it said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known." Although Loesch goes further than that, she is careful not to take a position on whether Yanez should have been acquitted. She says she sometimes disagrees with decisions reached by juries but does not say whether this is one of those times.

Even Yanez's lawyers agreed that the shooting was tragic and avoidable (a position that seems at odds with his completely implausible claim that Castile really was drawing his gun). The dispute concerned who could and should have avoided the shooting: Should Yanez have been calmer and more careful, or was the onus on Castile to put the officer at ease after announcing that he was carrying a gun? Loesch splits the difference by saying "there were a lot of things that I wish would have been done differently."

The NRA's commitment to "work with law enforcement so that they understand what citizens are experiencing when they go through stops like this" is surely welcome. But Loesch's reference to NRA Carry Guard, a training and insurance program for permit holders, could be read as implying that Castile might still be alive if he had known "what to do during stops like this." That is a common refrain from Yanez's defenders, who say Castile, after disclosing that he had a concealed weapon, should have immediately placed his hands on the dashboard or steering wheel and awaited further instructions from Yanez.

But Yanez never asked Castile to do that. Nor did he tell Castile to stop moving or to keep his hands in plain sight. He did not even ask Castile where the gun was. Instead he told Castile not to pull the gun out, and Castile assured him that he wasn't. All the evidence indicates that Castile thought he was doing what Yanez wanted by retrieving his driver's license. Although Castile could have been more proactive and more sensitive to Yanez's nervousness, the officer had a responsibility to control the situation, issue clear instructions, take routine precautions, and use deadly force only as a last resort. He failed abysmally on all four counts.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>training and insurance program for permit holders

    NRA Pay Us Twice Program.

  • ||

    NRA Pay Us Twice Program.*

    *First (arguably) and second payments optional.

    Not a exaclty a ringing endorsement but still better than their nominal opponents who take the first dip at the point of a gun and then freely take second and third dips.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But Loesch's reference to NRA Carry Guard, a training and insurance program for permit holders, could be read as implying that Castile might still be alive if he had known "what to do during stops like this." That is a common refrain from Yanez's defenders, who say Castile, after disclosing that he had a concealed weapon, should have immediately placed his hands on the dashboard and awaited further instructions from Yanez.

    It certainly doesn't hurt for the American Public to know that every time they have an interaction with the police, it's very likely they're dealing with an incredibly jumpy, paranoid person with inadequate training who'll shoot anything that moves the minute he's triggered by certain words or skin tones. Acting accordingly would probably save a few lives.

  • Arcxjo||

    "Arf" isn't really a word, though.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Actual accountability for nervous, twitchy, asshole, or otherwise incompetent cops would save even more lives, faster, and improve everybody's interactions with them, including the remaining cops themselves.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Accountability. Lol!

  • nova3930||

    I agree but unfortunately life sucks and we're probably not gonna get that. So knowing cops are the jumpy type, I've got a death grip on the wheel unless told to do otherwise at any interaction as a matter of self preservation. Knowing the jumpy cop was held accountable for shooting my a$$ won't do the kids I left behind any good.....

  • swampwiz||

    I'm an early middle-aged white man that doesn't carry, and whenever I get pulled over, I roll down the window and put my hands at 10:00 & 2:00.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Congratulations?

  • Jury Nullification||

    ...."I roll down the window and put my hands at 10:00 & 2:00."

    Big question, cause I know you don't stop there. Who spreads your ass cheeks for you?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    You've been well conditioned then to the police state.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You may be right, but you'll still be dead.

  • Robbzilla||

    When dealing with a jumpy cop, it's prudent to put them at ease if possible. You can try that John Wayne shit if you like, but I have a wife to get home to. I'll pick my fights, and being belligerent to a person who'll get away with shooting me scott free isn't one of those fights.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Didn't I countenance aggressive behavior towards the cop?

    Putting your hands at 10 and 2 may be appropriate behavior in the police state,

    but that's called being conditioned to police state behavior.

    Maybe if people start being ashamed of that then the police state will be disbanded.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Sorry, "did I", not "Didn't I". Stupid fingers.

  • Rich||

    "I think it's absolutely awful," NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said

    "See? We're NOT 'gun nuts'!"

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Maybe not, but they are ....RACISTS!!!!

  • Bruce D||

    You're racist. Judging people without evidence but by skin tone is racist. That's what you're doing.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin||

    What a chickenshit response. But, hey, the NRA knows that LEOs are one of their chief sources of money so why do anything at all to degroovy the gravy train. They know who pays the bills. It ain't shitkickers from Wyoming, I'll tell you. The NRA is many things-- shameless is one-- but they aren't stupid.

  • colorblindkid||

    People are trying to make this a race thing, but that's just nonsense. The NRA has never ever sided against a police officer in basically any situation. Incidents like this are similar to when a Muslim attacks a gay person and progressives have no fucking idea what narrative to decides and what person to defend.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Incidents like this are similar to when a Muslim attacks a gay person and progressives have no fucking idea what narrative to decides and what person to defend.

    Sure they do--"It's the weapon's fault."

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    The architect of the building they threw them off of?

  • commentguy||

    Really? When did progressives have difficulty deciding whether it was wrong for Muslims to attack gays? I would hope to see evidence that's more robust than one random weirdo from Twitter.

  • Bruce D||

    "The NRA has never ever sided against a police officer in basically any situation."

    That's because law enforcement are a vital ally in the political fight to preserve the freedom to keep and bear arms. Be glad the cops aren't generally anti-gun. If the Left didn't push so hard for gun-control/prohibition, then the NRA wouldn't have to cling so tightly to law enforcement for political support.

  • Libertarian||

    Sometimes when I have insomnia in the middle of the night, I listen (or used to, anyway) to Dana Loesch. She is absolutely horrible for a talk show host. I would probably agree with her at least half the time, but how she got a radio show, I have no idea.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    On the other hand... silent movie pornos.

  • Blue Star||

    Yeah, that is the right focus on the story.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Sometimes when I have insomnia in the middle of the night, I listen (or used to, anyway) to Dana Loesch. She is absolutely horrible for a talk show host.

    Still, would, morning, noon and night.

  • ||

    Still, would, morning, noon and night.

    Our safe phrase would be, "Let's go to the range."

  • ToCa81||

    She can fire down the range while I fire up her back.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    She is actually awful.

    I heard her once try to defend the possession of AR15's. Awful. She just doesn't get it.

    Another example of looks and cleavage being elevated rather than intelligence.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    I don't fuck intelligence.
    I marry it.

  • tgrondo||

    Ah...ok, "The Dana Show".....I saw the pic and thought it was a story about Dana Kirkpatrick, (the race car driver).

    I work the night shift and I've heard "The Dana Show"......And yes, she is rotten as a talk show host!

    I noticed she talked about guns a lot and I wondered....WTF? .....Now I understand.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    That is a common refrain from Yanez's defenders, who say Castile, after disclosing that he had a concealed weapon, should have immediately placed his hands on the dashboard and awaited further instructions from Yanez.


    ... Because that is what everybody is told to do in "becoming a target for jittery police officers" school.

  • Hicks||

    So he should have jerked his hands out of his pockets, and quickly move them towards steering wheel.
    That would be good for 3 or 4 shots if he was white; as a wide-nosed negro who carried a weapon while looking like a robbery suspect, that's a reloader, Bub.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Don't have the balls to give an unqualified condemnation. Saying it "could have been avoided" is such a chickenshit response. In the infinite possibility of reality, this guy could have not been shot by some asshole with a gun. Great. Thanks for the insight jackasses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She, and therefore the NRA, said absolutely nothing here. And sounded very practiced doing so.

  • Robbzilla||

    Should've would've could've. The real world isn't what we want it to be. You can fight behind the scenes while being smart when being confronted with a jumpy cop with a gun trained on you.

    My aunt shouldn't have been bitten by a black widow last week. That has as much power as your comment at this point. Hopefully we can work to change the system where a man like Castille can be shot for being black. But right now, we live in that system and need to learn how to survive it. Especially if the person is black/hispanic/not-white.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    If I were a cop who was concerned that I might go through my career without getting a black notch on my donut box, the dialogue of my first kill would sound like the transcript of this encounter.

  • Sevo||

    "Minnesota officer who fatally shot Philando Castile takes buyout"
    [...]
    "The Minneapolis suburb of St. Anthony announced Monday that Jeronimo Yanez is no longer with the police department. The terms were not released, and neither the city nor Yanez's attorney immediately responded to messages."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mi.....es-buyout/

    Elsewhere, the claim is the shit-bag gets $48K for murder.
    What's the going rate now? Asking for a friend.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yanez actually got more appropriate treatment than most. He actually was charged with a crime.

    Usually they get promoted and perhaps a decoration. Sometimes they get fired.

    Seldom do they have to defend themselves in court. That is something.

    Blame the stupid jury for not understanding that excusing an incompetent cops behavior will do nothing to make other cops change their behavior.

  • Fooseven||

    Was this cop described as "white Hispanic"?

  • Blue Star||

    Because racists fucks like you need to focus on that description rather than the topic. Which was about how the NRA forgot to open its diarrheal mouth to say something about a legally carrying *non-white* gun owner was shot in cold blood, the pig acquitted, and then an incriminating video released.

  • Ladyhawk||

    equally racist remark, focus on the topic which is gun owner trying to comply and gets shot anyway

  • Blue Star||

    Bullshit.

    There was a heated debated and the spokesorifice for the NRA was forced to make a comment. The time for breaking silence was long gone. They could have done it any time since July 2016, and at the latest right after the verdict,

    The NRA is racist organization. Jacob Sullum is its cock holster, representing reason.com Republicans posing as libertarians.

  • damikesc||

    Sorry, but I'd prefer any group spend the time and investigate before making a comment than just shooting off at the mouth at the word go.

    With virtually all of these situations, the initial reporting is usually insanely wrong. Best to take your time before saying anything.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    With virtually all of these situations, the initial reporting is usually insanely wrong. Best to take your time before saying anything.

    "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT!"

  • Bruce D||

    You're racist. You're judging the organization on the basis of your own prejudices.

  • m.EK||

    After watching the video, there is no way the officer should have freaked like that. He had all the position he needed to simply step back. He freaked out as if he was the one impaired. 7 shots point blank. WTF is that about???
    This was an execution, for reasons of insanity.
    What are people expected to do when they see that they have a possibility to be executed for informing the officer of a weapon? What are these people being taught that would encourage them to be so jumpy when someone is open?
    The police state we have is no fun. To serve and protect,,, whom or what?

  • Necron 99||

    The state, the nomenklatura, and the apparatchik, in that order.

  • ThomasD||

    "implying that Castile might still be alive if he had known "what to do during stops like this."

    That sort of stuff reminds me of how they used to advise people to behave during a mugging - 'stay calm, give them what they want, don't make eye contact, etc..'

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    That sort of stuff reminds me of how they used to advise people to behave during a mugging - 'stay calm, give them what they want, don't make eye contact, etc..'

    That, apparently didn't work for Seth Rich.

    Oh, wait ...

  • albo||

    Trust no one and take proactive responsibility for your own safety. I just assume that everybody I interact with on a daily basis is an idiot who doesn't know what he or she is doing and may commit an action that affect me in a negative way.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    In a traffic stop with an armed citizen who says he has a CCW an officer is trained to immediately give clear and concise commands in order to take control of the situation. Officer Yanez failed to do that and, imo, cost Philando Castile his life. However once an armed citizen's hands go out of an officer's view the law as interpreted all but guarantees an officer the right to use lethal force. Read Connor v. Graham, the "objective reasonableness" standard is why Yanez's acquittal is unsurprising and, by existing definition, legally sound.

    The fact Mr. Castile is African-American is legally immaterial. Whether the officer felt "reasonable" fear in real time based on the totality of the circumstances is not. Citizens need to know their rights and if you're legally carrying a firearm, know the law. It can be the small difference that saves your life.

  • ace_m82||

    It is quite obvious that the law won't save your life in these situations, nor that it will allow justice to be extracted from the aggressor. Last of all, it is clear that the law won't provide a disincentive for the next aggressor to rethink their actions.

    Sadly, if you come into contact with a police officer and it looks like they are likely to get violent, your ONLY HOPE is to wait for them to draw, shoot them, and immediately run to another precinct and surrender yourself. It's not likely you will "win", but you probably won't die.

    Also, any reasonable jury will acquit you if your lawyer is smart enough to give some statistics on how these encounters end.

    I really wish this wasn't the case, but the failures of the "Justice" Dept led us here.

  • tgrondo||

    Ace_m82....Of all the dumb stuff I've read in the many comment sections that inhabit the internet...
    Your comment has to be.... the dumbest.....Congrats.

  • cravinbob||

    You are possibly the idiot of the century and a dangerous one as well. Also you are what we call a "copsucker", one who panders to police as if they were god-like and tellers of truth, heroes self-appointed, bigoted protectors of the correct type of citizen. News for you: the cop was a frightened Barney Fife sans the comedy who should be doing life for murder and more time for child endangerment ( a charge DA's love to tack on to drug cases). Ideally, life without the possibility of being separated from other inmates. Then I would like to listen to his "cop tough talk" when he is unarmed and surrounded by humans with lives destroyed by the likes of him. He would be shitting in his pants daily and would hang himself the first chance he had.
    Furthermore, the incident has nothing to do with the NRA and everything to do with the destruction of The Constitution, an act once only attempted by our enemies, punishable by death. Copsuckers fail to see the swagger of a sociopath with a badge and gun who presents himself in a non-defensive posture at the drivers window contrary to the training we are told and assume they receive. The jurors were just more terrified citizens- same as those who saw nothing wrong with beating Rodney King. If they had they knew they would be next.

  • Steve-O||

    Dana Loesch: Would.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That's why she got the job. Not because she actually knows about firearms issues.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I am white and I assume that every cop is a dumbass who will shoot me if I move incorrectly.

    So I am comfortable saying that the victim fcked up but it remains the cop's fault.

    There is no way the NRA should express an opinion on the validity of a verdict. That would be foolish.

  • Ron||

    I agree with your opinion since the cop was a freak who shouldn't have been a cop and the gun carrier was not legally allowed to carry or have a gun, due to pot use. fubar all around therefore no need for a response.

  • damikesc||

    It seems she is faulting the officer for not knowing. They want to provide this to permit holders AND law enforcement. This shows why law enforcement needs this.

    It's why she specified it wasn't only for civilians.

  • EscherEnigma||

    She very carefully didn't fault the officer. This is all kinds of passive-voice nonsense.

  • ||

    I don't exactly or entirely blame the NRA for this.

    The King's Men are a part of their membership/readership they certainly do have to be careful not to alienate them. Also, technically/officially, he wasn't convicted.

    More importantly, I think, is that to push further, they start wading into SJW territory on flimsy grounds. Essentially telling police officers that, because 2A, they can't unionize and/or collaborate with DAs. They already get blamed for every crazy gunman who does anything. Hell, politicians who, members or not, earn even modestly positive endorsements get mass shootings hung on their necks by proxy.

    They probably could be more active/activist but then they'd just be the ACLU.

  • EscherEnigma||

    She very carefully didn't fault the officer. This is all kinds of passive-voice nonsense.

  • jjjjj||

    It should be taught to everyone that when you get pulled over, open your glove box and get out your registration and insurance card, and go ahead and at least get your wallet out of your pocket (and license out of your wallet if you have time). Have the window rolled down before the cop gets there and have your documentation and hands on the steering wheel.

    Hell, it usually takes about 30 seconds from the time you're pulled over until the cop gets out of the car. That's your window to get your stuff together.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, immediately throw yourself out on the ground prostrate while screaming "don't shoot" and "someone please start filming".

    That would be a more honest response.

  • KM33||

    "she is careful not to take a position on whether Yanez should have been acquitted" - Well good for her, she wasn't on the jury. People conveniently ignore the fact that jury after jury acquits the cops in these cases, black jurors included.

    Quit being armchair jurors and move on.

  • ||

    Quit being armchair jurors and move on.

    You're an idiot.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yep, if the jurors want to perpetuate the police state we should just accept that and "move on".

  • KM33||

    Pure ad hominem? Not like I expected better.

    The jurors are following the law. If you don't like the way the laws are written, then work to change them, don't take your anger out on the police.

    The jurors are not idiots, they are 12 people just like yourself. They watch the same news at night. Yet over and over, they unanimously side with the police.

    Did you know that police make some 67 million contacts with the public per year? Over 8 million arrests? Over 2.5 million arrests of black people?

    Yet you could count all the year's troublesome shootings on your fingers.

    Considering the sheer volume of police contacts per year, cases like Philando's are incredibly rare.

    The media could have you believing that gay, shoplifting grannies are plaguing the nation, if they wanted to, for I can guarantee that there are WAY more of them out there than there are troublesome police shootings.

  • DaveSs||

    Did you know that police make some 67 million contacts with the public per year? Over 8 million arrests? Over 2.5 million arrests of black people?

    About 42% of the 67 million contacts with the public are average ordinary traffic stops, and you can count on your fingers the number of times one of them gets killed by the person they pulled over for a routine traffic violation.

    Which is to say, police are not reasonably justified in assuming that a guy who calmly, politely, and respectfully informs you 'sir I have to let you know, I have a firearm on me' subsequently starts moving his hands, that he is doing nothing more than getting the documents and papers that you are requesting.

  • DaveSs||

    average ordinary traffic stops, and of that 42% several million of those stops are with persons who are lawfully armed and you can count

  • ||

    Yet you could count all the year's troublesome shootings on your fingers.

    Yeah. Fuck Chicago!

  • Ladyhawk||

    98 % of those are civilians shooting civilians, not cops

  • AZ Gunowner||

    You use the words "ad hominem" but you clearly don't know what they mean.

    But it is obvious there is no use engaging with a cop-sucker.

    Enjoy the police state that you so desire. I sincerely hope you personally reap the "benefit" from it.

  • Robbzilla||

    "cop-sucker."

    The proper terms are either badge bunny or fender lizard.

  • Mark22||

    Yep, if the jurors want to perpetuate the police state we should just accept that and "move on".

    The jurors are a sample from the population, and if they keep acquitting, then that represents a pretty consistent message about what the population at large prefers.

    Furthermore, use of force rules are determined at the local level; any community is free to limit the use of force, or even force its officers to patrol unarmed. I think it's pretty clear that even overwhelmingly black communities prefer their officers armed and ready to use force when necessary.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    From a practical standpoint you are correct.

    If the jury(s) continue to excuse murder by cops there is not much I can do about it.

    Doesn't mean I can't think they are stupid for doing so.

    And that black jurors are happy with that means they can be even more stupid than the white jurors since blacks are probably at more risk from incompetent/psycho cops than whites (for a variety of reasons).

    For me, since I live in AZ, the risk is not so great, a state very comfortable with guns and w/o the racial issues that some cities/states have.

    But I don't have a CCL for that reason - I don't want to have to tell the cop I'm armed (or carrying etc). And twice at least I haven't. Of course they didn't ask either.

    But I believe in "justice for all".

    Castile was murdered - the cop didn't kill him in self-defense (and don't tell me the jury said he did because the defense never argued he did - just that he wasn't guilty a murder because being scared was on ok reason to kill Castile).

    The same jury would likely have convicted a "civilian" (but cops are supposed to be civilians too) if the civilian could only offer the excuse of being "scared".

    Giving cops a pass on murder because they are "scared" makes them superior "citizens".

    That's not justice for all.

    The jury was stupid.

  • Bruce D||

    No, I don't think the jury acquitted because he was scared, rather because he was immediately and pitifully regretful of the actions. The jury probably perceived a lack of ill-intent and cut him some slack. Search on Castile video and listen through to the end.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I have a CPL; where I live it is required that you inform the officer when they approach your car, and if you do or do not have a gun. Hint: they already know you have it when they run your license plate.

    First order of business is prevention: do not have a broken tail light, an expired registration, or commit a moving violation so as to give the police a reason to pull you over.

    But as we know shit happens, so next is to know where your registration and insurance card is [mine in center console]; get our your wallet as soon as you stop and put it on the dash and have your hands at 10 and 2 while the officer is running your plate and before they approach your car, if possible.

    Whenever you are pulled over you are going to be dealing with an LEO about whom you know nothing. Was there a crime that just occurred in the vicinity that has them on edge? Do they think you resemble a suspect or your vehicle his or her car? How experienced are they? If they think you are a threat, they are going to their weapon and as he see in this case it can go down very very fast. And maybe like Castile your're a hapless victim and the LEO goes to trial, but regardless of how that plays you go to the grave. So yeah, I will practice precaution.

    Most, the overwhelming vast majority, of police officers are decent people who want to do an often thankless job and go home at the end of the day. So do I, and I will do some simple things to make sure that happens.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    It would be nice though if one didn't have to worry about an hysterical cop gunning you down on the flimsiest pretext of being "scared".

    I don't think that's too much to ask in a (supposedly) "free" society.

    Or, that your peers would try to protect the general public from such incompentents/psychos by holding at least a few of them to account to encourage the others.

  • Robbzilla||

    That would be great, wouldn't it? I agree, I'd love to live in that world.

    But we don't. I have the same goal that the cops use: Get home safely at the end of the day. If I have a problem with a cop, I'll let my lawyer sort it out. I'll probably end up frustrated because our current judicial system favors the police, and that's what we need to change.

    Pushing the narrative about happenings like Castille and Michael Garner are good ways to start. We need to focus on changing perception before we can change laws and actions. We're kind of screwed until we can get those laws changed, and those judgments overturned.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I've watched these types of stories for over 20 years, usually nothing worse than getting fired happened to the cop, oh, and the taxpayers forked over big for the wrongful death suits.

    But, now, a few cops have been charged with murder.

    So what happens, the stupid juries excuse it.

    I have contempt for the "law and order" types that blame the victim (instead of the "highly-trained" cop) but my worst contempt is reserved for the stupid juries that have been brainwashed to give special deference to the cops.

    Pathetic.

  • JeremyR||

    The problem with the NRA, like conservatives/Republicans, is that while they love guns, they love cops more. Cops can never doing anything wrong in their eyes.

  • Ladyhawk||

    Let's see some stats on this.

  • Bruce D||

    No, the NRA does not want to alienate law enforcement, who they need as a vital ally in the fight to defend freedom to keep and bear arms. If the left and the media didn't push so hard for gun-control, law enforcement support for the NRA and the freedom to keep and bear arms would not be so vital. It's the Left and the media that drives the NRA to consolidate support from the Right, including from law enforcement.

  • ranrod||

    The NRA has been selling out the American gun owner for over 100 years. They actively supported the NFA in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968 and the oppositely named Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which removed the right of Americans to purchase new automatic or AOW weapons, a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

    All of this was done with the cooperation of the sellout Progressive owned and run Republican Party as well.

  • Robbzilla||

    This is why I no longer am a member. Once I learned how squishy they were, I stopped giving them my money.

  • mpercy||

    I've thought the whole time there's really nothing for the NRA to say here.

    Castile was killed by a paranoid brownshirt cop basically because he was a black guy who managed in a very few scant seconds to make the twitchy cop pull his trigger.

    Seemingly, this would have been the case if Castile had a gun or not, permit or no permit. He wasn't killed *because* he was a permit holder or *because* he was carrying. There's no specific 2nd Amendment-related question here, only a more overarching denial of basic human rights to not get shot by cops for no good reason.

    There were no politicians trying to pass a new law that would deny Castile his permit or further infringe his right to carry. There are no proposed changes to existing guns laws that are going to change the result, nor prevent similar results in the future. The Constitutional questions (due-process) are not focused on the 2nd Amendment.

    The only thing the NRA really can do is lament that a more-or-less (pot? I'm not sure what the situation is there) law-abiding citizen was killed by a cop mostly because he was black and made the paranoid cop lose his grip on the situation.

  • Ladyhawk||

    He was not killed because he was black. He was pulled over because the officer believed he resembled the description he had of a black suspect in a local crime. When people are pulled over for "driving while black", it is usually ( not always) because there has been a crime in that area which was committed by a suspect described as black by local witnesses ( who are also often mostly black).

  • Mark22||

    Seemingly, this would have been the case if Castile had a gun or not, permit or no permit.

    He was killed because he said "I have a gun" while reaching for his back pocket. You're absolutely right that that kind of behavior risks you getting killed regardless of whether you actually carry a gun or whether you actually have a permit. It probably gets you killed more easily if you are a young black male, but that may have something to do with the staggeringly high rate of violent crimes and homicides committed by that demographic.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    By Whom?
    We could start with a guy who had drugs and alcohol in his system - which was a violation of his CCW.
    We could then go to the Chief of Police, who was warned about a "training problem" within his department months before this incident when a nationally recognized firearms instructor encountered one of this departments finest and immediately recognized that these cops didn't "do stress" well, and reported it to the Chief the following day.
    But, other than that, it must be the fault of America's fascination with guns.

  • Mark22||

    could be read as implying that Castile might still be alive if he had known "what to do during stops like this."That is a common refrain from Yanez's defenders, who say Castile, after disclosing that he had a concealed weapon, should have immediately placed his hands on the dashboard or steering wheel and awaited further instructions from Yanez. But Yanez never asked Castile to do that. Nor did he tell Castile to stop moving or to keep his hands in plain sight

    Hence, he didn't know what to do during stops like this.

    Talking to a cop while reaching for your back pocket and saying "I have a gun" simply isn't very smart. Most people probably figure that out for themselves, however, Castile apparently would have benefited from a training program.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The only contact I had with the NRA, they seemed paranoid. But once they decided no traps were set, they gratuitously helped with an unusual 2A controversy back in 1986. So reticence until goaded is not out of character for them. Still, there is a tendency for narrow single-issue groups to need to keep their single issue unresolved. Broad single issue groups like the Libertarian Party (yes, coercion v. freedom is broad, but a single issue) can be counted on to savor every victory and keep coming back for more. I know little about the NRA except that they are themselves cautious to the point of distrusting. But it is pleasing that they at least responded positively.

  • Ben of Houston||

    The NRA is scared to death of offending the police officers union. It's one of the few core demographics they have left. Despite this, not even they can give an endorsement to this.

    This wasn't an "avoidable tragedy". The time from the first "don't reach for it" to shots fired was a grand total of four seconds. The only thing Castile said in between was "I'm not". The officer never said "Stop" "freeze" "halt", or anything else.

    My advice: don't watch the dash cam footage. It's not good for the soul or your faith in humanity.

  • Jim Walsh||

    Careful guys, you don't want to be caught saying something positive about a NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGROOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

  • Peter||

    Left out of much of the conversation is that the Yanez thought he was stopping a robbery suspect, a felony stop, but did not wait for backup or inform Castile of this. Instead he said that it was a broken tail light, this put the two of them on opposite ends of the response spectrum, Castile perceived this as a minor affair and Yanez as a highly dangerous one.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Backup?

    His partner was on the other side of the car. Even he couldn't claim to have seen a threat - ie, he couldn't testify to actually seeing a gun.

    Yanez shot because he was "scared". That is not self-defense (the only reason anyone can kill intentionally, cops included).

    So it was murder.

    The jury said that cops can murder if they are "a-scared".

    Pathetic.

  • SezWhom||

    Why are we ignoring the obvious? Clearly Yanez felt endangered, almost certainly because he thought he might be shot, and that's why he fired. Was he wrong? Probably, but we don't even know that for sure. Do we? No, we don't. None of us has seen what Yanez saw.

    I encountered a cop once, was curious as to what was going on, when he "asked" me not to come any closer. I then realized he had his gun drawn and was watching for something. So, of course I kept approaching him, talking and making sudden moves. LIKE HELL!. I stood stock still, hands at my sides and said nothing until the cop told me the situation was over. And I lived to tell about it.

    Every cop can name a dead cop who didn't pull his gun soon enough. That just might affect their thinking.

  • sam89||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online