After Being Found Not Guilty, Minnesota Officer Given Separation Agreement

A Minnesota police officer accused of fatally shooting a man last summer has been given a separation agreement from his agency after he was found not guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

Philando Castile, 32, was shot several times by St. Anthony Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez, who is Latino, last July after Castile was pulled over with his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, and Reynolds’ 4-year-old daughter in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, a suburb of Saint Paul.

ABC News reports that the city of St. Anthony said in a statement that the “public will be best served if Officer Yanez is no longer a police officer in our city.” The city will offer Yanez a “voluntary separation agreement” to help him transition to another career, it said.



Facebook Comments




  1. ahaz

    This officer proved, by killing an innocent citizen, he is incapable of carrying a weapon and making life and death decisions. He’s very fortunate that he isn’t in prison as juries still give scared cops a pass for committting murder, especially minorities. Unions and officers have an effective blueprint for avoiding criminal responsibility and until juries wise up, incidents like these will continue unabated.

  2. Samuel Fivey

    These bureaucrats, these (b)administrators, these agency heads from both cities and counties need to be sued and sued hard with a definite emphasis on punitive damages for this crap.

    Here you have a Chief, his chief, testifying by all media accounts that this use of deadly force was reasonable. Then, someone decides Officer Yanez can’t / isn’t going back to work because it isn’t going to be good for the community. And why not? Media hype and sensationalizing of the event? Exceptionally dishonest plaintiffs attorneys lying through their teeth in efforts to get an early, high dollar settlement?

    Agencies and associations, guilds, FOPs, etc need to get very aggressive about countering these false narratives. For the immediate good of the copper and the agency they have to. For the long term good of the agency is another reason for doing it … Why would I want to stay here / go to work there, they didn’t stand up for Officer Snuffy? Would they stand up for me?

    This has been tried or done successfully to too many of our peers in the last few years.

  3. LegalBeagle

    Voluntary, my backside. I suspect that this will turn out to be staggeringly expensive if he has good legal counsel. I can’t imagine that they have any basis for the action given that the Chief testified for him. This seems to be a trend – yield to those who have loud opinions and no knowledge, to the detriment of an officer who was according to the law, performing correctly.

Submit a Comment

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Law Officer.

You have Successfully Subscribed!