A video of this text is at the bottom of the article
The cover up of the Philando Castile shooting is in full force. When the incident happened, I wondered to myself how they would attempt to assassinate the character of Castile, and I even joked about them using a picture of him looking ‘thuggish’ to flip the conversation to celebrating the death of a thug instead of condemning the officer for bad judgement.
The first thing they’ve done is release an image of an unknown suspect taking part in an armed robbery. The police are claiming the person driving the vehicle looked like the same person who robbed a convenient store, and that’s why he was pulled over – not due to a broken tail light.
The problem with this story is that it didn’t come out until days after the fact. Not only that, but the robbery happened on the 2nd, and they claim the police didn’t receive the images until the 5th and the shooting happened on the 6th.
This leads to the next part of the cover-up: an unconfirmed source of audio that is supposed to be the officer’s call to dispatch prior to pulling over the car. Here’s the audio…
I’ve listened to this audio clip several times and nothing about it screams ‘call-to-dispatch’ to me. The recording doesn’t sound like it came from the inside of a police car, it doesn’t sound formal enough for a call to dispatch, no codes are exchanged in the audio clip, and the audio quality changes when it goes to the part with ‘shots fired’.
It is certainly possible that the audio clip is legitimate, but I don’t believe it is. I believe the police recorded the first part of the audio clip afterward in order to create evidence to begin a line of defense for the officer that he was on ‘high alert’. They’re also claiming his gun was in his lap.
Bloggers have taken to the internet with a still image of the video recorded by Lavish Reynolds – Castile’s g/f – and in it, something black is laying on the lap, half covered by Philando’s shirt. These bloggers are stating that was the weapon and that he brandished it at the officer, and that’s why he was shot.
This argument doesn’t hold up because the word ‘gun’ from the officers on the scene was never uttered one time. Not only that, but if the officer saw a gun on Philando, the other officers parked behind the vehicle (and there were many), would have stormed that vehicle, ripped the passenger from the vehicle, as well as pulled Philando from the vehicle. We also would have heard police talking about the ‘gun’ and we would have heard the distraught officer saying he had a gun numerous times. Think back to all the times when officers claim someone had a gun and it’s always the same reaction – the constant statement of “he had a gun, he was reaching into his waistband, he was…” – you get the idea.
Since the police and news media have been unable to find a picture of Philando looking thuggish on social media, they have instead pulled the picture of someone robbing a store that looks somewhat familiar and are using that to convince people that he was the man that robbed the store. Let’s face it – Philando cannot defend himself, so it’s also likely the police will claim, at some point, that Philando was, in fact, the man robbing the store.
They are also claiming he doesn’t have a concealed carry permit, which doesn’t make sense because Philando’s mother and sister both said he did and that he had been talking about it with them the day he was shot, according to an interview with his mother. But as it turns out, his CCP was received from Hennepin County, not the county he was murdered in, so he was legally allowed to have that firearm and the officer had no right to feel threatened upon seeing the weapon.
Police are capable and willing to fabricate evidence to help defend officer in the event they end up murdering someone. I believe they will continue to claim Philando was the robber, that he pulled the gun on the cop, didn’t have a concealed carry permit (which is something they are more than likely able to get people from the state’s record department to destroy). I believe they will eventually claim the audio is legitimate, and that the officer was on high alert upon approaching the vehicle, because he believed the ‘suspect’ to be armed and dangerous and then they’ll claim he pulled the gun and that’s why he was shot.
Their version of the story won’t make sense because of all the things I’ve covered, so I would urge all of you to not believe the police account of what happened. They are trying to plant seeds in the mind of the public so that everyone will assume he was a thief and a thug, even though he wasn’t.