Editor’s note: Presented by Michael Robin at the Philando Castile Peace Garden memorial on July 6, 2025.

By Michael Robin

On July 7, 2016, I awoke to the terrible news that Philando Castile, a 32-year-old African-American man, had been killed the night before by a St. Anthony police officer during what was initially dubbed “a routine traffic stop.”

Philando’s offense? Driving with a broken taillight.

Castile’s death was one of many for African Americans who have fallen victim to police violence over the years.

What was particularly poignant for me was that I was stopped on the same road, Larpenteur Avenue, for driving with a broken taillight about three months before Castile’s death.

I need not elaborate on the disparate police treatment given to Castile and me.

The difference in how Philando and I were treated shows that racial profiling is real, not just a myth. Philando was driving while black, a situation I am unable to experience. A black person was stopped for the same traffic violation I committed, yet he was killed while I was let go without a ticket or warning.

I am shocked by the idea that driving while white should be seen as a privilege. I don’t understand why my life is more important than Philando’s.

The day after Philando Castile died, a manufactured image took hold to discredit his innocence. Castile was described as an angry, armed Black man, even though, by all accounts, he was a gentle and peace-loving man, known to be very kind to all the children in the school cafeteria he monitored.

Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony police officer who shot Castile, said Castile died because of the “presence” of a gun. (Note, however, Philando was licensed to carry his gun.)

While the presence of a gun was used to justify the shooting, no one, other than Yanez’s lawyer, claimed or implied that Castile took it out of his pocket or pointed it at Yanez. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension determined the gun was deep down in Castile’s pocket and had no bullets in it.

In defending Yanez, St. Anthony Police Chief Jon Mangseth claimed the police officer had a “real sound ability when it comes to communicating and relating to people.”

In this Orwellian use of language, Castile’s innocence is dismissed because the man who shot him supposedly had good “communication skills.”

The chief continued to speak on Yanez’s behalf, saying he has a “sterling reputation” and is often described as “energetic” and “intelligent.” This support from his chief completely ignores the fact that Yanez was videotaped yelling expletives in a highly agitated voice as he held his gun on Castile while he was bleeding out.

How Yanez’s sterling reputation justified use of deadly force is anyone’s guess. Yanez certainly did not exercise good judgment when he allowed Castile to bleed out before emergency services were called. A traffic violation should never justify capital punishment.

That Yanez “feared for his life” when he encountered Castile is what is called a post hoc rationalization for an impulsive, unjustified act of violence.

In a terrible twist of reason, logic and evidence, (Yanez defense attorney) Tom Kelly has been trying to claim that Castile was the “substantial cause of his demise.” The legacy of Castile’s death will be that he died for legally carrying a gun, but had the wrong skin pigmentation to do so safely.

Thus, officer Yanez felt his life was “in danger” when Castile said he had a registered gun. Essentially, Yanez defenders argue that perception is reality, that if he felt threatened by Castile, he was threatened and therefore justified in using lethal force.

While Yanez might have been in fear of Castile, it does not logically follow that Castile was a threat to Yanez’s life. There is no way to understand Castile’s killing without taking into account its psychological, historical, social and political context.

Ultimately, Castile’s death was not about his “race,” as race itself is a myth. The meaning of his death is about the willful blindness of white society to see the full humanity of people of African descent, which, in the words of James Baldwin, breeds a collective psychosis.

The rhetoric surrounding Castile’s death is immoral, designed to legitimize the reign of terror visited upon African Americans over the last 400 years. The logic of Yanez’s defense is that Castile “chose” his fate when he dared to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

That so many are unwilling and unable to confront the truth of Castile’s death does not speak well to those who claim that we have already achieved Martin Luther King’s dream of a moral community. Philando Castile most certainly was not judged by the content of his character.

While race itself is a mythic category, not so the reality of racism. 

Michael Robin, a long time St. Anthony Park resident, can be reached at [email protected]