[Altariel]

Dovalina says Daniel Castillo, Jr. was unarmed, had no criminal record, and according to his father, was not involved in the drug trade. The police affidavit for the search warrant claims an unidentified informant saw crack being sold from the house. It names “David Castillo” as a possible suspect, then later, “Daniel Castillo.” That tip and police observations of “traffic” at the Castillo home formed the basis of the forced-entry SWAT raid. No one but the police knows the identity of the informant.

According to his sister, Castillo was shot just below the eye as he rose up from his bed after hearing her scream. She was holding a 1-year-old child just a few feet from the shooting.

http://reason.com/blog/2007/02/16/daniel-castillo-ctd#comment_643804

[MeganC]

Where’s the apologists to tell us all how we’re not supposed to rush to judgment over the actions of the police when, obviously, the police had no problems rushing to judge and execute a 17 year old boy?

[muir_redwoods]

Well, take from this the following benefit. Perhaps these events will convince some drug dealer somewhere to quit his trade and spare otherwise free citizens from having to decide what to ingest into heir own bodies. Afterall, we can’t have people making such decisions for themselves, now can we?

Please don’t make me label this as sarcasm.

[Defiant]

This is from 2007? Why is it posted now?

[Chode]

had to shoot the kid, no dog

[drunknsage]

Here is an update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/raid-of-the-day-daniel-ca_n_2948929.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Standing Wolf]

[sarcasm] Well, yeah, but we’re not a police state: the police didn’t shoot anybody at the wrong address this time. [/sarcasm]