The police obviously removed the ankle holster from Scott.

[boston bean]

You can see they did so, when he is dead/dying on the ground... it is no longer around his ankle.

How can we be sure what we see isn't the holstered gun.

If what we see is the gun... where is the holster?

[pintobean]

1. You have to do mental acrobats to get there

and it would have to be a massive conspiracy.

[boston bean]

4. What conspiracy?

If his gun was holstered at the time he was shot.... No one has said he was pointing a gun at them. In fact, just the opposite has been claimed by officials.

[Waldorf]

2. From one of the videos yesterday when the cop with bodycam is moving around the white vehicle

you can see the ankle holster on his right leg.

[boston bean]

3. right when he is dead on the ground, it is no longer there. It's been removed.

[exboyfil]

5. A DU member put together a frame by frame

demonstration of the position of the gun after the shooting. I think it is compelling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8185880

[boston bean]

6. yeah that is what prompted this. To me that first pic in the post looks somewhat like a gun

but also it looks like a holster.

[unblock]

7. police training is horrible wrong if they can't handle a routing situation without killing someone.

police are supposedly trained to protect and serve *others*, not themselves.

yes, i understand and appreciate that policing is a dangerous job and that police getting shot by criminals is not a desirable outcome either.

however, police tactics used in most of these so-called "officer-involved shootings" are extremely poorly thought out in that the police choose to put themselves into situations where they fear for their own lives and they feel the only "defense" they have is killing a civilian.

particularly if the person they're trying to arrest is armed, they need better tactics than to simply approach the guy out in the open with guns drawn so that if the guy sneezes they'll feel the need to kill him to survive.

they need much more common use of beanbags, rubber bullets, stun guns, falling back to a safer distance, having patience, etc.
has anyone tried tranquilizing someone in these situations? vets can bring in vicious, wild animals, why can't we bring in humans?

[Lee-Lee]

8. Tell me specifics of how you would have handled this

Since you are insisting it could have been done differently.

Take into account the speed it went down and the limitations of less lethal options, and the risk portrayed by a gun in the hand of a noncompliant person.

I am currently a certified use of force instructor, pepper spray instructor, taser instructor and am or have in the past been certified on most other less lethal options, so I can give you a good run down on what does and does not work or what can be sound tactics if you want an intelligent discussion on it.

Let's start with your experience in these methods and what you would have done had you been on the scene there.

[boston bean]

9. Don't kill someone who isn't pointing a gun at you. That would be the first step.

[Lee-Lee]

10. So what else

I can take a handgun in the hand and raise it up and fire at you in about .4 seconds. That's four tenths of a second.

How quick is your reaction time? Can you be 100% sure of that and being very accurate under stress against a moving target that you can hit someone in the most stressful event of your life in less than .4 seconds?

Ok- if you claim you can, let's leave this noncompliant person with a gun who isn't following orders free to do what he wants. What steps are you taking now, and what risk to you and others is increased or is there more exposure to as a result of your choice? Knowing that every foot you get closer to him results in making yourself easier to hit with a first shot, how close can you and the others safely approach him while managing the risk?

Can you answer any of that, or do you just have trite little one line answers with no ideas or knowledge behind them?

[boston bean]

12. They were already ready to handle what could have happened but did not.

So, they just shoot the guy who isn't threatening them with a gun.

But they sure as shit were threatening him with one and followed through.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Just as I thought

You can't answer the hard questions.

Having a gun at the ready and not complying with demands is a threat.

If someone came into your home with a gun but didn't point if at you, you would still be justified in shooting them. If someone held a gun aimed at the ground and told you to get undressed because they were going to rape you they wouldn't have to point it at you to be a threat. If someone attempts to rob a bank and keeps tr gun pointed in the air the guards would still be justified in shooting them.

The idea that you have to raise the gun and point it at someone before you become a threat or a danger is indiotic and displays a deep ignorance of both the law and just how fast these situations can go down.

A person with a gun who is refusing lawful commands from the police is a threat. And while they didn't have the information at the time you can look at his criminal record and see he has a long history of assaulting others, that just reinforces after the fact.

[boston bean]

18. I understand it is tense. But he didn't point a gun nor shoot them.

[Hoyt]

20. Oh BS. How many guns were trained on him? Plus, they were behind cover. I admit, if

there was a gun, it changes the dynamics of the situation. I do not believe police had to shoot in this situation; however, if a gun was there, they deserve a fair investigation.

But still, all this BS of shoot "center mass," police want to go home at night, etc., is a bunch of hooey. They choose the job, and should be held accountable.

Now, tell us about the shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

[Separation]

41. I think the shooting in Tulsa speaks for itself.

She is being charged with a crime.

[Hoyt]

22. Oh BS. How many guns were trained on him? Plus, they were behind cover. I admit, if

there was a gun, it changes the dynamics of the situation. I do not believe police had to shoot in this situation; however, if a gun was there, they deserve a fair investigation.

But still, all this BS of shoot "center mass," police want to go home at night, etc., is a bunch of hooey. They choose the job, and should be held accountable.

Now, tell us about the shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

[Lee-Lee]

46. I can have a gun by my side pointed down and angle my wristband shoot in less than 1/4 second

I can raise and fire a shot in under .4 seconds.

Put your hand down by your side like you are holding a gun. Now flick your wrist up like you are aiming a pistol from the hip and pulling a trigger. See how fast you can do that even with no practice or training!

How fast is your reaction time for your eyes to see the movement, your brain to process what it sees, to make the decision to fire and to pull the trigger. Can you do that in less than .25 seconds? With perfection? That's what people who are insisting the cops were wrong to shoot are demanding, that the cops have impossibly fast reflexes and reaction time and wait until the gun is aimed at them before shooting.

If you are holding a gun and the cops are yelling at you to drop it with guns aimed at you there is only one reason you don't drop the gun- because you plan to use it.

As for Tulsa, I am going with a cop that didn't follow department procedures once others were on scene and panicked. I'm interested to know her work schedule and how much sleep she was running on as well as her toxicology. The guy was clearly noncompliant and acting very erratically, but I can't see how he posed a threat at that moment that justified lethal force, especially since another officer was there with a taser deployed. She should have been the backup and safety for the taser operator at that moment. I'm surprised they came out with charges so fast, so that tells me there may be more damming stuff we don't know. Bad shoot.

[Hoyt]

51. And three or four police officiers with their guns out and aimed can do it faster..

If that's the kind of training you give law enforcement and security guards, no wonder we have these police shootings and George Zimmerman murders.

[Lee-Lee]

52. can they? Have you tried

I would love to set you up in down use of force simulations using simunitions and see if you could.

You are expected reaction time to see the movement, comprehend that it is certainly an aiming, make the decision to shoot and pull the trigger to all go down in less than .25 seconds- because the person has already started the movement and already has their movement in practice.

You are expecting superhuman fast reflexes that are the result of perfect decision making in the fraction of an instant:

That isn't how it works. I would love to set you up in some use of force simulations to give you an idea of what the reality of these situations is. Rest assured you will learn that a person can quickly flip their wrist and fire at you from holding the gun down faster than you can get a shot off that stops them- even if you have the gun aimed at them. Because even if you get it 100% perfect and have flawless superhuman reaction time unless you get a perfect head shot their brain and muscles still work and even shot in the chest they can finish squeezing the trigger.

The real world of use of force isn't anything like the fantasy world you present.

[Hoyt]

55. Injured Black man could raise his gun and shoot officers behind cover, faster than they respond?

Don't think so, but I'm sure many police officer think that and you are spreading the myth.

If the video shows Scott with his gun up , that's one thing, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

[Lee-Lee]

57. Here is an actual scientific study on the matter

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/178.html

It only studied cases where the suspect raised the gun either from the side or form a suicidal position aimed at the head, and didn't even use the "hip shot" from them that would be even faster for the suspect to shoot from.

The results were that under near perfect conditions, with less stress than a real situation, with the suspect stationary and not moving about the suspects could raise and fire slightly faster than an officer already with the gun aimed at them could react to their movement and fire. At best on most cases the result would be both firing weapons near simultaneously.

Watch the video and be ready to say "shoot" as soon as you hit play. Tell me if you get it out of your mouth before you are dead. No retries, you have to get it right first time....

Did you live? I don't expect any honest answers but maybe it will provoke thought.

[Hoyt]

58. Sure. Sounds like rationalization to shoot when it's not really necessary. But keep

teaching that to trainees and citizen toters like Zimmerman.

[LisaL]

11. You don't have to point the gun to shoot it.

And considering that in the past Mr. Scott shot at some guy 10 times (for which he got his felony conviction) it would appear he wasn't afraid to use it.

[boston bean]

13. right..... and...

[philosslayer]

29. And the police would have known this how??

[etherealtruth]

16. that's a good start ... I'd follow with do not escalate situations

[unblock]

17. if your point of view is that innocent people have to routinely get killed for mere "non-compliance"

then the whole concept of modern policing is severely flawed. the old legal saw that it is better to let 100 guilty people go than to wrongly convict one innocent person should apply from the moment of arrest as well.

the police have many options including just letting the person go and waiting for a better time/situation to arrest the person. yes, that doesn't work if the guy is pointing a gun, but someone merely *having* a gun shouldn't be an excuse for the police to shoot to kill.

i think part of the problem is that police seem to be far too impatient and also take simple non-compliance as a lethal threat. non-compliance can happen due to language or hearing difficulties, medications, or hell, simple obnoxiousness or stupidity. it shouldn't be a death sentence.

i've noted already a variety of non-lethal or less-lethal weaponry/equipment. you want me to give you the entire point-by-point solution? ok, you've got me, you can claim to be an expert; i won't. i don't have the details. but i've already listed some ideas, and it seems pretty clear that the priorities in use are out of whack.

officers appear to be trained to never back down, and this is an error. backing down allows for reinforcements, supply of additional, alternative equipment or expertise, or simply delaying to find a better situation in which to make an arrest. just because the police want to arrest someone doesn't mean they need to arrest or kill someone then and there.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Ok, so your answe is to let him go and find him later or back down

Back down and what?

Let him find a position behind cover where he stands a better chance of harming others? Runs into a possibly occupied dwelling there and takes a hostage?

Let him go? Let an armed, irrationally acting noncompliant person just walk away? Then when he harms someone else the same armchair quarterbacks will scream that the police should have stopped him. When do they go back and get him- later when he knows now they are hunting him and has prepared more to fight it out?

How about you don't illegally carry a gun, and if you have a gun legal or not you don't draw it around police and you put it down when they tell you too?

[unblock]

26. a rational, compliant person can also shoot you in 0.4 seconds.

you gonna change your mind in that amount of time?

are you seriously telling me that every bit of policing you've ever seen, including where innocent people end of dead at the hands of police, was the best and safest possible, leading to the fewest deaths and injuries?

you seriously can't think of any way to improve matters?

if it were war, soldiers would know better than to just slowly walk up to an enemy. they would fall back to a safe distance, get themselves behind a wall or shield of some sort (car, e.g.), wait for reinforcements, bring out longer-distance weaponry, etc.

inching closer and closer then shooting when the guy sneezes is a tactic designed to wind up with a lot of dead citizens.

[Separation]

42. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried

If it was the military they would have first gained overwhelming firepower and then maneuvered to a better situation.

[unblock]

49. ya think the mission might be more like bring in a p.o.w. alive for interrogation?

while minimizing civilian casualties?

or do you figure that "take that hill at all costs" is a military mission that maps neatly into routine police work?

[Separation]

50. I think

That equating any military tactics with civilian police tactics is not a good idea. It's not even comparing apples to oranges, its more like comparing apples to automobiles.

[unblock]

53. fair enough.

i'm certainly not advocating military strategy in police situations.

i'm simply pointing out that even the military has different tactics for bringing in people alive and minimizing civilian casualties.

police tactics seem to quickly get police in a situation where they feel the need to shoot to kill in order to protect themselves. that, to me, suggests some very ill-conceived practices leading up to the shoot.

they seem to rely very heavily on the hope that a policeman with a drawn weapon will lead everyone to lay down their weapons, if any, and comply with every request shouted. if it doesn't play out that way, they end up with little choice but to shoot. the approach, the drawing of weapons, the lack of sufficient protection or cover, the lack of less lethal weaponry, etc., all point to a weak effort to resolve the situation without deadly force.

i fully support lethal force used if other options have run dry and there's an imminent lethal threat otherwise. but it seems we keep finding cases where lethal force could have easily been avoided.

[Dem2]

44. He was fine until the bloodthirsty murdering cops harrased him and scared the shit out of him

Do you support murdering people who look suspicious? Seems so...

[Lee-Lee]

45. That poor violent felon peacefully carrying his illegal gun

Until the mean cops showed up.

[unblock]

47. If can't recognize failure to bring 'em in alive as a serious failure

Then please don't advise police on tactics or training and work on your humanity. Police are not in a position to pass moral judgment on everyone they encounter and deliver instant death based on highly limited perception of a situation.

This is why we have courts and due process. The job of the police is to bring 'em in alive so they can face trial if appropriate. They're not there to kill first and only later determine that they had the wrong guy, that the gun turned out to be legal, that the gun turned out to be skittles, or that the thug turned out to be an undercover officer.

Or, for that matter, they were right! And turns out the sentence for the violation wasn't death after all!

[Dem2]

56. So you're one of them

Got it - off to ignore/

[DetlefK]

30. Well, how about not shooting him in the torso???

Police-forces in other countries e.g. shoot for the legs to incapacitate the attacker.

US-police shoot for the torso (heart, lungs, lots of opportunities for internal bleeding...) with the excuse that they might hit an artery when shooting the suspect in the leg and that he might bleed out from that. Shooting in guts and chest is so much safer!!!

[Separation]

43. Wrong

They do not shoot in the legs because by the time guns are drawn it's a lethal situation. There has never been any talk about worrying about hitting an artery in the leg. It's shoot center mass, period, end of story. I'd also like to see policies of these foreign countries that aim for the legs. I'm not saying it's impossible, I've just not heard heard about it.

[tonyt53]

54. Bingo. They shoot for the target less likely to more. When teaching football tackling, go for number

More likely to hit the target.

[CRF450]

15. Protect and serve *others* huh...

If I was in an officers shoes, protecting someone with criminal intent who could gun me down in half a second goes out the window.

[unblock]

24. good thing you're not in an officer's shoes.

first off, in some of these situations, we're not talking about someone with criminal intent. we're talking about someone who merely has a gun, maybe pulled over for a traffic violation. or we're talking about someone who an officer simply *thinks* has a gun but in fact does not.

but regardless, officers need to be trained not to put themselves in situations where they think the only way out is to kill the people they're supposed to protect. and yes, even people committing crimes are part of the group of people they're supposed to protect. it they've legitimately tried everything, and the only way to protect innocent people is to shoot someone who is making a threat of lethal force, then i'm fine with an outcome where the police shoot the guy waving the gun around.

but i'm not supportive of failing to take every reasonable measure to avoid that result. police have many options, many alternative weapons, and the great advantage of time and cooperation from a huge team. they can make the arrest later, they can wait for more people, they can try tranquilizer guns. or, hell, they can just leave! some of these cases were situations where a crime wasn't even committed or threatened to be committed! mail the guy a traffic ticket if that's what it's all about.

[CRF450]

31. When a person acts suspiciously and not following orders

That implies criminal intent of some kind, in this case it was absolutely that by having a gun on himself when he wasn't suppose to have one due to past criminal history, some of which Keith has are federal offenses. Just the visible sight of the gun on him is what escalated the situation because none of those officers know what his true intentions are.

The way I see it, he put up a front because he got caught red handed with the gun in possession, an automatic jail sentence for him that he just didn't want to go through with.

[unblock]

32. wow. i can see how sincere you are about bringing them in alive.

[CRF450]

33. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

I'm sorry but the guys' actions are what killed him. A quick google search shows a lengthy criminal record, most were assaults and illegal possession of a gun, one of them had a seven year prison sentence for an assault w/deadly weapon. That shows what type of person he's likely to be when confronted.

He had many chances to turn things around and never did. No sympathy from me.

[unblock]

40. Yeah that's right. Shoot 'em all

Sorry if I don't share your views that we're better off with the government killing its people. And by all means, keep focusing on the mistakes the dead guy made. The survivors write history, after all.

This is one of the fundamental problems with lethal force, and especially the quick and ready use of it. It turns mistakes into deadly ones. We all make mistakes. The government needs to bend over backwards to ensure that mistakes aren't lethal ones.

[tblue37]

27. They also immediately escalate EVERY situation, even minor encounters

in which the citizen has shown no inclination toward violence or even resistance, into a screaming, cursing battle royale, with punches and kicks--and often illegal chokeholds--and heavy cops kneeling on the civilian's head and back, or with guns pointed at the civilian and often incomprehensible or even contradictory commands shouted from all directions.

And as was the case with Scott, the victim is often just an innocent person whom the cops really had no good reason, no probable cause, for initiating an interaction with in the first place.

They don't want to deescalate, ever. They want to bully and assert dominance.

[jmg257]

19. This pic seems to show the holster is still on his right ankle, while the gun is obvious.

?

Note the wide beige band, and black thing right below his right sneaker (black could be shadow too).

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

[Lee-Lee]

23. That's clearly a book and and ankle book holder

You must be a liar cop to see a gun and holster.

[jmg257]

25. Where did the book thing come from? Where are the witnesses in all these images and videos?

[pintobean]

28. Remember VonDeritt Myers with the sub sandwich

and Antonio Martin with the cell phone?

Things never change.

[B2G]

35. That's not the gun

It's a latex glove. The gun is off to the right being guarded vlby the cop on the red shirt.

[jmg257]

39. Yep -t his is later though - the shadow of the truck is right there.

Seems to be the same location the cop was standing earlier.

Now hes in the picture.

Pretty sure that's the gun.

[Rex]

34. The police obviously planted a gun next to his body.

And since the Chief of Police said the video DOES NOT show Scott raise a weapon at officers and they will not release any video footage. All you can do is ask questions.

[Egnever]

36. They released the footage yesterday

[Rex]

37. Not all of it.

Everything released shows he did not raise his hands at the cops, what else is there?

[pintobean]

38. You're confused again.

He said that the video is inconclusive; that it doesn't show that he raised his hand, because the camera wasn't on him when he was shot. The video does not show that "he did not raise his hands at the cops".

[Rex]

48. Wrong.