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

The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

This is a second case of a black man being in legal possession of a weapon (don't even need a permit in NC for open carry) being killed for having it.

Hang on - this is an open carry state?
So WTF is wrong with the guy having a gun!?

If you disobey orders to drop the weapon, then getting shot by the police is a risk you take. Seriously, is common sense dead?
 
You still have to drop it if police orders you to.
I've been convinced by copious evidence that the police are not clear or effective when they scream at people to do stuff. Especially when the people are surprised by the appearance of the police.
So WTF is wrong with the guy having a gun!?
He was a felon, so he was not allowed to have one in the first place.

Oh! right! Right. The police knew this when they shot him. Forgot.
 
Hang on - this is an open carry state?
So WTF is wrong with the guy having a gun!?

If you disobey orders to drop the weapon, then getting shot by the police is a risk you take. Seriously, is common sense dead?

I haven't seen anything about how this happened. I have seen previous ones, though, where the orders of the police are confusing, conflicting and unintelligible. I'm sure you've seen that too.


Remember that one cop who shot the guy then dropped a gun next to him? He said a thing that turned out to be completely false, too. Then the video showed the cop to be a vile liar. So, hard to assume that their directions were clear, intelligible, unconflicting and appropriate - and true to the actual events - without some evidence. I could be wrong. I just have no reason to lean one way or the other yet.
 
I have seen previous ones, though, where the orders of the police are confusing, conflicting and unintelligible. I'm sure you've seen that too.

Not to mention times when the suspect is given about 0.02 seconds to comply
 
He wasn't a felon. Your own post said only misdemeanor conviction.
He managed to get one felony plead down to a misdemeanor, but he wasn't as lucky in 2005.
Under North Carolina law, Scott would have been prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition because he'd been convicted of a violent felony.
When he was 30, in 2003, a Bexar County, Texas, grand jury indicted him on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest with a vehicle after Scott allegedly shot a man the previous year. Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison after his 2005 conviction.
Keith Lamont Scott: What we know about man shot by Charlotte police
8 years in prison for shooting somebody. I guess the original article may not have had it because it was out of state.
 
He managed to get one felony plead down to a misdemeanor, but he wasn't as lucky in 2005.
Under North Carolina law, Scott would have been prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition because he'd been convicted of a violent felony.
When he was 30, in 2003, a Bexar County, Texas, grand jury indicted him on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest with a vehicle after Scott allegedly shot a man the previous year. Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison after his 2005 conviction.
Keith Lamont Scott: What we know about man shot by Charlotte police
8 years in prison for shooting somebody. I guess the original article may not have had it because it was out of state.

Right! Right. And the cops knew that when they shot him.
 
See, this "shoot them first and justify it later" plan is BULLSHIT.

It's bullshit.

If the cops didn't know it RIGHT THEN, then it isn't valid as their reason for deciding to shoot him dead.

Only a psychopath would think it was okay to shoot people without knowing whether there's a good reason, and then claim it was okay to do it based on something they learned later.

Bullshit.
 
Huh, only police injuries are worth mentioning.

If a rioter gets hurt, too bad. They chose to riot, sometimes you get hurt in a riot.

Nobody should be defending that shit!

I'll defend it.

If agents of the state want to continue acting with impunity sometimes the only way to get their attention is to cause a disturbance. Want this shit to stop? Start holding police accountable. Make them have to go through the same justice system everybody else has to go through instead of the mess of conflicts of interest that is the current way we allow cops to engage in all sorts of bad behavior without suffering anything worse than a paid vacation.

How about we hold the BLM leaders accountable for the damage their lies have been causing?

So long as you object to all police shootings you aren't going to accomplish anything but stir up racial hatred.
 
One more thing that's a bit off topic. Most southern states have open carry laws. Why is so easy for white people, mostly men, to open carry without any issues but when a black man openly carries, he's automatically assumed to be a criminal? Just sayin'.

You don't open-carry a gun in hand when facing the police whether you are white, black or polka-dotted.

Remember that video from a while back purporting to show the different reaction from the police when faced with a white or black person doing open carry? The people who made that video clearly knew there wasn't a problem and so they staged it--they had their actors carry the guns differently.
 
This is a second case of a black man being in legal possession of a weapon (don't even need a permit in NC for open carry) being killed for having it.

Hang on - this is an open carry state?
So WTF is wrong with the guy having a gun!?

His rap sheet included a felony. Therefore it's not legal for him to have a gun.

Besides, open carry doesn't mean you have a gun in hand in front of the police!

- - - Updated - - -

I've been convinced by copious evidence that the police are not clear or effective when they scream at people to do stuff. Especially when the people are surprised by the appearance of the police.

You don't need to understand the police to understand that you need to get that gun out of your hand pronto!
 
Speak for yourself (about being idiots). LEOs respond to situation as it unfolds, but Scott's lengthy criminal history affects how likely police version of events vs. family version of events is. I.e. him being a thug makes it more likely that he was behaving like one when police told him to drop his gun. Scott's criminal history tells us a lot about what kind of man he was, and it does not really jibe with the portrait offered by the family.

And police have some kind of Robocop mind that tells them a man's criminal history without seeing his ID?
 
Oh! right! Right. The police knew this when they shot him. Forgot.

What I always find rather telling about these cases is how - according to the boot-lickers - the police are so omniscient they know every detail a someone's criminal history just by looking at them, but simultaneously so deaf, blind and stupid they can't tell if a person is armed or not, retreating or not, holding his hands up or not...
 
One more thing that's a bit off topic. Most southern states have open carry laws. Why is so easy for white people, mostly men, to open carry without any issues but when a black man openly carries, he's automatically assumed to be a criminal? Just sayin'.

You don't open-carry a gun in hand when facing the police whether you are white, black or polka-dotted.

Remember that video from a while back purporting to show the different reaction from the police when faced with a white or black person doing open carry? The people who made that video clearly knew there wasn't a problem and so they staged it--they had their actors carry the guns differently.
Remember that time a black kid in an open carry case had a toy gun in his belt and two police officers gunned him to death even though he had nothing in his hand? If you don't, the victim's name was Tamir Rice.
 
Back
Top Bottom