• 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!

Police release videos of shooting of Keith Scott

GhostlyJoe said:
Not even the police are saying he threatened them with a gun. And if this is "by the book," then the book has to be rewritten.
Click to expand...

A man who's been smoking dope gets out of his car to confront police with gun in hand and you don't consider that a threat?
 
jimbo said:
The wife posted her own video. Shouting don't do it Keith. Then yelled he don't have no gun.
Click to expand...

She also begged them not to shoot her husband and pleaded that he was not a threat.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Not even the police are saying he threatened them with a gun. And if this is "by the book," then the book has to be rewritten.
Click to expand...

by holding his gun and refusing commands he was threatening police. the law is not a game where one has to go "yea verrily I hereby threaten you members of the constabulary with my firearm"

by refusing to comply with instructions while illegally possessing a handgun that is by nature a threat against police officers. He knew very well what he had to do. he has criminal history for shooting a gun at cops.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I'm not calling for the cop's heads. I'm a calling for an approach that doesn't turn a spark into a four-alarm fire.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand. But, I think it was the combination of gun and drugs that has cops immediately going four-alarm.

Cops freak when they see drugs. They are uneasy when they see guns. So, combine the two, and you definitely have a match with gasoline.
 
JC Callender said:
A man who's been smoking dope gets out of his car to confront police with gun in hand and you don't consider that a threat?
Click to expand...

You're purposefully framing this in a way to maximize the threat from him. This started with a guy peacefully rolling a joint. The response was way overblown, based on the account given by the police.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
He was being ordered out of the vehicle. They were banging on the window.
Click to expand...

normal procedure for getting out of a vehicle under police orders generally does not include bringing your gun and trying to flee. they weren't requesting he change his mode of travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they were demanding him out of the vehicle for officer safety.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, I understand. But, I think it was the combination of gun and drugs that has cops immediately going four-alarm.

Cops freak when they see drugs. They are uneasy when they see guns. So, combine the two, and you definitely have a match with gasoline.
Click to expand...

That's basically how I see it, too.
 
prometeus said:
Of course that is relevant. Mere possession does not warrant the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Possession of what? A joint? Probably not. A gun? Absolutely. A gun and a joint? Bye Bye.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
normal procedure for getting out of a vehicle under police orders generally does not include bringing your gun and trying to flee. they weren't requesting he change his mode of travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they were demanding him out of the vehicle for officer safety.
Click to expand...

Couldn't they just have waited for him to get out, then arrested him as he was walking home? He didn't even know they were cops at first. They put on the vests in part to identify themselves, according to the story.

The police took a situation that wasn't dangerous and turned it into a situation that was dangerous.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
She also begged them not to shoot her husband and pleaded that he was not a threat.
Click to expand...

She also shouted "don't do it Keith". Also "don't shoot him, he has no gun".
 
GhostlyJoe said:
This doesn't have anything to do with Ferguson.
Click to expand...

How about post #13. Again, I was not on the scene but I do have some military training on deadly force so I understand a little about "split second" life and death decisions which no two are alike.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
How can people not be troubled by this?

A man is sitting in his car rolling a joint and plainclothes officers spot him. They're going to let it go, but one of them sees a gun. (Remember, this is an open carry state). So the team of officers go put on raid vests and surround the vehicle with guns drawn, shouting orders. He seems non-compliant, so officers begin banging on the passenger-side window. The man gets out, gun in hand, and begins walking backward away from the car. He doesn't drop the gun. An officer shoots him.

I'm sorry, but that is terrible police work. The police escalated. The police created an urgent situation.

You guys don't see any other way this could have been handled? This man — who had threatened no one, who was not committing any violent crimes — had to die?

We have to change how we train police in this country. This is not justice.

Anyone who says police did the right thing here simply does not believe in the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
You can have a gun.

You can have alcohol. ( Soon to be the green leaf as well )

But you can't have both.

It is illegal for a person under the influence or possession of drugs to also possess a firearm.

Of all the solutions offered to fix problems like this not making this a law isn't one.

Except to the fringe dangerous streak of libertarianism running through some.
 
jimbo said:
She also shouted "don't do it Keith". Also "don't shoot him, he has no gun".
Click to expand...

So if she's an unreliable witness, then her statement of "don't do it" doesn't prove anything. If she is a reliable witness, then he wasn't a threat to the police.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Couldn't they just have waited for him to get out, then arrested him as he was walking home? He didn't even know they were cops at first. They put on the vests in part to identify themselves, according to the story.
Click to expand...

They most certainly could have, but they ultimately did not, and once the decision was made to detain him Scott had an obligation to submit, he did not, they gave him many more chances they they had to, he didn't get the message.

The police took a situation that wasn't dangerous and turned it into a situation that was dangerous.
Click to expand...

failure to enforce the law because it might be dangerous is cowardice and dereliction of duty.
 
MorrisDay said:
How about post #13. Again, I was not on the scene but I do have some military training on deadly force so I understand a little about "split second" life and death decisions which no two are alike.
Click to expand...

It didn't have to be split second. It was split-second because the police created an urgent situation.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They most certainly could have, but they ultimately did not, and once the decision was made to detain him Scott had an obligation to submit, he did not, they gave him many more chances they they had to, he didn't get the message.



failure to enforce the law because it might be dangerous is cowardice and dereliction of duty.
Click to expand...

Funny, because I think it's cowardly to treat this guy sitting quietly in his car like he's Godzilla.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It didn't have to be split second. It was split-second because the police created an urgent situation.
Click to expand...

I need to see the whole thing. Generally, I see people getting themselves in these situations but there certainly are cases where police can be wrong - they are human too. In my younger days, long ago, I had a few run ins with the law myself. Nothing too serious but I always complied with their commands and never did anything to escalate the encounter into a physical confrontation. I have more since than that. Just doing that, I believe will keep you safe.
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
Funny, because I think it's cowardly to treat this guy sitting quietly in his car like he's Godzilla.
Click to expand...

He was not sitting in his car quietly, he drove up beside police officers and displayed a gun, that he had been carrying illegally in an ankle holster and was not allowed to own because he was a convicted felon who's rap sheet included firing a gun at cops. he was confronted and ordered out of his car and ordered to drop his gun. he didn't follow instructions well, he knew they were pointing guns at him, so what the hell was he thinking?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It didn't have to be split second. It was split-second because the police created an urgent situation.
Click to expand...

The police have an obligation to enforce criminal law, when somebody breaks the law they must act, that can be a calm situation or an urgent situation, that's 100% the suspects decision.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
So if she's an unreliable witness, then her statement of "don't do it" doesn't prove anything. If she is a reliable witness, then he wasn't a threat to the police.
Click to expand...

That statement makes no sense. He had a gun, it was in an ankle holster. She lied. She knew he had a gun. The statement "don't do it, Keith" was not directed at the cops, unless she knew the one named Keith.

She at that point was not a reliable witness, She was a person in a car with her husband. She knew what was going on.
 
jimbo said:
That statement makes no sense. He had a gun, it was in an ankle holster. She lied. She knew he had a gun. The statement "don't do it, Keith" was not directed at the cops, unless she knew the one named Keith.

She at that point was not a reliable witness, She was a person in a car with her husband. She knew what was going on.
Click to expand...

You're cherry-picking her statements to try to reinforce your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom