I'm watching CNN this morning and I just saw a protester knock a CNN reporter to the ground. A few minutes after that, I heard another CNN reporter asking a protester, "Are you going to hit me?"
from yesterday of the victim's brother calling white people devil's. There also is footage of the daughter saying this is modern day lynching. They haven't made any statements today, presumably after they found out the officer who shot the man is black White devils - ( New Window )
officers were injured last night, but not shot. They were hit with rocks the size of baseballs and the most serious injury was a fractured skull from a brick.
The thing that bothers me the most about all of this...
is that in most of the cases that these types of protests are occurring after, MOST CASES, NOT ALL BUT MOST, the person has been either armed, not following commands, resisting arrest, or some combination of all three.
officers were injured last night, but not shot. They were hit with rocks the size of baseballs and the most serious injury was a fractured skull from a brick.
Yeah I fucked that up. I meant 17 injured. Totally wrong on my part.
gave a great response today that people need to wait for the facts. He said he himself has heard a lot of different stories that conflict with one another.
Ron Rivera was pissed that his team was onlt being asked questions about the shooting.
it's not coming across well to the majority of Americans who turn on the television and see nothing but looting, unrest, and the attacking of innocent people.
from yesterday of the victim's brother calling white people devil's. There also is footage of the daughter saying this is modern day lynching. They haven't made any statements today, presumably after they found out the officer who shot the man is black White devils - ( New Window )
And other witnesses said they saw him with a gun and there was no book found.
Protester is now pronounced dead. No one knows who responsible is yet.
Race or police brutality? The police officer in question is African American? Why are some of these rioters yelling about white people? The police chief in Charlotte says without a doubt the deceased man had a gun and refused to comply with orders. That is a bad recipe.
Race or police brutality? The police officer in question is African American? Why are some of these rioters yelling about white people? The police chief in Charlotte says without a doubt the deceased man had a gun and refused to comply with orders. That is a bad recipe.
I think most of them are there for the looting and an excuse to go wild.
I mean they showed people going off last night about white people being devils, one daughter said "a Cracker murdered my daddy", murderers and lynchers.
I can't imagine any circumstance where the news would have a reason to show a white person going off on blacks using epithets where it wouldn't be immediately denounced.
You know what the reporter said "Raw emotions are running high, but these are the voices of people tired of the brutality". I can't imagine any scenario where a reporter would say the same if a white guy went across the screen talking about Niggers or waving a confederate flag talking about blacks in a bad way. None.
There is a problem with police brutality. There is also a problem when hate speech is shown on the news and not denounced.
that amount of lies that are spreading like wildfire are sparking further outrage.
For instance, this protester that was killed tonight was shot by another civilian. They are trying to stir it up on social media and tell people that the police "ambushed" the protester and shot him in the head point blank execution style. People are actually believing it, retweeting it, and getting outraged.
Race or police brutality? The police officer in question is African American? Why are some of these rioters yelling about white people? The police chief in Charlotte says without a doubt the deceased man had a gun and refused to comply with orders. That is a bad recipe.
I think most of them are there for the looting and an excuse to go wild.
There will always be that faction or group who take this as an opportunity to commit crime. But is it really most of the protesters? That's a pretty assumptive statement to make.
So whether that's the fault of the media, or perception vs. reality...
Goes back to my statement before. Regardless of the message, it's not painting a very good picture for the majority of Americans that are watching, or making them sympathetic.
I'm across the border in SC. About 10 miles from uptown Charlotte. From what I can see, they look like they are near the bus station which is close to the Hornets arena.
screaming at them, waving their hands in their faces, sticking their fingers in their faces, demanding answers like these dudes have any idea about what happened yesterday other than what they heard just like everybody else.
Plus, there's a line of camera phones out right in the faces of the cops almost like they're baiting them to do something on camera.
They are trying to create something that's not there.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
When anger finally boils over, it's usually irrational.
I just hope the rational among us keep having honest conversations about this shit. Too many black men being killed by police. Too much violence against police. We are supposed to be better than this.
If you think you have this figured out and everyone else is wrong, you're full of shit. there's layers and layers of history and context and personal experiences at work here.
Less violence is our goal. Let's work backwards from there.
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
There has been a pattern developing over two years or so, starting with "hands up don't shoot", so I think you know the answer to that question.
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
like Britt said there have already been a lot of cases built on specious initial eyewitness accounts that stoke the flames of anger. whether it be George Zimmerman named as a white man, then modified to White hispanic, to Ferguson where the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" bacame a mantra that never happened.
Hopefully now it isn't "It's just a book"
RE: RE: If this is in fact a riot built on a lie...
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
Guy got shot by the cops yesterday. They were serving a warrant and a guy that was just in the area got out of his car.
Cop story is he had a gun, refused to comply with an order to drop it, and they shot him.
Community witness story is that guy had a book, not a gun.
Police say there was no book and they have recovered the handgun.
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
Guy got shot by the cops yesterday. They were serving a warrant and a guy that was just in the area got out of his car.
Cop story is he had a gun, refused to comply with an order to drop it, and they shot him.
Community witness story is that guy had a book, not a gun.
Police say there was no book and they have recovered the handgun.
The officer that shot him was black.
ok thanks Britt... I knew about the guy getting shot outside of his car by the white female cop but had no idea WTF happened in Charlotte. Thank you.
They shot and killed the guy and then the group of cops stood around panicked and let the guy bleed out and die. I admittedly haven't been following much of this stuff in Charlotte, but in general, if I were a black person in this country I'd be pissed too
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
were fanned because there were news accounts speculating that it was another shooting of an unarmed black man by a white cop and then you had the nonsense with the victims family calling people white devils and crackers. If people only saw those accounts, they have a slanted picture of what happened.
And undoubtedly some of them have merit. But there is no acknowledgement that the shitty, false conclusion to which the person jumped fed into wider hysteria that led to looting, rioting and injuries and even deaths. If you actually give a shit about helping people, have the humility or the restraint to wait for the facts to come out before you assume that someone sworn to protect and serve callously took another life without the barest justification.
Appear to be extreme intelligent adults who have a lot to offer society. After working a full day being useful they came home had dinner with the family ,read their kids a bedtime story, and now on to The streets to loot and riot. Way to further your cause people!
rock and a hard place.
On one hand you feel empathy that African Americans are treated differently than others by the police (I do) but then protesters act violently at demonstrations causing more tension and further violence which requires further police presence.
Saw a Black Muslim Imam dispute that the cop who shot the fellow in Charlotte was a black cop and said it didn't matter because he is blue. He said the police are lying and the guy didn't have a gun. Hell the police weren't there for the an that got killed, they were responding to another address/incident. Whatever he did made him get noticed by the police.
RE: RE: RE: RE: If this is in fact a riot built on a lie...
So what is this all about? Just cops vs blacks even if the cop is black?
Well, many of the protesters were saying the guy was shot by "white devil cops", so I thought it was relevant to point out that it was, in fact, not a white devil cop that shot him.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
Don't bullshit us bud. Just own it. You hate Obama and every chance you have to passive aggressively attack him, you'll take. And that's fine. It's your right.
Just don't come on here and lie about it after you get called out.
Appear to be extreme intelligent adults who have a lot to offer society. After working a full day being useful they came home had dinner with the family ,read their kids a bedtime story, and now on to The streets to loot and riot. Way to further your cause people!
I think the federal government should fund body cameras for every armed cop in America.
Also disagree with this. I like the camera and want every second of footage YouTubed. But it's not up to the federal govt to fund it. Local taxes should do it
#WCCB witnessed protesters try to throw still photographer into fire in Uptown #Charlotte. http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/live-streaming/ #CharlotteProtest #news
They knocked a camera man out, then tried to drag him on top of a fire they started.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
Don't bullshit us bud. Just own it. You hate Obama and every chance you have to passive aggressively attack him, you'll take. And that's fine. It's your right.
Just don't come on here and lie about it after you get called out.
It really does not matter to me what any of you think my motive was for asking that original question. I really don't have to justify anything to anyone here. However, if you really care that much, or are taking yourselves so seriously on a freaking message board then you can go look at my post history and see that I have not been here in 24 hours. Then, if you really want to waste more time you can go back to earlier posts (months even) and see where I am literally on the road and in the air every week with stretches where I am totally disconnected from current events... just like all day today.
I think the federal government should fund body cameras for every armed cop in America.
+1 and it would most likely help exonerate cops in some instances and justifiably get those cops suspended or prosecuted in other instances. If I was a cop, I would want the body camera for my own protection today.
Every single comment on this thread their was probably hundreds of black on black murders that we will never hear about that just happened, poor young black children lose their lives every day by stray gunfire and we never hear about it. I am so sick of this race baiting media, that's the problem, the media
The cops claim they saw a gun. I'm fairly certain that's legal there.
Not open carry, I don't believe.
It's concealed carry, with a permit.
and by law you need to inform law enforcement you have a weapon.
gun laws from state to state are tricky. I don't know them all, but I don't think it's illegal to own or carry a weapon in and of itself, but I believe it must be concealed and disclosed to law enforcement.
"My guess is November 9th
bradshaw44 : 11:07 pm : link : reply
Will be the day that defines modern America. Our division is clear and present. And most definitely a danger."
police bias against Blacks, what do you think accounts for the fact that Black cops are involved here and in Baltimore? Why would the Black cops be biased against Black citizens?
WCCB witnessed protesters try to throw still photographer into fire in Uptown #Charlotte. http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/live-streaming/ #CharlotteProtest #news
It's a shame that the protestors always screw themselves over and dilute their own message, because clearly, something does have to change, but this isn't going to do it. Ugh.
African american citizens have their grievances ruined by these ignorant coons with their typical gibs me dat bullshit.
I genuinely love this post simply because it allows me to picture a truly pathetic and cowardly human being setting up this dupe profile (you don't have the balls to post this under your regular username on a fucking anonymous message board??) while simultaneously racking your hilarious brain to come up with such a clever username
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
How do you know all of these details happened as reported? Just as it's faulty to take social media accounts as cold hard facts, it seems like you have taken the police report as the absolute truth.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
Are diluting and distracting the core message of nonviolent protestors. Its too bad Charlotte is not benefiting from the same racial unity we saw in Charleston after the church shooting.
How do you know all of these details happened as reported? Just as it's faulty to take social media accounts as cold hard facts, it seems like you have taken the police report as the absolute truth.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Those were my preliminary thoughts and not to be taken as true or fact. Just what makes sense to me up until now and subject to change.
I haven't even read it yet, but here is a link to her side of the story and I have no idea of its credibility or what it says.
Police are legally required to call for first aid, but usually do not administer it themselves in Arizona. How long was he lying there? Usually there would be fire staging to the area almost immediately.
but apparently so is the fact that he had a gun and wouldn't drop it. I don't condone rioting, but I can see protests for a case like the one in Tulsa. But this? This is not about the police. I am sure there are outside agitators there stirring things up.
This site has pictures of the gun laying next to the body....
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Do you really need to ask this. You know why.
Here was my post in the National Anthem thread:
Quote:
Depends on your personal slant and what you (colloquially) are predisposed to believe or want to believe.
Any time there is a police officer involved shooting with a black victim, many people will begin their opinion that race was a factor and the main factor. sometimes it is. Many times it's not, but many people don't believe it's not no matter the circumstances.
Any time there is a bombing conducted by someone with a Muslim sounding name, many people assume terrorism, however the rub is that many of the same people in the first group will urge caution before jumping to conclusions about the details of the second type of incident urging people to not make assumptions about the motive and classifying likely terrorist activities as workplace violence.
It's very obvious if you try and view things objectively from afar (not that I can any more than anyone else who tries to have an open mind), it's like the American "incident playbook" based on each person's political/social views.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
your question is based on false premises. People generally don't give Islamic terrorists the benefit of the doubt.
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
generally don't apologize, so the cover all possible bases before saying something they won't be able to take back (which I never and still don't understand, people want honesty, an apology is a good example of honesty).
Personally, I see nothing wrong with calling something an act of terror (it is, a fucking bomb went off, the skin color of the person detonating doesn't matter) without knowing every little detail.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
The leaders are still there calling for patience. The people are too pissed off to listen.
2 grand per body cam. Then they have to pay alot of people to technician it. Then when something does get caught on camera the cop still gets off and people begin to tear shit up anyway so what's the point?
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Very well said and I fear that come November, if a certain person gets elected, it will only pour gasoline on an already raging fire and extinguish any empathy.....of course, this election cycle has already fanned the flames considerably unfortunately.
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
news coverage as the events unfolded last night and even in the different stations, there were different ways the news was handled. ABC and CBS were pretty straightforward in their coverage. The NBC station was the one who kept airing the white devils footage, and would do it every 30 minutes or so as part of the recap of the events.
The local WB station had two black activists as panelists and those people were justifying the actions of the rioters saying they are angry over years of oppression. When the moderator talked about the gun being located and showed the photo of it, the black activists said that the public needs to understand that after years of oppression, you don't believe a word coming from sources. That even seeing a picture of the gun isn't going to change minds. That the riots aren't just about this shooting, but a cumulative anger at shootings of unarmed black men across the country. In effect, they said that the right to violent protest wasn't just OK, it was justified.
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
in the immediate aftermath of a bombing, there are a lot of unknowns - who did it, what was their motivation, etc. but in spite of that, a lot of people do rush to judgement, call for carpet bombings and intermnment camps etc
with a lot of these police shootings, there are less unknowns - we know who the killer is there is usually video footage that is immediately posted and it adds to the tally of dead black men shot by police officers or racists (Dylan roof, George Zimmerman) under either questionable or brutal circumstances. like it or not, after trayvon, Michael brown, the charelston shootings, garner, Miami (where an unarmed black man who was looking after an autistic teen and lying on the ground was shot) the incidents in Minneapolis, baton rouge, Tulsa, the black community is on edge. and rightfully so.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
while I support non violent protests and feel that police forces need to be retrained on deesclation processes to stop their use of excessive force, the violent protests and looting are unacceptable. as angry as the black community is, and I empathize with their anger, causing property destruction or assaulting police officers is not the answer.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
The police shootings or in-custody deaths, with the exception of North Charleston, have in many instances been significantly different from the initial reports, and this after looting and rioting has occurred.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
is that the culprits are "outside agitators"? They continue to say that this morning on CNN, and I recall the same assertions when Baltimore erupted. Is there some dynamic at work that leads to this conclusion? Are people actually traveling from other parts of the country to engage in opportunistic violence? What leads people to believe that the violent protestors aren't from the city involved?
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
Incite posts like that idiot above. And that sentiment.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
His goal is to point out that that same leadership (well, minus NYC)
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
I belive he had a round to play.
I'm guessing both of you are rocket scientists
RE: His goal is to point out that that same leadership (well, minus NYC)
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
RE: RE: His goal is to point out that that same leadership (well, minus NYC)
should be trying to get cooler heads to prevail here as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
So what, you're stuck on two modes, pedophile or moron?
Because only a moron would walk away with that from what Chris posted. Our senior leaders should be trying to get people to cool off, no different than when bombs went off in NYC, so as to avoid collateral damage to innocent people.
RE: Why is it that when rioting occurs, the narrative....
is that the culprits are "outside agitators"? They continue to say that this morning on CNN, and I recall the same assertions when Baltimore erupted. Is there some dynamic at work that leads to this conclusion? Are people actually traveling from other parts of the country to engage in opportunistic violence? What leads people to believe that the violent protestors aren't from the city involved?
it doesn't necessarily mean they are from a different city, but the outside agitators are people who piggyback off the nonviolent protestors and use these incidents as a pretext to loot, start riots etc. they are outside because they aren't really interested or involvemd with any movements like BLM that are interested in constructive change or peaceful protests
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Tell me what kind of media coverage would happen if a mob of whites dragged a black bystander into a parking garage, kicked and punched him and then stripped him of his clothes and it was all caught on tape? It would be national news, Obama would make a speech, there would be more riots and you know it.
The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
The Michael Brown lawyer was on Fox last night and Kelly ripped him to shreds about how he lied and was wrong about his case and why its similar to this one in Charlotte. The lawyer said he didnt want to talk about his case, even though he was making the same case despite evidence showing he was wrong.
I dont understand why black leaders think its ok to justifying riots and attacks on police officers/civilians when the police officers were initially right.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
Are you doing anything wrong by getting out of a car carrying a gun in an open carry state? People keep saying he was armed. I haven't seen anything that indicates he was stopped for cause. Why was he told to drop the weapon?
This is why we need videos.
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Exactly, and if that's the case, how can we even have a discussion?
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
A think a lot of people have a misconception about what "leaders" telling people to "calm down until we have the facts" will accomplish. People who riot and loot aren't interested in any of that. The rest of the people simply don't trust any aspect of the criminal justice system, including those collecting "the facts".
So people tend to blame "leaders" and the media when the real issue is a complete lack of faith and trust in the competency, transparency, and the impartiality of law enforcement. That's why you see rushes to judgment in cases that quite possibly may be 100% the fault of the person shot/killed. The sad part is it isn't some subset of blacks that feel this way... most of us do.
What are we trying to save here, exactly? Does it cost too much in gas to drive one of these guys up to a microphone to ask them to tell everyone to calm the fuck down?
Maybe everyone will ignore it - so is that a reason to skip trying something that has absolutely no cost or downside associated with it?
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
I heard many politicians request calm. The comparison to the bombings is ridiculous. What is the point or goal in saying Islam is to blame? There's where he was going with it
The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Yesterday, there was a news conference with black ministers present and they were discussing the reports that a gun was recovered and asked if that changed the statement from the day before that the man was unarmed, sitting in his car reading a book. The exact words were "The question isn't if the man had a gun. It is if he pointed the gun or threatened the police. If he did notr, he did not deserve to die". To which another minister in the background yells "No, sir. Did not deserve to die." and then several gave an "Amen".
I'd say it was comical, but I'm finding little to laugh about with the way this story is portrayed. We are going to find out that a bunch of people got violent and tore shit up because they initially believed a white cop killed an unarmed black man in a car reading a book, waiting to give his son hugs.
The reality is probably going to be that the man had a gun in his hand as he approached police, that he had a warrant out for his arrest already and that the officer was black.
Tell me what about that situation deserved violence as a community response?
If you agreed with the statements in that case, then you can't object to the statements in this one.
In either situation, the objective was clear - to keep people from making rash judgements and emotional reactions that could cause problems for innocent people.
When cameramen from media organizations are being beaten and thrown into fires in *THIS* country, it's time for someone up top to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down. And that's not happening.
Are you doing anything wrong by getting out of a car carrying a gun in an open carry state? People keep saying he was armed. I haven't seen anything that indicates he was stopped for cause. Why was he told to drop the weapon?
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
it was not obvious at first with farook or mateen that they had terrorist/radical Muslim inspirations, until law enforcement investigated, searched their homes, phones, interviewed family/coworkers etc and found out about their beliefs/affiliations. at first it could have been someone with a mental illness who just really hated their old workplace/homosexuals.
the man was being served a warrant for his arrest.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
it was not obvious at first with farook or mateen that they had terrorist/radical Muslim inspirations, until law enforcement investigated, searched their homes, phones, interviewed family/coworkers etc and found out about their beliefs/affiliations. at first it could have been someone with a mental illness who just really hated their old workplace/homosexuals.
Um, what?? From Wikipedia:
Quote:
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on June 12, 2016, Mateen entered the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and began shooting. At 2:22 a.m., he made a 9-1-1 call in which he pledged allegiance to ISIL; referenced Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers;[89] and mentioned Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an acquaintance of his who died in a suicide bombing in Syria for the Al-Nusra Front in 2014.[103] According to FBI officials, Mateen made two other 9-1-1 calls during the shooting.[104] He also called News 13 of Orlando and identified himself as the nightclub shooter; The Washington Post reported that "he had carried out the Pulse attack for the Islamic State".[105][106]
Shit, his motivations were so obscure and hard to figure!
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
The comparison is not with the situations at the detail level, it's with the overt rush to judgment and reaction by leaders and media.
After the Michael Brown shooting when "hands up don't shoot" was believed to be a true narrative, media and leadership ran with it.
President Obama without one shred of investigation or even a question asked said Michael Brown's death "stains the heart of black children" and exposed the racial divide in America.
is that not jumping to a conclusion without any shred of evidence? Not just that, but maybe the rioters and looters don't care, but some people do actually care how the leadership reacts and they take their cue from them.
The point on bombings is the same people bend over backward not to jump to conclusions, not for fear of rioting, but for fear of backlash against the innocent and fear of being politically incorrect.
If you don't see that as a contradiction and if you can't see how they're publicly handled differently I think you're trying hard not to.
Or maybe I'm doing the opposite, hard to tell anymore.
the man was being served a warrant for his arrest.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Thanks. I thought the warrant was being served on someone else and he was observed carrying a gun. If this is the case, they should get all the evidence out there ASAP
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
Original reports said it was the wrong person. Yesterday they said it was for him and they also disclosed that the family was in the process of being evicted for the last month and hadn't complied.
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
I think to show that that we react to similar things different, not because of the acts themselves but more because of our socialized conditioning. And also, that much of what we know, and much of what induces us to react, comes from a carefully orchestrated narrative by those that provide and massage our information.
from the reports if the warrant was tied to the eviction situation of if the warrant is indeed for another person. The answers were vague about that and the reporter's didn't press the issue. I'm sure they will today or in the coming days.
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Does the other side get to be angry, too? Do they get to be angry about the insanely high crime and murder rate in our cities, towns, and doorsteps, about innocent people getting caught in the crossfire? And then hearing the screaming of injustice when somebody gets killed over it?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
It's insulting when the bomber was a Muslim and had reported ties to terrorist activity whether through facebook (or his father reporting him as a possible terrorist to the FBI) and still not hearing people classify it as an act of terrorism.
I'm not going to debate this, it's like Facebook political debates (which I read but don't engage in).
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
It has everything to do with it, but you're too simple to figure it out or being deliberately stupid.
The leaders didn't come out and say 'act of terrorism' to protect Muslim citizens and keep tempers under control. That's fine - that's what they're elected to do.
Why are they not doing the same here? Because you feel it wouldn't serve a purpose? How does it serve a purpose in one case and not another?
The officers under attack here deserve the same protection from government officials, but they're not getting it.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
not because of whether or not an act is called terrorism or appeals for calm or whatever, but because in both cases outliers are used to define the whole. But only with Islam and terrorism do people, especially leaders and media, make any effort to correct that impression.
not because of whether or not an act is called terrorism or appeals for calm or whatever, but because in both cases outliers are used to define the whole. But only with Islam and terrorism do people, especially leaders and media, make any effort to correct that impression.
that was my point, but better said by you Bill.
And AP no clue why you're digging your heels in on this, it seems pretty obvious why people bring it up now and why it's relevant.
RE: I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Does the other side get to be angry, too? Do they get to be angry about the insanely high crime and murder rate in our cities, towns, and doorsteps, about innocent people getting caught in the crossfire? And then hearing the screaming of injustice when somebody gets killed over it?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
It's an awkward circumstance when saying the blatantly obvious - that we are excusing what is, for lack of a better word, fiction and the violence and chaos that ensues from it - is unacceptably racist but the sort of absurd overreaction, the credulity given to blatant lies and bullshit, the sort of reactions that feed into the hysteria that allows for rioting and looting to happen, can simply be dismissed later as an understandable reaction to systematic injustice, even if in this case (just this one case!) it turned out to be an embellishment or an untruth.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
I didn't see much on the news or on this site, but I did see a news flash that ISIS is believed to have used chemical weapons (I think one flash said mustard gas) on Americans yesterday.
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
Have a nice day.
They've since classified those attacks as acts of terrorism attributed to ISIS. So, your stance on those comments has changed and they were wrong, or you're an idiot. You choose.
I didn't see much on the news or on this site, but I did see a news flash that ISIS is believed to have used chemical weapons (I think one flash said mustard gas) on Americans yesterday.
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?
It's a big deal, but insurgents in Iraq used chemical weapons (ineffectually) against our troops. Both sides have used them in Syria.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
It was a terrorist act though, even if the guy was white, so I really don't get this.
She said absolutely nothing of substance. Two minutes of thanking the people at the press conference and turns it over to the chief of police. Strong showing. Holy crap.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (KWCH) A Charlotte, North Carolina news station says it has confirmed with sources that there is dash camera video that shows Keith Scott getting out of a car and coming at police officers with a gun in his hand.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (KWCH) A Charlotte, North Carolina news station says it has confirmed with sources that there is dash camera video that shows Keith Scott getting out of a car and coming at police officers with a gun in his hand.
Link - ( New Window )
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Wonder if the looters and rioters will put all the stuff back and fix the damage they caused. Fucking ridiculous.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (KWCH) A Charlotte, North Carolina news station says it has confirmed with sources that there is dash camera video that shows Keith Scott getting out of a car and coming at police officers with a gun in his hand.
Link - ( New Window )
That should seal it. Why don't they get the tape out there
was at a Panthers rally dressed in a Kuechley uniform and she started dancing and it was like an Elaine moment. The record screeched, and Thomas Davis gave a look like "What the fuck is going on here"? It was hilarious.
Are you suggesting that if the American media and politicians stopped using certain words or phrases that these totally reasonable guys called ISIS will all look at each other and say "you know what? those Americans have really been painting such a great picture of us, lets not be mad at them anymore!"
Also, please tell me, why did Ramzi Youssef come here in 1993 and park a van full of explosives under the WTC. What was the anti-islamic buzzphrase back in the 90's that just totally inspired him to do such a thing?
I don't understand the demand for the public to be able to see
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Most non-political experts agree it's a mistake to credit or blame Islam. Terrorist leaders want a holy war. It plays in to their hands and is a great recruiting tool. That's the case for using caution when choosing words.
What's your case for immediately blaming Islam? What goal is accomplished?
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
Can calm things down and stem the claims that are made thru social media that are just meant to inflame the situation. It the Charlotte case...just go ahead and release a still shot of the suspect with a gun in their hand.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
Before this riot started, Greensboro officials just so happened to vote and decide to release footage of what is called "disturbing excessive force." Fucking hell. Link - ( New Window )
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
No you were not, you were trying to start shit employing a lame passive/aggressive angle. You ruin threads with your constant political spew
seem like they'd make excellent public officials if they wanted to run for office. They handle situations with the press very well, which is another reason I'm disappointed that this situation devolved into what it has.
RE: They have the Chief of Police on right now giving a press conf.
if the CNN or FOX feeds showed the interview, but they asked a person who was chanted "No Justice, No Peace" what justice is and they said convicting the officer.
If that's what justice is before knowing the facts, it is no wonder why there are riots.
I think it is similar to the response Michael Brown's mother said when they asked her what justice would be for her son's death and she said to convict the officer.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
What an enlightening response. Thanks.
The point is that you are already sure it's not a book. The cops said it wasn't. But the video will tell the truth. You don't know anything aside from the daughters story and the cops. And you're accepting the cops. That's fine and may fit the ultimate facts in the case, but you're doing that now because it fits your narrative.
Furthermore, you're not open to enlightening anyway. Before I open this thread I know what your responses will be.
RE: RE: So if the video shows a gun like they are saying
should the daughter be charged for inciting riots by lying about it being a book on facebook live?
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
It's not legal, even with open carry, to point or brandish a gun to anyone. And, it goes without saying, if the cops tell you to drop the gun, you drop it.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
I agree that the picture of the gun does not prove anything. But, the picture of the gun adds clarity to what happened and refutes the narrative of those claiming he did not have a gun.
Do you think a handful of punks would have listened to that?
Shouldnt protests start once guilt is definitive? Maybe if the city finds out what really happened instead of speculating or believing the uninformed, riots wont break out.
The daughters and protesters are wrong in this situation. Yet there are activists leaders and african american leaders that are suggesting the protests/violence/eruptions are ok. It's not ok when a police officer is doing their job. Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to dissolve the situation, you have many people justifying what is going on. It's beyond sickening.
RE: RE: RE: So if the video shows a gun like they are saying
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
I agree that the picture of the gun does not prove anything. But, the picture of the gun adds clarity to what happened and refutes the narrative of those claiming he did not have a gun.
no way, he had a book and was reading a bible. people have made up their minds
RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
Do you think a handful of punks would have listened to that?
Shouldnt protests start once guilt is definitive? Maybe if the city finds out what really happened instead of speculating or believing the uninformed, riots wont break out.
The daughters and protesters are wrong in this situation. Yet there are activists leaders and african american leaders that are suggesting the protests/violence/eruptions are ok. It's not ok when a police officer is doing their job. Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to dissolve the situation, you have many people justifying what is going on. It's beyond sickening.
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
by a "cracker" (daughter's words, not mine), people take to the streets.
Armed man shot the second time he stepped out of his vehicle armed, by an African-American cop. If that's the narrative at the outset, do people take to the streets? Or if they do, do they take to the streets with social media egging them on, with sympathetic newscasters excusing their rage?
were family members. And none of them were at the scene. So it was purely speculative. The police and bystanders both had said there was a man with a weapon drawn exiting a vehicle.
My only assumption is that the early stories said the man read a book every day peacefully in his car. I became suspicious when they added "peacefully" as if they were trying to build up a narrative. Do people read violently?
Is dispicable. Loot/burn your own local stores and beat up/kill other civilians. Just awful.
And if I am in that officers shoes I would shoot too if the person did indeed have a gun and not listen to commands. The public seems to think officers have to wait until the gun is pointed.. by the time they wait for that they already would be shot.
IMO The interesting thing about these riots, like Michael Browns
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
RE: IMO The interesting thing about these riots, like Michael Browns
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
RE: RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
However for anyone decrying that this is no way to protest, have you also criticized Colin Kapernick and his form of protest? If so then I wonder what is "acceptable". Also for the brain surgeon who proclaimed the punishment for looting should be "shoot them on sight"- last time I checked robbery is not a capital crime. This is part of the problem. Yes there have been circumstances where it's murky as to whether the person under police custody was guilty of a crime or not. However in basically every circumstance they surely had not committed a crime worthy of the instant death sentence handed out. Also think about it somehow a terrorist who was basically the most wanted man in the country at that moment was somehow shot and taken into custody without being killed after engaging in a shootout with police. Interesting. I fully support the police and their horrifically dangerous at times job. However there needs to be a discussion in this country about this, and it may look ugly on the news, or interrupt the national anthem at your precious football game. However it needs to happen.
most of the stations tried to add perspective to the riots.
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
RE: RE: IMO The interesting thing about these riots, like Michael Browns
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
open carry doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means
most of the stations tried to add perspective to the riots.
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
most of the stations tried to add perspective to the riots.
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
Some of it certainly is opportunism. But people don't riot in societies where things are going just great aside from one recent incident.
RE: I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Does the other side get to be angry, too? Do they get to be angry about the insanely high crime and murder rate in our cities, towns, and doorsteps, about innocent people getting caught in the crossfire? And then hearing the screaming of injustice when somebody gets killed over it?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
I must've missed the BBI thread showing outrage over Peter Liang not getting a day in jail, despite being convicted of manslaughter. I don't think I've ever heard the names Emma Hernandez and David Perdue on BBI. When no one mentions "the exceptions", it's hard to believe that people actually care about "the exceptions".
Was there a BBI thread the day Mayor Bloomberg said "We're probably pulling over too many white people and not enough minorities"? There are NYC police officers suing their own department because they were mistreated and/or denied promotions when they objected to singling out people based solely on race and sex. Another NYPD officer in a separate lawsuit recorded a superior questioning him about why he wasn't arresting more black and hispanic males. The officer literally responded, "I can only book the people I see committing crimes". I myself once "matched the description of someone selling drugs". The description was so overly broad that anyone with my skin color and gender in a 5 block radius could've been stopped and frisked based on it. It's difficult to live your life a certain way, then be accused of something like that based solely on factors you were born with. It's easy not to believe it when these things don't affect you or are far less likely to. There can be no debate as to whether officers face real accountability as a result of "the exceptions". That's exceedingly rare. There can be no debate as to whether blacks get more time in prison for the same crimes as non-blacks. They do. We can't ignore the inequities in our criminal justice system that seem to be based primarily around race and class.
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all. The blaming of the media is so tiresome. People rioted in the '60s, '90s, and are still doing so today. What happened 50 years ago couldn't have been Al Sharpton's fault, Obama's fault, or CNN's fault.
RE: RE: RE: IMO The interesting thing about these riots, like Michael Browns
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
I'm saying people should take some responsibility for assuming the worst and for acting upon it, or encouraging others to act upon it, instead of trying to find some wider truth that otherwise justifies setting a city on fire and killing people based on a lie.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
People may have been profiled by the police. There is police brutality. But the police don't oppress. Gov't's oppress.
When Kaep talks about the oppression of minorities being afforded the opportunity for betterment (before going on his tirade about police brutality), he spits in the faces of those immigrants who came to this country with virtually nothing, built up a business through hard work, saved up to send for family members and used 100% initiative to make their lives better.
We aren't a country of oppression, even if there are definitely other faults
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
You don't need to write them down. They can be found at your local library or courthouse. They are the same laws that govern when police can use force on ANYBODY.
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
People may have been profiled by the police. There is police brutality. But the police don't oppress. Gov't's oppress.
When Kaep talks about the oppression of minorities being afforded the opportunity for betterment (before going on his tirade about police brutality), he spits in the faces of those immigrants who came to this country with virtually nothing, built up a business through hard work, saved up to send for family members and used 100% initiative to make their lives better.
We aren't a country of oppression, even if there are definitely other faults
FatMan, your comments reminded me of my in-laws. Both persons of color, from South America and what we would consider poverty, who came to this country legally, worked very hard, and completely oppose illegal immigration and a culture where one feels like they are owed something.
(This is not meant to support this or that big picture judgement on Charlotte, black lives matter, or anything else. But I am struck by how they don't represent a view that many people think they are supposed to represent.)
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I have no idea what it's like to be a black person living in poverty so I'm less judgemental than you
I'm going to take a stab at this and say you also have no idea what it's like trying to be a police officer working in a high poverty black community, either.
RE: RE: So if the video shows a gun like they are saying
should the daughter be charged for inciting riots by lying about it being a book on facebook live?
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
Assuming that you are correct and it is legal....
a photo of the man lying on the ground with a gun beside him, is fairly indicative that he was outside of his car and holding a gun in his hand, right? Otherwise, how would the gun also be away from his person and outside the car?
Given that, what percentages would you assign for your belief in each of the two competing narratives?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
and I will keep saying it. The media in thin country needs to be taken down a peg. I don't care if they have to redo, or ratify or whatever the hell you call it--reexamine, the constitution. The media is doing its very best to wound this country piece by piece. Fully aware that there are truly great and inspiring sectors of the national and local medias but it's corrupted. Too much shit stirring, slander, lies---and zero accountability. It's toxic.
lets say he wasnt following or on a substance, that would mean he was impaired or whatever. I have seen many other instances of that same situation and they all ended up with no bullets being shot.
From looking at the video several times, he could have just been taken down.
and I will keep saying it. The media in thin country needs to be taken down a peg. I don't care if they have to redo, or ratify or whatever the hell you call it--reexamine, the constitution. The media is doing its very best to wound this country piece by piece. Fully aware that there are truly great and inspiring sectors of the national and local medias but it's corrupted. Too much shit stirring, slander, lies---and zero accountability. It's toxic.
bingo!!!!! agree 10000000%
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
hmm... I suppose neither of us are experts on the motivation of protesters and rioters. But I am surprised that you'd so quickly discard the general resentment between police departments and black communities as a factor.
again for the tulsa shooting, the bomber from NJ had more reason to
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
hmm... I suppose neither of us are experts on the motivation of protesters and rioters. But I am surprised that you'd so quickly discard the general resentment between police departments and black communities as a factor.
You want to talk about transparency? An unintended side effect of all this is that we're seeing just how often it's the minority community that is unjustified in their perceived notion that the police are wrongfully accusing them. What the general public is seeing more often than not is that the false notions that are perpetuated by the community are just that... False notions.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
What an enlightening response. Thanks.
The point is that you are already sure it's not a book. The cops said it wasn't. But the video will tell the truth. You don't know anything aside from the daughters story and the cops. And you're accepting the cops. That's fine and may fit the ultimate facts in the case, but you're doing that now because it fits your narrative.
Furthermore, you're not open to enlightening anyway. Before I open this thread I know what your responses will be.
Buy why does the family think it was a book? Were they there? I'm not the one out inciting riots. And that is what these false narratives do. And as we have seen in Ferguson, even when the undisputed truth comes out, it means nothing to some people. This is dangerous and harmful. I don't have a narrative. I'm not convicting the guy or the cop. But I will believe the police until it is proven that they lie. Because in the vast majority of these cases, what they say is what happened. If you want to make something out of that go ahead.
i've said it before
djm : 11:55 am : link : reply
and I will keep saying it. The media in thin country needs to be taken down a peg. I don't care if they have to redo, or ratify or whatever the hell you call it--reexamine, the constitution. The media is doing its very best to wound this country piece by piece. Fully aware that there are truly great and inspiring sectors of the national and local medias but it's corrupted. Too much shit stirring, slander, lies---and zero accountability. It's toxic.
Indeed. What kills me is the lack of accountability for early reporting that causes many of the situations becoming violent
RE: RE: I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
you only have to look at the the way they handle politics to know that the media has not had a speck of integrity in...maybe forever. But tragedies, whether it's a terror attack, a shooting or a riot, is integral, I suppose (and I think it's a shame in and of itself), to domestic politics and ideologies. To have any expectations at all of American media, is to overestimate them.
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
I think it's fine to look at the causes and debate them. However, bottom line is that no matter the grievance people can choose to respond like human beings or not. That's always on the individual and always where final accountability lies. I truly think that those people who say some version of "violence is never appropriate, *but*..." don't really believe the first half of their sentence.
lets say he wasnt following or on a substance, that would mean he was impaired or whatever. I have seen many other instances of that same situation and they all ended up with no bullets being shot.
From looking at the video several times, he could have just been taken down.
I agree based on what we've seen and read. One officer used a taser and the other fired a gun. They either both should have used tasers or only one should have when the victim didn't comply.
That's why I said the officer who used a gun would be prosecuted probably.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
Gee, aren't you making assumptions here? You don't know the facts but right away, You say if there isn't prosecution, and someone isn't punished, that is not the right outcome. But what if it WAS a good shoot?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The protests were peaceful until around 8PM
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I wouldn't be surprised if those engaging in violence and looting were actually protesting or just taking advantage of the opportunity to commit crimes. I saw an image of a white kid dressed like a punk smashing windows.
Just reading the Charlotte Observer, says Scott has a long record
of weapon charges and assaults in multiple states, even assault on someone under 12 and a woman. Just got out of jail in 2011 for doing 7 years for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
I would highly doubt he was legally able to own a firearm. Was he on parole still? Didnt want to go back to jail?
"A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011."
if the LEOs weren't familiar with Scott's history (and they might have been), it wouldn't be terribly relevant to their appraisal of him as a threat to use lethal violence.
were issuing a warrant for him, it is likely they knew his history and possibly why they were using a plainsclothed officer with regular officers as backup.
Then again - if the warrant wasn't for him, they wouldn't have known.
if the LEOs weren't familiar with Scott's history (and they might have been), it wouldn't be terribly relevant to their appraisal of him as a threat to use lethal violence.
I get the cops not knowing, but it could explain Scott's mindset that he didnt want to go back to jail for violating his parole or for having an illegal firearm. Also his rap sheet would indicate he had violent tendencies.
RE: RE: RE: I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
If you think mistrusting the criminal justice system is synonymous with being a criminal, you're an imbecile.
That's not what he said. He said the reverse of what you said, that if you don't think criminals tend to mistrust the criminal justice system, then you are an imbecile.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
If you think mistrusting the criminal justice system is synonymous with being a criminal, you're an imbecile.
That's not what he said. He said the reverse of what you said, that if you don't think criminals tend to mistrust the criminal justice system, then you are an imbecile.
But I wasn't talking about criminals... I was talking about myself and the black community, most of whom are not criminals. That's what the original response was to. In your haste to defend that person, you obviously didn't read what was said.
why won't the police release the video? Police chief: Video provides no definitive evidence that victim pointed gun before officer shot him - ( New Window )
If it turns out the shooting wasn't justified, then this becomes a crime scene. Do you really think they're going to release video from a potential crime scene before they've conducted an investigation and taken any eyewitness accounts?
if the LEOs weren't familiar with Scott's history (and they might have been), it wouldn't be terribly relevant to their appraisal of him as a threat to use lethal violence.
I get the cops not knowing, but it could explain Scott's mindset that he didnt want to go back to jail for violating his parole or for having an illegal firearm. Also his rap sheet would indicate he had violent tendencies.
All true, but we're concerned with what the officer knew and perceived at the time he was shot.
several posts mentioned the oppression of minorities
Does the term "minorities" include Asians, who have the lowest incarceration rate (lower even than the whites who're doing all these evil oppressions), and you almost never hear one of them being innocently and outrageously shot by the law enforcement?
How dare the "systematic oppression" to somehow forget to mistreat this particular group of colored-skin people.
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
How long does it take to get eye witness accounts?
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
So the guy with no inside knowledge of the situation sees no harm? Well, fuck it then, let it fly.
Meanwhile, the police chief openly admits he doesn't see a weapon pointed at his officers. If there was some coverup associated with the video, why on Earth would he make that statement?
RE: several posts mentioned the oppression of minorities
Does the term "minorities" include Asians, who have the lowest incarceration rate (lower even than the whites who're doing all these evil oppressions), and you almost never hear one of them being innocently and outrageously shot by the law enforcement?
How dare the "systematic oppression" to somehow forget to mistreat this particular group of colored-skin people.
That's because we never get caught. Cops are too smart and safety-conscious) to get on the road with us.
There is a dead person on it and it's not some iphone video someone stranger put on youtube. It's an official body cam police video I believe.
Who wants to see their father's death go viral on the internet to help fuel people's internet debates or even in some cases I bet their sick enjoyment.
Maybe they like to allow the family time to view the video first and prepare.
just a guess - besides the procedural side of waiting.
That giant24 is racist. Not the sheet wearing kind, or the type to drop the n word, but definitely the "you are very well spoken for coming from a bad area" type. Comment after comment drives the nail home.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
so is it illegal to hold a handgun openly as opposed to having it holstered? If not why would the police suddenly confront him? He was minding his own business and there was no reason to believe he was in the process of committing a crime. Do you live in a free country or a police state?
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
Is that a common thing in open carry states? Cops seeing armed citizens and telling them to drop their gun. I have a $1000 dollar shot gun. There's no way I'm dropping it on the pavement.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
If he were holding a gun, you still don't get to shoot a person based on that. He may have been threatening, or not. police shooting armed and unarmed citizens is happening at an exponentially increasing and alarming rate.
but I would be shocked that in a potentially anxious situation between strangers, if anyone on this thread would not take some sort of action if a person walked toward us brandishing a firearm. I mean, I'd scream like a girl and run, but that's just the sort of action I take and it's pretty much all the defense that I have at my disposal. But others could choose differently.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
I'll break it down.
I have a concealed permit. If a cop sees something under my jacket and asks if its a weapon, I am obligated to show him and surrender it if asked. That doesn't mean I'm in trouble, it just means a threat has to be neutralized (me having a gun) before determining if I have the right to carry it (checking my ID).
That police work 101 and completely reasonable.
No, if I have my license to open carry, the scrutiny is, and should be even larger. If the police see a man with a weapon, the above still applies. Put the weapon down, let the police investigate whether or not your are legally allowed to carry it, then everyone moves on.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
so is it illegal to hold a handgun openly as opposed to having it holstered? If not why would the police suddenly confront him? He was minding his own business and there was no reason to believe he was in the process of committing a crime. Do you live in a free country or a police state?
Really? A guy gets out of his car and walks toward the police gun in hand, and a response means it's a police state?
Scott is a convicted felon just out of jail in 2011
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
I wasn't there so I can't jump to conclusions. My guess is that it was something that would be knowingly tolerated and pre-screened.
In a routine traffic stop, seeing something suspicious, etc, that courtesy can't be afforded.
I have no idea why this guy was approached, but does it even matter? He was asked to drop his weapon which means he was holding it. By law, even if he had a permit, he's obligated to comply.
So once again, what on earth is so hard to grasp about that?
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
If felons whose firearm rights have not been restored start walking around carrying weapons yes, situations are likely to get worse.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
Is it common practice to ID people carrying guns in open carry states? If the cops see a guy getting in to a car carrying a gun, do they yell the drop the gun even though he has committed no crime?
A cop has a right to go home safely to their family every night. If you are holding a gun and a police officer tells you to put it down, put it down. If you don't, you put the officer in a very bad spot. It doesn't take long for you to go from not pointing your gun, to pointing and shooting it. The office has a decision to make at that point. I took this opportunity to tell my son a foolproof way to not get shot by a cop last night. Do what the cop tells you to do, even if you don't like it. You can deal with that later. Get down, drop whatever you are holding, whatever they say, do it. Not getting shot in that situation, regardless of your color.
RE: RE: I'm beginning to think that for many here,
Is it common practice to ID people carrying guns in open carry states? If the cops see a guy getting in to a car carrying a gun, do they yell the drop the gun even though he has committed no crime?
Yes man, come on. An open carry state doesn't mean you are given the benefit of the doubt and why should it? How does that even make sense? If a cop wants to check your credentials you should comply.
You can drive in the US but you need a license to do so. Isn't it the first thing a cop asks you for when pulled over?
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
under north carolina law, both activities appear to be perfectly legal - and whether you are holding it or openly showing you are packing, both could be perceived as threatening.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
A cop has a right to go home safely to their family every night. If you are holding a gun and a police officer tells you to put it down, put it down. If you don't, you put the officer in a very bad spot. It doesn't take long for you to go from not pointing your gun, to pointing and shooting it. The office has a decision to make at that point. I took this opportunity to tell my son a foolproof way to not get shot by a cop last night. Do what the cop tells you to do, even if you don't like it. You can deal with that later. Get down, drop whatever you are holding, whatever they say, do it. Not getting shot in that situation, regardless of your color.
A cop has the "right" and duty, to do their job correctly and not kill people in error. We don't know if that happened here.
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
under north carolina law, both activities appear to be perfectly legal - and whether you are holding it or openly showing you are packing, both could be perceived as threatening.
At one point do you feel it becomes illegal and the cops can then take action? Prior to, during, or after finger contraction?
A cop has a right to go home safely to their family every night. If you are holding a gun and a police officer tells you to put it down, put it down. If you don't, you put the officer in a very bad spot. It doesn't take long for you to go from not pointing your gun, to pointing and shooting it. The office has a decision to make at that point. I took this opportunity to tell my son a foolproof way to not get shot by a cop last night. Do what the cop tells you to do, even if you don't like it. You can deal with that later. Get down, drop whatever you are holding, whatever they say, do it. Not getting shot in that situation, regardless of your color.
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
"For handguns, a Pistol Purchase Permit (issued by the sheriff in the county of one's residence) or a North Carolina issued Concealed Handgun Permit is required. Presenting either of these exempts the buyer from the on-the-spot NICS background check."
Police officers have the right to ask for your permit, which is also needed to buy the gun in the first place.
But this is splitting hairs anyway, if I got out of my car and approached a cop car with my gun on my holster, i'd still be perceived as a threat.
Furthermore:
"A person acquiring a handgun must have either a permit to purchase a handgun or a concealed handgun permit. A background check is required to obtain either of these permits."
So if he didn't have the above, it means he was illegally carrying, which he must of been if he's a felon as he wouldn't pass a background check.
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
under north carolina law, both activities appear to be perfectly legal - and whether you are holding it or openly showing you are packing, both could be perceived as threatening.
At one point do you feel it becomes illegal and the cops can then take action? Prior to, during, or after finger contraction?
if it looks like he was threatening someone/in the middle of an altercation that looked like it could escalate. if he was using the gun to rob someone. if there is reason to believe he was committing some other violation of law.
please stop trying to portray things as facts that aren't.
Quote:
And he wasn't just holding it
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
he had it pointed at the cops.
There has yet to be evidence that the gun was pointed. What the police statement was that the victim exited the car with a gun in his hand and ignored repeated orders by the officer to drop the weapon.
Even the police chief says he's not seen a video that shows the gun being pointed. It just shows the man wielding a gun.
Is it illegal to carry a gun in your hand in open carry states?
I can't believe how fucking dense you are. No its not illegal.
Now for my question, does a police officer A. know you legally purchased the gun and B. are they allowed to ask you to put down a firearm even if you are legally able to do so?
Is it illegal to carry a gun in your hand in open carry states?
No, I believe it has to be holstered, if it's a hand gun, or on your shoulder if it's a rifle. Holding it in your hand would be brandishing, which is illegal.
is the thought of people walking around legally carrying guns while the cops try to figure out who should drop it and who can go on about their business.
of not relate able situations, but I can't get over how some of these mass murderers (or attempted) are still alive after police contact, and so many of these other folks are killed without any visible crime or amazingly minimal crime being committed.
What do we discuss after that? "Well, if it was just a broken tail light, he should have listened to the cop!!"
Uh, OK?
So, when new instances occur when the victim might have contributed to his own demise, yes, many of us question whether or not the cops were acting correctly. Shit, the other day was the perfect example of seemingly awful and tragic judgment by a cop.
I thought you said carry a gun. To my surprise your question is even worse than I thought. Yes, its illegal to carry a firearm in your hands, in public.
please stop trying to portray things as facts that aren't.
Quote:
And he wasn't just holding it
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
he had it pointed at the cops.
There has yet to be evidence that the gun was pointed. What the police statement was that the victim exited the car with a gun in his hand and ignored repeated orders by the officer to drop the weapon.
Even the police chief says he's not seen a video that shows the gun being pointed. It just shows the man wielding a gun.
Honestly cannot fathom that given that situation, approaching police, wielding a weapon, ignoring demands to drop the weapon, cannot be perceived as a life threatening situation by the police officers.
RE: RE: I dont get this pointed or not pointed thing
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
And this is part of the issue, in the situation described above, white people wouldn't find that threatening. However if the gun toting individuals were black....well, you know how that would end up.
my understanding was that the police approached scott, not vice versa.
It appears that an undercover police officer was approaching Scott's car, and Scott saw the other patrol cars pull up nearby. He exited the vehicle at that point with a weapon. He was told to drop it, Reports are saying at that point, he returned to the vehicle and as police came nearer, he again exited the vehicle with teh weapon and refused orders to drop it.
What isn't certain is if police identified that they were there to issue a warrant or if scott assumed that since he was on parole, he was in trouble and could return to jail and panicked.
I've asked about 19 times already and never got an answer.
Which tells me people are trying too damn hard to prove a point they know is wrong.
Both sides need to be reasonable in this debate and give in on some of their stronger beliefs, but to think the police shouldn't verify the legality of a weapon that can kill someone is mind boggling.
even if you have a legal permit, if you unholster a weapon and have it in your hand without provocation, you have gone from legally carrying to brandishing.
99+% of arrests of even violent criminals are effected without the discharge of a firearm. We only hear about the arrests of the fraction of a percentage point of the ones who do. We hear about other arrests, but unless SWAT is involved or there is something otherwise unique about the circumstances of their arrests the stories about uneventful arrests are few and far between. We hear about the terrorists and the mass shooters and the like because we hear about the manhunts for them.
Without knowing the facts I believe this was a justified shooting
is the thought of people walking around legally carrying guns while the cops try to figure out who should drop it and who can go on about their business.
It's very easy. There are rules. If you are going to carry or open carry, you better learn them or you have no business having a gun. The reason people get shot is because they act in a threatening manner and they don't follow what the police tell them. I don't care if you are white or black or what color the cop is. Why, when being told to put your hands up or don't move or don't reach into the car or drop your weapon, don't you automatically stop and do what the cop says?
You ask why mass shooters like Dylan Roof don't get shot. Because as crazy as they are, when they are pulled over, they do what the cops say. It's that simple. The cops don't want to shoot you, but they will if you don't act in a way that they can control the situation.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
And this is part of the issue, in the situation described above, white people wouldn't find that threatening. However if the gun toting individuals were black....well, you know how that would end up.
And how did it end up in Dallas when there was a black guy with a rifle on his shoulder while cops were being shot? They approached him and nothing happened. Because he wasn't waving it around and did what the cops said. Like it or not, there is a proper way to act around a cop, especially if you have a gun on you.
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It isn't some law that just got passed last year, its been around a while and is generally never a problem whatsoever. But that's a separate topic for a separate thread.
RE: Without knowing the facts I believe this was a justified shooting
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
You learn that there is a certain way you must handle interactions with police if you don't want to risk being shot. Let's say you're driving and you get pulled over, and you're carrying. Now, you have a permit, so you're breaking no laws. Still, the very first thing I would say when the cop gets to my window is, "Officer, I have a carry permit and I'm letting you know that I do have a weapon on my person. What do I need to do?" Get that fact out in the open immediately so some jumpy authoritarian cop doesn't freak out if he notices an unannounced firearm. Be calm and keep your hands on the wheel at all times until told to do otherwise. They will usually ask to see your CCW along with your license, and they might take possession of the weapon until the stop is over.
There's what's right/legal, and then there's what is sensible, and the two don't always coincide. That's why I kind of roll my eyes at mentions of "the talk black parents have with their kids about cops" - I'm white as milk but I handle interactions with police (and I get pulled over a fair bit because I drive pretty damned fast) the exact same way. I go into a traffic stop with the assumption that the cop is a jittery asshole who will use the slightest reason as a provocation to escalate the situation. I'm unfailingly polite to the point of obsequiousness, I keep my hands in plain view unless instructed otherwise, and I move very slowly and deliberately. I do these things because I realize there are more than a few cops who are power-hungry yet scared assholes, and I have no intention of being shot over some stupid bullshit. It pisses me off that I have to do this, but as I said there's right and then there's smart.
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
If he were holding a gun, you still don't get to shoot a person based on that. He may have been threatening, or not. police shooting armed and unarmed citizens is happening at an exponentially increasing and alarming rate.
"Exponentially alarming rate"
You have facts to back that up?
How hard is it to just follow the directions of a police officer?
Whether someone has a weapon or not....the act of refusing to cooperate with a police officer is going to raise suspicion in the eyes of the officer(s). At that point if you make a move that could be perceived as threatening and you get shot...I am not feeling really bad for you.
I understand that not everyone trusts law enforcement for very valid reasons. But this challenging of police officers who are in most cases just doing their jobs is getting out of hand.
RE: RE: Without knowing the facts I believe this was a justified shooting
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
Yes I can make s judgement independent of this case. I believe open carry is bad policy, leads to more guns and shootings with no measurable benefit.
RE: RE: RE: I dont get this pointed or not pointed thing
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
my point is that if it's just as legal to openly carry a handgun as it is an ice cream cone (as you don't need a permit to openly carry a gun in north Carolina just like you don't need a permit to carry an ice cream cone), why did the cops instigate an altercation with a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts. Link - ( New Window )
RE: How hard is it to just follow the directions of a police officer?
Whether someone has a weapon or not....the act of refusing to cooperate with a police officer is going to raise suspicion in the eyes of the officer(s). At that point if you make a move that could be perceived as threatening and you get shot...I am not feeling really bad for you.
I understand that not everyone trusts law enforcement for very valid reasons. But this challenging of police officers who are in most cases just doing their jobs is getting out of hand.
Scott was foolish for not following the officer's orders. does not mean that the officer acted appropriately and does not mean that he deserved to be killed.
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
RE: RE: RE: Without knowing the facts I believe this was a justified shooting
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
Yes I can make s judgement independent of this case. I believe open carry is bad policy, leads to more guns and shootings with no measurable benefit.
You have facts to back that up? Most shootings in the country happen in Chicago where guns are outlawed.
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Do you believe open carry leads to fewer shootings?
Who said it did? You are claiming it causes more shooting. And using this as an example (when it hasn't even been demonstrated that he was legally allowed to carry and was doing it in the correct way).
allow some manner of open carry with some permutations including long guns, hand guns, and permits.
45 states.
And for the record I'm not a fan of open carry, as a gun owner, but I don't know how a random non-expert states conclusions about what that policy will result in and expects to have credibility.
Do you believe open carry leads to fewer shootings?
I've never heard of anyone in my state (which is open carry) ever being shot carrying openly legally. I've actually never heard of anything in recent history that backs up your belief.
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
instead of de-escalating, they initiated the conflict, escalated it, and fatally shot the man. I have not heard any reasons yet that there was an actual threat to them, other than the manufactured one that they initiated and the escalated. again, more police forces need to be trained like the dallas pd.
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
I'm going to guess when an officer asks a person carrying openly to put down the gun and they refuse it probably becomes illegal. Why as an armed citizen who's not breaking a law would you not comply with police to defuse the situation?
instead of de-escalating, they initiated the conflict, escalated it, and fatally shot the man
The victim may have initiated the conflict by panicking that police were nearby. According to reports, he exited the vehicle with a weapon in hand before the officer engaged him, the officer then noticed the weapon and gave the instructions to drop it.
Now that version may or may not be correct - it is the latest news, but why are so many people on this thread saying things that happened as being fact when it is still debated what the situation was, from the confrontation to the end result?
Wallace said its possible the officers had reason to believe Scott was engaging in suspicious behavior. But Putneys statement does not mention any factors other than his handgun....
...Wallace said a police order that Scott drop his weapon would not be considered a consensual exchange, in which an officer asked a suspect why he was carrying a weapon or why he was sitting in the car.
Just based on them seeing the gun and nothing else, they don't have justification to detain him, for even briefly on whether hes up to no good, Wallace said.
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
my point is that if it's just as legal to openly carry a handgun as it is an ice cream cone (as you don't need a permit to openly carry a gun in north Carolina just like you don't need a permit to carry an ice cream cone), why did the cops instigate an altercation with a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts. Link - ( New Window )
Just going by what FMIC has said, the guy seems to have had multiple prior arrests for various things, including assault with a deadly weapon and intent to kill, and was further being served with a warrant at the time of this incident. I think I would like to politely request your definition of "law-abiding" since, at first blush, I feel like it might be different from my own.
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
instead of de-escalating, they initiated the conflict, escalated it, and fatally shot the man. I have not heard any reasons yet that there was an actual threat to them, other than the manufactured one that they initiated and the escalated. again, more police forces need to be trained like the dallas pd.
weren't they serving a warrant and attempting to identify if the deceased was the person the warrant was issued? How did you intend they do that without approaching the deceased?
Is that what you're calling escalating the incident, serving the warrant?
you do need to legally obtain that gun, which is the point being made here over and over and over and over and over and over again.
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
I'm going to guess when an officer asks a person carrying openly to put down the gun and they refuse it probably becomes illegal. Why as an armed citizen who's not breaking a law would you not comply with police to defuse the situation?
for his own self preservation it was foolish of him to not comply even if he was not breaking a law. maybe he was surprised that he went from being an innocent man to having guns pointed at him and was caught off guard. I don't know. he should have listened. but from all accounts he wasn't waving, pointing or firing it unlike the white north Carolina man earlier this summer who was subdued without being shot.
You learn that there is a certain way you must handle interactions with police if you don't want to risk being shot. Let's say you're driving and you get pulled over, and you're carrying. Now, you have a permit, so you're breaking no laws. Still, the very first thing I would say when the cop gets to my window is, "Officer, I have a carry permit and I'm letting you know that I do have a weapon on my person. What do I need to do?" Get that fact out in the open immediately so some jumpy authoritarian cop doesn't freak out if he notices an unannounced firearm. Be calm and keep your hands on the wheel at all times until told to do otherwise. They will usually ask to see your CCW along with your license, and they might take possession of the weapon until the stop is over.
There's what's right/legal, and then there's what is sensible, and the two don't always coincide. That's why I kind of roll my eyes at mentions of "the talk black parents have with their kids about cops" - I'm white as milk but I handle interactions with police (and I get pulled over a fair bit because I drive pretty damned fast) the exact same way. I go into a traffic stop with the assumption that the cop is a jittery asshole who will use the slightest reason as a provocation to escalate the situation. I'm unfailingly polite to the point of obsequiousness, I keep my hands in plain view unless instructed otherwise, and I move very slowly and deliberately. I do these things because I realize there are more than a few cops who are power-hungry yet scared assholes, and I have no intention of being shot over some stupid bullshit. It pisses me off that I have to do this, but as I said there's right and then there's smart.
you do need to legally obtain that gun, which is the point being made here over and over and over and over and over and over again.
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
I get that you need a permit to purchase a gun. but my understanding is once you have obtained that permit, you don't need to always have the permit on you, nor do you need a separate permit to "openly carry" the gun - only if you are concealing it do you need a permit. please correct me if that is not the case.
RE: RE: How hard is it to just follow the directions of a police officer?
Scott was foolish for not following the officer's orders. does not mean that the officer acted appropriately and does not mean that he deserved to be killed.
True...he MAY not have deserved to get killed, but he greatly increased the chances of it happening by his refusal to follow instructions. An officer is going to get the benefit of the doubt in almost any case involving this type of situation. Scott should not have gotten out of the car with a gun...and then to make matters worse...refusing (apparently) to not place it down when directed. He chose poorly in this situation and his actions directly resulted in his own death.
you do need to legally obtain that gun, which is the point being made here over and over and over and over and over and over again.
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
I get that you need a permit to purchase a gun. but my understanding is once you have obtained that permit, you don't need to always have the permit on you, nor do you need a separate permit to "openly carry" the gun - only if you are concealing it do you need a permit. please correct me if that is not the case.
In North Carolina I don't believe you need a carry permit (looks like they don't have them) but you do need a permit to purchase. Basically this covers people who purchased a gun in CT, relocate to NC, and can still legally use their guns. They would need to get a NC permit to purchase if they wanted to buy again, but they can use their already out of state purchased guns, legally.
Regardless of the state by state laws, the police still have the right to ask you to disarm, for whatever reason they want.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
K. FOR PURPOSES OF CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS, DOES IT MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IF THE WEAPON IS UNLOADED?
ANSWER: No. North Carolina General Statute 14-269 does not specify whether the
weapon has to be loaded or unloaded. Rather, the location of the weapon is
looked at to determine whether or not it is concealed.
Once it is no longer concealed there are certain behaviors one must follow.
is the thought of people walking around legally carrying guns while the cops try to figure out who should drop it and who can go on about their business.
EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE (active law enforcement included)
stopped by a uniformed member of the service who is in possession of a firearm IS TO FOLLOW ALL ORDERS GIVEN by that or any other officer and is to ADHERE TO THEIR COMMANDS!! The situation will be sorted out after the officers know their safety is not at risk.
Is North Carolina an open carry state? not sure of it. I've seen too many videos of Yahoo Cowboys in open carry states shadowing Police Officers in the course of their work, at times violating their personal space at traffic. The officer would ask the said Cowboy to back away to no avail.
Traffic stops and Domestic disturbance complaints are two of the deadliest jobs to respond to as a Police Officer, you don't need anyone distracting you while in the course of your duty.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
Same here in CT (and I imagine everywhere). If you leave your home with your gun you must have your permit with you (like driving a car) and you must follow all directions by law enforcement when in possession of a firearm.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I dont get this pointed or not pointed thing
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
my point is that if it's just as legal to openly carry a handgun as it is an ice cream cone (as you don't need a permit to openly carry a gun in north Carolina just like you don't need a permit to carry an ice cream cone), why did the cops instigate an altercation with a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts. Link - ( New Window )
Yet no response from people about your point made here. And this is the reason why people become upset. I don't understand how people can't acknowledge the difference in how situations are handled.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Didn't see this gem, where do I even start?
Deescalation is a term used for all sorts of situations and has different procedures for each scenario. When a deadly weapon is in hand, it takes a split second for someone to aim and shoot. The deescalation started when they told him to put down the gun. There is no magic way to calmly talk someone down from a ledge, in this case. Its a split second life or death situation that the perp put himself in. Had he dropped the gun, the deescalation would have been successful. He didn't, so it wasn't.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
the same rules do not apply for concealed weapons as open carry. the rules above are specific to CONCEALED weapons (permits, ID, disclosure of the fact you are carrying a concealed weapon). scott was not concealing his weapon so those rules do not apply.
de-escalation does not constitute approaching a man who was not breaking any laws, drawing your guns at him, screaming drop your weapon!!!, and then shooting to kill. that is escalation, not de-escalation.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
He did not own a handgun and "he doesn't know" if he had a permit. Others have said that he couldn't have had a permit since he was convicted of a crime a few years ago.
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
the same rules do not apply for concealed weapons as open carry. the rules above are specific to CONCEALED weapons (permits, ID, disclosure of the fact you are carrying a concealed weapon). scott was not concealing his weapon so those rules do not apply.
de-escalation does not constitute approaching a man who was not breaking any laws, drawing your guns at him, screaming drop your weapon!!!, and then shooting to kill. that is escalation, not de-escalation.
The only rule that is different is that you don't need a permit to open carry. Everything else is the same, including following law enforcement instructions. Do you think open carry means you don't have to follow police instruction?
Your scenario above about how he was approach is also not accurate by many reports. The police can walk up to anyone, for any reason, to ask them a question. You, like so many, are making it seem like they walked up to an unarmed man, yelled at him, then shot him dead. And that is shitty.
protests brings out the opportunists... this guy had
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
so tell me what the laws to openly carry give you the right to, i'd love to hear that. Let me know whether or not a police officer has the right to tell you to surrender your weapon and then get back to me.
The only reason the language is written that way is because a police officer, or anyone else, wouldn't know you have a concealed weapon. Those steps are written to prevent surprises and knee jerk reactions from happening (Greg in LI painted a good scenario earlier in this thread).
Now go look up what you are allowed to do while openly carrying a gun and get back to me, i'm eagerly awaiting your findings.
you've taken a shitload of time to discuss LAWFUL use of open carry protocols while the fact is that Scott didn't have a permit, nor was he lawfully allowed to carry a weapon as a felon.
That alone pretty much invalidates any attempt to understand the open carry laws.
Woman two rows in front of me is talking intentionally loud on her phone. She brought up the Oklahoma shooting and said "being black I guess we learned they can kill us for anything. This guy gets shot because his car breaks down. I guess they will kill you if you're in a car the breaks down now".
I wanted to refrain getting into all of this but this angered me. It's the epitome of how all of these protests, riots are useless. If you're not going to consider anything from the other side of the argument how do you expect things to change if you think they're wrong. I understand that the feelings of hate stem from things much deeper than just the recent police shootings. I also understand that each event isn't a result of the same actions and there are major differences in each case.
It really does sicken me though. This shows me people are searching anything to fuel their tirade against the rest of society. There's racism on the other side as well.
you are lawfully required to surrender your weapon, drop your weapon or present your weapon for inspection as well as have your ID on you if asked by an officer.
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
Again, this applies to only CONCEALED handguns.
Logically, why would you not need to have a permit with you if you carry an unconcealed weapon but you would for a concealed one? I'm curious as to the rationale?
Also, what is the rationale for not letting an officer know that you have a gun, under any circumstance? I would think that if the gun was not hidden away but within easy access, it would be *more* important, not less, for a cop to know about it.
Also, why do you believe they require you to comply with a cop's request to drop a concealed weapon but continue holding an unconcealed one?
The logic behind all of that isn't clear at all, IMO.
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
Again, this applies to only CONCEALED handguns.
Logically, why would you not need to have a permit with you if you carry an unconcealed weapon but you would for a concealed one? I'm curious as to the rationale?
Also, what is the rationale for not letting an officer know that you have a gun, under any circumstance? I would think that if the gun was not hidden away but within easy access, it would be *more* important, not less, for a cop to know about it.
Also, why do you believe they require you to comply with a cop's request to drop a concealed weapon but continue holding an unconcealed one?
The logic behind all of that isn't clear at all, IMO.
I'm not the expert here, and as I said previously I am not a fan of open carry allowances for one main reason, I believe in every state that allows open carry you are not required to obtain a permit to do so, it's more of a "constitutional carry" policy where the 2nd amendment is considered your permit.
So you have untrained people carrying firearms.
I also believe it's true that in every state where you are allowed to concealed carry you need a concealed carry permit, which requires a training class, an application (which normally includes a background check) and a permit.
So I believe the logic is open carry where it's allowed (and it's not allowed in MA (via a technicality that I won't bore you with - it's actually allowed but it's grounds to revoke your concealed carry permit) so it's not even an option for me) it's a pure constitutional right, but concealed carry isn't, but it's generally a safer option.
you've taken a shitload of time to discuss LAWFUL use of open carry protocols while the fact is that Scott didn't have a permit, nor was he lawfully allowed to carry a weapon as a felon.
That alone pretty much invalidates any attempt to understand the open carry laws.
fair enough, though at the time they encountered/approached him, they did not know he was a felon and didn't have a permit to purchase. it's also still not clear to me what constitutes an illegal "brandishment" of a handgun i.e. what is the threshold by which a permissible open carry becomes an illegal brandishment.
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
Les, I'm not caught up on everything that has come out today, but....
how do we know what the police knew about him? Is it established that they didn't know him? Could they have run his plates, or is it possible that someone recognized him as a prior felon?
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
expect violence and threats to better the situation for when any future police encounter someone they perceive is a threat?
Seems like that will only increase the likelihood of an officer being a little to jumpy and quick to respond to a perceived threat.
If these protests were largely nonviolent and nonresistant similar to what MLKjr used to orchestrate they would have a tremendous more impact and receive much more overwhelming support from the public.
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
I spend half of my time in Boston and can't bring my guns from NY with me. Of course I have no reason to
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
I spend half of my time in Boston and can't bring my guns from NY with me. Of course I have no reason to
I believe if you get a Utah permit you can, as it's one of the most accepted reciprocal permits in the country.
I think both sides of the coin are painting one another in very broad brush strokes, and simply talking past one another. It only takes a few bad apples to make good cops like bad. On the other side the coin, it only takes a few bad apples to make protesters look bad. Trust is easier to undo than it is to build.
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
DANGER. Who makes the decisions concerning violations. The party in control. The government will be able to slant the news however they want. Many people think it is already slanted. You ain't seen nothing yet if this system is ever adopted.
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
and the lawyer made a statement saying they have some things to digest. I don't know why I can't link the video though. No initial outrage from the family after seeing the video.
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
I'm sure the other side has some connections too.
imo, this should be a required disclosure fronting every news broadcast for the respective stations.
You'd have to be a pure and myopic partisan to believe that this does not engineer how the public views current events and mold opinion in a propagandist fashion. When it happens from the other side as well.
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
I'm sure the other side has some connections too.
This is one of the many things wrong with this country.
Chief stated that 70% of people arrested are from out of state.
did someone claim that? I agree with you in disputing that.
It you can clearly see, and even without the above list, experience would inform, that there are incestuous and ideological affiliations with political policy-makers that have great potential, likely realized, to influence how the news is portrayed and reported.
What could possibly be wro with disclosure? That's really all that was said.
And, it has little to do with Charlotte specifically, other than the agenda things already brought up by others here.
The mayor of Charlotte truly seems like a moron. She is clueless and embarrassingy inarticulate. She just spouts generalities and cliches. How
In the hell did she get elected?
I believe there are slants that most people recognize. Some are more slanted than others. That doesn't news is reported with a certain slant because a reporter is married to a former press secretary.
This has nothing to do with that. It's just sickening that the media is literally in bed with the executive branch.
As a CPA I have to answer to a board of accountancy. I'm licensed and have to pass ethical exams each year and often have my work reviewed. Just like doctors and lawyers. Why doesn't the media have to be held to the same standard? Careless reporting and insinuations helped fuel the flames of these riots. And there will be no repercussion.
I would never be able to be on an engagement that audited anybody I know let alone my wife. The reason this rule is in place is because common knowledge tells us that fraud and conspiracy is more likely to flourish in those circumstances.
I believe there are slants that most people recognize. Some are more slanted than others. That doesn't news is reported with a certain slant because a reporter is married to a former press secretary.
as noted above, in any other profession these clear COI's would be required to be disclosed. And often they would preclude certain functions for people.
I don't think CPAs have a constitutional right to be wrong
It's hardly confidential that some reporter is married to Obama's ex deputy Press Secretary's second cousin.
maybe, maybe not. The general public reads news stories; do they have that awareness? With some digging my stockbroker's position in Apple could be found out. Why should he be forced to tell me about it when he recommends I buy it? The media is supposed to provide information; what's wrong in disclosing potential COI's? That's all I'm really saying.
Showing the benefits of a weight loss drug on heart disease. Good solid peer reviewed research. But the study was funded by the manufacturer of the drug. Should the dr/author/reporter of i formation disclose that? Many journals do require it.
RE: For editors and publishers, it should be in a box under the masthead
Is just fucking stupid. Whatever biases FNC bring to the table tend to serve them well in some of these situations, because the initial reports from bystanders are almost invariably wrong and the evidence adduced from cameras and forensic evidence usually disproves it. And in these circumstances the credulity afforded these initial accounts in officer-involved shootings by the rest of the spectrum of major news media, the biases THEY bring to the table, tend not to serve them well.
of shaming people who reacted to the rioting with seemingly (in some cases overtly) racist tweets. It'd be nice if they could share a little outrage for those who stoked it.
of shaming people who reacted to the rioting with seemingly (in some cases overtly) racist tweets. It'd be nice if they could share a little outrage for those who stoked it.
I think it's really horrendous that social media ends up doing the job for "professionals" (loose usage of that term). There's a reddit thing going on right now, which I won't get into here but I raise it mainly as an example of how the bias and COI's of the media work together to shape the public's conception of the "truth" (also using the term loosely). I mostly despise social media but in cases like these and here, thank God for it.
Is just fucking stupid. Whatever biases FNC bring to the table tend to serve them well in some of these situations, because the initial reports from bystanders are almost invariably wrong and the evidence adduced from cameras and forensic evidence usually disproves it. And in these circumstances the credulity afforded these initial accounts in officer-involved shootings by the rest of the spectrum of major news media, the biases THEY bring to the table, tend not to serve them well.
I remember that picture of the four female reporters/commentators/idiots on I think CNN doing the hands up don't shoot sign. Might have been MSNBC.
Since I mentioned him this summer in the Minnesota incident
I sure as hell am going to do it again. Jesse Jackson is a god damn idiot and needs to go away. Any "credible" news affiliation that gives him the mic should be shut down for 6 months or permanently.
He is everything whats wrong with these situations.
RE: Since I mentioned him this summer in the Minnesota incident
I sure as hell am going to do it again. Jesse Jackson is a god damn idiot and needs to go away. Any "credible" news affiliation that gives him the mic should be shut down for 6 months or permanently.
He is everything whats wrong with these situations.
Well MSNBC gave my man Sharpton an evening hour for a couple of years. Still there on Sunday morning slot no one watches.
GK Butterfield is out here in front of the nation now
Because this is his state. This brother is some sort of magic trick. Every time I see this guy and hear him speak my senses get to brawling with each other, everything's all mismatched what am I watching and how did he do that. He's into sorcery or something
OFFICER: Hands up!
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Dont shoot him. Dont shoot him. He has no weapon. He has no weapon. Dont shoot him.
OFFICER: Dont shoot. Drop the gun. Drop the fucking gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Dont shoot him. Dont shoot him.
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He didnt do anything.
OFFICER: Drop the gun. Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He doesnt have a gun. He has a T.B.I. (Traumatic Brain Injury).
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He is not going to do anything to you guys.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He just took his medicine.
OFFICER: Drop the gun. Let me get a fucking baton over here. [muffled]
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, dont let them break the windows. Come on out the car.
OFFICER: [muffled]
OFFICER:Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith! Dont you do it.
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, get out the car. Keith! Keith! Dont you do it! Dont you do it! Keith!
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT:Keith! Keith! Keith! Dont you do it!
[SHOTS]
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Fuck. Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? He better not be fucking dead.He better not be fucking dead. I know that fucking much. I know that much. He better not be dead. Im not going to come near you. Im going to record, though. Im not coming near you. Im going to record, though.He better be alive because ...I come You better be alive. How about that?Yes, we here, over here at 50 ... 50 ...9453 Lexington Court. These are the police officers that shot my husband,and he better live. He better live. Because he didnt do nothing to them.
OFFICER: Is everybody good? Are you good?
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He good. Nobody ... touch nobody, so theyre all good.
OFFICER: You good?
RAKEYIA SCOTT: I know he better live. I know he better live. How about that Im not coming to you guys, but hed better live. He better live. You all hear it, you see this, right? He better live.
OFFICER: [muffled]
AKEYIA SCOTT: He better live. I swear, he better live. Yep, he better live. He better fucking live. He better live. Where is...He better fucking live, and I cant even leave the damn...I aint going nowhere. Im staying in the same damn spot. What the fuck. Thats O.K. did you all call the police? I mean, did you all call an ambulance
no more stupid that posting a list of reporters who are some how related to Obama administration or democrats.
the fact is TV reporters have just about ZERO say in how the news is reported .
These reporters work for huge corporations in which managing editors ( with watchful eye of corporate executives ) decide which stories will be pursued and highlighted and how these stories will be framed
that's what I'm back and forth on right now. Can't tell anything visually from the video. There definitely is no gun beside his body right after he goes down as seen in the photo yesterday, though an officer may have moved it to that spot away from his body shortly after the video. Body cam footage may show that.
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
that's what I'm back and forth on right now. Can't tell anything visually from the video. There definitely is no gun beside his body right after he goes down as seen in the photo yesterday, though an officer may have moved it to that spot away from his body shortly after the video. Body cam footage may show that.
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
"don't you do it" might have been directed at the officers, too.
is that the guy supposedly sat in his car reading every day waiting for his son. Was he parked like 50 feet from his apartment? I mean, the wife is close enough to go to the scene.
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
they tell him to drop the gun, it must be pretty evident it is a gun.
Just an unfortunate situation with another tragic outcome.
Most of the time, I'd say to try and use non-lethal force, but if he has a gun that close to officers, they probably don't have a choice. The question is why he's not stopping or dropping whatever is in his hands.
There might be some truth coming from both sides here.
He may have had a gun. He also may have a traumatic brain injury and may have just taken some medication that, along with the noise and commotion isn't allowing him to be able to think straight. TBI on meds and having a weapon with you and/or operating a vehicle is a different discussion.
RE: It is plausible that she is talking to everyone here.
is that the guy supposedly sat in his car reading every day waiting for his son. Was he parked like 50 feet from his apartment? I mean, the wife is close enough to go to the scene.
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
is that the guy supposedly sat in his car reading every day waiting for his son. Was he parked like 50 feet from his apartment? I mean, the wife is close enough to go to the scene.
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
How old is the son?
Not weird at all if wants to see him get off a school bus and safely walk home.
and since there are no other kids at the stop with them, I go out to the bus stop with them in the morning, and my wife usually goes out when they're coming home after school.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
and since there are no other kids at the stop with them, I go out to the bus stop with them in the morning, and my wife usually goes out when they're coming home after school.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
Why?
Maybe he would rather sit in air conditioning, or listen to the radio, read or just plain sit instead of standing. Or possibly avoid small talk with neighborhood mothers waiting for their kids. Who knows but far from strange behaviour.
Why were the police called to begin with anyone know?
What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
RE: What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
I gentle man, a family man An ex con with a record of violence with firearms.
However, Scott also had a long police record that included gun violations. Buried deep in this Charlotte Observer story, we learn:
Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
(Emphasis added)
And there is this:
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.
(Emphasis added)
None of this means, necessarily, that Scott had a gun when the police killed him or that the police reasonably felt threatened by him. But Scotts record makes it all the more unfair to assume as the Charlotte protesters do, explicitly or implicitly that claims by the police that he was armed and potentially dangerous are untrue.
What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
David in LA : 5:31 pm : link : reply
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
When the initial reports are literally saying the guy is PEACEFULLY reading in his car waiting for his son to come home to give him hugs, it creates the picture that some erudite guy who lives to show affection for his son is executed by the big, bad police just for being black.
Now, we find out the guy is a convicted felon, who apparently has a traumatic brain injury, yet he's driving a vehicle and handling weapons.
The microscope of suspicion gets aimed because the media tries so hard to make this into an execution of a random guy.
Michael Brown was always referred to as a hard working student looking forward to his HVAC certification who always had a smile on his face an was a gentle giant. And they'd always show him as a cherubic 12 year old. Why didn't they say he was kicked out of high school for disciplinary reasons, had been arrested two times, and wasn't very smiley to convenience store owners.
to judge how someone reacts to death, but the wife is eerily calm about the shooting. She yelled more at the police before they shot him and then afterwards as her husband is lying dead, she just keeps saying, "He better not be dead. He better not be dead".
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
RE: What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
And the same suspects always put the police under the microscope of suspicion.
to judge how someone reacts to death, but the wife is eerily calm about the shooting. She yelled more at the police before they shot him and then afterwards as her husband is lying dead, she just keeps saying, "He better not be dead. He better not be dead".
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
But that is not what the Media wants. They want.. Police killed for racial reasons. They want police unarmed and unable to control the seedier elements of society. They want clicks on stories and you to watch every night for the next riot to break out. That's the News they want to cover. The fueling of it for sensation and turning the people against one another. Or els we would be talking about more important things.
Why were the police called to begin with anyone know?
they were plain clothes and plainly marked by their vests, but not undercover and the vehicles were clearly marked, so the biggest part of confusion for me is cleared up.
When did his TBI occur?
He did have a history of assaults with intent to kill.
and since there are no other kids at the stop with them, I go out to the bus stop with them in the morning, and my wife usually goes out when they're coming home after school.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
Why?
Maybe he would rather sit in air conditioning, or listen to the radio, read or just plain sit instead of standing. Or possibly avoid small talk with neighborhood mothers waiting for their kids. Who knows but far from strange behaviour.
Why were the police called to begin with anyone know?
I agree it isn't that strange to wait in your car.
Initial report - they were there to serve a warrant to somebody else. I don't know if that is confirmed and most of the initial reports were wrong-undercover cops-no gun-shot by white cop, etc....
What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
David in LA : 5:31 pm : link : reply
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
When the initial reports are literally saying the guy is PEACEFULLY reading in his car waiting for his son to come home to give him hugs, it creates the picture that some erudite guy who lives to show affection for his son is executed by the big, bad police just for being black.
Now, we find out the guy is a convicted felon, who apparently has a traumatic brain injury, yet he's driving a vehicle and handling weapons.
The microscope of suspicion gets aimed because the media tries so hard to make this into an execution of a random guy.
Michael Brown was always referred to as a hard working student looking forward to his HVAC certification who always had a smile on his face an was a gentle giant. And they'd always show him as a cherubic 12 year old. Why didn't they say he was kicked out of high school for disciplinary reasons, had been arrested two times, and wasn't very smiley to convenience store owners.
So people deserve to die, because of their priors? Or it's not that big of a deal, because the dead person has a track record. That kind of thinking cheapens the value of life FMIC.
The facts in this case are only relevant to this case.
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
to judge how someone reacts to death, but the wife is eerily calm about the shooting. She yelled more at the police before they shot him and then afterwards as her husband is lying dead, she just keeps saying, "He better not be dead. He better not be dead".
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
I felt the same way, if that was my husband I would be screaming and running up to the cops. I would not be videotaping.
The issue is this. The people don't trust the cops but the cops also don't trust the people. That is why the situations are so tense and everyone is on edge. The cops have to decide in a split second whether they think someone is a threat to them or not. Until there is more trust between the communities and the cops, these incidents are going to keep happening.
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Yet No one Talks about what is happening in Chicago and rising death
totals as the Police force shows the Nation what happens when the Law only observes and does not interact/Stop crime. Where is that protest of all those people dying everyday?
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Both men had Criminal Records. That means they fit that category. steal, assault, drugs?
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Is just fucking stupid. Whatever biases FNC bring to the table tend to serve them well in some of these situations, because the initial reports from bystanders are almost invariably wrong and the evidence adduced from cameras and forensic evidence usually disproves it. And in these circumstances the credulity afforded these initial accounts in officer-involved shootings by the rest of the spectrum of major news media, the biases THEY bring to the table, tend not to serve them well.
I would like to see an example of this.
"Whatever biases FNC bring to the table tend to serve them well in some of these situations"
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Both men had Criminal Records. That means they fit that category. steal, assault, drugs?
You seem to paint people you don't know with a broad brush.
I'm no expert on their records, maybe you are but what was posted in this thread about this man lists many assault charges. So yes he obviously had issues with anger and violence. Most of them occurred years ago so maybe he corrected some of that I don't know. Nowhere does it indicate that this description must be accurate.
Quote:
Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do.
Maybe the police were left with little choice lets wait for the evidence but I see no benefit in drawing conclusions about them as people without facts.
You seem to wrap them both up neatly with some sort of amateur psychological assessment of them.
that's what I'm back and forth on right now. Can't tell anything visually from the video. There definitely is no gun beside his body right after he goes down as seen in the photo yesterday, though an officer may have moved it to that spot away from his body shortly after the video. Body cam footage may show that.
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
Pause the video around 1:05 and look right behind the officer wearing the red shirt. The gun is there. He then steps backwards and stands over it.
suddenly his criminal record is an important fact
the excuses on this board is that The police were not psychic to know he was a threat
but somehow they were psychic to know he had a criminal record so he kind of deserved what he got .
The facts are NC is an open carry state .. having a gun isn't a crime .. and the police have admitted he never pointed the gun at officers on the scene
This unequal enforcement of gun rights has been documented many, many times over the past few years. A white man with a gun walks down the street and police do nothing. A black man picks up a BB gun in a Walmart and is shot dead.
There are videos on Youtube of white guys with guns refusing to follow police instructions and the police don't even arrest the guy much less kill him. I know police are afraid for their lives but the assumption that every black male is out to commit murder has to stop.
I have a little experiment for all you - You gun fan boy who live in an open carry state
1. Grow a long beard
2. get a bit of a suntan
3. Dress in traditional Arab robes
4. Get Koran to carry in your hand
5. Arm yourselves with AR-15
6. Go to your favorite Texas mall
7. Walk around
Doesn't matter if NC is open carry or not. If police order you to drop you weapon you should do so and not doing so after repeated orders will be viewed as a threat.
This is really not hard to understand.
Every bit of the idiotic nonsense you've come to expect from
giantfanboy, which is why he had to change his handle:
Quote:
There are videos on Youtube of white guys with guns refusing to follow police instructions and the police don't even arrest the guy much less kill him.
"Hey you, pull over!"
"NO!"
"OK then..."
You want to fix this country? Dig a very deep hole, throw all the idiots to the extreme left and right who spew this kind of nonsense into it, and backfill it.
suddenly his criminal record is an important fact
the excuses on this board is that The police were not psychic to know he was a threat
but somehow they were psychic to know he had a criminal record so he kind of deserved what he got .
The facts are NC is an open carry state .. having a gun isn't a crime .. and the police have admitted he never pointed the gun at officers on the scene
This unequal enforcement of gun rights has been documented many, many times over the past few years. A white man with a gun walks down the street and police do nothing. A black man picks up a BB gun in a Walmart and is shot dead.
There are videos on Youtube of white guys with guns refusing to follow police instructions and the police don't even arrest the guy much less kill him. I know police are afraid for their lives but the assumption that every black male is out to commit murder has to stop.
I have a little experiment for all you - You gun fan boy who live in an open carry state
1. Grow a long beard
2. get a bit of a suntan
3. Dress in traditional Arab robes
4. Get Koran to carry in your hand
5. Arm yourselves with AR-15
6. Go to your favorite Texas mall
7. Walk around
Let me know how that works out.
i would hope badly for anyone who does 5-7. Was the weapon for protection against being sprayed walking through the perfume department?
that suddenly his criminal record is an important fact tend to ignore that the initial reports were of a loving Father who peacefully read books in his car and lived for greeting his son with a hug. A kind and gentle man, executed by the police as he read .
Meanwhile, the guy not only has a rap sheet, but one that is littered with multiple offences of deadly assault with a weapon, he has a gun, and he refuses the police's orders.
Who is more likely to refuse the police's orders, a guy who loves a great book while waiting for his son to get off of a bus, or a career criminal, probably afraid to be in violation of his parole?
The criminal record goes directly to the mindset that not only escalates a conflict, but directly contributes to him getting shot. How many more times did the police have to order him to drop the gun?
my point is
The frequent police targeting/profiling/harassment/killing of black men permitted to open-carry guns in contrast to the wide berth that the often surly and threatening white men permitted to open-carry guns seem to demand of anyone in their path, makes the entire NRA position seem so much more ludicrous than I thought possible.
that suddenly his criminal record is an important fact tend to ignore that the initial reports were of a loving Father who peacefully read books in his car and lived for greeting his son with a hug. A kind and gentle man, executed by the police as he read .
Meanwhile, the guy not only has a rap sheet, but one that is littered with multiple offences of deadly assault with a weapon, he has a gun, and he refuses the police's orders.
Who is more likely to refuse the police's orders, a guy who loves a great book while waiting for his son to get off of a bus, or a career criminal, probably afraid to be in violation of his parole?
The criminal record goes directly to the mindset that not only escalates a conflict, but directly contributes to him getting shot. How many more times did the police have to order him to drop the gun?
Sort of like the irrelevance we were told (by John Oliver and many others) of the Gentle Giant's interaction at the convenience store.
if he was legally or illegally carrying. Something provoked their suspicion (some believe because he was black) and they apparently saw a weapon and ordered him to drop it.
A police officer has full authority to ask anyone carry a gun, even legally, to drop their weapon for any reason them deem fit.
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.
I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.
The nonviolent resisters can summarize their message in the following simple terms: we will take direct action against injustice despite the failure of governmental and other official agencies to act first. We will not obey unjust laws or submit to unjust practices. We will do this peacefully, openly, cheerfully because our aim is to persuade. We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, but we are ready to suffer when necessary and even risk our lives to become witnesses to truth as we see it.
-- Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. 1964
Man was ahead of his time, could use some leaders like that today.
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
so all of the people who came from out of state were subsidized by Soros? It couldn't have been that many of them believed--rightly or wrongly-- that there is a pattern in the shooting of black men by police?
Personally, in terms of the Charlotte shooting, it's going to be extremely difficult to convince me that the cops couldn't have de-escalated by moving to a distance, while the victim was still in the car, or by tasering him.
Everything I read suggests to me that in a very large number of police departments, training in de-escalation and non-lethal techniques are underutilized parts of community policing.
when this all went down. The common feeling there is that this was all escalated by out of staters. It was an almost universal feeling. I argued with many when they kept bringing this up, because most of them pointed to the northern states as being the culprit. I was told that they don't have these issues in Charlotte and they know how to deal with problems without violence. I chalked it up to just good ole southern resentment to the north, but who knows. I haven't seen the data on the arrests, but maybe they had a point. Spending some more time in the south recently, it sure seems like people get along much better, within the racial divides. I'm not saying they don't have their issues as well, and I still think it's ludicrous to blame the outside world, but if that 70% number is accurate, that's crazy.
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Open carrying and brandishing a firearm are two different things.
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Ran his plates? I don't know for sure in this instance, but you may be surprised at how many people get their plates run on a daily basis. Considering the situation, is it really surprising if they called in a plate check and found he was a convicted felon?
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Legal or not is irrelevant. Even if you are carrying a legal gun and the police order you to drop it and you refuse to do so after multiple orders they will view you as a threat.
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
They witnessed drugs and a gun-a big no no. I'll post a press release in a second.
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
It depends how people came into this thinking. With many, they make their minds up before any facts come out, then try to defend their initial thoughts at all costs. Truth be damned. If someone decided initially that the cops killed a black man without reason, they will always feel that way. No matter what comes out.
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Holy whack-a-doodle!
Stop with the "wackadoodle" stuff just because it doesn't fit your narrative. Its all over the news. I linked a video from the Charlotte police.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
It's almost impossible to say that this was anything other than police doing their job with a lot of restraint and proper procedure, even to go as far as putting police vests on.
However, anyone who lumps this event with that of Tulsa from either side to bolster their own arguments are still assholes. That one was a total fuckup on the female officer. This one was an unfortunate case of a police officer doing what he had to do based on the continued and apparent threat.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
I'm with you. While there's a chance that what was reported may have not been 100% truthful, to automatically accuse them of lying seems to be extremely cynical to the point of conspiracy theory seeking.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
No matter the evidence some people refuse to change their opinion when police are involved. Im not surprised at his position even after everything was released.
Veteran who deployed once, never fired weapon, now expert on police use of force
THE INTERNET Army veteran Ryan Smith, who deployed once to Iraq in 2011 and never fired his weapon in anger, has now transferred these experiences into critiquing police use of force within the United States on social media, sources confirm.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Holy crap Gary!! That is all I can say.
My first response on this thread.
Just what are your credentials and education to make such a statement?
What is your knowledge of criminal investigations and what procedures must be followed before the Chief of a major city and county could make that statement under the review of the federal attorney general and the states attorneys general offices?
You truly don't think that an African American Police Chief with the eyes of the nation on him just shot off from the hip?
With all due respect, you're an idiot for making that statement.
Pretty concerning the police caved to the mob mentality
Releasing the videos only makes sense from the standpoint of potentially stopping rioting. Decisions on whether the officers made a huge mistake or no mistakes or should be charged should not be done in the court of public opinion.
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Holy whack-a-doodle!
Nice try but I never posted that.
I dare you to find it not highlighted in yellow
Wacko
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
This sidewalk was turned into a memorial of sorts, with the names of various black people killed by the police. The name in the foreground, Dahir Adan, is the guy who went on a stabbing rampage through a mall in Minnesota. Outstanding work there.
Just so you know, "hitting a nerve" can fall into at least two categories.
There's the "someone just posted an uncomfortable truth" category.
And then there is the "oh my god, that comment is fucking nuts" category.
Your comment falls nicely and comfortably into the latter. Knowing that you think it falls into the former just turns a few more stomachs, or hits a few more nerves.
I'm not saying anyone is lying
Gary from The East End : Admin : 9/24/2016 9:44 pm : link : reply
I'm saying that the official report of a police chief in this type of situation is essentially worthless.
What the fuck? It isn't just the report. It is the whole series of events. They have the recording of the officers calling in the incident before it escalated. Two plainsclothed officers were in a car waiting to serve a warrant and Scott pulled up next to them, rolled a joint and had a gun in his hand.
They backed the car out, called for backup, and reapproached his vehicle. The call for backup is recorded.
From day one, the police chief has maintained that his officers had reasonable cause, he's admitted that videos don't show the totality of the situation.
It is one thing to think that things aren't as reported, but to insinuate that the report is worthless is just an idiotic take.
Seem to match up pretty well from what I can tell. And unlike the family members account of what happened, the police account of what happened has been pretty consistent since this was first reported.
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
I am so sick of this crap, from both sides.
Oh, so you mean Soros isn't secretly building up an army of professional protesters on his payroll that he flies around from state to state?
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
No matter the evidence some people refuse to change their opinion when police are involved. Im not surprised at his position even after everything was released.
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
I am so sick of this crap, from both sides.
Oh, so you mean Soros isn't secretly building up an army of professional protesters on his payroll that he flies around from state to state?
Two points for my response. First, the spokesman for the police exaggerated/lied about the 70% stat. After this being pointed out to me I rescinded the comment. How was I supposed to know he was outright lying? Second, Soros has given at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson. This is according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations. So yes, he is indirectly funding the groups that apply protesters to all these events. There are groups orchestrating things behind the scenes in most of these events.
Scary stuff.
White devils - ( New Window )
What do they want? Lawlessness?
Yeah I fucked that up. I meant 17 injured. Totally wrong on my part.
Ron Rivera was pissed that his team was onlt being asked questions about the shooting.
And other witnesses said they saw him with a gun and there was no book found.
Protester is now pronounced dead. No one knows who responsible is yet.
Also, is it proper protester etiquette to have to take one's shirt off before looting and hurling objects?
Also, is it proper protester etiquette to have to take one's shirt off before looting and hurling objects?
That and filming yourself and livestreaming it.
I think most of them are there for the looting and an excuse to go wild.
I can't imagine any circumstance where the news would have a reason to show a white person going off on blacks using epithets where it wouldn't be immediately denounced.
You know what the reporter said "Raw emotions are running high, but these are the voices of people tired of the brutality". I can't imagine any scenario where a reporter would say the same if a white guy went across the screen talking about Niggers or waving a confederate flag talking about blacks in a bad way. None.
There is a problem with police brutality. There is also a problem when hate speech is shown on the news and not denounced.
Could eliminate most of the problem.
Just saying...
For instance, this protester that was killed tonight was shot by another civilian. They are trying to stir it up on social media and tell people that the police "ambushed" the protester and shot him in the head point blank execution style. People are actually believing it, retweeting it, and getting outraged.
It's all completely out of control.
Lies on top of lies on top of lies....
Also, is it proper protester etiquette to have to take one's shirt off before looting and hurling objects?
Where are people getting the bandanas? At this point in my life wouldnt even know what store sells them.
Quote:
Race or police brutality? The police officer in question is African American? Why are some of these rioters yelling about white people? The police chief in Charlotte says without a doubt the deceased man had a gun and refused to comply with orders. That is a bad recipe.
I think most of them are there for the looting and an excuse to go wild.
There will always be that faction or group who take this as an opportunity to commit crime. But is it really most of the protesters? That's a pretty assumptive statement to make.
Really?
People honestly do think they live in a bubble.
Goes back to my statement before. Regardless of the message, it's not painting a very good picture for the majority of Americans that are watching, or making them sympathetic.
My personal opinion of course.
Really?
People honestly do think they live in a bubble.
Plus, there's a line of camera phones out right in the faces of the cops almost like they're baiting them to do something on camera.
They are trying to create something that's not there.
Everything has been civil on this thread. Then you have to come in here and spew your horseshit. Come on.
I just hope the rational among us keep having honest conversations about this shit. Too many black men being killed by police. Too much violence against police. We are supposed to be better than this.
If you think you have this figured out and everyone else is wrong, you're full of shit. there's layers and layers of history and context and personal experiences at work here.
Less violence is our goal. Let's work backwards from there.
There has been a pattern developing over two years or so, starting with "hands up don't shoot", so I think you know the answer to that question.
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
Hopefully now it isn't "It's just a book"
Quote:
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
Guy got shot by the cops yesterday. They were serving a warrant and a guy that was just in the area got out of his car.
Cop story is he had a gun, refused to comply with an order to drop it, and they shot him.
Community witness story is that guy had a book, not a gun.
Police say there was no book and they have recovered the handgun.
The officer that shot him was black.
Early reports said he was innocently sitting in his car reading a book and that he was shot by a white cop.
In reality, the guy was being issued a warrant, had a weapon as he exited the vehicle, and was shot dead by a black police officer.
Not sure how it has boiled over to what it has today.
Quote:
In comment 13135285 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Or at least with a lie for a catalyst, what happens? Does the digital pile-on feel chastened enough to acknowledge that they were fucking wrong and that the atmosphere to which they contributed (albeit in small, small measure) got people hurt and killed, or do they latch onto the next conclusion to jump to, no wiser for the wear?
How or why did it start? These damn news channels are not recapping what the cause was.
Guy got shot by the cops yesterday. They were serving a warrant and a guy that was just in the area got out of his car.
Cop story is he had a gun, refused to comply with an order to drop it, and they shot him.
Community witness story is that guy had a book, not a gun.
Police say there was no book and they have recovered the handgun.
The officer that shot him was black.
ok thanks Britt... I knew about the guy getting shot outside of his car by the white female cop but had no idea WTF happened in Charlotte. Thank you.
Early reports said he was innocently sitting in his car reading a book and that he was shot by a white cop.
In reality, the guy was being issued a warrant, had a weapon as he exited the vehicle, and was shot dead by a black police officer.
Not sure how it has boiled over to what it has today.
alright thank you
The officer that shot him was black.
So what is this all about? Just cops vs blacks even if the cop is black?
Sure
Damn, this is getting bad. Another cameraman injured, fires, fights, and now more tear gas.
On one hand you feel empathy that African Americans are treated differently than others by the police (I do) but then protesters act violently at demonstrations causing more tension and further violence which requires further police presence.
Saw a Black Muslim Imam dispute that the cop who shot the fellow in Charlotte was a black cop and said it didn't matter because he is blue. He said the police are lying and the guy didn't have a gun. Hell the police weren't there for the an that got killed, they were responding to another address/incident. Whatever he did made him get noticed by the police.
Quote:
.
The officer that shot him was black.
So what is this all about? Just cops vs blacks even if the cop is black?
Well, many of the protesters were saying the guy was shot by "white devil cops", so I thought it was relevant to point out that it was, in fact, not a white devil cop that shot him.
Don't bullshit us bud. Just own it. You hate Obama and every chance you have to passive aggressively attack him, you'll take. And that's fine. It's your right.
Just don't come on here and lie about it after you get called out.
Facts matter.
Rebel rousers? Hahahaha. Wow.
It should be, but it's not.
It shouldn't be, but it is because the feeling is that white cops are to blame for the aggressive policing tactics.
Agree
@WCCBCharlotte
#WCCB witnessed protesters try to throw still photographer into fire in Uptown #Charlotte. http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/live-streaming/ #CharlotteProtest #news
They knocked a camera man out, then tried to drag him on top of a fire they started.
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
Quote:
armored troop carriers and vehicles and allocate to body cams. All done at the local level.
Agree
I agree but I think the Feds buy those vehicles. It's "growth" for defense contractors with lobbyists
Quote:
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
Don't bullshit us bud. Just own it. You hate Obama and every chance you have to passive aggressively attack him, you'll take. And that's fine. It's your right.
Just don't come on here and lie about it after you get called out.
It really does not matter to me what any of you think my motive was for asking that original question. I really don't have to justify anything to anyone here. However, if you really care that much, or are taking yourselves so seriously on a freaking message board then you can go look at my post history and see that I have not been here in 24 hours. Then, if you really want to waste more time you can go back to earlier posts (months even) and see where I am literally on the road and in the air every week with stretches where I am totally disconnected from current events... just like all day today.
Quote:
In comment 13135349 B in ALB said:
Quote:
armored troop carriers and vehicles and allocate to body cams. All done at the local level.
Agree
I agree but I think the Feds buy those vehicles. It's "growth" for defense contractors with lobbyists
Nope. It's the local and state governments that buy them from the fed.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
+1 and it would most likely help exonerate cops in some instances and justifiably get those cops suspended or prosecuted in other instances. If I was a cop, I would want the body camera for my own protection today.
Ooopsie.
Ooopsie.
I thought carrying a gun was legal there
Ooopsie.
Shocking.
Quote:
shows man who was killed had a gun showing.
Ooopsie.
I thought carrying a gun was legal there
Yeah, but when the police are telling you to drop it, a license to carry doesn't exempt you from that command.
Quote:
shows man who was killed had a gun showing.
Ooopsie.
I thought carrying a gun was legal there
With a permit, not constitutional carry
golfclap.
Quote:
In comment 13135371 dep026 said:
Quote:
shows man who was killed had a gun showing.
Ooopsie.
I thought carrying a gun was legal there
With a permit, not constitutional carry
The cops claim they saw a gun. I'm fairly certain that's legal there.
Quote:
In comment 13135373 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
In comment 13135371 dep026 said:
Quote:
shows man who was killed had a gun showing.
Ooopsie.
I thought carrying a gun was legal there
With a permit, not constitutional carry
The cops claim they saw a gun. I'm fairly certain that's legal there.
Not open carry, I don't believe.
It's concealed carry, with a permit.
and by law you need to inform law enforcement you have a weapon.
gun laws from state to state are tricky. I don't know them all, but I don't think it's illegal to own or carry a weapon in and of itself, but I believe it must be concealed and disclosed to law enforcement.
Link - ( New Window )
CMPD said Keith Lamont Scott had a gun. Was that reason enough to order him to drop it?
bradshaw44 : 11:07 pm : link : reply
Will be the day that defines modern America. Our division is clear and present. And most definitely a danger."
That concerns me greatly.
It's a shame that the protestors always screw themselves over and dilute their own message, because clearly, something does have to change, but this isn't going to do it. Ugh.
I genuinely love this post simply because it allows me to picture a truly pathetic and cowardly human being setting up this dupe profile (you don't have the balls to post this under your regular username on a fucking anonymous message board??) while simultaneously racking your hilarious brain to come up with such a clever username
If police say....drop the gun.....you drop the gun.
Wtf? Police are people who have one of the toughest jobs. High stress environment.....why risk your life.....
To prove the narrative?
Black ...really any....children will continue to die.....if they don't realize police must be respected
My children know.....do not give police any idictcation that they might be in danger.....none. yes sir..no sir.
I suspect.....that is not exactly what some family are taught.
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
- just some preliminary thoughts
PS rioters are assholes.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
- just some preliminary thoughts
PS rioters are assholes.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Those were my preliminary thoughts and not to be taken as true or fact. Just what makes sense to me up until now and subject to change.
I haven't even read it yet, but here is a link to her side of the story and I have no idea of its credibility or what it says.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-police-officer-shares-side-story-terence-crutchers/story?id=42243843
Police are legally required to call for first aid, but usually do not administer it themselves in Arizona. How long was he lying there? Usually there would be fire staging to the area almost immediately.
There is also a video of the brother of the man killed shouting that "all white people are devils".
Link - ( New Window )
There is also a video of the brother of the man killed shouting that "all white people are devils". Link - ( New Window )
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Do you really need to ask this. You know why.
Here was my post in the National Anthem thread:
Any time there is a police officer involved shooting with a black victim, many people will begin their opinion that race was a factor and the main factor. sometimes it is. Many times it's not, but many people don't believe it's not no matter the circumstances.
Any time there is a bombing conducted by someone with a Muslim sounding name, many people assume terrorism, however the rub is that many of the same people in the first group will urge caution before jumping to conclusions about the details of the second type of incident urging people to not make assumptions about the motive and classifying likely terrorist activities as workplace violence.
It's very obvious if you try and view things objectively from afar (not that I can any more than anyone else who tries to have an open mind), it's like the American "incident playbook" based on each person's political/social views.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
cuz he's a liberal
Personally, I see nothing wrong with calling something an act of terror (it is, a fucking bomb went off, the skin color of the person detonating doesn't matter) without knowing every little detail.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
The leaders are still there calling for patience. The people are too pissed off to listen.
Photos were taken by a witness, so they aren't police photos after they had a chance to stage the scene.
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
Quote:
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
The cop was black, the police chief is black. Why would black officers treat black people differently?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
Quote:
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Very well said and I fear that come November, if a certain person gets elected, it will only pour gasoline on an already raging fire and extinguish any empathy.....of course, this election cycle has already fanned the flames considerably unfortunately.
Quote:
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
The local WB station had two black activists as panelists and those people were justifying the actions of the rioters saying they are angry over years of oppression. When the moderator talked about the gun being located and showed the photo of it, the black activists said that the public needs to understand that after years of oppression, you don't believe a word coming from sources. That even seeing a picture of the gun isn't going to change minds. That the riots aren't just about this shooting, but a cumulative anger at shootings of unarmed black men across the country. In effect, they said that the right to violent protest wasn't just OK, it was justified.
Quote:
In comment 13135512 Chris684 said:
Quote:
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
with a lot of these police shootings, there are less unknowns - we know who the killer is there is usually video footage that is immediately posted and it adds to the tally of dead black men shot by police officers or racists (Dylan roof, George Zimmerman) under either questionable or brutal circumstances. like it or not, after trayvon, Michael brown, the charelston shootings, garner, Miami (where an unarmed black man who was looking after an autistic teen and lying on the ground was shot) the incidents in Minneapolis, baton rouge, Tulsa, the black community is on edge. and rightfully so.
I belive he had a round to play.
The police shootings or in-custody deaths, with the exception of North Charleston, have in many instances been significantly different from the initial reports, and this after looting and rioting has occurred.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Keep trying to spin this as a inevitable reaction to historic injustice.
This is TNB, a level 4 chimpout.
I wasn't born racist, i was made racist by prolonged exposure to the black underclass. There is no hope for most of these "people"
No, you were born a colossal moron obviously and racism just comes natural I'd imagine.
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
Quote:
In comment 13135557 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
Incite posts like that idiot above. And that sentiment.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Quote:
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
I belive he had a round to play.
I'm guessing both of you are rocket scientists
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
Quote:
In comment 13135596 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
That's the talk radio line. It aells
Your act is tired.
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
Quote:
should be trying to get cooler heads to prevail here as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
So what, you're stuck on two modes, pedophile or moron?
Because only a moron would walk away with that from what Chris posted. Our senior leaders should be trying to get people to cool off, no different than when bombs went off in NYC, so as to avoid collateral damage to innocent people.
it doesn't necessarily mean they are from a different city, but the outside agitators are people who piggyback off the nonviolent protestors and use these incidents as a pretext to loot, start riots etc. they are outside because they aren't really interested or involvemd with any movements like BLM that are interested in constructive change or peaceful protests
Quote:
In comment 13135596 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Tell me what kind of media coverage would happen if a mob of whites dragged a black bystander into a parking garage, kicked and punched him and then stripped him of his clothes and it was all caught on tape? It would be national news, Obama would make a speech, there would be more riots and you know it.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
The Michael Brown lawyer was on Fox last night and Kelly ripped him to shreds about how he lied and was wrong about his case and why its similar to this one in Charlotte. The lawyer said he didnt want to talk about his case, even though he was making the same case despite evidence showing he was wrong.
I dont understand why black leaders think its ok to justifying riots and attacks on police officers/civilians when the police officers were initially right.
Quote:
In comment 13135623 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
This is why we need videos.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Exactly, and if that's the case, how can we even have a discussion?
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
A think a lot of people have a misconception about what "leaders" telling people to "calm down until we have the facts" will accomplish. People who riot and loot aren't interested in any of that. The rest of the people simply don't trust any aspect of the criminal justice system, including those collecting "the facts".
So people tend to blame "leaders" and the media when the real issue is a complete lack of faith and trust in the competency, transparency, and the impartiality of law enforcement. That's why you see rushes to judgment in cases that quite possibly may be 100% the fault of the person shot/killed. The sad part is it isn't some subset of blacks that feel this way... most of us do.
Maybe everyone will ignore it - so is that a reason to skip trying something that has absolutely no cost or downside associated with it?
How do you people function in real life?
Quote:
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
I heard many politicians request calm. The comparison to the bombings is ridiculous. What is the point or goal in saying Islam is to blame? There's where he was going with it
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Yesterday, there was a news conference with black ministers present and they were discussing the reports that a gun was recovered and asked if that changed the statement from the day before that the man was unarmed, sitting in his car reading a book. The exact words were "The question isn't if the man had a gun. It is if he pointed the gun or threatened the police. If he did notr, he did not deserve to die". To which another minister in the background yells "No, sir. Did not deserve to die." and then several gave an "Amen".
I'd say it was comical, but I'm finding little to laugh about with the way this story is portrayed. We are going to find out that a bunch of people got violent and tore shit up because they initially believed a white cop killed an unarmed black man in a car reading a book, waiting to give his son hugs.
The reality is probably going to be that the man had a gun in his hand as he approached police, that he had a warrant out for his arrest already and that the officer was black.
Tell me what about that situation deserved violence as a community response?
In either situation, the objective was clear - to keep people from making rash judgements and emotional reactions that could cause problems for innocent people.
When cameramen from media organizations are being beaten and thrown into fires in *THIS* country, it's time for someone up top to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down. And that's not happening.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
This is why we need videos.
I assume he was told to drop the weapon.
Quote:
In comment 13135629 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13135623 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
And in what way are they similar? Perhaps the rioting ended in NYC after they refused to use terrorism?
Um, what?? From Wikipedia:
Shit, his motivations were so obscure and hard to figure!
The comparison is not with the situations at the detail level, it's with the overt rush to judgment and reaction by leaders and media.
After the Michael Brown shooting when "hands up don't shoot" was believed to be a true narrative, media and leadership ran with it.
President Obama without one shred of investigation or even a question asked said Michael Brown's death "stains the heart of black children" and exposed the racial divide in America.
is that not jumping to a conclusion without any shred of evidence? Not just that, but maybe the rioters and looters don't care, but some people do actually care how the leadership reacts and they take their cue from them.
The point on bombings is the same people bend over backward not to jump to conclusions, not for fear of rioting, but for fear of backlash against the innocent and fear of being politically incorrect.
If you don't see that as a contradiction and if you can't see how they're publicly handled differently I think you're trying hard not to.
Or maybe I'm doing the opposite, hard to tell anymore.
but that's how I see it.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Thanks. I thought the warrant was being served on someone else and he was observed carrying a gun. If this is the case, they should get all the evidence out there ASAP
Original reports said it was the wrong person. Yesterday they said it was for him and they also disclosed that the family was in the process of being evicted for the last month and hadn't complied.
Quote:
In comment 13135657 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
And in what way are they similar? Perhaps the rioting ended in NYC after they refused to use terrorism?
Do you or do you not agree with the political leadership's decision to make those statements in NYC? Yes, or no.
If yes - why did they make those statements?
And if yes - why would those same statements not be applicable here?
It's not hard - unless you're a mouth breathing idiot who's too busy furthering his political agenda to admit that leadership is fucking up big time.
Quote:
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
It's insulting when the bomber was a Muslim and had reported ties to terrorist activity whether through facebook (or his father reporting him as a possible terrorist to the FBI) and still not hearing people classify it as an act of terrorism.
I'm not going to debate this, it's like Facebook political debates (which I read but don't engage in).
It has everything to do with it, but you're too simple to figure it out or being deliberately stupid.
The leaders didn't come out and say 'act of terrorism' to protect Muslim citizens and keep tempers under control. That's fine - that's what they're elected to do.
Why are they not doing the same here? Because you feel it wouldn't serve a purpose? How does it serve a purpose in one case and not another?
The officers under attack here deserve the same protection from government officials, but they're not getting it.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
that was my point, but better said by you Bill.
And AP no clue why you're digging your heels in on this, it seems pretty obvious why people bring it up now and why it's relevant.
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
+1 good post
Quote:
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
Have a nice day.
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?
Quote:
In comment 13135688 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
Have a nice day.
They've since classified those attacks as acts of terrorism attributed to ISIS. So, your stance on those comments has changed and they were wrong, or you're an idiot. You choose.
Link - ( New Window )
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?
It's a big deal, but insurgents in Iraq used chemical weapons (ineffectually) against our troops. Both sides have used them in Syria.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
It was a terrorist act though, even if the guy was white, so I really don't get this.
I mean, the city that actually IS in proximity to Raleigh is pretty well known. Hell, people use it as a place name in and of itself - Raleigh-Durham.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (KWCH) A Charlotte, North Carolina news station says it has confirmed with sources that there is dash camera video that shows Keith Scott getting out of a car and coming at police officers with a gun in his hand.
Link - ( New Window )
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Wonder if the looters and rioters will put all the stuff back and fix the damage they caused. Fucking ridiculous.
Quote:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (KWCH) A Charlotte, North Carolina news station says it has confirmed with sources that there is dash camera video that shows Keith Scott getting out of a car and coming at police officers with a gun in his hand.
Link - ( New Window )
That should seal it. Why don't they get the tape out there
Also, please tell me, why did Ramzi Youssef come here in 1993 and park a van full of explosives under the WTC. What was the anti-islamic buzzphrase back in the 90's that just totally inspired him to do such a thing?
It's not transparency, it's procedure. There is such a thing as due process still, isn't there?
Since when did the public become judge and jury?
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
That should seal it. Why don't they get the tape out there
I'd imagine there is a hoop or two you have to jump through before this kind of thing is made public.
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
What's your case for immediately blaming Islam? What goal is accomplished?
Quote:
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
why?
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
What an enlightening response. Thanks.
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
Link - ( New Window )
It's really bordering on absurd at this point, to put it nicely.
I'd say it's more in line with fantasy land.
No you were not, you were trying to start shit employing a lame passive/aggressive angle. You ruin threads with your constant political spew
no he isnt. he isnt giving me the answer i want!
If that's what justice is before knowing the facts, it is no wonder why there are riots.
I think it is similar to the response Michael Brown's mother said when they asked her what justice would be for her son's death and she said to convict the officer.
I'm still at a loss as to why the president doesn't just address the nation and say this. Not exactly a very controversial statement.
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
Quote:
In comment 13135753 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
What an enlightening response. Thanks.
The point is that you are already sure it's not a book. The cops said it wasn't. But the video will tell the truth. You don't know anything aside from the daughters story and the cops. And you're accepting the cops. That's fine and may fit the ultimate facts in the case, but you're doing that now because it fits your narrative.
Furthermore, you're not open to enlightening anyway. Before I open this thread I know what your responses will be.
Quote:
should the daughter be charged for inciting riots by lying about it being a book on facebook live?
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
It's not legal, even with open carry, to point or brandish a gun to anyone. And, it goes without saying, if the cops tell you to drop the gun, you drop it.
I'm still at a loss as to why the president doesn't just address the nation and say this. Not exactly a very controversial statement.
why should he? he is lying and with the cops
im being sarcastic by the way. as the police chief said, people have made up their minds
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
I agree that the picture of the gun does not prove anything. But, the picture of the gun adds clarity to what happened and refutes the narrative of those claiming he did not have a gun.
those are called opportunists and when you start attacking the reporters or people being interviewed on live tv, you are a criminal
Shouldnt protests start once guilt is definitive? Maybe if the city finds out what really happened instead of speculating or believing the uninformed, riots wont break out.
The daughters and protesters are wrong in this situation. Yet there are activists leaders and african american leaders that are suggesting the protests/violence/eruptions are ok. It's not ok when a police officer is doing their job. Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to dissolve the situation, you have many people justifying what is going on. It's beyond sickening.
Quote:
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
I agree that the picture of the gun does not prove anything. But, the picture of the gun adds clarity to what happened and refutes the narrative of those claiming he did not have a gun.
no way, he had a book and was reading a bible. people have made up their minds
Quote:
Do you think a handful of punks would have listened to that?
Shouldnt protests start once guilt is definitive? Maybe if the city finds out what really happened instead of speculating or believing the uninformed, riots wont break out.
The daughters and protesters are wrong in this situation. Yet there are activists leaders and african american leaders that are suggesting the protests/violence/eruptions are ok. It's not ok when a police officer is doing their job. Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to dissolve the situation, you have many people justifying what is going on. It's beyond sickening.
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
Armed man shot the second time he stepped out of his vehicle armed, by an African-American cop. If that's the narrative at the outset, do people take to the streets? Or if they do, do they take to the streets with social media egging them on, with sympathetic newscasters excusing their rage?
My only assumption is that the early stories said the man read a book every day peacefully in his car. I became suspicious when they added "peacefully" as if they were trying to build up a narrative. Do people read violently?
Only on BBI game threads.
And if I am in that officers shoes I would shoot too if the person did indeed have a gun and not listen to commands. The public seems to think officers have to wait until the gun is pointed.. by the time they wait for that they already would be shot.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
Quote:
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
Indeed:
Link - ( New Window )
One speculated that after years of oppression and segregation that Charlotte was prime for a racial riot. One speculated that blacks have been held back from opportunity in Charlotte for so long and the recent regentrification of neighborhoods has priced them out of where they deserve to live that the anger is palpable.
But it is funny - I just said to my wife last week that I couldn't see something like this happening in Charlotte. We've had 3 black mayors in the past 20 years, including one who is now a member of Obama's cabinet. We've had 3 black police chiefs the past 20 years. The star QB is black. We have had two successive black owners of the basketball team. we host the CIAA tournament each year which is for the traditionally black schools. We appear to be a very diverse city - one that has definitely afforded more opportunity than other cities.
I don't buy that this is due to oppression. This seems to be due to opportunity.
Some of it certainly is opportunism. But people don't riot in societies where things are going just great aside from one recent incident.
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
I must've missed the BBI thread showing outrage over Peter Liang not getting a day in jail, despite being convicted of manslaughter. I don't think I've ever heard the names Emma Hernandez and David Perdue on BBI. When no one mentions "the exceptions", it's hard to believe that people actually care about "the exceptions".
Was there a BBI thread the day Mayor Bloomberg said "We're probably pulling over too many white people and not enough minorities"? There are NYC police officers suing their own department because they were mistreated and/or denied promotions when they objected to singling out people based solely on race and sex. Another NYPD officer in a separate lawsuit recorded a superior questioning him about why he wasn't arresting more black and hispanic males. The officer literally responded, "I can only book the people I see committing crimes". I myself once "matched the description of someone selling drugs". The description was so overly broad that anyone with my skin color and gender in a 5 block radius could've been stopped and frisked based on it. It's difficult to live your life a certain way, then be accused of something like that based solely on factors you were born with. It's easy not to believe it when these things don't affect you or are far less likely to. There can be no debate as to whether officers face real accountability as a result of "the exceptions". That's exceedingly rare. There can be no debate as to whether blacks get more time in prison for the same crimes as non-blacks. They do. We can't ignore the inequities in our criminal justice system that seem to be based primarily around race and class.
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all. The blaming of the media is so tiresome. People rioted in the '60s, '90s, and are still doing so today. What happened 50 years ago couldn't have been Al Sharpton's fault, Obama's fault, or CNN's fault.
Quote:
In comment 13135823 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
is that they kind of have little to do with the actual facts of the event. The shooting is the spark that lights the fire but the fuel is the years of conflict and resentment with law enforcement. Once the fire is lit, it doesn't really matter if it was a book or a gun.
Bullshit. The "spark is lit" over a fiction and the people who helped light the spark, whether or not they had anything to do with rioting default to explanations about systematic oppression.
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
I'm saying people should take some responsibility for assuming the worst and for acting upon it, or encouraging others to act upon it, instead of trying to find some wider truth that otherwise justifies setting a city on fire and killing people based on a lie.
People may have been profiled by the police. There is police brutality. But the police don't oppress. Gov't's oppress.
When Kaep talks about the oppression of minorities being afforded the opportunity for betterment (before going on his tirade about police brutality), he spits in the faces of those immigrants who came to this country with virtually nothing, built up a business through hard work, saved up to send for family members and used 100% initiative to make their lives better.
We aren't a country of oppression, even if there are definitely other faults
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
You don't need to write them down. They can be found at your local library or courthouse. They are the same laws that govern when police can use force on ANYBODY.
Some of it certainly is opportunism. But people don't riot in societies where things are going just great aside from one recent incident.
A small, disenfranchised group can certainly make a stink and riot.
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
Quote:
Are you saying the notion of folks feeling systematically oppressed by police is bullshit?
People may have been profiled by the police. There is police brutality. But the police don't oppress. Gov't's oppress.
When Kaep talks about the oppression of minorities being afforded the opportunity for betterment (before going on his tirade about police brutality), he spits in the faces of those immigrants who came to this country with virtually nothing, built up a business through hard work, saved up to send for family members and used 100% initiative to make their lives better.
We aren't a country of oppression, even if there are definitely other faults
FatMan, your comments reminded me of my in-laws. Both persons of color, from South America and what we would consider poverty, who came to this country legally, worked very hard, and completely oppose illegal immigration and a culture where one feels like they are owed something.
(This is not meant to support this or that big picture judgement on Charlotte, black lives matter, or anything else. But I am struck by how they don't represent a view that many people think they are supposed to represent.)
Plenty of people, here and elsewhere, had zero problem passing judgment on the officers involved in this case based on the initial reports.
Quote:
In comment 13135825 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm going to take a stab at this and say you also have no idea what it's like trying to be a police officer working in a high poverty black community, either.
Quote:
should the daughter be charged for inciting riots by lying about it being a book on facebook live?
Same should have been done to Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend who started the hands up dont shoot lie.
I don't doubt the shooting was justified but that photo doesn't prove anything. Open carry is legal.
Assuming that you are correct and it is legal....
a photo of the man lying on the ground with a gun beside him, is fairly indicative that he was outside of his car and holding a gun in his hand, right? Otherwise, how would the gun also be away from his person and outside the car?
Given that, what percentages would you assign for your belief in each of the two competing narratives?
Quote:
In comment 13135841 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135825 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
Not really.
From looking at the video several times, he could have just been taken down.
bingo!!!!! agree 10000000%
Quote:
In comment 13135858 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13135841 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135825 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
hmm... I suppose neither of us are experts on the motivation of protesters and rioters. But I am surprised that you'd so quickly discard the general resentment between police departments and black communities as a factor.
Quote:
In comment 13135866 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135858 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13135841 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135825 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I'm not generalizing, I'm referring to specific incidents. The statistics have been shared on multiple threads, and there are obviously factors influencing the statistic, but the rioting and looting, and protesting isn't because of some "in general" overarching bias, they're based on these latest incidents.
hmm... I suppose neither of us are experts on the motivation of protesters and rioters. But I am surprised that you'd so quickly discard the general resentment between police departments and black communities as a factor.
You want to talk about transparency? An unintended side effect of all this is that we're seeing just how often it's the minority community that is unjustified in their perceived notion that the police are wrongfully accusing them. What the general public is seeing more often than not is that the false notions that are perpetuated by the community are just that... False notions.
Quote:
In comment 13135763 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135753 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Excellent point. Some people benefit from this chaos. I really understand the anger and fear that people have who live in these communities. What I don't understand is the outright denial of the facts. 'It was only a book' will be the new 'hands up, don't shoot'. I get that you don't want to believe your relative deserved to get shot, or was acting in a way that he would get shot. But the complete denial of reality is mind boggling.
And the media are scum, like so many things, they don't report the news, they are not objective. They are interested in creating a narrative that fits their view. They are liable for much of the mess in our society today.
We all have our narratives. You certainly have yours.
What an enlightening response. Thanks.
The point is that you are already sure it's not a book. The cops said it wasn't. But the video will tell the truth. You don't know anything aside from the daughters story and the cops. And you're accepting the cops. That's fine and may fit the ultimate facts in the case, but you're doing that now because it fits your narrative.
Furthermore, you're not open to enlightening anyway. Before I open this thread I know what your responses will be.
Buy why does the family think it was a book? Were they there? I'm not the one out inciting riots. And that is what these false narratives do. And as we have seen in Ferguson, even when the undisputed truth comes out, it means nothing to some people. This is dangerous and harmful. I don't have a narrative. I'm not convicting the guy or the cop. But I will believe the police until it is proven that they lie. Because in the vast majority of these cases, what they say is what happened. If you want to make something out of that go ahead.
You know damn well that a still photo can't prove what happened. It can only show the aftermath.
djm : 11:55 am : link : reply
and I will keep saying it. The media in thin country needs to be taken down a peg. I don't care if they have to redo, or ratify or whatever the hell you call it--reexamine, the constitution. The media is doing its very best to wound this country piece by piece. Fully aware that there are truly great and inspiring sectors of the national and local medias but it's corrupted. Too much shit stirring, slander, lies---and zero accountability. It's toxic.
Indeed. What kills me is the lack of accountability for early reporting that causes many of the situations becoming violent
Quote:
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
Quote:
Does the photo prove it was a good shooting?
You know damn well that a still photo can't prove what happened. It can only show the aftermath.
Thanks for the contribution
Quote:
In comment 13135683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
it's not just people who break the law.
Quote:
In comment 13135683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
As I've said numerous times, people need to stop focusing on symptoms and look more at direct causes. A large group of people having such little faith in law enforcement should bother us all.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
Animals break the law all the time.
From looking at the video several times, he could have just been taken down.
I agree based on what we've seen and read. One officer used a taser and the other fired a gun. They either both should have used tasers or only one should have when the victim didn't comply.
That's why I said the officer who used a gun would be prosecuted probably.
Quote:
break the law? Animals? Vehicles? Aliens?
Animals break the law all the time.
haha. well played.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
Gee, aren't you making assumptions here? You don't know the facts but right away, You say if there isn't prosecution, and someone isn't punished, that is not the right outcome. But what if it WAS a good shoot?
Quote:
In comment 13135841 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13135825 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
In comment 13135807 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
what im afraid of is that this is putting shade on what happened in Tulsa. Thats the real crime
That is opinion in another case in which a subject refuses the commands of an officer and was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's hard to keep track of all the reasons its ok to shoot black people. I'm gonna have to start writing them down.
See, that's the thing again jumping right to the race of the victim. I absolutely agree there are incidents of racism - even among law enforcement and that needs to be identified and rectified, but regardless of race if a person does not comply with police officer instructions they are putting themselves at risk. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or any other identifiable minority class.
It's that simple. I said this before, Terence Crutcher (Tulsa victim) did not deserve to die based on what I saw, and there is a good chance the officer who shot him will be prosecuted and found guilty (of some level of homicide is my guess), but if he didn't ignore law enforcement instructions and then reach into his car, I'm pretty confident he'd be alive today.
I don't see how race played a part in his shooting, but for some reason you immediately went there.
I don't find these incidents where police kill black folks to be coincidental. Perhaps you do.
And we'll see if there's a prosecution. The track record of someone being punished for these killings is not very good.
I would highly doubt he was legally able to own a firearm. Was he on parole still? Didnt want to go back to jail?
"A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011."
Charlotte police protests: Governor declares state of emergency as violence erupts for second night - ( New Window )
Aliens masquerading as animals.
Police chief: Video provides no definitive evidence that victim pointed gun before officer shot him - ( New Window )
Then again - if the warrant wasn't for him, they wouldn't have known.
I get the cops not knowing, but it could explain Scott's mindset that he didnt want to go back to jail for violating his parole or for having an illegal firearm. Also his rap sheet would indicate he had violent tendencies.
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
If you think mistrusting the criminal justice system is synonymous with being a criminal, you're an imbecile.
Quote:
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
If you think mistrusting the criminal justice system is synonymous with being a criminal, you're an imbecile.
That's not what he said. He said the reverse of what you said, that if you don't think criminals tend to mistrust the criminal justice system, then you are an imbecile.
Quote:
In comment 13135919 giant24 said:
Quote:
Go figure, people who break the law have little faith in law enforcement.
If you think mistrusting the criminal justice system is synonymous with being a criminal, you're an imbecile.
That's not what he said. He said the reverse of what you said, that if you don't think criminals tend to mistrust the criminal justice system, then you are an imbecile.
But I wasn't talking about criminals... I was talking about myself and the black community, most of whom are not criminals. That's what the original response was to. In your haste to defend that person, you obviously didn't read what was said.
If it turns out the shooting wasn't justified, then this becomes a crime scene. Do you really think they're going to release video from a potential crime scene before they've conducted an investigation and taken any eyewitness accounts?
Quote:
if the LEOs weren't familiar with Scott's history (and they might have been), it wouldn't be terribly relevant to their appraisal of him as a threat to use lethal violence.
I get the cops not knowing, but it could explain Scott's mindset that he didnt want to go back to jail for violating his parole or for having an illegal firearm. Also his rap sheet would indicate he had violent tendencies.
All true, but we're concerned with what the officer knew and perceived at the time he was shot.
How dare the "systematic oppression" to somehow forget to mistreat this particular group of colored-skin people.
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
LAXin, the answer is obvious, Asians are superior to blacks.
So the guy with no inside knowledge of the situation sees no harm? Well, fuck it then, let it fly.
Meanwhile, the police chief openly admits he doesn't see a weapon pointed at his officers. If there was some coverup associated with the video, why on Earth would he make that statement?
How dare the "systematic oppression" to somehow forget to mistreat this particular group of colored-skin people.
There is a dead person on it and it's not some iphone video someone stranger put on youtube. It's an official body cam police video I believe.
Who wants to see their father's death go viral on the internet to help fuel people's internet debates or even in some cases I bet their sick enjoyment.
Maybe they like to allow the family time to view the video first and prepare.
just a guess - besides the procedural side of waiting.
Fire away all you want...
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Quote:
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
Quote:
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
Is that a common thing in open carry states? Cops seeing armed citizens and telling them to drop their gun. I have a $1000 dollar shot gun. There's no way I'm dropping it on the pavement.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
I'll break it down.
I have a concealed permit. If a cop sees something under my jacket and asks if its a weapon, I am obligated to show him and surrender it if asked. That doesn't mean I'm in trouble, it just means a threat has to be neutralized (me having a gun) before determining if I have the right to carry it (checking my ID).
That police work 101 and completely reasonable.
No, if I have my license to open carry, the scrutiny is, and should be even larger. If the police see a man with a weapon, the above still applies. Put the weapon down, let the police investigate whether or not your are legally allowed to carry it, then everyone moves on.
Is any of this unreasonable, unfair, or racist?
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
This is sad.
Quote:
In comment 13136034 Les in TO said:
Quote:
laws in north carolina permitted scott to carry a handgun, and scott was not the target of the warrant, why would the cops confront scott and tell him to drop his weapon? given he was from all reports initially minding his own business in the parking lot and not apparently in the process of confronting anyone with the handgun. what law was he breaking when the police confronted him?
You don't need to be doing anything wrong for police to ask you to drop your weapon. If you are holding a weapon while eating ice cream, its still a threat.
The very term "drop your weapon" means he was holding it, and not just having it on his person.
so is it illegal to hold a handgun openly as opposed to having it holstered? If not why would the police suddenly confront him? He was minding his own business and there was no reason to believe he was in the process of committing a crime. Do you live in a free country or a police state?
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
I wasn't there so I can't jump to conclusions. My guess is that it was something that would be knowingly tolerated and pre-screened.
In a routine traffic stop, seeing something suspicious, etc, that courtesy can't be afforded.
I have no idea why this guy was approached, but does it even matter? He was asked to drop his weapon which means he was holding it. By law, even if he had a permit, he's obligated to comply.
So once again, what on earth is so hard to grasp about that?
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
If felons whose firearm rights have not been restored start walking around carrying weapons yes, situations are likely to get worse.
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
Then why do people advocate for open carry to begin with? What's the benefit?
Is it legal for a deaf person to open carry?
These situations will only get worse as more people walk around carrying guns.
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
If it went the other way, there would be ZERO question of the individual being held accountable for his actions.
Quote:
if this had turned out the other way, and if he had pulled the trigger, today would have been a much more benign news day.
If it went the other way, there would be ZERO question of the individual being held accountable for his actions.
Yes man, come on. An open carry state doesn't mean you are given the benefit of the doubt and why should it? How does that even make sense? If a cop wants to check your credentials you should comply.
You can drive in the US but you need a license to do so. Isn't it the first thing a cop asks you for when pulled over?
This is mind numbing.
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
Is exiting a vehicle with a gun and approaching the police minding one's business?
I think the idea he was innocently in the car peacefully reading a book has been debunked.
Quote:
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
under north carolina law, both activities appear to be perfectly legal - and whether you are holding it or openly showing you are packing, both could be perceived as threatening.
For a Black person, I'm guessing that risk is AT LEAST doubled.
It's not a matter of right and wrong, constitutional or un - it's about common sense.
Relations between police and the African American community have been improving for generations - night and day between now and just 30 years ago.
There is still a long way to go, but in the meantime...
For Chrissakes - I wouldn't advise ANYONE to carry, but ESPECIALLY if you're Black, don't carry a fucking gun.
Police officers have the right to ask for your permit, which is also needed to buy the gun in the first place.
But this is splitting hairs anyway, if I got out of my car and approached a cop car with my gun on my holster, i'd still be perceived as a threat.
Furthermore:
"A person acquiring a handgun must have either a permit to purchase a handgun or a concealed handgun permit. A background check is required to obtain either of these permits."
So if he didn't have the above, it means he was illegally carrying, which he must of been if he's a felon as he wouldn't pass a background check.
Quote:
In comment 13136079 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I think there is a massive difference between having a gun holstered on your side and carrying it in your hand. If you can't see the difference, I'm done responding to you.
under north carolina law, both activities appear to be perfectly legal - and whether you are holding it or openly showing you are packing, both could be perceived as threatening.
At one point do you feel it becomes illegal and the cops can then take action? Prior to, during, or after finger contraction?
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
he had it pointed at the cops.
There has yet to be evidence that the gun was pointed. What the police statement was that the victim exited the car with a gun in his hand and ignored repeated orders by the officer to drop the weapon.
Even the police chief says he's not seen a video that shows the gun being pointed. It just shows the man wielding a gun.
I can't believe how fucking dense you are. No its not illegal.
Now for my question, does a police officer A. know you legally purchased the gun and B. are they allowed to ask you to put down a firearm even if you are legally able to do so?
I'm about to slam my head into my desk.
No, I believe it has to be holstered, if it's a hand gun, or on your shoulder if it's a rifle. Holding it in your hand would be brandishing, which is illegal.
What do we discuss after that? "Well, if it was just a broken tail light, he should have listened to the cop!!"
Uh, OK?
So, when new instances occur when the victim might have contributed to his own demise, yes, many of us question whether or not the cops were acting correctly. Shit, the other day was the perfect example of seemingly awful and tragic judgment by a cop.
Quote:
He was minding his own business
Is exiting a vehicle with a gun and approaching the police minding one's business?
I think the idea he was innocently in the car peacefully reading a book has been debunked.
Quote:
And he wasn't just holding it
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
he had it pointed at the cops.
There has yet to be evidence that the gun was pointed. What the police statement was that the victim exited the car with a gun in his hand and ignored repeated orders by the officer to drop the weapon.
Even the police chief says he's not seen a video that shows the gun being pointed. It just shows the man wielding a gun.
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
Quote:
In comment 13136057 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
And this is part of the issue, in the situation described above, white people wouldn't find that threatening. However if the gun toting individuals were black....well, you know how that would end up.
It appears that an undercover police officer was approaching Scott's car, and Scott saw the other patrol cars pull up nearby. He exited the vehicle at that point with a weapon. He was told to drop it, Reports are saying at that point, he returned to the vehicle and as police came nearer, he again exited the vehicle with teh weapon and refused orders to drop it.
What isn't certain is if police identified that they were there to issue a warrant or if scott assumed that since he was on parole, he was in trouble and could return to jail and panicked.
Which tells me people are trying too damn hard to prove a point they know is wrong.
Both sides need to be reasonable in this debate and give in on some of their stronger beliefs, but to think the police shouldn't verify the legality of a weapon that can kill someone is mind boggling.
Brandishing is an offense.
It's very easy. There are rules. If you are going to carry or open carry, you better learn them or you have no business having a gun. The reason people get shot is because they act in a threatening manner and they don't follow what the police tell them. I don't care if you are white or black or what color the cop is. Why, when being told to put your hands up or don't move or don't reach into the car or drop your weapon, don't you automatically stop and do what the cop says?
You ask why mass shooters like Dylan Roof don't get shot. Because as crazy as they are, when they are pulled over, they do what the cops say. It's that simple. The cops don't want to shoot you, but they will if you don't act in a way that they can control the situation.
Quote:
In comment 13136066 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13136057 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
lots of white people were openly legally holding guns in clung powerful assault rifles outside the republican convention in Ohio in a way that could be deemed threatening. Why weren't they asked to drop their weapons?
Who deemed them threatening? I didn't hear of any incidents involving anyone open carrying. What do you think is threatening?
And this is part of the issue, in the situation described above, white people wouldn't find that threatening. However if the gun toting individuals were black....well, you know how that would end up.
And how did it end up in Dallas when there was a black guy with a rifle on his shoulder while cops were being shot? They approached him and nothing happened. Because he wasn't waving it around and did what the cops said. Like it or not, there is a proper way to act around a cop, especially if you have a gun on you.
It isn't some law that just got passed last year, its been around a while and is generally never a problem whatsoever. But that's a separate topic for a separate thread.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
There's what's right/legal, and then there's what is sensible, and the two don't always coincide. That's why I kind of roll my eyes at mentions of "the talk black parents have with their kids about cops" - I'm white as milk but I handle interactions with police (and I get pulled over a fair bit because I drive pretty damned fast) the exact same way. I go into a traffic stop with the assumption that the cop is a jittery asshole who will use the slightest reason as a provocation to escalate the situation. I'm unfailingly polite to the point of obsequiousness, I keep my hands in plain view unless instructed otherwise, and I move very slowly and deliberately. I do these things because I realize there are more than a few cops who are power-hungry yet scared assholes, and I have no intention of being shot over some stupid bullshit. It pisses me off that I have to do this, but as I said there's right and then there's smart.
Quote:
to that fact that holding a gun, even if you are legally allowed to do so, is threatening? Why would he be asked to put his weapon down if he wasn't, at the very least, holding it? Unless of course you think the police are making that up, which wouldn't be surprising for some people do assume since they do everything wrong now, apparently.
Once again I suggest you look up what laws allow you to do and not do even with a license to carry.
If he were holding a gun, you still don't get to shoot a person based on that. He may have been threatening, or not. police shooting armed and unarmed citizens is happening at an exponentially increasing and alarming rate.
"Exponentially alarming rate"
You have facts to back that up?
I understand that not everyone trusts law enforcement for very valid reasons. But this challenging of police officers who are in most cases just doing their jobs is getting out of hand.
Quote:
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
Yes I can make s judgement independent of this case. I believe open carry is bad policy, leads to more guns and shootings with no measurable benefit.
Quote:
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts.
Link - ( New Window )
I understand that not everyone trusts law enforcement for very valid reasons. But this challenging of police officers who are in most cases just doing their jobs is getting out of hand.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
Quote:
In comment 13136127 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
I still have doubts about open carry and believe it's horrendous policy that will lead to more deaths and make policing more difficult.
It's not open carry, it's the people. As you said, you don't know the facts, including if he had this gun legally. But you are ready to make judgments on what is a right in some states.
Yes I can make s judgement independent of this case. I believe open carry is bad policy, leads to more guns and shootings with no measurable benefit.
You have facts to back that up? Most shootings in the country happen in Chicago where guns are outlawed.
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
Who said it did? You are claiming it causes more shooting. And using this as an example (when it hasn't even been demonstrated that he was legally allowed to carry and was doing it in the correct way).
45 states.
And for the record I'm not a fan of open carry, as a gun owner, but I don't know how a random non-expert states conclusions about what that policy will result in and expects to have credibility.
I've never heard of anyone in my state (which is open carry) ever being shot carrying openly legally. I've actually never heard of anything in recent history that backs up your belief.
Quote:
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
Quote:
In comment 13136161 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
Quote:
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
I'm going to guess when an officer asks a person carrying openly to put down the gun and they refuse it probably becomes illegal. Why as an armed citizen who's not breaking a law would you not comply with police to defuse the situation?
The victim may have initiated the conflict by panicking that police were nearby. According to reports, he exited the vehicle with a weapon in hand before the officer engaged him, the officer then noticed the weapon and gave the instructions to drop it.
Now that version may or may not be correct - it is the latest news, but why are so many people on this thread saying things that happened as being fact when it is still debated what the situation was, from the confrontation to the end result?
...Wallace said a police order that Scott drop his weapon would not be considered a consensual exchange, in which an officer asked a suspect why he was carrying a weapon or why he was sitting in the car.
Just based on them seeing the gun and nothing else, they don't have justification to detain him, for even briefly on whether hes up to no good, Wallace said.
CMPD said Keith Lamont Scott had a gun. Was that reason enough to order him to drop it? - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13136099 Les in TO said:
Quote:
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
my point is that if it's just as legal to openly carry a handgun as it is an ice cream cone (as you don't need a permit to openly carry a gun in north Carolina just like you don't need a permit to carry an ice cream cone), why did the cops instigate an altercation with a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13136171 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13136161 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Are you a trained officer? They were looking for an easy way out? Or they were following the law and not looking to get shot? It's easy to say they were wrong when you were not there in their position.
instead of de-escalating, they initiated the conflict, escalated it, and fatally shot the man. I have not heard any reasons yet that there was an actual threat to them, other than the manufactured one that they initiated and the escalated. again, more police forces need to be trained like the dallas pd.
weren't they serving a warrant and attempting to identify if the deceased was the person the warrant was issued? How did you intend they do that without approaching the deceased?
Is that what you're calling escalating the incident, serving the warrant?
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
Quote:
In comment 13136170 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
in this case. It is not legal to hold an unholstered gun in your hand without a threat in front of you. There are rules of owning a handgun and in fact in NC, the actual term is a permit to carry a "concealed weapon".
Once you unholster it, you are subject to other rules and regulations. It is no longer concealed and it is now being brandished.
you do not need a permit to "openly carry" a handgun.
does north Carolina law specifically prescribe that openly carry means it must be holstered or slung around your shoulder? at what point does a legally permissible open carry become an illegal "brandishment"?
I'm going to guess when an officer asks a person carrying openly to put down the gun and they refuse it probably becomes illegal. Why as an armed citizen who's not breaking a law would you not comply with police to defuse the situation?
There's what's right/legal, and then there's what is sensible, and the two don't always coincide. That's why I kind of roll my eyes at mentions of "the talk black parents have with their kids about cops" - I'm white as milk but I handle interactions with police (and I get pulled over a fair bit because I drive pretty damned fast) the exact same way. I go into a traffic stop with the assumption that the cop is a jittery asshole who will use the slightest reason as a provocation to escalate the situation. I'm unfailingly polite to the point of obsequiousness, I keep my hands in plain view unless instructed otherwise, and I move very slowly and deliberately. I do these things because I realize there are more than a few cops who are power-hungry yet scared assholes, and I have no intention of being shot over some stupid bullshit. It pisses me off that I have to do this, but as I said there's right and then there's smart.
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
Scott was foolish for not following the officer's orders. does not mean that the officer acted appropriately and does not mean that he deserved to be killed.
True...he MAY not have deserved to get killed, but he greatly increased the chances of it happening by his refusal to follow instructions. An officer is going to get the benefit of the doubt in almost any case involving this type of situation. Scott should not have gotten out of the car with a gun...and then to make matters worse...refusing (apparently) to not place it down when directed. He chose poorly in this situation and his actions directly resulted in his own death.
Just Comply if you Don't Want to Die - ( New Window )
Quote:
you do need to legally obtain that gun, which is the point being made here over and over and over and over and over and over again.
You are talking about legally carrying a gun period, which isn't a law in this country. It would mean drug dealers with illegally purchased firearms aren't breaking any laws walking home with their gun holstered.
I get that you need a permit to purchase a gun. but my understanding is once you have obtained that permit, you don't need to always have the permit on you, nor do you need a separate permit to "openly carry" the gun - only if you are concealing it do you need a permit. please correct me if that is not the case.
In North Carolina I don't believe you need a carry permit (looks like they don't have them) but you do need a permit to purchase. Basically this covers people who purchased a gun in CT, relocate to NC, and can still legally use their guns. They would need to get a NC permit to purchase if they wanted to buy again, but they can use their already out of state purchased guns, legally.
Regardless of the state by state laws, the police still have the right to ask you to disarm, for whatever reason they want.
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws
NC gun laws - ( New Window )
DIFFERENCE IF THE WEAPON IS UNLOADED?
ANSWER: No. North Carolina General Statute 14-269 does not specify whether the
weapon has to be loaded or unloaded. Rather, the location of the weapon is
looked at to determine whether or not it is concealed.
Once it is no longer concealed there are certain behaviors one must follow.
EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE (active law enforcement included)
stopped by a uniformed member of the service who is in possession of a firearm IS TO FOLLOW ALL ORDERS GIVEN by that or any other officer and is to ADHERE TO THEIR COMMANDS!! The situation will be sorted out after the officers know their safety is not at risk.
Is North Carolina an open carry state? not sure of it. I've seen too many videos of Yahoo Cowboys in open carry states shadowing Police Officers in the course of their work, at times violating their personal space at traffic. The officer would ask the said Cowboy to back away to no avail.
Traffic stops and Domestic disturbance complaints are two of the deadliest jobs to respond to as a Police Officer, you don't need anyone distracting you while in the course of your duty.
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
Same here in CT (and I imagine everywhere). If you leave your home with your gun you must have your permit with you (like driving a car) and you must follow all directions by law enforcement when in possession of a firearm.
It can't get any more cut and dry than that.
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13136099 Les in TO said:
Quote:
if he wasn't breaking any laws by holding the gun, why are they confronting him and asking him to drop it in the first place? either you have open carry laws and let people walk around with handguns or you don't. if it's as legal to openly carry handguns as an ice cream cone, then why aren't police randomly confronting people who are carrying ice cream cones to drop their cones?
When is the last time someone used an ice cream cone to kill someone?
Should police not have the opportunity to determine if someone actually has a permit to carry the gun? And is it unreasonable for someone to place the gun down when asked to by a police officer?
my point is that if it's just as legal to openly carry a handgun as it is an ice cream cone (as you don't need a permit to openly carry a gun in north Carolina just like you don't need a permit to carry an ice cream cone), why did the cops instigate an altercation with a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business?
Just to demonstrate the perceived double standards of racial-profiling by police and to Randy's earlier point in this thread, this white north Carolina man was arrested after waving a shotgun at passing cars and firing his pistol at a police officer, which is on a completely different level of reasonable expectation of threat than Scott's facts. Link - ( New Window )
Yet no response from people about your point made here. And this is the reason why people become upset. I don't understand how people can't acknowledge the difference in how situations are handled.
Quote:
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
You are really on a crusade here.
Quote:
if someone is holding a gun in their hand, walking toward police (even with it pointed at the ground) and refused to drop the weapon after repeated commands to do so, you are absolutely 100% at risk to legally be shot.
I have no idea what happened that day, not going to pretend to. But if the above is what happened, then the cops did what is within their right to do. You may not like hearing that, but its the truth.
No, they were not. they took the easy way out rather than de-escalate the matter. more police forces need to take a page from dallas' training of their police officers, who are given in depth training in de-escalation and have seen a major drop in both shootings of police officers and citizens.
Didn't see this gem, where do I even start?
Deescalation is a term used for all sorts of situations and has different procedures for each scenario. When a deadly weapon is in hand, it takes a split second for someone to aim and shoot. The deescalation started when they told him to put down the gun. There is no magic way to calmly talk someone down from a ledge, in this case. Its a split second life or death situation that the perp put himself in. Had he dropped the gun, the deescalation would have been successful. He didn't, so it wasn't.
Quote:
In comment 13136281 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
You are really on a crusade here.
You have to write it in French for Les too.
Quote:
In comment 13136281 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
de-escalation does not constitute approaching a man who was not breaking any laws, drawing your guns at him, screaming drop your weapon!!!, and then shooting to kill. that is escalation, not de-escalation.
Quote:
In comment 13136306 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13136281 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
You are really on a crusade here.
You have to write it in French for Les too.
Quote:
In comment 13136306 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13136281 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
points of the NC concealed weapon laws. Point 1 says you MUST carry the permit whenever you have your weapon:
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
The link goes to the entirety of the gun laws NC gun laws - ( New Window )
correct, this applies in the case of concealed weapons. but as the link indicates, that does not apply to people who carry firearms "openly". from the initial account, scott was not concealing his weapon.
The same rules apply, you just don't need a permit to openly carry. That doesn't make you exempt from following orders from the police, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
the same rules do not apply for concealed weapons as open carry. the rules above are specific to CONCEALED weapons (permits, ID, disclosure of the fact you are carrying a concealed weapon). scott was not concealing his weapon so those rules do not apply.
de-escalation does not constitute approaching a man who was not breaking any laws, drawing your guns at him, screaming drop your weapon!!!, and then shooting to kill. that is escalation, not de-escalation.
The only rule that is different is that you don't need a permit to open carry. Everything else is the same, including following law enforcement instructions. Do you think open carry means you don't have to follow police instruction?
Your scenario above about how he was approach is also not accurate by many reports. The police can walk up to anyone, for any reason, to ask them a question. You, like so many, are making it seem like they walked up to an unarmed man, yelled at him, then shot him dead. And that is shitty.
story and video - ( New Window )
Yup, saw that this morning. Riots are the best!
Ohh, and if I ever get arrested for a felony, I'm definitely moving to NC where I can legally carry my illegally obtained gun.
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
Again, this applies to only CONCEALED handguns.
The only reason the language is written that way is because a police officer, or anyone else, wouldn't know you have a concealed weapon. Those steps are written to prevent surprises and knee jerk reactions from happening (Greg in LI painted a good scenario earlier in this thread).
Now go look up what you are allowed to do while openly carrying a gun and get back to me, i'm eagerly awaiting your findings.
That alone pretty much invalidates any attempt to understand the open carry laws.
I wanted to refrain getting into all of this but this angered me. It's the epitome of how all of these protests, riots are useless. If you're not going to consider anything from the other side of the argument how do you expect things to change if you think they're wrong. I understand that the feelings of hate stem from things much deeper than just the recent police shootings. I also understand that each event isn't a result of the same actions and there are major differences in each case.
It really does sicken me though. This shows me people are searching anything to fuel their tirade against the rest of society. There's racism on the other side as well.
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
Again, this applies to only CONCEALED handguns.
Also, what is the rationale for not letting an officer know that you have a gun, under any circumstance? I would think that if the gun was not hidden away but within easy access, it would be *more* important, not less, for a cop to know about it.
Also, why do you believe they require you to comply with a cop's request to drop a concealed weapon but continue holding an unconcealed one?
The logic behind all of that isn't clear at all, IMO.
Quote:
1. Your permit to carry a concealed handgun must be carried along with valid identification
whenever the handgun is being carried concealed.
Only applies to CONCEALED handguns not open handguns.
2. When approached or addressed by any officer, you must disclose the fact that you have a
valid concealed handgun permit and inform the officer that you are in possession of a
concealed handgun. You should not attempt to draw or display either your weapon or your
permit for the officer unless and until he/she directs you to do so. Your hands are to be kept
in plain view and you are not to make any sudden movements.
Again, this only applies to CONCEALED handguns. Is there a separate law that states you cannot draw or display a non-concealed handgun (e.g. one that is in your holster?) if so, what does the law specifically state?
3. At the request of any law enforcement officer, you must display both the permit and valid
identification.
Again, this applies to only CONCEALED handguns.
Logically, why would you not need to have a permit with you if you carry an unconcealed weapon but you would for a concealed one? I'm curious as to the rationale?
Also, what is the rationale for not letting an officer know that you have a gun, under any circumstance? I would think that if the gun was not hidden away but within easy access, it would be *more* important, not less, for a cop to know about it.
Also, why do you believe they require you to comply with a cop's request to drop a concealed weapon but continue holding an unconcealed one?
The logic behind all of that isn't clear at all, IMO.
I'm not the expert here, and as I said previously I am not a fan of open carry allowances for one main reason, I believe in every state that allows open carry you are not required to obtain a permit to do so, it's more of a "constitutional carry" policy where the 2nd amendment is considered your permit.
So you have untrained people carrying firearms.
I also believe it's true that in every state where you are allowed to concealed carry you need a concealed carry permit, which requires a training class, an application (which normally includes a background check) and a permit.
So I believe the logic is open carry where it's allowed (and it's not allowed in MA (via a technicality that I won't bore you with - it's actually allowed but it's grounds to revoke your concealed carry permit) so it's not even an option for me) it's a pure constitutional right, but concealed carry isn't, but it's generally a safer option.
Safer for the gun owner from potential trouble.
He was undercover that is why he did n't have a body cam!!!
That alone pretty much invalidates any attempt to understand the open carry laws.
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
Seems like that will only increase the likelihood of an officer being a little to jumpy and quick to respond to a perceived threat.
If these protests were largely nonviolent and nonresistant similar to what MLKjr used to orchestrate they would have a tremendous more impact and receive much more overwhelming support from the public.
Quote:
Good post.
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
I spend half of my time in Boston and can't bring my guns from NY with me. Of course I have no reason to
Quote:
In comment 13136448 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
Good post.
thanks, at least I'm pretty sure that's correct, gun laws are tricky, sometimes I think intentionally tricky.
After I took my safety class required to get my LTC I took a MA gun law class just to make sure I transported, stored, carried, and used my firearm properly. It gets confusing.
I spend half of my time in Boston and can't bring my guns from NY with me. Of course I have no reason to
I believe if you get a Utah permit you can, as it's one of the most accepted reciprocal permits in the country.
I'm taking the Utah course in November.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
Al, your favorite woman is on Funny or Die. It's very funny and well done. Check it out.
Quote:
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
I'm sure the other side has some connections too.
Quote:
In comment 13136491 EricJ said:
Quote:
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
I'm sure the other side has some connections too.
You'd have to be a pure and myopic partisan to believe that this does not engineer how the public views current events and mold opinion in a propagandist fashion. When it happens from the other side as well.
Al, your favorite woman is on Funny or Die. It's very funny and well done. Check it out.
Quote:
In comment 13136491 EricJ said:
Quote:
I agree with the posts here that claim they are a huge part of the problem. They are basically creating the divide between people and pouring gasoline on the fire.
I believe the following SHOULD happen...
1. News programs have to register as NEWS up front if they are to report news. Otherwise they are considered to be "entertainment" and must label their shows as such.
2. News programs must report the news accurately without creative editing, misleading the public, or leaning towards a particular political direction.
3. If news programs are found to violate the various rules and required to be a news program, then the network would be subject to huge fines.
4. Multiple offenses by a news program would result in having it shut down for a pre-determined amount of time based upon the number of violations.
5. If a network has hit a particular violation total, then they would lose their "news license" for 6 months, etc
Somehow the hope would be for people to know whether they are watching news or just bullshit
ive long felt that newspapers and tv news and all of their writers/on-air talkers should be required to disclose political affiliations, donations, etc. just below the masthead or in the closing credits and/or as story preambles. By law, just like...you financial guys tell me what it is...where stock analysists have to disclose positions they have when giving advice and evaluations.
I know that several medical journals require paper authors to disclose financial positions or research support by pharma within their papers. That's essentially the same thing as media reporting directed by political ideology.
someone posted this, I thought it was interesting.
1. ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obamas National Security Advisor.
2. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
3. NBC News Political Analyst, David Axelrod was Obama's Chief Campaign Advisor and Senior Advisor directly to Obama himself.
4. NBC CEO Stephen Burke is a Board Member of Warren Buffets Company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet donated almost a BILLION dollars to Obamas campaign.
5. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who now works for CNN as a commentator.
6. ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obamas Deputy Press Secretary.
7. ABC News chief political correspondent and anchor George Stephanopoulos was the White House Communications Director then Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy for Bill Clinton, and was just caught secretly donating $75,000 to the Clinton foundation.
8. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obamas Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
9. CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
10. NBC Chelsea Clinton was making $600,000.00 a year + benefits as a starting reporter.
11. Univisions Emmy Award Winning Anchor Jorge Ramoss daughter is working on Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign.
12. Yahoo is partnered with ABC News. The CEO of yahoo, Marissa Mayer is also an Obama campaign donor.
I'm sure the other side has some connections too.
This is one of the many things wrong with this country.
They are 13 miles from South Carolina so that statement could mean anything.
Out of state, meaning transplants? Ok. Out of state meaning SC? Ok.
It you can clearly see, and even without the above list, experience would inform, that there are incestuous and ideological affiliations with political policy-makers that have great potential, likely realized, to influence how the news is portrayed and reported.
What could possibly be wro with disclosure? That's really all that was said.
And, it has little to do with Charlotte specifically, other than the agenda things already brought up by others here.
In the hell did she get elected?
This has nothing to do with that. It's just sickening that the media is literally in bed with the executive branch.
As a CPA I have to answer to a board of accountancy. I'm licensed and have to pass ethical exams each year and often have my work reviewed. Just like doctors and lawyers. Why doesn't the media have to be held to the same standard? Careless reporting and insinuations helped fuel the flames of these riots. And there will be no repercussion.
You don't think. Got it.
They should also have to be fact checked regularly by a board. With enough violations they should be stripped of their license.
i love your list
but you should have added one more factoid
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All - ( New Window )
He is everything whats wrong with these situations.
He is everything whats wrong with these situations.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Dont shoot him. Dont shoot him. He has no weapon. He has no weapon. Dont shoot him.
OFFICER: Dont shoot. Drop the gun. Drop the fucking gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Dont shoot him. Dont shoot him.
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He didnt do anything.
OFFICER: Drop the gun. Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He doesnt have a gun. He has a T.B.I. (Traumatic Brain Injury).
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He is not going to do anything to you guys.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He just took his medicine.
OFFICER: Drop the gun. Let me get a fucking baton over here. [muffled]
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, dont let them break the windows. Come on out the car.
OFFICER: [muffled]
OFFICER:Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith! Dont you do it.
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Keith, get out the car. Keith! Keith! Dont you do it! Dont you do it! Keith!
OFFICER: Drop the gun.
RAKEYIA SCOTT:Keith! Keith! Keith! Dont you do it!
[SHOTS]
RAKEYIA SCOTT: Fuck. Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? Did you shoot him? He better not be fucking dead.He better not be fucking dead. I know that fucking much. I know that much. He better not be dead. Im not going to come near you. Im going to record, though. Im not coming near you. Im going to record, though.He better be alive because ...I come You better be alive. How about that?Yes, we here, over here at 50 ... 50 ...9453 Lexington Court. These are the police officers that shot my husband,and he better live. He better live. Because he didnt do nothing to them.
OFFICER: Is everybody good? Are you good?
RAKEYIA SCOTT: He good. Nobody ... touch nobody, so theyre all good.
OFFICER: You good?
RAKEYIA SCOTT: I know he better live. I know he better live. How about that Im not coming to you guys, but hed better live. He better live. You all hear it, you see this, right? He better live.
OFFICER: [muffled]
AKEYIA SCOTT: He better live. I swear, he better live. Yep, he better live. He better fucking live. He better live. Where is...He better fucking live, and I cant even leave the damn...I aint going nowhere. Im staying in the same damn spot. What the fuck. Thats O.K. did you all call the police? I mean, did you all call an ambulance
no more stupid that posting a list of reporters who are some how related to Obama administration or democrats.
the fact is TV reporters have just about ZERO say in how the news is reported .
These reporters work for huge corporations in which managing editors ( with watchful eye of corporate executives ) decide which stories will be pursued and highlighted and how these stories will be framed
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
"don't you do it" might have been directed at the officers, too.
I'm with the poster above wondering what it is? Just wondering about the traumatic brain injury thing. If he had one, why was he driving?
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
Video here. - ( New Window )
Just an unfortunate situation with another tragic outcome.
Most of the time, I'd say to try and use non-lethal force, but if he has a gun that close to officers, they probably don't have a choice. The question is why he's not stopping or dropping whatever is in his hands.
Yeah, watching the video, the officer asks for a baton and it seems she might be telling them not to use it to break the windows.
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
I agree, makes no sense
WSOCTV - ( New Window )
Quote:
Tests revealed Keith Scott's fingerprints, DNA and blood were on a gun recovered
WSOCTV - ( New Window )
cops planted it
Weird. Also, she's filming while trying to come to the aid of her husband?
How old is the son?
Not weird at all if wants to see him get off a school bus and safely walk home.
Many are saying that this hurts the cops arguments, I am not too sure about that.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
Why?
Maybe he would rather sit in air conditioning, or listen to the radio, read or just plain sit instead of standing. Or possibly avoid small talk with neighborhood mothers waiting for their kids. Who knows but far from strange behaviour.
Why were the police called to begin with anyone know?
I gentle man, a family man An ex con with a record of violence with firearms.
However, Scott also had a long police record that included gun violations. Buried deep in this Charlotte Observer story, we learn:
Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
(Emphasis added)
And there is this:
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.
(Emphasis added)
None of this means, necessarily, that Scott had a gun when the police killed him or that the police reasonably felt threatened by him. But Scotts record makes it all the more unfair to assume as the Charlotte protesters do, explicitly or implicitly that claims by the police that he was armed and potentially dangerous are untrue.
David in LA : 5:31 pm : link : reply
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
When the initial reports are literally saying the guy is PEACEFULLY reading in his car waiting for his son to come home to give him hugs, it creates the picture that some erudite guy who lives to show affection for his son is executed by the big, bad police just for being black.
Now, we find out the guy is a convicted felon, who apparently has a traumatic brain injury, yet he's driving a vehicle and handling weapons.
The microscope of suspicion gets aimed because the media tries so hard to make this into an execution of a random guy.
Michael Brown was always referred to as a hard working student looking forward to his HVAC certification who always had a smile on his face an was a gentle giant. And they'd always show him as a cherubic 12 year old. Why didn't they say he was kicked out of high school for disciplinary reasons, had been arrested two times, and wasn't very smiley to convenience store owners.
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
But that is not what the Media wants. They want.. Police killed for racial reasons. They want police unarmed and unable to control the seedier elements of society. They want clicks on stories and you to watch every night for the next riot to break out. That's the News they want to cover. The fueling of it for sensation and turning the people against one another. Or els we would be talking about more important things.
When did his TBI occur?
He did have a history of assaults with intent to kill.
Quote:
and since there are no other kids at the stop with them, I go out to the bus stop with them in the morning, and my wife usually goes out when they're coming home after school.
Sitting in your vehicle for that purpose though, while so close to home, is a bit odd.
Why?
Maybe he would rather sit in air conditioning, or listen to the radio, read or just plain sit instead of standing. Or possibly avoid small talk with neighborhood mothers waiting for their kids. Who knows but far from strange behaviour.
Why were the police called to begin with anyone know?
I agree it isn't that strange to wait in your car.
Initial report - they were there to serve a warrant to somebody else. I don't know if that is confirmed and most of the initial reports were wrong-undercover cops-no gun-shot by white cop, etc....
Quote:
What I don't understand is the microscope of suspicion
David in LA : 5:31 pm : link : reply
the dead are immediately put under, and it's usually done by the same suspects around here. The man was sitting inside his car, surely he's up to something suspicious. Give me a fucking break.
When the initial reports are literally saying the guy is PEACEFULLY reading in his car waiting for his son to come home to give him hugs, it creates the picture that some erudite guy who lives to show affection for his son is executed by the big, bad police just for being black.
Now, we find out the guy is a convicted felon, who apparently has a traumatic brain injury, yet he's driving a vehicle and handling weapons.
The microscope of suspicion gets aimed because the media tries so hard to make this into an execution of a random guy.
Michael Brown was always referred to as a hard working student looking forward to his HVAC certification who always had a smile on his face an was a gentle giant. And they'd always show him as a cherubic 12 year old. Why didn't they say he was kicked out of high school for disciplinary reasons, had been arrested two times, and wasn't very smiley to convenience store owners.
So people deserve to die, because of their priors? Or it's not that big of a deal, because the dead person has a track record. That kind of thinking cheapens the value of life FMIC.
Black men, police, innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.
How do we engage better? how do we police better? Criminal activity should not mean death sentence. Wearing a badge does not make someone a pig.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
If that's my wife, I'm screaming like a maniac for help and rushing to her side.
Again - people react differently, but this woman filmed while watching her husband die, almost as if she knew it was a possibility or a foregone conclusion
I felt the same way, if that was my husband I would be screaming and running up to the cops. I would not be videotaping.
The issue is this. The people don't trust the cops but the cops also don't trust the people. That is why the situations are so tense and everyone is on edge. The cops have to decide in a split second whether they think someone is a threat to them or not. Until there is more trust between the communities and the cops, these incidents are going to keep happening.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
Quote:
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Both men had Criminal Records. That means they fit that category. steal, assault, drugs?
Quote:
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
I would like to see an example of this.
"Whatever biases FNC bring to the table tend to serve them well in some of these situations"
Quote:
In comment 13138192 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
That's a pretty big assumption of two people you don't know.
Both men had Criminal Records. That means they fit that category. steal, assault, drugs?
You seem to paint people you don't know with a broad brush.
I'm no expert on their records, maybe you are but what was posted in this thread about this man lists many assault charges. So yes he obviously had issues with anger and violence. Most of them occurred years ago so maybe he corrected some of that I don't know. Nowhere does it indicate that this description must be accurate.
Maybe the police were left with little choice lets wait for the evidence but I see no benefit in drawing conclusions about them as people without facts.
You seem to wrap them both up neatly with some sort of amateur psychological assessment of them.
However her words make it really, kinda sorta sound like he has something, though it isn't enough to go on. "Don't do it, Keith! Keith, don't do it!" Don't do what? Shoot? Run?
Pause the video around 1:05 and look right behind the officer wearing the red shirt. The gun is there. He then steps backwards and stands over it.
the excuses on this board is that The police were not psychic to know he was a threat
but somehow they were psychic to know he had a criminal record so he kind of deserved what he got .
The facts are NC is an open carry state .. having a gun isn't a crime .. and the police have admitted he never pointed the gun at officers on the scene
This unequal enforcement of gun rights has been documented many, many times over the past few years. A white man with a gun walks down the street and police do nothing. A black man picks up a BB gun in a Walmart and is shot dead.
There are videos on Youtube of white guys with guns refusing to follow police instructions and the police don't even arrest the guy much less kill him. I know police are afraid for their lives but the assumption that every black male is out to commit murder has to stop.
I have a little experiment for all you - You gun fan boy who live in an open carry state
1. Grow a long beard
2. get a bit of a suntan
3. Dress in traditional Arab robes
4. Get Koran to carry in your hand
5. Arm yourselves with AR-15
6. Go to your favorite Texas mall
7. Walk around
Let me know how that works out.
This is really not hard to understand.
"Hey you, pull over!"
"NO!"
"OK then..."
You want to fix this country? Dig a very deep hole, throw all the idiots to the extreme left and right who spew this kind of nonsense into it, and backfill it.
the excuses on this board is that The police were not psychic to know he was a threat
but somehow they were psychic to know he had a criminal record so he kind of deserved what he got .
The facts are NC is an open carry state .. having a gun isn't a crime .. and the police have admitted he never pointed the gun at officers on the scene
This unequal enforcement of gun rights has been documented many, many times over the past few years. A white man with a gun walks down the street and police do nothing. A black man picks up a BB gun in a Walmart and is shot dead.
There are videos on Youtube of white guys with guns refusing to follow police instructions and the police don't even arrest the guy much less kill him. I know police are afraid for their lives but the assumption that every black male is out to commit murder has to stop.
I have a little experiment for all you - You gun fan boy who live in an open carry state
1. Grow a long beard
2. get a bit of a suntan
3. Dress in traditional Arab robes
4. Get Koran to carry in your hand
5. Arm yourselves with AR-15
6. Go to your favorite Texas mall
7. Walk around
Let me know how that works out.
Meanwhile, the guy not only has a rap sheet, but one that is littered with multiple offences of deadly assault with a weapon, he has a gun, and he refuses the police's orders.
Who is more likely to refuse the police's orders, a guy who loves a great book while waiting for his son to get off of a bus, or a career criminal, probably afraid to be in violation of his parole?
The criminal record goes directly to the mindset that not only escalates a conflict, but directly contributes to him getting shot. How many more times did the police have to order him to drop the gun?
The frequent police targeting/profiling/harassment/killing of black men permitted to open-carry guns in contrast to the wide berth that the often surly and threatening white men permitted to open-carry guns seem to demand of anyone in their path, makes the entire NRA position seem so much more ludicrous than I thought possible.
In Jim Cooleys open-carry America, even a trip to Walmart can require an AR-15 - ( New Window )
Meanwhile, the guy not only has a rap sheet, but one that is littered with multiple offences of deadly assault with a weapon, he has a gun, and he refuses the police's orders.
Who is more likely to refuse the police's orders, a guy who loves a great book while waiting for his son to get off of a bus, or a career criminal, probably afraid to be in violation of his parole?
The criminal record goes directly to the mindset that not only escalates a conflict, but directly contributes to him getting shot. How many more times did the police have to order him to drop the gun?
This thread is littered with misconceptions over the regulations between open carry and concealed weapons.
This thread is littered with misconceptions over the regulations between open carry and concealed weapons.
I don't believe he would be permitted.
Of course the counter argument is the police would not know that and therefore wouldn't affect how they addressed him.
Sounds like they were there to serve a warrant to someone else unrelated to this man.
He is sitting in his truck waiting for his kid.
How do they end up interacting with each other and ordering him out of the vehicle, any know?
A police officer has full authority to ask anyone carry a gun, even legally, to drop their weapon for any reason them deem fit.
There's a lot of facts missing.
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.
I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.
The nonviolent resisters can summarize their message in the following simple terms: we will take direct action against injustice despite the failure of governmental and other official agencies to act first. We will not obey unjust laws or submit to unjust practices. We will do this peacefully, openly, cheerfully because our aim is to persuade. We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, but we are ready to suffer when necessary and even risk our lives to become witnesses to truth as we see it.
-- Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. 1964
Man was ahead of his time, could use some leaders like that today.
Quote:
In comment 13138192 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:
Is the in thing to do. You will never change their minds. Its about fight the Authority and Peter Pan syndrome. To make the Authority the bad guy.
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
Seriously? You think they are protesting because protesting is cool? And then two posts below this comment you ask rhetorically, where are the protesters in Chicago? I have no idea what your point is and I'm pretty confident you don't either.
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Personally, in terms of the Charlotte shooting, it's going to be extremely difficult to convince me that the cops couldn't have de-escalated by moving to a distance, while the victim was still in the car, or by tasering him.
Everything I read suggests to me that in a very large number of police departments, training in de-escalation and non-lethal techniques are underutilized parts of community policing.
Link - ( New Window )
It isn't just the Charlotte protests, most of them are backed by paid, out of state, protesters.
A little misleading. You cant really make out if anything is in his hands.
Witnesses said he had something in his hands, a book.
Police say he had a gun.
A gun was recovered with his dna and prints on it
No book was recovered.
He also had an ankle holster and in the video it looked to me like his pant leg was pulled up slightly...
That body cam is very inconclusive. No way of telling much of anything definitive.
People will see what they want to see with this.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Open carrying and brandishing a firearm are two different things.
Quote:
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Ran his plates? I don't know for sure in this instance, but you may be surprised at how many people get their plates run on a daily basis. Considering the situation, is it really surprising if they called in a plate check and found he was a convicted felon?
Quote:
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
Legal or not is irrelevant. Even if you are carrying a legal gun and the police order you to drop it and you refuse to do so after multiple orders they will view you as a threat.
Quote:
Police were going to let it go and continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm, Putney said. There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.
Given that NC is an open carry state, how did they know that this individual in particular having a gun in his vehicle was a crime? Did they stop and do a backgroup check before gunning him down?
Link - ( New Window )
They witnessed drugs and a gun-a big no no. I'll post a press release in a second.
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Holy whack-a-doodle!
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
It depends how people came into this thinking. With many, they make their minds up before any facts come out, then try to defend their initial thoughts at all costs. Truth be damned. If someone decided initially that the cops killed a black man without reason, they will always feel that way. No matter what comes out.
Quote:
In comment 13138218 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Holy whack-a-doodle!
Stop with the "wackadoodle" stuff just because it doesn't fit your narrative. Its all over the news. I linked a video from the Charlotte police.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Quote:
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
I am so sick of this crap, from both sides.
However, anyone who lumps this event with that of Tulsa from either side to bolster their own arguments are still assholes. That one was a total fuckup on the female officer. This one was an unfortunate case of a police officer doing what he had to do based on the continued and apparent threat.
Quote:
Thanks for posting that.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
Quote:
In comment 13138976 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Thanks for posting that.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
No matter the evidence some people refuse to change their opinion when police are involved. Im not surprised at his position even after everything was released.
THE INTERNET Army veteran Ryan Smith, who deployed once to Iraq in 2011 and never fired his weapon in anger, has now transferred these experiences into critiquing police use of force within the United States on social media, sources confirm.
Link - ( New Window )
Fool me once....
Quote:
Thanks for posting that.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Holy crap Gary!! That is all I can say.
My first response on this thread.
Just what are your credentials and education to make such a statement?
What is your knowledge of criminal investigations and what procedures must be followed before the Chief of a major city and county could make that statement under the review of the federal attorney general and the states attorneys general offices?
You truly don't think that an African American Police Chief with the eyes of the nation on him just shot off from the hip?
With all due respect, you're an idiot for making that statement.
Quote:
In comment 13138218 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:They are rioting because they are being paid too by Soros, and other ultra-liberal big $ backers. I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Holy whack-a-doodle!
Nice try but I never posted that.
I dare you to find it not highlighted in yellow
Wacko
Yet life is about choices and our choices lead to consequences. Do I obey the Law and stay on the right path or do I do what I want. Do I escape reality and do drugs, If I don't have money for something I want I steal it. Hell nobody tells me what and what not I can do. I think both dead men fell into this category.
THIS IS WHAT I POSTED.
Must have hit a nerve
This sidewalk was turned into a memorial of sorts, with the names of various black people killed by the police. The name in the foreground, Dahir Adan, is the guy who went on a stabbing rampage through a mall in Minnesota. Outstanding work there.
There's the "someone just posted an uncomfortable truth" category.
And then there is the "oh my god, that comment is fucking nuts" category.
Your comment falls nicely and comfortably into the latter. Knowing that you think it falls into the former just turns a few more stomachs, or hits a few more nerves.
Gary from The East End : Admin : 9/24/2016 9:44 pm : link : reply
I'm saying that the official report of a police chief in this type of situation is essentially worthless.
What the fuck? It isn't just the report. It is the whole series of events. They have the recording of the officers calling in the incident before it escalated. Two plainsclothed officers were in a car waiting to serve a warrant and Scott pulled up next to them, rolled a joint and had a gun in his hand.
They backed the car out, called for backup, and reapproached his vehicle. The call for backup is recorded.
From day one, the police chief has maintained that his officers had reasonable cause, he's admitted that videos don't show the totality of the situation.
It is one thing to think that things aren't as reported, but to insinuate that the report is worthless is just an idiotic take.
Seem to match up pretty well from what I can tell. And unlike the family members account of what happened, the police account of what happened has been pretty consistent since this was first reported.
Quote:
Quote:
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
I am so sick of this crap, from both sides.
Oh, so you mean Soros isn't secretly building up an army of professional protesters on his payroll that he flies around from state to state?
Quote:
In comment 13138989 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
In comment 13138976 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Thanks for posting that.
I don't know how after reading that any reasonable person would fault the police officers.
Of course. I mean, it's not like a police chief would ever write up a self-serving report that shades the truth or ignores facts in order to clear officers of any wrongdoing.
I mean, I'm sure their internal investigation showed that all relevant procedures were followed to the letter and the shooting was completely justified. And shouldn't that be enough for anyone?
Whenever there is a shooting like this there is always an investigation. Evidence needs to be supported.
Odd your take is to automatically assume the police lied at the scene and I guess planted evidence and that there is now an organized cover up from the department.
Even if you have that much disdain for police do you really think so many involved would so casually risk personal ruin?
No matter the evidence some people refuse to change their opinion when police are involved. Im not surprised at his position even after everything was released.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Quote:
In comment 13138985 GiantFilthy said:
Quote:
Quote:
PatersonPlank : 7:52 pm : link : reply
I saw a stat somewhere that 70% of the people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state.
Quote:
Charlotte police union official acknowledges I didnt quote facts on out-of-state protesters
Yep I found the article in the Charlotte Observer. The quote is "Of the 43 people arrested late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, 34 or 79 percent live in Charlotte, the Observer found. Most of the others live elsewhere in North Carolina, including Albemarle, Gastonia and Greensboro. Three others were arrested Thursday night; of those, two were from Charlotte and the third had not been identified by midafternoon Friday.
I didnt quote facts, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday. Its speculation. Thats all it was."
I am so sick of this crap, from both sides.
Oh, so you mean Soros isn't secretly building up an army of professional protesters on his payroll that he flies around from state to state?
Two points for my response. First, the spokesman for the police exaggerated/lied about the 70% stat. After this being pointed out to me I rescinded the comment. How was I supposed to know he was outright lying? Second, Soros has given at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson. This is according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations. So yes, he is indirectly funding the groups that apply protesters to all these events. There are groups orchestrating things behind the scenes in most of these events.
He documented gave 650k recently to BLM, he and his foundation denied it, but then hackers revealed the truth.
Hackers may be criminal, but these days I trust them much more than the MSM or even most people.
He documented gave 650k recently to BLM, he and his foundation denied it, but then hackers revealed the truth.
Hackers may be criminal, but these days I trust them much more than the MSM or even most people.
And the Koch brothers slated $889 million for political spending for 2016. What's the point here.
Quote:
absolutely funds and encourages the protestors or even just lobbyism/social activism.
He documented gave 650k recently to BLM, he and his foundation denied it, but then hackers revealed the truth.
Hackers may be criminal, but these days I trust them much more than the MSM or even most people.
And the Koch brothers slated $889 million for political spending for 2016. What's the point here.
The point was about George Soros influence on BLM or paid protestors and it's absolutely true.
I didn't think it was a pissing match or "only Soros does this" but if your post makes you feel better than I'm glad you added it.