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.

The floor wasn't fragile. The thing on the table on the floor was.

I seriously doubt she intended to cause riots. I think she just meant to defend her husband and make her family look better. Maybe get a financial award or her 15 minutes of fame. I'm pretty sure she would have done the same thing regardless if it happened in middle class suburbia or where she was.

Same as you startling your friend. You intended to have a little fun with your friend. It just resulted in something getting that was put in a precarious spot getting broken.

And again, spending so much energy and effort trying to discredit the guy who got shot deflects from the real issue.

 skyth wrote:
The floor wasn't fragile. The thing on the table on the floor was.

I seriously doubt she intended to cause riots. I think she just meant to defend her husband and make her family look better. Maybe get a financial award or her 15 minutes of fame. I'm pretty sure she would have done the same thing regardless if it happened in middle class suburbia or where she was.

Same as you startling your friend. You intended to have a little fun with your friend. It just resulted in something getting that was put in a precarious spot getting broken.

And again, spending so much energy and effort trying to discredit the guy who got shot deflects from the real issue.

its not discrediting him when you are finding facts, if those facts happen to prove he was wrong as (insert bad metaphor here) then that's just the results of an investigation. In this case he was in the wrong.

I lost track of this thread due to my relief showing up Wednesday morning, so if anyone addressed me and I didn't get to it, Ill finish reading this after I get some work done.

 redleger wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The floor wasn't fragile. The thing on the table on the floor was.

I seriously doubt she intended to cause riots. I think she just meant to defend her husband and make her family look better. Maybe get a financial award or her 15 minutes of fame. I'm pretty sure she would have done the same thing regardless if it happened in middle class suburbia or where she was.

Same as you startling your friend. You intended to have a little fun with your friend. It just resulted in something getting that was put in a precarious spot getting broken.

And again, spending so much energy and effort trying to discredit the guy who got shot deflects from the real issue.

its not discrediting him when you are finding facts, if those facts happen to prove he was wrong as (insert bad metaphor here) then that's just the results of an investigation.

That's a pretty good definition of discrediting. The problem is all the energy and attention spent on the guy that got shot means that the real reason for the riots gets ignored and unadressed.

 skyth wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The floor wasn't fragile. The thing on the table on the floor was.

I seriously doubt she intended to cause riots. I think she just meant to defend her husband and make her family look better. Maybe get a financial award or her 15 minutes of fame. I'm pretty sure she would have done the same thing regardless if it happened in middle class suburbia or where she was.

Same as you startling your friend. You intended to have a little fun with your friend. It just resulted in something getting that was put in a precarious spot getting broken.

And again, spending so much energy and effort trying to discredit the guy who got shot deflects from the real issue.

its not discrediting him when you are finding facts, if those facts happen to prove he was wrong as (insert bad metaphor here) then that's just the results of an investigation.

That's a pretty good definition of discrediting. The problem is all the energy and attention spent on the guy that got shot means that the real reason for the riots gets ignored and unadressed.

I don't think an investigation of someone accused of unlawful conduct is discrediting. The fact that in this case, they are proving he was acting unlawfully just matters to the average person because now Scott is dead. Now its about proving that the police officer in question didn't just murder him.

You are correct about the real reasons for the riots, but lets be fair. If the media was being fair and balanced, and not sensationalizing everything, then they would be doing the stories on how statistically, the riots are based on something that mathematically amounts to an anomaly.

The riots aren't really based on police shootings. It's morr the constant antagonistic attitude of the police. It's 'Us' versus 'Them' and poor minorities are seen as guilty until proven innocent. Add in police departments using the poor communities as income sources and all that creates a powder keg.

The police are also responding to bad data since they treat any interaction as a lethal threat before being proved otherwise even though officers being shot in interactions is a statistical anomoly as well.

There is now video being aired accusing police officers of planting the gun;




EDIT: There are actually other videos accusing the police of picking the gun back up, and throwing it back down, but none of those are from a news source. They're all coming from seemingly random people on YouTube. So joy. The conspiracy is live

Although that looks damning, In other videos where police appear to be picking up something, fiddling with it then putting it back down, I assumed, form a tactical stand point that it was the officer clearing the weapon, then placing it back where it was, which would make sense. However this video looks damning, and as in the body cam discussion, grainy as hell due to poor quality. I am never one to ignore evidence. If this turns out to be a drop gun, then everyone in the video needs to go down, one for murder, the rest for accessories at a minimum. But that scenario really doesn't make sense when you look at everything as a whole, and not just single out this one piece. Eventually the investigation will bring out the evidence since I believe it was outsourced to a third party.

Already been debunked.

Those are gloves.

 CptJake wrote:
Already been debunked.

Those are gloves.

I know it didn't look like a handgun but I never like to dismiss stuff outright. Think critically, but not be dismissive.

There's no way dropping a gun from waist height that it doesn't bounce around like crazy. Definitely gloves.

I'm not saying it wasn't a drop gun but man, in front of like a dozen witnesses, that seems super super unlikely.

I think the most likely situation is that the cops saw a gun when surveilling like they said, they geared up and then engaged this guy, he was surprised and made a movement towards what looks a hell of a lot like an ankle holster - maybe with ill intent, maybe not, but you can see it on the video - and got killed. That doesn't mean it was a good shoot - maybe the gun was in the car, and so on, and so forth - but a drop gun just strains credulity. Not impossible, I mean after all people win the powerball regularly, but I really would be surprised.

Who is the third party investigating?

 Easy E wrote:
Who is the third party investigating?

I assume the department is, and the DOJ is. There isn't more that I am aware of.

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Who is the third party investigating?

I assume the department is, and the DOJ is. There isn't more that I am aware of.

Yes DOJ is investigating, which should turn up and issues.

 redleger wrote:
Although that looks damning

I don't think it looks all that damning to begin with (who "flicks" a gun to the ground?).

But its news. So there it is. I hadn't seen anything about the glove though else I would have included it.

 LordofHats wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Although that looks damning

I don't think it looks all that damning to begin with (who "flicks" a gun to the ground?).

But its news. So there it is. I hadn't seen anything about the glove though else I would have included it.

Yea I meant damning if all you see is this and listen to the commentary. When you look at the big picture, you start to realize it isn't.

Well my first thought was that Red Shirt is the officer who I thought was reaching down grabbing something in the body cam footage (but his fingers were out, so his hand looked empty). The angle makes it impossible to see where his hand goes, but it definitely looks like he's reaching for something.

I've assumed that might be him picking up the gun as a means of securing it, but what police officer in their right mind just "flicks" a gun onto the ground. I'm not an expert on guns, but my understanding is that that really isn't safe XD They're called drop guns, not flick guns

Unfortunately this is about all it takes for a conspiracy to gain legs and run.

 Easy E wrote:
Who is the third party investigating?

North Carolina has the State Bureau of Investigation. The SBI is the agency that investigates police corruption and police shootings.

https://www.ncdps.gov/Our-Organization/Law-Enforcement/State-Bureau-of-Investigation/Units/Special-Investigations-Unit