As I mentioned yesterday, bias is a tough condition to overcome. In the case of Philando Castile, there seems to be bias in regards to his second amendment rights. Castile was a gun owner and had a valid license to carry that weapon. Right before he was shot, he reportedly informed the police officer that he was armed and that he had a valid permit. These are steps that one is supposed to take when interacting with the police and one has a permit regardless if a weapon is present or not. Castile did nothing wrong in that regard.
That is not the most troubling part of the story, the lawyer for the officer made a statement yesterday that essentially said that it was the presence of a gun that cause him to fire. According some accounts, Castile’s weapon was in the glove compartment of his vehicle. If this is true, there is no way that the officer saw the gun. In other words, the officer most likely infringed Castile’s right to bear arms.
Why is it then that the second amendment supporters are not giving this aspect of the story more attention that they have? There are some second amendment supporters who are saying something but they seem to be a minority. The response of the NRA is weak with them saying that we need to wait for the investigation to be complete. There is no need to wait for the investigation. They can issues a stronger statement saying that police officers should understand that the second amendment applies to all Americans and they need to take care to respect our rights.
Of course, to make a statement like that, the NRA would risk angering the subset of gun owners that want to believe that the officer was justified and that Castile somehow deserved what he got. Bias can be a vicious monster.