Keith Lamont Scott record...multiple armed felonies but yeah...lets protest.

a reply to: redempsh

If we did federalize the police force, then the same people criticizing cops today would instantly start defending all of these incidents tomorrow because the Feds can do no wrong.

They can look at the exact same types of corruption in government agencies they absolutely HATE in the corporate world and excuse it six ways from Sunday because it's government if they can't find some way to blame the private sector for it.

a reply to: windword

Nice

I've never even heard of the staircase incident. It surprised me even more that the poster above didn't even think this happened at all. The autism case is just awful and pathetic especially given the cops answer as to why he shot him. Some cops really are a POS.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Edumakated

My larger point though is that there isn't a trend, nor are black men being gunned down in inordinate numbers.

I disagree.

Then I am sure you can post the statistics to show that black men are in fact being gun down at an inordinate rate.

a reply to: Edumakated

All I have to do is show you the prison populations to point out the disparity.

www.americanprogress.org... nited-states/

Also, the police don't keep statistic on their shootings.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Edumakated

All I have to do is show you the prison populations to point out the disparity.

www.americanprogress.org... nited-states/

Also, the police don't keep statistic on their shootings.

Don't try to change the topic. You stated you felt there was a trend in black men being shot by police. I asked for statistics to support this assertion.

Posting incarceration stats is irrelevant. Although we could also post stats to show how black men are responsible for an inordinate amount of crime which also leads to an inordinate amount of incarceration relative to population.

A demographic being over represented or under represented does not mean the system is intentional.

a reply to: Edumakated

I asked for statistics to support this assertion.

There aren't any, really. The police don't keep statistics on the people they shoot. www.washingtonpost.com...

Posting incarceration stats is irrelevant.

I disagree. The incarceration rate is directly related to law enforcement's and the courts' racial bias.

A demographic being over represented or under represented does not mean the system is intentional.

Racial bias isn't something that a bunch of old white, who got together on some racist planning committee, strategizing how to promote discrimination and abuse. It's an unconscious accidental outcome.

a reply to: UKTruth

The family have seen the video and their view is they can't tell what he is holding, so he is holding something.

Audio / video of that? I heard the press announce 'what the family said', I didn't hear or see the family members themselves.

I have heard them and the protesters, screaming for release. Put it to rest, just show the friggin video that shows what happened. You know they got it, because they aren't releasing it, yet.

Emotions are too high, they're waiting for everyone to change the channel.

"Meh, another unlawful police shooting".

Edit: Sorry, I re read your post.

The family have seen the video and their view is they can't tell what he is holding, so he is holding something. One would have thought that it would be fairly obvious if it was a book, so I think we can rule that out.

Maybe it was a wallet. He gets out of the car and then goes back for a gun? More likely his ID.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am also sure this is not an oil stain...

They typically don't have shadows or the curve of the handle of a pistol, but hey....if others say it enough then maybe, just maybe, rioters will believe it is an oil stain....

Someone had been parking their car on the sidewalk leaving an oil stain that he happened to die by. No big deal. Cops saw the oil stain in his hands then shot....I mean oil stains.

Lies started pouring out immediately, after shots were fired, quickly it's crazy. And this is what it escalated too, rioting, looting and revenge assaults on "easy target whites". The victims daughter should be held accountable somehow. She immediately painted a picture of unjustified killing by LEO which went viral by a desperately made up lie saying how her father was reading a book which was first lie she could conjure up to make it seem like her dad look innocent and not a threat. If she would of gave it a little more thought maybe she would of realized that "reading a book" sounds too exaggerated to use in making someone seem squeeky clean lol. And they just kept with the "innocent victim" pile on as I heard on video how he was disabled and someone even tried claiming he was afraid of guns. So anyways this just pss me off. All of this cuz of lies. And let's get real here he most likely did something stupid to get himself shot.

Dude -- it doesn't matter what the "victim" has done prior. I don't care if this guy was a drug dealer/gangbanger, what ever. We have court and due process.

Basically what I'm saying is, if a police officer shoots someone, the legality of him shooting that person, the right/wrong can only rest in THAT incident. You can't say, well -- the cop didn't do anything wrong, this guy had a rap sheet. The guy having a record doesn't absolve police of wrong doing.

There is procedure and process -- and it doesn't matter if the victim is a criminal, the police still have to operate on procedure and practice. More people die to police than to anyone else, anywhere else in the country, other than Chicago. So much so, that it's not probable cause anymore for black men to flee police in Massachusetts.

I don't know the familiars with this particular case, but I do know that the premise you laid out in the OP is illogical -- you basically said it's OK for the police to break the law because the guy they shot was a criminal, but in the same breath, said it's wrong for citizens to protest a police officer breaking the law to shoot a criminal because they are just becoming criminals themselves -- so does the cop who shot him... like really?

So sick of people who think any criminal deserves death. If you broke the law, it's not okay for police to shoot you in the face -- it's just not. The only time it's okay to be shot to death is if you're actively threatening the lives of people around you at the moment the police action happens. You don't warrant a death sentence for running from police. You don't warrant a death sentence for pulling up your pants. You don't warrant a death sentence when you're a child with a known BB gun. You don't warrant a death sentence for being mentally disabled or deaf. You don't warrant a death sentence for not doing what you're told.

You warrant a death sentence if you hold other lives in jeopardy. That's the only time it's acceptable. That's what the protest is about. Too many people end up dead for nothing. Just take the recent example; A cop got fired because he correctly identified that a man was attempting to commit suicide by cop. He was fired for not shooting the guy, even though he did the RIGHT thing. They said he put the other officers in danger, they put HIM in danger -- he knew what the situation was, the other cops weren't there -- they showed up and unloaded, so they put his life at risk by escalating a situation and discharging rounds -- at a target that had no rounds to fire back who had flat out told the responding officer he was basically committing suicide by cop. The cops want cops to kill everyone they can, or they wouldn't be firing cops who didn't kill people who they didn't have to.

That's what the riot is about. It's about police actions being devoid of protection. Police are supposed to protect us, not anymore, now they are to put us down when we get out of line. They are execution squads now. It's worse than that even -- if you could believe that. Innocent people are getting arrested every day on 100% made up never happened charges on a regular -- not even in major cities, but small suburbs, pretty much everywhere in the country.

I was arrested for DUI/DUI Hit and Run/DUI property damage, that's 3 charges. I passed the sobriety test, was never asked to blow/give urine/give blood, and there was no accident, and no property damage. They took my license on the spot for a year because the police claimed I refused sobriety tests. In my police report [which was two pages] page 1 had the results of the sobriety test, and page two said they never took place.

I had to pay nearly 15 grand because a cop needed to hit his quota and made up bull# and then suppressed video evidence that exonerated me. This is the world we live in right now -- and if you don't have a problem with the police -- you don't get out much or drive a car that's worth more than 50k.

Did you know that in the united states of america -- a police officer only has to SAY you refused a breath test and you automatically get a 1 year suspension 7 days from your stop. It's an easy arrest -- they can make up the probable cause by shutting off their dash cam and saying you swerved over a line or ran a traffic control device.

Would you trust ANYBODY to NOT use this obscene power against people they don't like? There is no getting it back, there is no appeal for this on the street adjudication. The cop is literally your judge, so you better hope you make a good impression.

All right, I'm reading about this on Wikipedia. So far, this sounds like one of those police shootings that is justified (because Scott was holding a handgun and refused to drop the weapon). It appears that there were false rumors spread about the incident by the family and social media, who say that he was reading a book in the car when he was shot. However, the multiple cops on the scene had body cameras and there was no evidence of this.

I generally don't like police officers shooting people, but logically, there will be some situations where they have to because of their position. After reading the most recent discussion here, I did research on this police video. This is how the family describes it.

The family acknowledged that police gave Scott "several commands" but said that Scott had not "aggressively approach[ed]" police; that he had obeyed ordered to exit his vehicle "in a very calm, nonaggressive manner"; and that at the time the officer opened fire, Scott's hands "were by his side, and he was slowly walking backwards.

Wikipedia.

This sounds like the police officer was thinking something along the lines of "If he won't drop the gun, I'll have to shoot him eventually. And we already gave several orders to drop the weapon." Remember, both the officer and the suspect were black, so there would likely not be racism involved.

It sounds like this Scott character might have been on drugs or drunk and this is deduced by the fact that he seemed to have trouble comprehending to put the gun down in a timely manner.

a reply to: darkbake

It sounds like this Scott character might have been on drugs or drunk and this is deduced by the fact that he seemed to have trouble comprehending to put the gun down in a timely manner.

Maybe he was confused because he didn't have a gun.

originally posted by: darkbake
All right, I'm reading about this on Wikipedia. So far, this sounds like one of those police shootings that is justified (because Scott was holding a handgun and refused to drop the weapon). It appears that there were false rumors spread about the incident by the family and social media, who say that he was reading a book in the car when he was shot. However, the multiple cops on the scene had body cameras and there was no evidence of this.

I generally don't like police officers shooting people, but logically, there will be some situations where they have to because of their position. After reading the most recent discussion here, I did research on this police video. This is how the family describes it.

The family acknowledged that police gave Scott "several commands" but said that Scott had not "aggressively approach[ed]" police; that he had obeyed ordered to exit his vehicle "in a very calm, nonaggressive manner"; and that at the time the officer opened fire, Scott's hands "were by his side, and he was slowly walking backwards.

Wikipedia.

This sounds like the police officer was thinking something along the lines of "If he won't drop the gun, I'll have to shoot him eventually. And we already gave several orders to drop the weapon." Remember, both the officer and the suspect were black, so there would likely not be racism involved.

It sounds like this Scott character might have been on drugs or drunk and this is deduced by the fact that he seemed to have trouble comprehending to put the gun down in a timely manner.

The police can't take a chance based on whether someone is actively aggressively or calmly. He could have calmly shot them. If he had a gun and refused the police command to drop it then shooting him was justified. The question is... did he have a gun...?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: darkbake

It sounds like this Scott character might have been on drugs or drunk and this is deduced by the fact that he seemed to have trouble comprehending to put the gun down in a timely manner.

Maybe he was confused because he didn't have a gun.

And maybe the easter bunny will come visit us in a spaceship during the presidential inaugriation and declare a end to war and world peace.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

How many times and in how many different ways do people need to be told that a person's record doesn't matter if the officers have no idea who they are at the time of engagement? It's specious and, frankly, agenda driven to push that issue. IMHO.

And this:

This guy was on borrowed time with his background. It was either death by police, gang or jail.

FFS. You sound like that lady forced to resign yesterday from the Trump campaign. You know, "if you're black and not successful in the last 50 years..."

I hope the day never comes when you are forced to deal with an unexpected confrontation with LEO. If so, good luck with that.

a reply to: yuppa

You think cops never plant weapons?

www.bing.com... AR

a reply to: windword

Never said they didnt. But The body cams will prove they were correct so when they show him with a gun ill be waiting for a apology.

From 1:36 in the video...
What is the cop doing (in brown pants and white t-shirt)? he appears to drop something a couple of times up to 2:00 minutes...

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: windword

Never said they didnt. But The body cams will prove they were correct so when they show him with a gun ill be waiting for a apology.

I am afraid the body cams seem inconclusive - the family have seem them.

a reply to: yuppa

Well, I'll believe it when I see them, because right now the evidence seems to show the weapon being placed at the scene.