Finally, something the radical left and (at least some of us) can agree on:

David French: The Philando Castile verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Yes, the evidence indicates that Yanez was afraid for his life. He thought he might have been dealing with a robber (a fact he apparently didn’t tell Castile), and he testified that he smelled marijuana. But Castile was following Yanez’s commands, and It’s simply false that the mere presence of a gun makes the encounter more dangerous for the police. It all depends on who possesses the gun. If he’s a concealed-carry permit-holder, then he’s in one of the most law-abiding demographics in America.  [emphasis added] 
In recent months we’ve seen a number of cases where courts have excused police for shooting citizens even after the police made mistakes — and the citizens were doing nothing wrong — simply because these citizens were exercising their Second Amendment rights. This is unacceptable, and it represents the most extreme possible deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties.
I understand the inherent danger of police work. I also understand the legal responsibilities of men and women who volunteer to put on that uniform, and the legal rights of the citizens they’ve sworn to protect and serve. I’m aware of no evidence that Yanez panicked because Castile was black. But whether he panicked because of race, simply because of the gun, or because of both, he still panicked, and he should have been held accountable. The jury’s verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

My personal guess is that Officer Yanez would have not shot a white man quite so readily, but I wasn't at the trial. I do share a lot of the gun community's disgust that a legally-armed citizen was killed just because the cop panicked at the mention - not the sight - of a gun. All citizens deserve better and if the BLM folks think that Catile was shot while being black well,  they may very well have an excellent point.

Funny that the NRA and BLM find themselves on the same side here, but there it is.