• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

Arctish said:
Malintent said:
"open carry" is not much of a right beyond simply having the right to own a firearm, that applies to the transport of the weapon. In NY, there is no open carry, and guns must be transported in a locked case, unloaded. In states where there is a lot of hunting, open carry is more common.

You also have the constitutional right to "free speech". This does not give you the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.
You also cannot exercise your "free speech" when filing your taxes or signing any legal document that contains a willful omission or error... you are not free to lie on these documents.

Same thing with open carry... it gives you certain rights, that end abruptly where everyone else's rights begin.
I have the right to not feel intimidated by a gun wielding kid with some chip on his shoulder because he thinks he is some kind of patriot by acting inappropriately for the local culture for purposes far beyond the transport of his gun.
Click to expand...

Whether you agree with open carry laws or not, they are the law in some states and they make the open carrying of firearms legal. So the presence of a gun in an open carry state is not reason enough for the cops to go ballistic and act like they found the FBI's Most Wanted.
Click to expand...

correct. the presence alone is not enough to be a problem. That is not what anyone is talking about here. We are talking about the gun being present in an unusual location (no where near any hunting area, along a busy street where no one normally does this). How do you reconcile the idea that "open carry" means "wave your gun around in crowded city streets" and "stand your ground" means shoot anyone that looks threatening"?
I'm not opposed to open carry laws where they are designed to lift unnecessary burden on legal gun owners that choose to walk to the place they intend to legally fire their weapons. I am opposed to the idea that these people are somehow immune to reasonable questioning by police officers when something seems out of place of the norm for the local area. It's called "conducting an investigation" People are briefly detained all the time while cops try to do their jobs... and in my experience, they start out polite during their initial investigations.
 
Malintent said:
Arctish said:
Whether you agree with open carry laws or not, they are the law in some states and they make the open carrying of firearms legal. So the presence of a gun in an open carry state is not reason enough for the cops to go ballistic and act like they found the FBI's Most Wanted.
Click to expand...

correct. the presence alone is not enough to be a problem. That is not what anyone is talking about here. We are talking about the gun being present in an unusual location (no where near any hunting area, along a busy street where no one normally does this). How do you reconcile the idea that "open carry" means "wave your gun around in crowded city streets" and "stand your ground" means shoot anyone that looks threatening"?
I'm not opposed to open carry laws where they are designed to lift unnecessary burden on legal gun owners that choose to walk to the place they intend to legally fire their weapons. I am opposed to the idea that these people are somehow immune to reasonable questioning by police officers when something seems out of place of the norm for the local area. It's called "conducting an investigation" People are briefly detained all the time while cops try to do their jobs... and in my experience, they start out polite during their initial investigations.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's interesting since that an open carry requires a permit and not just allowed. So do police have discretion to verify someone that is displaying open carry has a permit?
 
That is a very interesting question, with a surprising answer.

Firstly, no permit is required in these states for long guns (rifles and shotguns), and that is what "open carry" laws refer to here. these people have assault-looking weapons slung over their shoulders, and require no permit to do so. The only limitation is that there are sets of people that are prohibited from owning guns at all... convicted felons, the "mentally ill", and I am sure others (non-citizens....whatever)
Apparently, the "default" assumption is that the person carrying is in legal possession of the gun. So, cops cannot detain for the purpose of determining if the carrier of the gun is legally in possession of the gun. Seems odd, but look at it like this... Would it be a good idea to allow cops to pull over any driver of a motor vehicle, just to make sure that the driver is in possession of a valid driver's license? No... the assumption (or, "default") must be that the car is legally being operated, unless the cop observes a violation. They cannot just pull people over and demand to see their papers!
This, however, does not apply directly to the issue with people "exercising their 2nd amendment freedoms". While cops cannot detain a carrier for simply carrying, to make sure they are not illegally possessing the weapon... They CAN (and should), however, detain when a complaint is filed that claims the carrier is "menacing" or "brandishing" (pointing the gun at traffic, or otherwise appearing threatening).
 
Malintent said:
and I am sure others (non-citizens....whatever)
Click to expand...

Non-citizens can have guns. You need to be a permanent resident to buy one, I don't know what the rules of possessing one are for non-residents.

- - - Updated - - -

Crazy Eddie said:
Loren Pechtel said:
We know the guy shot someone in the past for being too nosy.
Click to expand...
He shot someone in the past whom he thought had been following him and he believed that person was armed and was an immanent threat to his life...

Maybe Scott should have been a cop? :thinking:
Click to expand...

He went to jail because it's not whether you feel the person is an imminent threat but whether a reasonable person in your situation would believe they are a threat. Paranoia doesn't give you the right to shoot.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
He went to jail because it's not whether you feel the person is an imminent threat but whether a reasonable person in your situation would believe they are a threat. Paranoia doesn't give you the right to shoot.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, you have a badge. Then every worshipper of police authority defends your paranoia as a reasonable assessment.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
He went to jail because it's not whether you feel the person is an imminent threat but whether a reasonable person in your situation would believe they are a threat. Paranoia doesn't give you the right to shoot.
Click to expand...

Then the cops who shot Scott should be on their way to jail by now...
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Non-citizens can have guns. You need to be a permanent resident to buy one, I don't know what the rules of possessing one are for non-residents.
Click to expand...

I guess it is a state thing... in NY, you can't even buy ammo for a long gun (no permit needed for purchase or transport) without indicating your birthday and that you are a US citizen.
 
Malintent said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Non-citizens can have guns. You need to be a permanent resident to buy one, I don't know what the rules of possessing one are for non-residents.
Click to expand...

I guess it is a state thing... in NY, you can't even buy ammo for a long gun (no permit needed for purchase or transport) without indicating your birthday and that you are a US citizen.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize state laws had any choice in who could buy firearms.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Malintent said:
I guess it is a state thing... in NY, you can't even buy ammo for a long gun (no permit needed for purchase or transport) without indicating your birthday and that you are a US citizen.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize state laws had any choice in who could buy firearms.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION!!

I just went to dick's yesterday to pick up some ammo and clays for a trap shoot outing this weekend and the PoS system said, "Are you a US citizen OR a Naturalized Citizen OR holding a Resident Visa".
NY has additional restrictions on firearms and ammo sales (see "SAFE" act from 2013) https://safeact.ny.gov/
 
Malintent said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I didn't realize state laws had any choice in who could buy firearms.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION!!

I just went to dick's yesterday to pick up some ammo and clays for a trap shoot outing this weekend and the PoS system said, "Are you a US citizen OR a Naturalized Citizen OR holding a Resident Visa".
NY has additional restrictions on firearms and ammo sales (see "SAFE" act from 2013) https://safeact.ny.gov/
Click to expand...

Huh? Since when is a naturalized citizen not a US citizen??

It's naturalized vs citizenship via birth.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Malintent said:
CORRECTION!!

I just went to dick's yesterday to pick up some ammo and clays for a trap shoot outing this weekend and the PoS system said, "Are you a US citizen OR a Naturalized Citizen OR holding a Resident Visa".
NY has additional restrictions on firearms and ammo sales (see "SAFE" act from 2013) https://safeact.ny.gov/
Click to expand...

Huh? Since when is a naturalized citizen not a US citizen??

It's naturalized vs citizenship via birth.
Click to expand...

<shrug>... I didn't write the PoS system's confirmation screen dialog. I guess they wanted to be as clearly inclusive as possible?
 
And to nobody's surprise, it turns out to be all about the money.
Scott family attorney hopes to reach agreement with city, avoid trial
Charlotte Observer said:
An attorney for Keith Lamont Scott’s family told a South Carolina TV station he hopes to reach an agreement with the city of Charlotte and avoid a trial over the fatal police shooting of Scott.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the lawyers want the millions they have promised the widow (and the 40% cut they take of course) quickly and without actually having to do any work.
An autopsy commissioned by the family suggests problems with the “tactical approach” Charlotte Mecklenburg Police used in the seconds leading up to the fatal shooting, attorney Justin Bamberg told WIS TV in Columbia.
Click to expand...
So the shyster focuses on tactical mistakes he believes police made. But what about the much more severe mistakes Scott made? For example having a gun as a convicted felon. Or refusing to obey lawful orders given by the police.
Why should the city pay them one red cent? Even if police made tactical mistakes, the main cause of Scott's death are Scott's own actions.
Unfortunately, cities (including Charlotte in the past) have been too ready to pay out millions in police shooting cases. I hope they show more testicular fortitude this time and do not cave to frivolous lawsuits. Too bad Gene Wilder is dead, for otherwise Charlotte could hire him to deliver this line to Bamberg.
 
Derec said:
Why should the city pay them one red cent? Even if police made tactical mistakes, the main cause of Scott's death are Scott's own actions.
Click to expand...
Please produce the autopsy report with that listed as the main cause of death. I'll bet the autopsy lists the main cause of death as gunshot wounds.
 
laughing dog said:
Derec said:
Why should the city pay them one red cent? Even if police made tactical mistakes, the main cause of Scott's death are Scott's own actions.
Click to expand...
Please produce the autopsy report with that listed as the main cause of death. I'll bet the autopsy lists the main cause of death as gunshot wounds.
Click to expand...

The main cause of death often isn't that informative. What lead to it often tells you more.
 
Charlotte police officer will not face charges in shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott

Charlotte Observer said:
Murray said that evidence in the case shows that Scott stepped out of his SUV with a gun in his hand and ignored at least 10 commands from the five officers on the scene to drop it.
Murray said that Scott obtained the gun – which had been stolen in Gaston County – 18 days before the confrontation. One bullet was found in the chamber of the gun, the safety was off and Murray said Scott’s DNA was found on the grip and ammunition slide.
Murray said that speculation in the community that Scott was unarmed – initial reports from a family member on Facebook said he was holding a book – were untrue.
“A reading book was not found in the front or back seats of Mr. Scott’s SUV,” Murray said.
Click to expand...
And yet this justified shooting caused widespread protests and rioting in Charlotte.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom