The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

[laughing dog]

P.S.: I will no longer discuss the issue of picking up the kid. I still think it's weird but apparently many people are weird about that. Also, who the hell rolls a blunt while waiting for their kid?

Still blaming the victim on irrelevancies. Good to see someone keeping it klassy.

 

[Deepak]

I think the camera is worn by someone behind the head that keeps blocking the view.

Those are wide-angle cameras so it would require a second person to be on top of the obstructing head. Moreover, there's no such mystery person in the dashcam video.

It's simple enough for a right handed shooter to mount the camera on their left shoulder, and vice versa, if they were actually concerned about preserving clean video.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

P.S.: I will no longer discuss the issue of picking up the kid. I still think it's weird but apparently many people are weird about that. Also, who the hell rolls a blunt while waiting for their kid?

Still blaming the victim on irrelevancies. Good to see someone keeping it klassy.

How do we know it was not tobacco?

 

[RavenSky]

That photo is not clear enough to see whether he is holding a gun. It also does not show the instant he was shot. We know he was warned multiple times to drop the gun.

We also know that police scream "drop the gun" at people who are factually unarmed, and scream "stop resisting" to people who are factually not resisting. I don't put any credence in them yelling "drop the gun".

The mere fact that he was armed proves the family narrative that he was reading the book false. It is the lie that spawned the Charlotte riots.

Leave it to you to accuse the family of lying. Is it not possible to read a book if you own a gun?

Moreover, had Charlotte police department released the videos immediately (as New Mexico recently did), they might have averted protests and riots altogether. You should blame them instead of calling the family liars because you think people who have guns can't read.

The point remains that there is nothing in either of the videos that show Keith Scott being a threat to police or anyone else.

Refusing to drop the gun when repeatedly ordered to is a threat in and of itself.

Since there is still zero evidence his was holding a gun, you are wrong.

As long as the NRA insists that white men are allowed to carry their guns anywhere and everywhere, then the same applies to black men.

Does NRA insist that people have the right to disobey police commands to drop the gun? Does NRA insist that violent felons have the right to own and carry guns?

Actually "yes" to both

And while I really think this "open/concealed carry" shit is horrible for the safety of police, as long as police are able to verify and/or disarm white men without killing them then police should be able to do the same with black men.

Note that Scott shot somebody in Texas. He was just as black then. He was disarmed and arrested in that instance without getting shot. Stop making it all about race!

As soon as police stop killing black men at a rate that far exceeds their rate of killing white men, I will.

Until then YOU should stop making it all about race when you assume the worst about them on the basis of skin color

 

[RavenSky]

All cops are guilty by association because a cop in a different state tried to plant a gun?

That is fucking rich coming from the guy who regularly posts unrelated inflammatory photos of black people in every thread because you do think all black people are guilty by association.

Video evidence in this case does not show a gun in the victim's hand, nor acting threatening in any way.

The video is not clear one way or another. But there is clear physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence that he had the gun in his hand

Without definitive evidence of the victim having a gun and pointing a gun at cops or acting threatening in any way, this is not a "good shoot" (as you like to call them)

I think we have definitive evidence of him having a gun.

I don't think it is definitive, but it does seem more likely at this point.

But leave it to you to call a black family "liars" when it is more plausible that they were unaware.

Given that you don't have kids nor hold opinions on much of anything that I can respect, I don't care what you find "weird". When you have a child, and have to head straight to the doctor with him immediately after school, then we will see how "weird" you think it is. Until then, heaven forbid you admit you were wrong on an point, no matter how minor.

The kid did not have a doctor's appointment. And if I have to drive a kid to an appointment and time is of an issue, I would pick him up at the school.

Doctor's appointment was an example, but how the fuck do you know what they did or did not have to do? Did you call them up and ask them? And frankly, I don't give a shit what you, a childless man, think you would do if you had kids. You don't so you don't know; and your attempt to vilify a man for waiting at the bus stop to pick up his kid makes you look petty and stupid (among other things)

 

[RavenSky]

I will give the cops credit on this point this time:

Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html#storylink=cpy

That's more than they usually do

And I will say again, had police immediately released the video footage, they likely would have averted the protests and riots - especially with even the family acknowledging that the video is unclear if there was a gun in his hands or not. I don't think this man needed to be shot at. I don't see any indication of him acting violently or like a threat.

But with so many civilians armed with guns, I can also understand why police can be uptight about it.

I just wish they would start shooting white men with guns at the same rate and in the same circumstances as they shoot black men. I suspect we would immediately see either "open/concealed carry" laws change, or police training improve, or both.

 

[fast]

I just wish they would start shooting white men with guns at the same rate and in the same circumstances as they shoot black men.

Don't worry, the consequences of desegregation hasn't fully materialized yet.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If that is your argument it hangs on the premise that cops are special people and can therefore go about telling people for any or no reason to give up their weapons.

Since police are empowered to enforce laws, yes in that regard they are "special people" that can give people lawful orders.

What exactly did this guy do while he was sitting in his car that prompted the police to want him disarmed? How was his behavior "criminal?"

Apparently him rolling a joint was what they noticed first. Then they noticed the gun.

Like I said, you don't want me on that jury.

I do not think anybody does.

The last jury I sat on roundly rejected the assertion that cops are a special class of people that must be obeyed at all times. Why? Because cops are just people like everyone else. Some are good, some are bad, some are trained, some aren't. They make mistakes, etc. They just have a job to do. So we found their "charges" bogus because they simply wanted to use them to cover up their mistakes.

Good luck when you have your day.

 

[fast]

Nm

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nm

I caught your reply before you deleted it so just wanted to respond.

On that jury I mentioned, during the selection process I was asked whether I considered the testimony of a police officer more credible than other witnesses. I said "no." I was also asked what I do in a case where there is clearly conflicting testimony and I replied, "You have to figure out what actually happened." But I still got selected.

In this trial the defendant had defied police orders and likely saved his two sons from great harm, possible death. This happened after an officer escalated the situation by acting in very poor judgement. The officer was legally clear to do what he did but it was neither expected nor needed. And unknown to all of us jurors during the selection process was the fact that 75% of what we would judge was caught on video. It ended up being a no-brainer, leaving us convinced that the police, their egos bruised, had trumped up all these charges to cover their poor handling of the situation. Luckily no one died in this case, but this guy was up on multiple felony counts that were all bullshit.

We decided that the police had made a mistake in their handling of this situation and found the defendant innocent on half a dozen felony counts. Police do fuck it up.

 

[fast]

In this trial the defendant had defied police orders and likely saved his two sons from great harm, possible death.

When it's put that way, obedience never makes the top of my list. Thank you for that reply. I deleted earlier because it wasn't remotely thought out. I just wish there was more a calling for obedience to authorities because of the needless aftermath. When (just as an example) multiple officers are repeatedly calling for guns to be dropped, just be a bit forgiving and drop the gun, as most of the time, they're not out to just cause trouble. If you're on the receiving end of a lawless order, the aftermath should be limited to inconvenience, and besides, if there were a process of true recourse put in place, it would further incentivize compliance.

 

[Rhea]

In my experience, repeatedly shouting at someone to do something is the worst way to get compliance. The WORST. Children, adults, mentally stressed, drunks, no matter what. Danger met by shouting and screeching escalates the danger.

When I looked out my window and saw a coyote standing 40 feet from my children reading on a blanket in the yard, I knew if I shouted, they would spend time trying to figure out wtf was going on. Instead, the safe solution was to calmly say, "kids, do not ask any questions. Do not take anything with you. Stand up and start walking toward me. Don't pick anything up, do not ask questions, I will explain when you get here. Get up and come toward me." And they could tell something was very wrong, but that ACTION was needed before thinking. Because they could process it. Because I wasn't shouting 3-word repeats at them.

Similarly when I've chaperoned and had kids get an injury or a panic attack or a medical emergency. If you want them to do something, ask CALMLY. "You need to sit right down there, I'll work with you. You sit down and I'll come to you. You, get the medical bag. You, give me your tee shirt." If I screamed "GET THE BAG! GET THE BAG! GET THE BAG!" I would not be able to address the emergency.

Why cops do this stupid military screeching bullshit is entirely beyond me. It works for NO ONE. It's confusing and hard to understand. There is no way for them to hear him say, "I'm getting down," because the cops won't stop screeching. It's dangerous. It escalates everything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my experience, repeatedly shouting at someone to do something is the worst way to get compliance. The WORST. Children, adults, mentally stressed, drunks, no matter what. Danger met by shouting and screeching escalates the danger.

When I looked out my window and saw a coyote standing 40 feet from my children reading on a blanket in the yard, I knew if I shouted, they would spend time trying to figure out wtf was going on. Instead, the safe solution was to calmly say, "kids, do not ask any questions. Do not take anything with you. Stand up and start walking toward me. Don't pick anything up, do not ask questions, I will explain when you get here. Get up and come toward me." And they could tell something was very wrong, but that ACTION was needed before thinking. Because they could process it. Because I wasn't shouting 3-word repeats at them.

Similarly when I've chaperoned and had kids get an injury or a panic attack or a medical emergency. If you want them to do something, ask CALMLY. "You need to sit right down there, I'll work with you. You sit down and I'll come to you. You, get the medical bag. You, give me your tee shirt." If I screamed "GET THE BAG! GET THE BAG! GET THE BAG!" I would not be able to address the emergency.

Why cops do this stupid military screeching bullshit is entirely beyond me. It works for NO ONE. It's confusing and hard to understand. There is no way for them to hear him say, "I'm getting down," because the cops won't stop screeching. It's dangerous. It escalates everything.

Shouting doesn't work when they are panicky. Shouting does help to get people's attention that what you are saying is important.

 

[Rhea]

Shouting doesn't work when they are panicky. Shouting does help to get people's attention that what you are saying is important.

• It may get people's attention, but it will not impart any useful information. It was "important" that my children come inside quickly when I saw a possibly rabid coyote in our yard looking at them. Shouting, would have been the wrong thing to do. So maybe you shout once and then start talking calmly. Something those cops and many others never do.
• Do you suppose a guy who was in his car and has someone banging on his window and 3 guns pointed at him would be, maybe, possible, a little - panicky?
• Repeatedly screeching the same 3 words over and over from three different people at once will not ever be helpful. And that's what those cops (and many others) did.

 

[ksen]

If only it was the same three words. Normally it's multiple cops shouting conflicting orders.

 

[Malintent]

So, all of "us" that may have had a run in with the law and avoided getting shot... did any of you act like a complete asshole that was ready to pull a weapon, run, or take a hostage.. or completely ignore officers repeated orders to simply stop moving? anyone, anyone?

Since when is acting like a complete asshole by refusing to stop moving an immediate capital offense without a trial or an appeal?

When the "assholeishness" poses a threat to the safety of officers and / or civilians.

Nice try at conflating an officer's obligation to act with the court's obligation to convict. I hear that all the time... "officer 'executed' a man [for shooting at him]"... or, "since when is speeding a capital offense?" [since the speeder attempted to kill the cop, dumbass]

 

[Malintent]

People will always yack on about the detail of every individual murder. The American police kill about a thousand a year, and most blacks they choose to. Why discuss the detail? - take the bang-bangs from the racist bullies.

that is correct.. about 1,000 police shootings a year...
How many black people shoot black people each year? What should we expect that number to be, if there was some conspiracy against black people? prolly less than, or close to, 1,000, right? That actual statistic is over 6,000.

so, your view is not supported by reality.

 

[blastula]

People will always yack on about the detail of every individual murder. The American police kill about a thousand a year, and most blacks they choose to. Why discuss the detail? - take the bang-bangs from the racist bullies.

that is correct.. about 1,000 police shootings a year...
How many black people shoot black people each year? What should we expect that number to be, if there was some conspiracy against black people? prolly less than, or close to, 1,000, right? That actual statistic is over 6,000.

so, your view is not supported by reality.

It should be close to 6,000 because summary execution without a trial is fair?

 

[laughing dog]

When the "assholeishness" poses a threat to the safety of officers and / or civilians.

So if someone looks like they will step on the toes of a civilian or a police officer, a police officer is justified in shooting to kill him or her? Really?

Nice try at conflating an officer's obligation to act with the court's obligation to convict. I hear that all the time... "officer 'executed' a man [for shooting at him]"... or, "since when is speeding a capital offense?" [since the speeder attempted to kill the cop, dumbass]

You're the one who is justifying the execution, not me.

 

[coloradoatheist]

People will always yack on about the detail of every individual murder. The American police kill about a thousand a year, and most blacks they choose to. Why discuss the detail? - take the bang-bangs from the racist bullies.

that is correct.. about 1,000 police shootings a year...
How many black people shoot black people each year? What should we expect that number to be, if there was some conspiracy against black people? prolly less than, or close to, 1,000, right? That actual statistic is over 6,000.

so, your view is not supported by reality.

Did you mean it should be closer to 1000 cop shootings?

It's interesting, looking up the stats for the comparison of cop shootings. Only about 75% of shootings actually have the race, so depending on that make up, it throws a lot of things off.