• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charlotte faces aftermath of protests ignited by fatal police shooting[W:226]

The Mark said:
Could be multiple things.

He actually had a gun.
They thought he had a gun.
Some more complex reason, like they knew they were on audio/video recording and were acting for that audience.

The point is, there are many people who will believe the last choice is most likely, because they have lost or never had trust in the police.
In some cases with good reason.
In others, because of anecdotal evidence provided by their peers.

I'm frankly not sure how the police regain the general trust they must have to be effective, in areas they have lost it.
Click to expand...

The police will never be trusted by criminals and their supporters. "**** da police!" That mentality will never be undone. You want to rebuild the trust? Build a wall around the ghettos of the worst sections of the major urban areas and say **** it, police yourselves. The fact is that the community bears responsibility and reigning in the police as much as the police do. Hell...police are just a response/symptom of problems in the area they police. There is a reason suburbia doesn't have the same problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grim17 said:
It may have been unclear in those poor quality videos released to the public whether he had a gun in his hand, but it certainly wasn't unclear to the police who were there at the scene. Which is why they continued shouting "drop the gun" instead of shouting any other command.

You are making the assumption that he absolutely did not have a gun in his hand, and I don't know how you can make such an assumption when the videos could neither confirm nor deny that.

.
Click to expand...

The only aspect of the video evidence that could suggest that Mr. Scott did, in fact, have a gun in his hand is the fuzzy images of his right hand at his right thigh once he leaves his vehicle. But again, that doesn't mean the man wasn't armed. For as I said he couldn't had the weapon tucked in his waistband or he could have fell on it after he was shot. The reason I'm questioning the police's version of the story is their claim of finding HIS blood on the gun. For me, that claim brings into question how the blood got on the weapon if the palms of both his hands were clean. Many people will see the blood on his middle and ring fingers on his left hand as a clear explanation, but that could easily be explained as scrapes on his fingers against the pavement when he fell. In any case, it's clear from the video footage that his left hand was empty. So, if he had the gun in his right hand as many have suggested, where did the blood come from since his right hand is clean?

That's all I'm asking here. I can understand how the rest of it went down although I still contend that the police acted to quickly to use lethal force. But the blood (DNA) on the weapon part just doesn't make sense to me given the video evidence.
 
Caine said:
ROFL.

It is not MURDER when a law enforcement officer has ordered them to disarm themselves before being taken into custody for a criminal violation and they have not done so after... what... two minutes of being told to drop the weapon?
Click to expand...

But you weren't talking about the police in your statement towhich I responded. You were speaking in generalities when you said:

One does not, and should not have to have a gun pointed at them in order to defend themselves when dealing with a subject who refuses to disarm. It takes less than a second for someone who is holding a firearm to point and fire, now I am not saying that the accuracy would be great, but it is not a chance that we should require anyone to take in that situation either.
Click to expand...

And so I responded in kind. Now, had you been specific and limited your scenario to law enforcement officers attempting to disarm someone who was either a threat to the police, themselves or the general public, I would've been happy to agree with you. But that's not how you prefaced your statement. Care to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom