The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

[Deepak]

 

[fast]

Where they escalated and consequently caused the death of another black man was in coming up from behind, banging on the windows without warning, having multiple police officers pointing their guns at him, multiple officers shouting at him, officers ignoring the wife trying to tell them he had a brain injury, and especially shooting him to death without justifiable cause.

Startling someone may cause a temporary physiological response, so there is a basis for invoking the idea of causation in certain situations, but it cannot explain sustained refusal to submit to aggressive demands.

 

[RavenSky]

Where they escalated and consequently caused the death of another black man was in coming up from behind, banging on the windows without warning, having multiple police officers pointing their guns at him, multiple officers shouting at him, officers ignoring the wife trying to tell them he had a brain injury, and especially shooting him to death without justifiable cause.

Startling someone may cause a temporary physiological response, so there is a basis for invoking the idea of causation in certain situations, but it cannot explain sustained refusal to submit to aggressive demands.

Police pulled the trigger. They CAUSED the death of this man

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe the 10 times they said "drop the gun" in the video could shed some light on where it was.

That would not pass as proof that he was holding a gun in his hand. A video, however, with him holding a gun in his hand would be proof.

 

[fast]

Startling someone may cause a temporary physiological response, so there is a basis for invoking the idea of causation in certain situations, but it cannot explain sustained refusal to submit to aggressive demands.

Police pulled the trigger. They CAUSED the death of this man

Oh, now that you put it that way. I thought you were going with a different angle. My bad.

 

[Deepak]

Maybe the 10 times they said "drop the gun" in the video could shed some light on where it was.

That would not pass as proof that he was holding a gun in his hand. A video, however, with him holding a gun in his hand would be proof.

Exactly - in the dashcam video I linked previously in this thread how many times did the cop say to stop reaching for his gun?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That makes sense--but your response does not.

Flashing a weapon because someone is looking at you is not acceptable, the police reacting to it would be appropriate.

As I said, it was wild speculation on my part to reconcile the conflicting accounts of the police and the witnesses. I don't actually believe it went down that way. But even if it did - no, the overall police response was not appropriate. I can see the two police officers putting on identifying vests and then going up to the car (calmly) to verify what was going on.

While it was wild speculation it does a very good job of providing a rational cause of the events we observed. Thus I think you have a reasonable chance of having nailed it.

Where they escalated and consequently caused the death of another black man was in coming up from behind, banging on the windows without warning, having multiple police officers pointing their guns at him, multiple officers shouting at him, officers ignoring the wife trying to tell them he had a brain injury, and especially shooting him to death without justifiable cause.

If your scenario is right I think the cop's actions were right.

1) As I said, you described illegal conduct. It's quite reasonable for cops to react to a crime they see happening.

2) As said crime involved a gun, of course he's confronted with multiple cops with their guns drawn by surprise.

3) Ignoring the wife--you have no evidence of that. You are thinking that her words meant the cops should have backed down but that's the exact opposite of reality. His having a brain injury means he's more likely to do something stupid, it's not a reason to back down.

4) Shooting without cause--if your scenario is right it's with cause.

You have an obligation to handle dangerous items in a safe fashion in public. If you are incapable of doing so then you shouldn't have the dangerous item in the first place. (Note: We had such a case locally some years back. The guy was loopy on pain pills and mishandled his gun and got turned into swiss cheese. The final conclusion: The only wrongdoing was on his part. No charges, didn't win the lawsuit.)

That makes sense--but your response does not.

Flashing a weapon because someone is looking at you is not acceptable, the police reacting to it would be appropriate.

I'm tempted to cross post this in the "open carry for white people" thread, seeing how North Carolina IS an open-carry state.

Exactly what I was thinking when I was responding to that same post. This is, in my opinion, another example of double-standards for a black man with a gun.

Flashing it is a threat. To respond to someone looking at you with a threat of lethal force is illegal.

 

[Arctish]

As I said, it was wild speculation on my part to reconcile the conflicting accounts of the police and the witnesses. I don't actually believe it went down that way. But even if it did - no, the overall police response was not appropriate. I can see the two police officers putting on identifying vests and then going up to the car (calmly) to verify what was going on.

While it was wild speculation it does a very good job of providing a rational cause of the events we observed. Thus I think you have a reasonable chance of having nailed it.

Where they escalated and consequently caused the death of another black man was in coming up from behind, banging on the windows without warning, having multiple police officers pointing their guns at him, multiple officers shouting at him, officers ignoring the wife trying to tell them he had a brain injury, and especially shooting him to death without justifiable cause.

If your scenario is right I think the cop's actions were right.

1) As I said, you described illegal conduct. It's quite reasonable for cops to react to a crime they see happening.

2) As said crime involved a gun, of course he's confronted with multiple cops with their guns drawn by surprise.

3) Ignoring the wife--you have no evidence of that. You are thinking that her words meant the cops should have backed down but that's the exact opposite of reality. His having a brain injury means he's more likely to do something stupid, it's not a reason to back down.

4) Shooting without cause--if your scenario is right it's with cause.

You have an obligation to handle dangerous items in a safe fashion in public. If you are incapable of doing so then you shouldn't have the dangerous item in the first place. (Note: We had such a case locally some years back. The guy was loopy on pain pills and mishandled his gun and got turned into swiss cheese. The final conclusion: The only wrongdoing was on his part. No charges, didn't win the lawsuit.)

That makes sense--but your response does not.

Flashing a weapon because someone is looking at you is not acceptable, the police reacting to it would be appropriate.

I'm tempted to cross post this in the "open carry for white people" thread, seeing how North Carolina IS an open-carry state.

Exactly what I was thinking when I was responding to that same post. This is, in my opinion, another example of double-standards for a black man with a gun.

Flashing it is a threat. To respond to someone looking at you with a threat of lethal force is illegal.

The law says 'brandishing' is illegal, but flashing isn't mentioned. If flashing a gun was against the law, then every single person openly carrying who turns around, thereby revealing his/her weapon momentarily, could be arrested. That kinda subverts the whole purpose of open carry laws.

Suppose Mr. Scott saw two suspicious characters, not from the neighborhood, looking at him like they were thinking about jacking his car, and Mr. Scott decided to make sure his gun was loaded just in case the two strangers attacked him. Is that a threat, or is that a sensible precaution when suspicious characters are lurking about? Is it only sensible if the person is white? Is it always a threat if the person is black?

All too often in these threads it sounds like anything a black person does is suspicious, from walking home in the rain to bringing a homemade gizmo in to school to show a teacher to sitting in a car reading a book. And if it isn't automatically grounds for immediate arrest there are posters ready and willing to invent a backstory to make it so. Meanwhile, whites who brag about bringing automatic weapons to street demonstrations in order to 'stir shit up' or who threaten to kill federal agents performing their lawful duty get a pass from the same people. So I'm wondering what they would say if it was a white guy sitting in a car seeing two strangers paying too much attention to him, and getting his gun out of his ankle holster just in case there's trouble. Is that reason enough for the cops to prepare to use lethal force to disarm him or not?

 

[Rhea]

and the cops appeared unconcerned he might be holding a gun as they bent over his prone body, the possibility that the gun was in his hand appears extremely remote.

That's why I would like to see the part of the video where the cops secured the gun. I would like to know exactly where it was when Scott was shot.

.

This is an extremely important question and should have been the first "evidence" that the police presented if they had it.

WHEN they handcuffed Lamont (as he was dying) he had no gun in his hand. Why did the police not care right then and there where that gun was? Two cops standing around while one is sent for "the equipment bag" and none of those in the camera have secured the gun? We watch for some time. Which cop is securing the gun?

Possible answer - it was in the holster the whole time, that's why none of them were worried about it or securing it.

 

[Derec]

Suppose Mr. Scott saw two suspicious characters, not from the neighborhood, looking at him like they were thinking about jacking his car, and Mr. Scott decided to make sure his gun was loaded just in case the two strangers attacked him.

Quite possible. Note that his felony conviction came from when he unloaded his gun into a guy 11 times because he thought he was following him.

Is that a threat, or is that a sensible precaution when suspicious characters are lurking about? Is it only sensible if the person is white? Is it always a threat if the person is black?

Nothing about Keith Lamont Scott was sensible. He was not allowed to have a gun in the first place because he was a convicted felon. He also threatened his wife and kids with said gun.

All too often in these threads it sounds like anything a black person does is suspicious, from walking home in the rain to bringing a homemade gizmo in to school to show a teacher to sitting in a car reading a book.

Do you mean the "clock boy"? He isn't black. And let's stop with the "sitting in his car reading the book". That is the #BLM propaganda like "Skittles", "hands up", "sandwich" etc.

So I'm wondering what they would say if it was a white guy sitting in a car seeing two strangers paying too much attention to him, and getting his gun out of his ankle holster just in case there's trouble. Is that reason enough for the cops to prepare to use lethal force to disarm him or not?

Of course it's ok for police to disarm him - in your scenario.
And once disarmed he was going back to prison because of his prior felony. Perhaps that's why he refused to drop it.

 

[Derec]

Plus his criminal records, plus his driving record, plus his court documents, plus an unsourced claim that some unnamed person stole a gun and sold it to him, plus an unsourced claim he was rolling a joint in the parking lot when the police noticed him the first time.

So you don't think police should release evidence not favorable to the dead guy? Kind of like the police in the Michael Brown case was criticized for releasing the robbery video?

It's interesting that they didn't find any marijuana at the scene... but, who knows, they still might.

Where does it say they didn't?

 

[Derec]

I could be wrong about this, but it's documented that Keith Lamont suffered from a disability, the nature of which has not been described.

According to the wife, it was traumatic brain injury.

It is NOT documented that he had a concealed carry license or had ever purchased a firearm (and his wife seemed to think he didn't have one).

He could not have a concealed carry licence or any other sort of permit because he was a convicted felon (he shot a man 11 times) and thus barred from owning a fire arm.
However, he had a gun and his wife knew it.

 

[Derec]

Keeping in mind that the original police were not in uniform and in an unmarked car, and admit to watching him closely enough to claim he was rolling a joint... Maybe (speculation here), he saw them watching him and - not knowing they were cops - showed his gun (if he really had one) as a warning not to start shit with him.

Quite plausible, given his history with guns (shooting a man 11 times and threatening his wife and kids).

To be clear, this is purely wild speculation in an attempt to make sense of the conflicting reports; and still not a justification for police shooting at and killing him (or even approaching him for any reason)

How is him brandishing a gun to "warn them off" not a reason to approach and disarm him?

 

[Derec]

Lyric YourAdorable hasn't posted in this thread, so don't expect anyone to 'still claim' the things only she claimed.

She is still the source of the narrative that sparked the riots.

As for Scott having a book in the car:
People who knew him say it would have been unusual for him not to be reading as he waited for his kid's school bus to arrive. I'll take the neighbors' word for it.

Police did not find a book in his car, but even if he had a book that does not mean he didn't have a gun as well.

At the very least, it was perfectly reasonable for his wife to believe he had been reading a book when the cops started freaking out about him holding something in his hands.

It is not, since she knew full well he (also) had a gun. First, look at the restraining order. Second, he walked around with an ankle holster strapped to his leg. Kind of hard to miss if you live together. So yes, she lied to police.

 

[Arctish]

Suppose Mr. Scott saw two suspicious characters, not from the neighborhood, looking at him like they were thinking about jacking his car, and Mr. Scott decided to make sure his gun was loaded just in case the two strangers attacked him.

Quite possible.

Okay, so we agree the scenario is plausible. So that leaves the question of how the police would have reacted to a white man doing the exact same thing.

Note that his felony conviction came from when he unloaded his gun into a guy 11 times because he thought he was following him.

Noted, but irrelevant to the question. The cops couldn't have known about the felony since they didn't know who Scott was. To them, he's just a guy in a car.

Given that this all took place in an open carry state, the reaction of the police cannot be ascribed to standard procedure whenever they see a gun being openly carried. So why did they suit up, call for backup, and approach Scott the way they did? Do you think they would have reacted the same way to a white guy with a handgun sitting in his car?

Is that a threat, or is that a sensible precaution when suspicious characters are lurking about? Is it only sensible if the person is white? Is it always a threat if the person is black?

Nothing about Keith Lamont Scott was sensible. He was not allowed to have a gun in the first place because he was a convicted felon. He also threatened his wife and kids with said gun.

The question is whether checking your handgun is a sensible precaution or a threat when there are suspicious characters lurking about, and whether the race of the gun holder affects that determination.

So I'm wondering what they would say if it was a white guy sitting in a car seeing two strangers paying too much attention to him, and getting his gun out of his ankle holster just in case there's trouble. Is that reason enough for the cops to prepare to use lethal force to disarm him or not?

Of course it's ok for police to disarm him - in your scenario.
And once disarmed he was going back to prison because of his prior felony. Perhaps that's why he refused to drop it.

Really? Your position is that it's okay for the cops to disarm a white person exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? It's okay to arrest them for openly carrying in an open carry state?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given that this all took place in an open carry state, the reaction of the police cannot be ascribed to standard procedure whenever they see a gun being openly carried. So why did they suit up, call for backup, and approach Scott the way they did? Do you think they would have reacted the same way to a white guy with a handgun sitting in his car?

If he flashed it at someone (probably the cop) that's beyond what is permitted under open carry.

The question is whether checking your handgun is a sensible precaution or a threat when there are suspicious characters lurking about, and whether the race of the gun holder affects that determination.

You don't need to bring it up to the level that someone outside your car can see it in order to check it. Nor is checking it appropriate anyway. The reality of carrying a gun:

So I'm wondering what they would say if it was a white guy sitting in a car seeing two strangers paying too much attention to him, and getting his gun out of his ankle holster just in case there's trouble. Is that reason enough for the cops to prepare to use lethal force to disarm him or not?

Of course it's ok for police to disarm him - in your scenario.
And once disarmed he was going back to prison because of his prior felony. Perhaps that's why he refused to drop it.

Really? Your position is that it's okay for the cops to disarm a white person exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? It's okay to arrest them for openly carrying in an open carry state?

Flashing != carrying.

 

[Derec]

Okay, so we agree the scenario is plausible. So that leaves the question of how the police would have reacted to a white man doing the exact same thing.

Probably the same. Note the scenario assumes he flashed the gun in order to warn off/intimidate the strangers (who turned out to be police).

Noted, but irrelevant to the question. The cops couldn't have known about the felony since they didn't know who Scott was. To them, he's just a guy in a car.

It is relevant to his reaction to them identifying themselves as police. A law-abiding gun owner would have no reason not to cooperate. A violent felon who would go back to prison if identified in possession of a gun would have reason not to. Just like somebody driving a stolen car or something is much more likely to flee than somebody who is not.

Given that this all took place in an open carry state, the reaction of the police cannot be ascribed to standard procedure whenever they see a gun being openly carried. So why did they suit up, call for backup, and approach Scott the way they did? Do you think they would have reacted the same way to a white guy with a handgun sitting in his car?

Again, the scenario assumes he displayed the gun to intimidate them. That is not covered under "open carry". Neither is rolling a blunt.

The question is whether checking your handgun is a sensible precaution or a threat when there are suspicious characters lurking about, and whether the race of the gun holder affects that determination.

Last "suspicious character" Scott used his gun on had 11 bullet holes to show for it.

Really? Your position is that it's okay for the cops to disarm a white person exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? It's okay to arrest them for openly carrying in an open carry state?

Arrest does not necessarily enter into it. If he was otherwise a law-abiding gun owner and cooperated he might have gotten off with a warning or a ticket and a lecture on proper way to open carry. Scott of course was guaranteed an arrest once his identity was verified, which is why, of course, he did not cooperate.

It is not dissimilar to the case of Alton Sterling. He also was a convicted felon who was not allowed to have a gun. He also displayed a gun in order to intimidate somebody (a homeless guy who was bugging him or asking him for money or something). Police were called and Sterling chose to resist because he knew that if he was caught with a gun his ass was going back to prison.

 

[Arctish]

If he flashed it at someone (probably the cop) that's beyond what is permitted under open carry.

The question is whether checking your handgun is a sensible precaution or a threat when there are suspicious characters lurking about, and whether the race of the gun holder affects that determination.

You don't need to bring it up to the level that someone outside your car can see it in order to check it. Nor is checking it appropriate anyway. The reality of carrying a gun:

So I'm wondering what they would say if it was a white guy sitting in a car seeing two strangers paying too much attention to him, and getting his gun out of his ankle holster just in case there's trouble. Is that reason enough for the cops to prepare to use lethal force to disarm him or not?

Of course it's ok for police to disarm him - in your scenario.
And once disarmed he was going back to prison because of his prior felony. Perhaps that's why he refused to drop it.

Really? Your position is that it's okay for the cops to disarm a white person exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? It's okay to arrest them for openly carrying in an open carry state?

Flashing != carrying.

Flashing != illegal.

If the alleged flashing happened in a state that doesn't allow people to openly carry weapons there might be cause for a cop to investigate the matter and perhaps detain the owner. But if it happens in an open carry state, what's the problem? Open carry laws allow you to reveal the fact you are armed. That's rather the point of having them.

 

[Arctish]

Okay, so we agree the scenario is plausible. So that leaves the question of how the police would have reacted to a white man doing the exact same thing.

Probably the same. Note the scenario assumes he flashed the gun in order to warn off/intimidate the strangers (who turned out to be police).

The scenario did not assume that at all. The scenario assumed he was performing a weapons check.

Noted, but irrelevant to the question. The cops couldn't have known about the felony since they didn't know who Scott was. To them, he's just a guy in a car.

It is relevant to his reaction to them identifying themselves as police. A law-abiding gun owner would have no reason not to cooperate. A violent felon who would go back to prison if identified in possession of a gun would have reason not to. Just like somebody driving a stolen car or something is much more likely to flee than somebody who is not.

This raises another point I was going to mention.

I agree with you that a person's history can be useful information, but I don't agree with the way you're using it.

Using a person's past to make informed guesses about their probable actions in a given situation is appropriate when we don't know exactly what they did. But in this case we don't need to guess how Scott behaved when confronted by police because we can see his behavior on tape. We see the cops with weapons drawn. We hear them shouting to Scott to drop his weapon. We see Scott slowly exit the vehicle, apparently empty handed and making no sudden moves or displaying the slightest indication he's combative. So bringing up his history of having been violent in the past looks like an attempt to obscure the truth, not reveal it.

Scott did not react violently, so why are you talking about past violence if not to praise him for showing more restraint this time? It looks like an attempt to demonize him and make it sound like the cops did us all a favor by killing the guy.

Given that this all took place in an open carry state, the reaction of the police cannot be ascribed to standard procedure whenever they see a gun being openly carried. So why did they suit up, call for backup, and approach Scott the way they did? Do you think they would have reacted the same way to a white guy with a handgun sitting in his car?

Again, the scenario assumes he displayed the gun to intimidate them. That is not covered under "open carry". Neither is rolling a blunt.

Again, that is not the scenario I presented.

I asked "Suppose Mr. Scott saw two suspicious characters, not from the neighborhood, looking at him like they were thinking about jacking his car, and Mr. Scott decided to make sure his gun was loaded just in case the two strangers attacked him. Is that a threat, or is that a sensible precaution when suspicious characters are lurking about? Is it only sensible if the person is white? Is it always a threat if the person is black?" I'm finding it extremely interesting you are trying to twist my question around to make it say what you want it to say, but your responses are pretty non-responsive.

The question is whether checking your handgun is a sensible precaution or a threat when there are suspicious characters lurking about, and whether the race of the gun holder affects that determination.

Last "suspicious character" Scott used his gun on had 11 bullet holes to show for it.

Non-responsive.

Really? Your position is that it's okay for the cops to disarm a white person exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? It's okay to arrest them for openly carrying in an open carry state?

Arrest does not necessarily enter into it. If he was otherwise a law-abiding gun owner and cooperated he might have gotten off with a warning or a ticket and a lecture on proper way to open carry. Scott of course was guaranteed an arrest once his identity was verified, which is why, of course, he did not cooperate.

He did cooperate. We can see him cooperating on the dash cam and body cam recordings.

It is not dissimilar to the case of Alton Sterling. He also was a convicted felon who was not allowed to have a gun. He also displayed a gun in order to intimidate somebody (a homeless guy who was bugging him or asking him for money or something). Police were called and Sterling chose to resist because he knew that if he was caught with a gun his ass was going back to prison.

The question I asked has more in common with several different Zimmerman cases that Sterling's, where people have said he had a gun, or flashed one, or brandished one during a confrontation. You can think of him as the white guy in the scenario if you'd like. Does the guy being Zimmerman change your answer about how the cops should respond?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Flashing it is a threat.

Not in an open carry state, it isn't.