Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:
However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...

wow, so everything seems to be pointing to a lawful shoot, body cam evidence was released, and for some reason you are thinking there is still some conspiracy? Dude, seriously, this is whats wrong with society sometimes. I want criminals to pay, including LEOs who break the law. This is not one of those cases and in fact, if you watch the videos, you listen, you can see what is undeniably a police officer trying very hard to get this man to cooperate and not shoot him. compare to eye witness accounts where the cops shot without much effort to get compliance first.

Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

 skyth wrote:
However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...

I wouod think the more important thing, and the one that got him you know killed and all, was coming out with a gun and not dropping said gun. You don't step out of a car with a gun in your hand (unless you really really really want to die).

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...

I wouod think the more important thing, and the one that got him you know killed and all, was coming out with a gun and not dropping said gun. You don't step out of a car with a gun in your hand (unless you really really really want to die).

I agree. I think making excuses for criminals is one of the reasons we are in this mess. Now when a LEO breaks the law he has become a criminal, so I am speaking to that too.

The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.

 skyth wrote:
The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.

No the reason Charlotte is in this mess is because he got kilt. No holes in body no riot.

 skyth wrote:
The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.

When folks (like the wife and family lawyers in this case) outright lie about the situation to the press (who then proliferate the lies), it is hard for the cops to ever be respected.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.

When folks (like the wife and family lawyers in this case) outright lie about the situation to the press (who then proliferate the lies), it is hard for the cops to ever be respected.

If the police had the trust and respect of the community, 'lies' wouldn't matter. There wouldn't be a flashpoint or even a Black Lived Matter movement.

The lack of trust and respect is a serious problem. It's only made worse in cases like this where the officer 'forgot' to turn on his body camera and there was an officer blocking the view of the dash camera. Plus where the police leader gets caught in an outright lie.

Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

BLM was founded after Michael Browns death, which was fraught with witnesses lying and media frothing.

So who's lies cause the mobs again? Black Lies Matter.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

No I think you are completing ignoring his point. I think he is smart enough to realize that when people paint a bad light of police publicly because people like you excuse their lying, then yes the trust will be lost. Percentage wise you have to look at the numbers which have been posted ad nauseum and realize that small numbers of bad cop shootings happen in regards to the large number of lawful interactions. So certain policemen should lost trust, maybe certain departments but not a blanket police issue.

Also if the guy had not been doing what he was doing, if the wife did not blatantly lie, then there would probably not be riots. To deny that may be a bit naïve.

I don't really see much of any situation where a cop shooting a black person won't garner protests and possibly riots at this point, honestly.

No, it's ignoring the continuous abuse the police have heaped on the community they serve. The incidents are just flashpoints. If they hadn't happened, another incident would have sparked the riots. What actually happened in any given incident doesn't matter in the grand scope of things. The police need to work on regaining the trust and respect they have lost.

I'm amused that you harp on the 'lies' by people that don't trust the police but ignore all the lies from the police and police supporters.

 redleger wrote:
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.

Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?

That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?

Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.

Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?

That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?

Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.

In general I believe none of the things you said. In fact if you have ever heard me discuss this same subject, I am generally very aggressive with my stance on when it is ok to shoot someone and how the LEO in question could have done something different. Truth is none of it matters because its after the fact, and changes nothing. However in this case, which is what I am discussing, this situation only, he did get out, holding the weapon, refuse to put it down. Holding a weapon in a residential neighborhood, high AF and not complying with a LEO while brandishing said weapon will 100% of the time get you shot. I am ok with that, because the person was not complying with law, and was being a threat to personnel around, simply by having a loaded weapon and being under the influence. Now in this particular case, as I have said before, the police in question made every attempt not to shoot him, which is what I would expect them to do. He is the one who decided his own fate that day.

Now as the wife lied, the media lied, and facts were not waited on, the riots began. Maybe they were a boiling point, but the last degree of temperature was based off the lies stated above. So blame the police all you want, but I believe in responsibility being taken where it should be. If you want police accountability, it starts with individual accountability.

How do you know he was holding the weapon? The police have already been caught in a couple lies relating to this incident already.

 skyth wrote:
How do you know he was holding the weapon? The police have already been caught in a couple lies relating to this incident already.

Your statement presupposes the cops put down a drop gun. You need to show evidence of that. The presumption is with them as:

1. Gun found on ground.
2. Cops are shouting at him to put the gun down.
3. Wife is telling him "don't do it"
4. Family attorney has not disputed this was his gun (as far as I am aware).

 skyth wrote:
How do you know he was holding the weapon? The police have already been caught in a couple lies relating to this incident already.

How do you know he was not? If you pause the video right, his large hands can be seen holding what would later be the weapon that fell to his side after he was shot. However even if that is not evidence enough for you, if there was not a weapon, then how did it get there. Planted you say? nope already proven that weapon was stolen then sold to Smith after the fact, so that was definitely the weapon in Smiths possession. I mean, yea, there have been some bad horrible things happen. Those responsible have to pay, but are we really going to try to crucify a cop who only did his job, didn't want to shoot the guy, and now has to deal with riots based on false pretense? Are we excusing what the wife did? If the chief lied, then he is wrong too, but they are both wrong. Fair means holding all parties accountable, not just the one you don't agree with.

Why is it so important to you that this was an unlawful shoot?

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.

In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.

Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?

That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?

Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.

In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"

Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.

In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?

I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.

I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.

Riots aren't a considered, rational response to presented facts and evidence.

Riots happen when an emotional mob gets out of control. Check the history of the Montreal Canadiens. Those fans have rioted when they lost, and they have rioted when they won.

 Easy E wrote:
I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.

I couldn't see a gun in any of the ones I have seen so far, really. I'm not saying there wasn't one, but it was shaky, low resolution footage that was completely obscured at the critical moment. It's not useful imo, other then you can see what appears to be a ankle holster, which does bolster the idea that at some point there was a gun in said holster and not a planted drop gun.

 skyth wrote:
Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.

In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

Objection your honor. This assumes facts not in evidence. He was not wearing a holster.

Further if he wore a holster (despite that whole illegally owning gun thing) and cops saw it they would not tell him to drop it. They would command him to keep his hands up. Potentially they would lay him on the ground but more likely one or more officers would come up (while he was still covered) disarm him and then lean him forward or lay him down. They would only command drop the gun if he had it in his hands. If he comes out of the vehicle with a pistol in his hands he'd usually have been dropped the moment they saw the pistol as he's engaging them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.

I wouldn't watch any of them if I were you. I understand
your reservations.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.

Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?

That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?

Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.

In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"

Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.

In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?

I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.

Right here we have a reading comprehension fail. Yes, there would have still been riots. It's just that this incident wouldn't have been the flashpoint of the riots. It would have been another.

Of course, it doesn't help that the police here have repeatedly been caught in lies.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.

First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.

Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?

That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?

Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.

In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"

Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.

In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.

So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.

There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.

Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.

Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?

I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.

Right here we have a reading comprehension fail. Yes, there would have still been riots. It's just that this incident wouldn't have been the flashpoint of the riots. It would have been another.

Of course, it doesn't help that the police here have repeatedly been caught in lies.

So because you believe this, then lets just excuse the willful lies that did cause the riots, and cost people livlihoods and lives. No big deal, cause it would have happened anyway. Lets give her and her lawyers a pass, but crucify the police? is that my understanding of what you are saying?

Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.

I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.

 skyth wrote:
Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.

I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.

actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.