• 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

Jane said:
Yes, I've seen that, as well as "armed with a gun." Seems odd no one has said the gun was in either of his hands or that he was reaching for it. I'm sure that will be clarified as the investigation proceeds. Until then, you're claiming something (that the gun was in Scott's hand) the police have not said as far as I'm aware. And the video evidence thus far released doesn't show any such thing.
Click to expand...

Police began ordering Scott to drop the gun before he ever opened his door and got out of his vehicle. Which explains the statement that followed:

"Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun."


Besides, would it make any sense at all that police would order him to "drop the gun" when it wasn't in his hand? Why would they make such an order if the gun was in it's holster, or in his wasteband?


I can't believe I had to explain that.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
Police began ordering Scott to drop the gun before he ever opened his door and got out of his vehicle. Which explains the statement that followed:

"Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun."


Besides, would it make any sense at all that police would order him to "drop the gun" when it wasn't in his hand? Why would they make such an order if the gun was in it's holster, or in his wasteband?


I can't believe I had to explain that.
Click to expand...
You can't explain something they did not say and which you claimed they did. You can only give your interpretation of the different ways they have described their assertion that Mr. Scott had a gun. As I said earlier, we all could probably link to videos where police screamed at men to drop their guns or weapons and it was later determined that they had no weapons in their hands. How would you account for that? Paying attention to details and facts isn't a bad thing, is it?

I personally believe Mr. Scott was in possession of a gun while in his vehicle. I cannot know yet whether he exited the vehicle with the gun in his hands. And neither can you.
 
Jane said:
You can't explain something they did not say and which you claimed they did. You can only give your interpretation of the different ways they have described their assertion that Mr. Scott had a gun. As I said earlier, we all could probably link to videos where police screamed at men to drop their guns or weapons and it was later determined that they had no weapons in their hands. How would you account for that? Paying attention to details and facts isn't a bad thing, is it?
Click to expand...

Please link me to an example of police making that mistake, where:

1. The confrontation took place outdoors, in the open and on a sunny day.
2. It involved at least 3 officers who each had very differing views of the suspect.
3. Each officer was no more than 10 yards away from the suspect for at least a minute prior to the suspect being shot.
4. The officers believed the suspect had a gun in his hand for close to a minute before shooting.
5. The police ordered the suspect to "drop the gun" more than a dozen times, before any action was taken against him.


Good luck, because what you are going to end up finding, are instances where it was dark, where police didn't have a clear view, where they were too far away to clearly see what the suspect was holding, or shot the suspect almost immediately after they mistakenly saw what they believed to be a weapon in the suspects hand.

I believe that you will never find an instance where 3 officers, from 3 angles, who were all in very close proximity to the suspect for close to a minute on a clear sunny day, all mistakenly believed the suspect was holding a gun and shot him... In fact, my guess is, that you will never find an instance that comes anywhere close to what took place in Charlotte.

I'm looking forward to seeing some links.




I personally believe Mr. Scott was in possession of a gun while in his vehicle. I cannot know yet whether he exited the vehicle with the gun in his hands. And neither can you.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose police would continue long after the suspect exited his vehicle, to demand that he "drop the gun" if the gun wasn't in his hand?

Does ordering the suspect to "drop the gun" make any sense at all if the gun was in his ankle holster, was tucked into his waistband, was shoved down the back of his pants, or anywhere else beside in his hand?

.
 
Grim17 said:
Please link me to an example of police making that mistake, where:

1. The confrontation took place outdoors, in the open and on a sunny day.
2. It involved at least 3 officers who each had very differing views of the suspect.
3. Each officer was no more than 10 yards away from the suspect for at least a minute prior to the suspect being shot.
4. The officers believed the suspect had a gun in his hand for close to a minute before shooting.
5. The police ordered the suspect to "drop the gun" more than a dozen times, before any action was taken against him.


Good luck, because what you are going to end up finding, are instances where it was dark, where police didn't have a clear view, where they were too far away to clearly see what the suspect was holding, or shot the suspect almost immediately after they mistakenly saw what they believed to be a weapon in the suspects hand.

I believe that you will never find an instance where 3 officers, from 3 angles, who were all in very close proximity to the suspect for close to a minute on a clear sunny day, all mistakenly believed the suspect was holding a gun and shot him... In fact, my guess is, that you will never find an instance that comes anywhere close to what took place in Charlotte.

I'm looking forward to seeing some links.






Why do you suppose police would continue long after the suspect exited his vehicle, to demand that he "drop the gun" if the gun wasn't in his hand?

Does ordering the suspect to "drop the gun" make any sense at all if the gun was in his ankle holster, was tucked into his waistband, was shoved down the back of his pants, or anywhere else beside in his hand?
Click to expand...

My original request was:
could you please link to any statement by Charlotte police officials that Mr. Scott exited the vehicle with "a gun in his hand" as you have just claimed? Thank you.
Click to expand...

The proper response to that question both when I asked it as well as now would be: "No, I cannot link to any such statement."

When you are able to do so, please let us know.
 
Jane said:
My original request was:


The proper response to that question both when I asked it as well as now would be: "No, I cannot link to any such statement."

When you are able to do so, please let us know.
Click to expand...

Jane, clearly you are making any excuse you can find to exonerate Mr. Scott, and indict Police...I am not sure what you think is being forwarded in this by you trying to be obviously obtuse about the statement the chief made that Scott exited the car with a gun....Wait, I guess I can understand....You already tried to play word games with this by changing the chiefs statement earlier from "with a gun" to "armed" with a gun. A slight difference that would allow you to throw doubt as to whether it was in his hand, or somewhere else.....Look, as Grim has now pointed out several times to you, multiple officers from multiple angles ALL saw him exit with the gun in his hand, and ordered him to drop it...He didn't, and paid the price...Simple as that. Stupid move if you ask me.
 
Really? you look at that unintelligible video and find yourself compelled to justify the shooting?

Here's a video of the shooting with a point of view that actually tells us something:



As far as I'm concerned, the victim was backing down without any threat to the responding officers. More importantly, I don't see how he could've been pointing anything at anyone, gun or otherwise.
 
Gaztopian said:
As far as I'm concerned, the victim was backing down without any threat to the responding officers. More importantly, I don't see how he could've been pointing anything at anyone, gun or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Since when did "backing down" include having a gun in one's hand even though you had been ordered to drop that gun more than a dozen times?

Also, when one is "backing down" from 3 police officers, do they always travel in a direction that will allow them to avoid encountering any one of those 3 police officers?

I sure hope you can shed some light on how a person surrenders to police... Thanks.
 
Gaztopian said:
Really? you look at that unintelligible video and find yourself compelled to justify the shooting?

Here's a video of the shooting with a point of view that actually tells us something:



As far as I'm concerned, the victim was backing down without any threat to the responding officers. More importantly, I don't see how he could've been pointing anything at anyone, gun or otherwise.
Click to expand...


So.... someone holding a firearm after being told to drop it for 2-3 minutes straight and still failling to comply is not a threat? lol
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Should it be? I'm opposed to federal marijuana laws. Regardless, I know the offense doesn't carry a death penalty.

But that's beside the point. Is there any other tactic police could have used here in arresting this scary pot smoker?
Click to expand...
You know you've lost the argument when you talk about offenses not carrying the death penalty in cases like this.
 
Gaztopian said:
Really? you look at that unintelligible video and find yourself compelled to justify the shooting?

Here's a video of the shooting with a point of view that actually tells us something:



As far as I'm concerned, the victim was backing down without any threat to the responding officers. More importantly, I don't see how he could've been pointing anything at anyone, gun or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Then your judgement disqualifies you from entering a position in law enforcement.
 
justabubba said:
he ain't got no gun the wife insists, referring to the husband who is wearing an ankle holster. probably what he carries his koran in
just read this cite about her request for a restraining order from almost a year ago:
A Game-Changing Document Has Surfaced About Keith Lamont Scott That'''s Exploding the Charlotte Shooting Narrative
Click to expand...

This is powerful stuff. Too bad ANOTHER, probably completely innocent man died, and businesses were destroyed.

I'm one of those who believes that definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. We've GOT to stop trying to "contain" neighborhood violence and start declaring immediate curfews, kicking ass and taking names. This destruction has to stop.

Might as well give them something to REALLY cry about.
 
opendebate said:
One small problem with this post...No one is waiving a gun accept for the police .
Click to expand...
What two things occurred that caused the cops to approach him in the first place?
 
Moon said:
What two things occurred that caused the cops to approach him in the first place?
Click to expand...

They saw a blunt being rolled?

He brandished a gun to the Undercovers.

That is if you believe the word of police departments filled with systemic racism.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm not a big gun person, but I still don't understand why there was the immediate freakout. NC being an open-carry state, I've heard that since it was not holstered, it is considered "brandishing". Why? How is this any different than when rednecks walk around with rifles?
Click to expand...

First, a felon has no right to carry, open or concealed. This guy was a felon. Second there is no right to open carry a gun while on drugs, which were observed in the suspects possession moments before the gun. This means police were well within the law to disarm the suspect. He was committing more than one crime by smoking some sort of drug and then showing he had a weapon while using that illegal drug, which is a crime in itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
whysoserious said:
They had no way of knowing that.
Click to expand...

Was the vehicle registered to him? If so, they had a way of knowing that. Whether they did know that or not doesn't mean "they had no way of knowing that".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
You believe in accountability, right?
Click to expand...

Accountability has to be measured and it has to be based rooted in actions that are real and can can be confirmed. No conjecture, no assumptions.
 
opendebate said:
Accountability has to be measured and it has to be based rooted in actions that are real and can can be confirmed. No conjecture, no assumptions.
Click to expand...

Assumptions are part of life. We make assumptions every day, all of us. Every job involves assumptions.
 
opendebate said:
what's your point
Click to expand...
It's a simple question.

The answer is the cops saw him with drugs and a gun. Two simple facts. Doesn't matter if he was waving it around because they knew he had it.
 
Moon said:
It's a simple question.

The answer is the cops saw him with drugs and a gun. Two simple facts. Doesn't matter if he was waving it around because they knew he had it.
Click to expand...

Illegal drugs and a gun is an automatic "high alert." First off, it's a federal offense. And, second, it usually leads to negative outcomes....as we saw in this case. If you want to commit suicide by cop, that would be one sure way to pull it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom