Two Years After the Police Killing of Philando Castile, Justice Continues to Be Denied

On July 7, 2016, the day after the shooting of Philando Castile, artists from the Twin Cities came together to create a public mural to process their shock and grief. In stark black and white lettering, the mural asked:

What do we tell our children when education didn’t matter? When compliance, age, or evidence didn’t matter? When guilt or innocence didn’t matter? When our outrage didn’t matter?

The building on which the mural lived was demolished shortly after its painting. But, like Castile, the mural lives on in memories of the community.

Philando Castile was shot and killed by Officer Jeronimo Yanez on July 6, 2016. A year later, Officer Yanez was acquitted of second-degree manslaughter and two counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm. Afterwards, the video footage that the ACLU of Minnesota fought to get released was finally made public. In the video, you see Castile shot unnecessarily by the frantic police officer in front of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter.

Two years later, there is nothing reassuring to tell the hundreds of children at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School, where Castile worked for more than a decade. There was no reason for his killing.

But Castile is not the only person that Minnesota community members have had to grieve for in the two years since his killing. Last July, Justine Ruszczyk Damond was shot and killed by Minneapolis Police Officer Mohammed Noor after she called the police to report a possible sexual assault occurring near her home. Gilbert Salas was killed by St. James Police in February of this year. And, just last week, Thurman Blevins was shot by the police in North Minneapolis.

Families, friends, neighbors, and loved ones should not have to continually brace themselves for the next police shooting. Minnesota residents should not have to march in the streets demanding justice, only to have another member of their community shot.

For Minnesota to address the problem of how police use excessive and deadly force, we need to enact large-scale reforms across the state. To start, that means reforming the state law on body cameras. The legislature needs to mandate that all footage of such uses of force is made public as well as to establish minimum standards for body camera deployment by police departments, including mandatory activation, discipline for violating policy, compliance audits, and prohibiting officer review of footage prior to writing initial reports.

The police should not be allowed to hide behind a “criminal investigative data” classification to delay the release of video and audio in police incidents. This type of stonewalling is what is currently preventing us from accessing video and audio of the shooting of Thurman Blevins.

We also need to facilitate investigations and, where appropriate, discipline officers who use excessive force. First, the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, which is responsible for dispensing occupational licenses to law enforcement, should be empowered to act like every other professional licensing board and conduct its own separate investigations and make its own decisions about actions against an officer’s license.

The legislature also needs to create an independent state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting police officers who engage in excessive force and other police misconduct. Finally, Minnesota municipalities need to give civilian review boards the authority to investigate and discipline officers who abuse their authority.

But even these reforms may not be sufficient. For example, even when there is footage of police misconduct, like in Castile’s case, it has not led to a conviction of an officer or the revoking of their license. Above all, what we need to do is fundamentally transform the system and change the laws by which we judge police conduct.

Existing legal precedents fail to deter officer misconduct, and it is time for courts to re-examine them. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer’s subjective reason for pulling somebody over is irrelevant. As long as the officer has any probable cause for the stop, the courts will find the officer is in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. Racial profiling violates the 14th Amendment, but it requires proof of intentional discrimination — something that is very difficult to prove.

So young African-American men like Castile get pulled over time and time again for minor offenses with little or no recourse for the officers who racially profile them. The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” and an officer’s record of disproportionate stops of people of color should be part of the equation when courts consider whether a particular stop was reasonable.

And courts looking at excessive force claims often give police every benefit of the doubt. In fact, two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Kisela v. Hughes and County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, give police wide latitude to shoot people, making it even harder to hold police officers accountable in our judicial system.

If Minnesota police continue to refuse to hold officers accountable when they use excessive and deadly force, then we will have to re-evaluate the power and tools that we give to the police and fund alternatives to policing, such as mental health first-responders, restorative justice initiatives, and community-based programs that do not require an armed police response. As the system stands now, so clearly stacked against victims of police violence, that may be our only choice.

View comments (25)
Read the Terms of Use


The officer was tried and found innocent by a jury of his peers. That is how justice is handled in the American system so justice was not denied. You may not like the verdict but so what. Castile was on drugs and tried to reach his weapon despite being told three times not to do so. Castile was pulled because he looked like an armed robber, not a minor offense. And is there a wale that gives blacks right to commit minor offenses?


Ur comment is stupid This man lost his life for legally protecting his self. I hate u crackers


You sound like an idiot. The cop told him he pulled him over because of a tail light. That makes the cop a liar. And just because he is a suspect .. And That was because his nose was wide (insane) does not mean he is a criminal & be subject to being shot for trying to do what he was told! You are a naive fool. Hope this happens to one of your so you will see the INjustice the other side faces on a daily.




one shot could have disable the person but 7 shots fired? he should not be a cop since he can't control himself. and then the jury acquits the cop. not that he is acquitted did he learn his lesson? he fired 7 shots and killed a man. given the same circumstances is he a changed cop and will he kill again


Wasn't aware that the punishment for smoking weed was death. But I mean, you do you, man.


All he did was reach for his license


Imagine being in the officers position when a individual informs you that he is armed with a firearm yet reaches for his pockets after repeatedly being told not to. The result? Him being shot. One thing I know as being a concealed weapons permit holder is that when you are pulled over you explain to the officer every movement you're about to make and you listen to every order inwhich you are directed. Secondly, Castile had the weapon illegally and did not have a pistol permit which further backs the position of the police. I disagree that the shooting was justified but it could have been prevented from both sides. You're ignorant however to say that the police is entirely in the wrong, when clearly there was an illegal weapon involved and he did not follow simple orders.


Read the case... you are incorrect. Castile not only DID have a license to carry, he also politely notified the officer that he had a gun (which is more than the loose requires). This was a police mistake.


Next time I'm pulled over by police I'll be sure to not inform them about my CCW. Thanks for the advice!


Stay Informed