Why did Scott have to die?

[peasant one]

1) Why was it so important to "get" him? He was sitting in his car. Am I missing something? (other than the obvious, he was black sitting in his car). Even if the cops saw the gun, why did he need to be "stopped" at that time? Once the cops escalated the issue and asked Scott to get out of the car, I can at least see the conundrum everyone faced but why go after a guy sitting in a car-seemingly minding his own business?

2) With his wife right there talking to them, why didn't the cops de-escalate and then try to talk to her to convince her husband to get out of the car?

3) Why in heaven's name didn't the cops immediately get help or check on his condition after he was shot?

4) Once Scott was asked to get out of the car---I believe that the cops were so keyed into the gun that there was almost nothing Scott could have done to survive. He would have been shot for acting furtively, for raising his hands, for not raising his hands, for getting out quickly, for getting out slowly, for...

[uponit7771]

1. +1, No one who is objective is going to believe the LEO knew without a shadow of a doubt that Scott

... was rolling a joint vs cigarette.

Also, if the LEO saw Scott with a gun why did he stay so close to the vehicle.

[KeepItReal]

2. Because to them sitting in your vehicle waiting on your kids coming from school

...like you do every day also means you are still a menace to society.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Because he had some pot on him.

No, apparently they're giving that as the reason. Seriously.

[uponit7771]

5. +1, which I don't believe for a second the LEO can withstand an on the spot test of what a cigarette

... and a joint looks like.

The LEO assumed it was pot and then went ballistic

[Fast Walker 52]

17. ARRGGGHH!H!!! Freaking insane!

[DLevine]

4. Sitting in your car while black is reason enough for some cops.

The rest is just excuses to try to justify their actions.

[Atman]

6. It's part of that ego/power thing...

...that makes people want to become a cop in the first place. Once they approach and bark an order, they expect it to be followed, and they can't back down. That would be defeat, a sign of weekness.

[Fast Walker 52]

19. yeah, for sure... and that attitude makes me sick

seems like those people who get off on that sort of ego trip should be excluded from the police, rather than selected.

[treestar]

32. True though it is an American thing

not limited to police. If we don't back military attacks we are said to be "weak." It's an obsession in the culture generally.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Note to self: don't roll a joint in front of cops and then pull a gun.

[uponit7771]

9. There was no evidence that it was a joint vs a cigarette, note to posters copology is noticed

[Buzz Clik]

11. Your "note" in the form of a thinly veiled threat is met with a protruding, single digit.

Bullying tactics are not limited to cops, right? Was that your point, or was it unintentional irony?

[uponit7771]

12. Yeah, lets not address the salient issue of the LEO not knowing it wasn't a cigarette, whatever

... it was a bad shooting, no photo evidence of Scott with a gun IN HIS HAND and no evidence the LEO knew it was a cigarette vs MJ

[Buzz Clik]

14. Did you actually read the official version of the arrest?

I don't think so. The cops were letting their suspicions of a joint pass. Why don't you know that?

[uponit7771]

15. Great, then they're fucked... because open carry is allowed in NC... I didn't know that...

.. thx for establishing the position that this was a bad shooting from the start INCLUDING the initial engagement seeing they were going to let the MJ pass.

Engaging him because he had a gun is fucked up reasoning seeing NC is an open carry state and they had NO IDEA that he did or didn't have the proper right to do so.

[Lee-Lee]

24. No is not

Seeing drugs and letting them pass, the seeing a gun added to the equation and deciding to act is 100% justifiable.

Been there, done that, held up just fine in court.

[uponit7771]

38. OK, then the drugs were a determining factor then and the LEO did not know whether what he had

... was a cigarette or weed.

[CRF450]

110. He was "rolling" a joint. Not very many people do that with ciggs.

Weed + gun = possible convict and criminal activity. They didn't care about the joint alone, they outright stated that.

I'm not saying this would've certainly happened But, if they had let it slide after seeing the gun waved around, and Keith later assaulted/murdered someone with it. The officers who saw the gun would be held liable for it, lose their jobs and livelihood. You would be crying foul that they weren't doing their job, that they were incompetent.

They did their job here.

[uponit7771]

114. YES.. MANY MANY people roll cigs... I know my buddy rolls PLENTY and unlit the tobacco smells like

.. some types of weed.

NO DOUBT he could've been rolling a cig

Scott was NOT smoking anything when the LEO saw him first, they can't claim they smelled something.

Fucked up shooting no doubt

[Egnever]

122. You have a friend who takes the tobacco out of cigars to roll tobacco in them?

I don't buy that for a second.

[uponit7771]

126. There's no need to be openly condescending, it's not going to bring Scott back and its obvious

... we don't agree on this subject.

You can buy tobacco in stores and paper to roll a cig too...

Plenty of reason to roll your own cig from store bought tobacco that's not been made by a big cig company

[Egnever]

130. Except it was not rolling papers it was a blunt.

a blunt is a cigar cut open and the tobacco taken out then replaced with pot and rolled back up.

And again the idea someone would cut open a cigar and empty out the tobacco to put different tobacco in is ludicrous.

[uponit7771]

174. Sigh, the cigs come in blunt size too... you guys ever roll a cig?!

[Egnever]

175. Oh boy

[hollysmom]

137. what a strange assumption.

I really don't know the answer to what he was smoking, but I do know that North Carolina is a tobacco growing state and that people do indeed roll cigarettes there, especially older folk or younger people who don't' want additives in their tobacco that the rolled cigarettes add. I had someone from the south staying with me, and I had to hunt down loose tobacco for him to roll because it is not as common in the metro area.

[Egnever]

140. I think we have a lack of knowledge here of what a blunt is

A blunt is a cigar that has been cut open to take the tobacco out and replace it with pot and then re-roll it.

It is not the same as tobacco rolled in a rolling paper, and there is a police photo of the blunt in question that was half smoked.



You may know hundreds of people who roll their own cigarettes but I would bet money you don't know a single person that cuts open a cigar to remove the tobacco only to put different tobacco in and roll it back up. It would be a stupid thing to do what would be the point in that?

Rolling your own smokes can save money but you don't unroll cigarettes to do so.

[hollysmom]

194. of course I have no idea about that, because

drugs never appealed to me, not judging others, different things for different people. But I have heard of people putting brandy in a cigar, whether they dip it or cut it and put it in, I don't know.
As to exact words, I bet a lot of people use words differently that is why I allow a certain leeway with words. when someone says they saw someone with a knife I have to wonder if it was a whittling knife or a gutting knife. both a knife but for different purposes. What I heard before is that a blunt, and the person probably used it wrong, was a large poorly wrapped marijuana cigarette.

[Egnever]

195. Understood

I completely understand that is why I tried to explain it . I am sure you are not the only one reading this thread that does not know what a blunt is.

Hope you have a good one.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. or they got a "zomg druggz" hard-on over the weed and then used the gun as an excuse.

We don't really know he was "waving the gun around", do we?

[Egnever]

172. Know undeniably?

No but does it really matter in the end?

He was a felon in possession of a firearm near a drop off for a school. Would you really be happier if the cops left him and folks like him alone? Is that where you are going with this? Cops should never question people with fire arms?

Personally I don't want anyone with fire arms near kids period.

If we have gotten to the point we are going to start justifying felons with firearms because they are black this place has sunk to a really despicable low.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. No, but I question whether they saw the gun first or they just went after the weed.

Fact of the matter is, the main preoccupation of law enforcement in many places where pot is still treated like a crime, seems to be busting pot smokers.

That's why the only answer is to legalize it.

[Egnever]

181. We will never know for sure

in the end as far as making the choice to confront him they made the right call.

They handled it poorly in my opinion but in the end they found a felon in possession of a firearm near a school drop off.

Lots of questions remain at this point in my mind but the question of him being a felon in possession of a firearm is pretty much beyond dispute as far as I am concerned. The evidence is just overwhelming.

Did they go after him because he was smoking pot or because they saw a gun, there is no way of knowing for sure nor does it really matter.

I am totally on board for legalizing drugs. Way more problems created than solved by them being illegal.

[Schema Thing]

187. Er, maybe a little fucking understanding would be in order? If you're an undercover cop and someone

sitting in the car next to you sees you acting suspicious and lets you know not to bother them BECAUSE YOU LOOK, BY DESIGN, LIKE ANYONE BUT A COP.

So then you go get your cop clothes and blow them away?


Do cops even give a shit about basic fairness or human life anymore?

[CRF450]

35. It's an open carry state to those who can legally own a gun.

Keith Scott was barred from ever owning a gun because he's had multiple felonies and assault charges, plus several years of prison time.

He got caught, knew he was going to go back to jail for illegal possession of a firearm, tried to put up a front and died because of his actions.

[uponit7771]

39. Red herring, the LEO didn't know at the time whether or not he can open carry and didn't

... know at the time he was rolling a cigarette or a joint.

Bad shooting, point blank

[jmg257]

56. You do know that cops' job isn't just to wait around to arrest people when issued warrants?

Or make arrests based on signed complaints by other citizens?

They are given the pretty big responsibility to be suspicious, investigate, stop possible crimes in progress, issue tickets for violations and such? That's what "reasonable suspicion/cause" is all about, so cops can do that part of their job.
(Hmmm - Do you think cops pull every car they can over just to issue citations for broken headlights or whatever?)

You are basing an awful lot on the notion the cops did not have ANY reason for investigating Scott, after seeing what they had reason to think was MJ, and then seeing a gun.

Not a good argument, IMO

[uponit7771]

57. I know the cops reasoning for engaging Scott is bullshit on its face 1.) Doesn't know WHAT he's roll

... rolling, 2.) doesn't know if he can have the gun open carry or not, 3.) No reason to escalate beyond can I see some ID...

Fuck that...

I'm not apologizing for the stupid cops, there are PLENTY of competent cops who do their job day in and day out.

BTW: If the cops engagement was on the up and up the CPD would've released it by now vs needlessly clamming up.. fuck the "investigation" shit when they've ALREADY released information that supports their position.

[jmg257]

63. Except he DID have a joint, and did have a gun...so bullshit, or not...

Turns out they were correct in the reasons they had/gave for investigating further...

An investigation, BTW, which turned out to show they had come across an ex-felon carrying an illegal handgun.

[uponit7771]

64. Irrelevant, the cops didn't know what he had or if he was permitted to open carry... they went from

... 0 to 100 needlessly and killed someone in the process when "see soem ID" would've done

Fuck that, plenty of LEOs who don't have their heads up their asses to defend

[jmg257]

65. I agree with that...they did escalate the situation for whatever reason. nt

[uponit7771]

66. Yeap, they wont show the reason which makes me not want to give them the BOTD...

... show everything.

Tulsa did and no one blew up

[Egnever]

141. What do you mean show the reason?

they stated the reason. There is no video to show the reason, no one was filming until the confrontation was under way.

[Eleanors38]

193. Do you think LEO ran a license check and found out about his record?

[jmg257]

23. Are you saying "It was a bad shoot" because there is no PICTURE of Scott with a gun in his hand?

Or because there was no probable cause to justify approaching him?

Or both?


If that is/are the arguments, I think they will lean towards the police version of events, especially in light of the gun that was recovered, the holster, the blunt, the testimony of the numerous cops involved, etc.


Arguing the probable cause with the 'experts' (the cops involved) will be tough. Unfortunately things escalated to an apparently needless shoot.

[tonyt53]

28. There are most certainly a lot of bad cops. But this many in the same place at the same time?

Lots of evidence of wrongdoings by Scott, as well as a lot of unanswered questions about him and his family, like why was his wife right there, and why the scream of just reading a book. There was most certainly a smaller pistol that would fit into an ankle holster, which is very clear to anybody not incomplete denial about it. It is very clear that one cop pushed the pistol away from Scott after he was on the ground, which should be expected. Cops were yelling for him to drop the weapon well before the shooting, but Scott ignored that. His wife talking from the distance that she was, was nothing more than a bee buzz with an armed confrontation going on. Why wasn't she screaming extremely loudly? She was most certainly telling Keith not to do it. Regardless of what some want to think they heard.

Some people want to talk about this being the same as what happened to Michael Brown and Terence Crutcher. Brown was murdered. Crutcher was murdered. Scott was shot because he chose to become a threat.

[jmg257]

34. I don't put much weight on the wife, other then the TBI stuff...seems clear Scott was acting a bit

off, just in seeing the way he exited his car. As you state, the evidence so far tends to support the police version.

SOMETHING 'legit' got the cops involved with Scott...they had other stuff going on, and it doesn't seem likely they would just start busting chops of a guy reading a book, no matter what color he was.

[uponit7771]

42. Some people want to give UNEARNED benefit of the doubt to the CPD where the citizens do not

[uponit7771]

41. As a part, in whole there was no realisitic reason to engage him they way they did. They have no pro

... proof that he couldn't open carry and no proof that what he was rolling was MJ

[jmg257]

45. Right - but as a cop, you don't need proof, all you need is "reasonable"...suspicion/cause etc.

"Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity"

I think they'll make their case. At least enough to justify further investigating what Mr Scott was up to.

[Fast Walker 52]

49. so what did they think they might have found?

Some dude sitting in his truck, was a threat how?

[jmg257]

51. Well, seems they would have found an ex-felon in illegal possession of a gun

Pretty big score right there, and likely to be applauded as so many are anti-gun, especially when he had also been charged with assaulting his wife - a double no-no.

[tonyt53]

76. But those facts are lost. Too many people too quick to jump onto the cops about this.

What about the black guy (Philip Hasan) killed in Akron a couple of days before Scott? Where is the outcry?

[wildeyed]

70. Also, possession of under 1/2 once has been decriminalized in NC.

Technically, it is a misdemeanor, but they don't bother enforcing that much anymore.

[tonyt53]

105. The cops didn't know how much he had. When they investigated, the gun changed everything.

When they were citing him for the pot, even though it is a misdemeanor, they would have done a check on his records. The previous felony would have barred him from owning a gun. Scott knew that much and he wasn't going to jail. You want felons to have guns?

[DLevine]

10. That is the cop version of events.

Unfortunately the victim isn't alive to tell his side.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, the CPD is given UNEARNED benefit of the doubt

[R B Garr]

116. And they seem to like it that way. n/t

[Fast Walker 52]

20. and the evidence that he pulled a gun is what exactly?

[Buzz Clik]

31. Hm. I don't recall saying anything about evidence.

Let me recheck my original post and see....

[uponit7771]

43. +1, they're giving the CPD unearned benefit of the doubt

[wildeyed]

68. NC has de-criminalized possession of under 1/2 ounce.

Technically, it is a misdemeanor, but they don't bother with enforcement much. NC is also an open carry state. They claim to have seen the gun through the windshield, correct? But that is not illegal. People drive around with guns on their passenger seats all the time. Gives me the willies, but perfectly legal.

Police were there to serve a warrant to another person who never showed up. Scott wasn't the target. Police either got bored and decided to bust him or were just doing what they do our of habit, which is harassing poor black people. It went bad because Scott had a head injury and got confused with the yelling.

[uponit7771]

73. Oh wow !!! BOOM... so basically there was little reason to engage him at all !!!!

[wildeyed]

95. Right.

They were there waiting for another guy who never showed. Either they were bored or they didn't want to go back to station house empty handed, so they went after this guy. He was an easy target. Poor, black, male and doing just enough that they could justify their harassment. Who is gonna say anything? Just another day at the office for the police. I cannot prove this to be true, beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law, but that would be my educated guess as a citizen of this fine city.

We try to put a kind, modern face on our systemic racism here in Charlotte. We have a black police chief! The mayor is a Democrat! We are progressive and fair! But I looked up the statistics for police stops by race a few years ago (public record on a searchable online database for anyone who is interested) and it was clear that blatant profiling was the norm. Don't remember that exact numbers, but blacks are 30-40% of the population but made up over 50% of the stops.

Concerned citizens of Charlotte DID try to do something. We proposed an anti-profiling ordinance and sat in on City Council meetings in our matching protest shirts. We could change the law, but we could not change the police culture or make the media pay attention or the business class care. Business cares now, so perhaps THEY can make the police see some light on the issue. Sigh.... We shall see.

[tonyt53]

107. How exactly would the cops have known exactly how much pot he had without checking him out?

[wildeyed]

113. The COPS said they didn't care until

they saw the legally displayed gun. Ask them why they didn't care.

[uponit7771]

125. +1,

[tonyt53]

160. Uh, the two together are cause for reasonable suspicion. That is all they need.

Seems they were right. Scott, a felon with a gun. He wasn't going to jail in his mind. So, you are okay with a felon having a gun? Now that is interesting.

[yodermon]

161. Exactly. One look at him and they could tell he was probably a felon.

[wildeyed]

163. Lol, your logic is so twisted.

You need to up your strawman game if you want to win around this place. Are you new? That was so weak....

[uponit7771]

123. WOW!!!! Thx for this info... see, I'm starting to corelate folk blowing up over incidences like this

... and fucked up unprofessional policing.

Sounds like folk in CLT have their shit together and are activist where as the LEO leadership has their heads up their asses

There's no need for the CPD to clam up like this unless they've done something all fucked up, the should release all the video of the incident and let come what may for all parties involved

[Rex]

138. The fact that they won't release everything tells you something.

[wildeyed]

154. Exactly!

The protests and the rage are more about the systemic over-policing of the black community than anything. The DA is in on it too. They prosecute the stupidest things. Cases with no evidence that should NEVER go to court. Using the taxpayer's money to basically torture poor people. It's so messed up.

We can argue about the details of this case.... Did Scott have a gun? Was he acting in an aggressive manner? Did he "deserve" to get shot or were the police at fault? At the end of the day, that is all opinion. What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Charlotte police profile the heck out of black citizens. It's all there in publically accessible files. Basic math that anyone with a middle school education should be able to understand. Anyone can look it up, including the media, although so far none have bothered that I have seen.

This shooting combined with the lack of transparency by the police chief just put a match to the gasoline. It was waiting to happen. These protests were destined to happen. I see that now.

[Egnever]

135. I find that plausible

it is entirely possible they were looking to make some kind of bust and Mr. Scott handed them a reason to confront him.

Not necessarily what happened but it is plausible. That said Mr. scott would be alive if he had complied. Perhaps because of his brain injury and being high he was confused and didn't understand what was going on and that turned out tragic for him.

[Rex]

80. Wow, were you planning on doing that?

I mean, that is not what happened to the poor guy in the car, but maybe you should seek help for wanting to get shot by the cops!

[Buzz Clik]

111. Lots of conflicting reports of what happened in that car.

No one -- not anyone -- is in a position of saying exactly what happened or didn't happen except the deceased and the cops, and the assumption around here is that the cops will lie under all circumstances. So, the bottom line is "that is not what happened to the poor guy in the car" is based on not much.

[Rex]

127. Except with a small group it is

cops never lie at all...so have fun with that fantasy.

[Buzz Clik]

129. And, in typical DU fashion, off you go with the hyperbole.

"You're either with us or against us."

I didn't like that approach under GW Bush, and I don't like it here.

[Rex]

131. That sounds just like you and a few others here.

Never a bad word for a cop, they are always great. Again, have fun with that fantasy. Nobody else is buying it.

[Buzz Clik]

189. The answer to hyperbole is .... more hyperbole!

[Warren DeMontague]

164. thought experiment: white guy with an AR-15 or black guy with a joint

who are the cops gonna try and arrest?

[Skittles]

178. try Googling

https://www.google.com/#q=man+arrested+with+ar-15

[Buzz Clik]

188. Let's see... white guy with an AR-15, resists arrests. What happens?

Robert "LaVoy" Finicum. Dead.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. Fine, you win.

But pot doesnt make someone inherently more dangerous. I dont care what the legal rationale is, there- that's a fucking inane assertion.

[Skittles]

176. that logic seems to escape a lot of people

[Lee-Lee]

16. Well, you need to ask that from both sides

You seem to only question the police actions. The actions of BOTH sides come into play.

Why did Scott choose to illegally carry a firearm as a convicted felon?

Why did he choose to carry it when he went to pick his daughter up?

Why did he have it visible so that the officers could see it along with the drugs or suspected drugs?

When the police ordered him to exit the car, why did he choose to exit with the firearm instead of the much more logical and safe measure of leaving it in the car?

Why did he not comply with officers commands?

For the police- why were they there? We know that.

Why did they choose to act- from the reports I saw they first saw what appeared to be him rolling a joint parked next to them and chose to not act as they placed greater priority on getting the person they are looking for. Then they saw the gun and decided the combination of the two required them to act. Was that a judgement call or a department protocol regarding firearms? I don't know.

Why was a less lethal option not tried? The situation was too fluid and dynamic. A person with a gun by thier side can have it raised as shoot in less than .4 seconds, and generally faster than an officer with a. Gun already aimed can see the movement, judge what it it, make a decision to shoot and pull the trigger. It's an extremely dangerous situation, especially given that there is only one logical reason an armed person would refuse to drop a gun when ordered to by police at gunpont, and that is that he intends to or is considering using the weapon. That is also the only reason you exit your vehicle with a weapon when the police stop you.

People will slam me for "victim blaming" and the rest, but reality is he died because of his decisions and a little bad luck in parking next to an unmarked police vehicle. Had he never decided to get and carry a gun illegally he would be alive today. Had he left the gun in the car he would be alive today. Had he dropped it when ordered he would be alive today. When your death corms as a direct result of a crime you are committing, in this case a felin carrying a gun, that doesn't qualify you as a "victim" in my book and it's only honesty to point out that the choice to break the law contributed highly to the outcome.

Had the police chosen to ignore him and focus on the person they were looking for he would be alive today. But they have a job to investigate when they see what appears to be a crime.

[DLevine]

18. I guess if you believe cops never lie it is pretty clear-cut. nt

[uponit7771]

44. +1

[citood]

25. Well you're probably right...you will get slammed

I think, as is often the case, a misunderstanding caused the shooting.

The story is that Scott waited in his car for his daughter to get off the bus, every day. But why? His wife was right on scene, so they must live mere yards from the bus stop. And his daughter later films the scene and sounds to be more than old enough to find her way home.

My guess - for some reason, Scott was fearful that somebody would harm his daughter. Perhaps somebody had made a threat. This would explain why he carried a gun, as a felon, to the bus stop.

Fast forward to when he ends up next to the two un-uniformed police officers...young, fit guys who end up sitting in a car right next to him. What's going through his mind? Probably he is fearful that these guys are up to no good. The police say he was rolling a joint - which means they took an interest in him...why he may have construed as odd and dangerous. So he flashes his gun.

What do the cops do? Leave, put on police vests, and come back to arrest him.

What does Scott think just happened? These guys left, and came back...maybe they went to get their own gun.

And it went to shit from there.

An unfortunate chain of events.

[bighart]

37. Maybe it was his custom

to go out and smoke a joint every day right before his daughter got home, not out of the realm of possible either.

MJ has a very calming effect on most people and maybe all of the activity at the time his daughter arrives home makes him tense and smoking a little pot before hand helped keep him from getting overly stimulated.

[Fast Walker 52]

50. why on earth would any black guy flash a gun to the police?

that makes no sense.

I understand people do dumb things a lot, but that was a fatal act of stupidity if true.

[jmg257]

53. TBI? It would justify a lot of his in/actions. They were undercover and he just might not have not

noticed them, which would also explain not caring about the joint.

[citood]

58. He didn't know they were police

They were plain clothed...waiting for somebody else they had a warrant for. Then when they saw the gun, they drove off, changed into 'police' vests, and came back.

Now Scott probably didn't know what to think. From his perspective, this probably made no sense, and he wasn't ever sure that these guys were police.

[Fast Walker 52]

75. OK. Fair enough

Big question is whether he really had a gun, and assuming he did, NC is open-carry.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/25/495391499/how-open-carry-laws-in-north-carolina-apply-to-keith-lamont-scotts-case

[citood]

118. I don't know what happened up until the point he was told to drop the gun

The police will surely claim he 'brandished' it...but will never be able to prove it. I don't think anyone will truly ever know what happened. Parenthetically, I have had somebody pull up next to me and 'show' me a gun in a manner that I thought was threatening (even more parenthetically it was a fake gun so I was in no real danger, although I was initially frightened)...so I can certainly see how merely displaying a gun to a complete stranger through car windows can be disconcerting.

But what I do know: open carry or not, if a police officer tells me to drop a gun, it gets dropped. I drop it even quicker if they've got guns pointed at me. Doesn't matter what the details of the legal situation may be - if a cop tells you to drop it, you drop it.

Now this is where I imagine the misunderstanding took place. From Scott's point of view, the officers' looking at him, leaving, and coming back in tactical gear with guns drawn was probably erratic and confusing behavior...and I doubt he fully believed they were really cops.

[Egnever]

128. I think it entirely possible given his brain injury and the pot that he was very confused

when this all went down.

I do not for a second think this had to end the way it did. I do however find the idea they should not have confronted him laughable. Once they did confront him dropping the gun would have most likely have saved his life though he would still have likely gone to jail.

I think it is entirely possible, probably likely he was very confused when he got out of the car. It is tragic it ended the way it did.

[Egnever]

99. They were in plain clothes in an unmarked car.

no way to identify them as police at first.

That is why they left and put their gear on.

[Skittles]

201. especially if you believe you'll be targeted / profiled

it does indeed make no sense

[peasant one]

26. Thanks for the response

I did not know all of these things. Did the cops know at the time he was a felon in possession of a gun? I agree Mr. Scott may have made some bad decisions, but haven't we all made bad decisions...I just wonder at the timing of the stop and what the crime was at the point that the cops chose to engage Mr. Scott? Are guns in cars illegal in that state?

[Lee-Lee]

27. It's doesn't appear they knew his past at the time

Guns in cars are not illegal, however guns plus what appears to be drugs is a combination of things that does warrant intervention. The officers account is that they saw what appeared to be him rolling a joint and chose to ignore it as it was low priority compared to getting the person they were after, but when they saw the gun that elevated it to a combination they had to intervene on so they shifted focus.

He literally had the bad luck to pull up next to undercover cops and start doing illegal stuff in view of them.

A gun in a car by itself can be enough reason to investigate further. Depends on the totality of the circumstances. How is it carried, what else is the person doing, where are they and what time, etc.

[tonyt53]

30. A lot of people on here seem to want none of Scotts actions matter.

[Buzz Clik]

115. Look up NC law. They don't allow for concealed weapons, and carrying a concealed weapon is a felony.

[treestar]

33. did they know he was a felon not allowed to have a gun?

that's the problem. The average citizen has the right to a gun. So if I have a gun, no cop has a right to suspect me of anything. I'm exercising my second Amendment right. This is a problem for cops but Second Amendment advocates will admit the cops have to deal with it. They have no right to just be scared of a gun.

Why would a guy just sitting there be wanting to shoot them? Because he is rolling a joint? Why not take the penalty, increasingly lesser in nature and not even a problem in some states, rather than try shooting the cops?

[uponit7771]

59. +1,... nope... that's the copologist excuse now

[Egnever]

147. Maybe

That is not clear at this point.

In their statement they say they drove off to put on their equipment after seeing the gun and came back to confront him. I think it would be unusual for them to not at least run the plates when they drove off. Maybe they did maybe they didn't at this point we don't know.

I also don't know if the car was registered in his name. If it was and they ran the plates when they drove off then they absolutely knew the owner of the car was a convicted felon with a history of gun violence.

I don't think there is any way at this point to know for sure however and it is entirely possible they had no idea.

[LanternWaste]

36. While yet still others consistently seem to question only the actions of the deceased.

"You seem to only question the police actions..."

While yet still others consistently seem to question only the actions of the deceased. Though it is indeed, six of one and half a dozen of the other, the creative rationalizations justifying it as something else will most likely be rather bemusing.

[Dem2]

21. Cops seem to be improperly trained

If you murder someone who didn't first provoke you (they provoked him), then you are a murderer.

[anniebelle]

22. Black while sitting in car! End of story.

[uponit7771]

60. +1

[exboyfil]

29. I agree that they should have not

been pounding on the car for him to get out. They should have used the speaker system in one of the police cars to calmly tell him to place the gun on the dash and exit the vehicle. They should have been willing to wait him out on this. They should have emphasized that if he exited the vehicle with his weapon he was risking getting shot.

That being said on some of your other points.

2. The police were locked onto the gun at that point. The screaming of the wife would not register. Think about yourself when confronted with a life and death situation.

3. They did try to immediately render first aid to stop the bleeding from the wound. Contrast this with the cops in Tulsa who decided to walk backwards like some sort of screwed up Dorothy, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion instead of rendering immediate aid.

4. I agree with you on 4. Scott could probably still have saved his life if he had dropped the gun, but who knows. I am pretty convinced there was a gun based upon seeing an object appear on the ground within a few seconds of Scott being shot. Another poster has gone through this frame by frame with the different videos (ironically the wife's video being the best evidence of the gun), and no it is not the holster which can be seen on Scott's leg in the photo taken with the gun at his feet.

[peasant one]

40. Why engage?

I get it that they were locked into the gun once they engaged, and perhaps couldn't hear the wife. I know the cops have a thankless job and that they are put in dangerous circumstances and they have to make quick decisions. I didn't know that they tried to render first aid. The justification for the initial engagement still has me questioning this, especially in light of Mr. Scott's death.

[Egnever]

102. Because he was smoking a blunt and had a gun.

They would be derelict in their duty to not engage.

[Snake Plissken]

46. You're not looking at this from the perspective of the police involved in this incident

You're under the impression their mission is to serve and protect, they believe their mission is to hunt.

When they see a Black man in a car, they immediate begin to hunt him, their goal is to find a reason to place him in handcuffs, and if he happens to die in the process ... well that's just part of the hunt.

[Farmbrook]

47. Meanwhile an armed terrorist in New York and a mass killer in Seattle

Washington were all captured alive even though both had criminal records and armed to the teeth. Yet there are racists on this thread giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cops. This is sick, sick, sick. Nobody is talking about how police departments all over the country have been infiltrated by the KKK. Cops managed to capture a white guy who had killed couple of people and while munching on the face of another victim but yet he was captured alive. Why deadly force on a black man??? Black people are the most docile people. We have never committed genocide or enslaving another race. This has been going on for 400 years and it will never stop as long as you have people similar to the ones on this thread demonizing the victims. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!

[tonyt53]

139. The guy in NY was shot 11 times. The guy in WA was found walking down the road in a stupor.

He also had no weapons on him.

[Jon King]

48. Police disarm man

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Abington-police-disarm-man-trying-to-commit-suicide-by-cop.html

Amazing how even a large man, determined to have cops shoot him, pulls a loaded gun....yet is taken alive when they want to take him alive.

[Egnever]

142. Not sure what your point is here

was that the same cops or are you just mad those cops handled it better?

[GOLGO 13]

52. Waving a Gun + Using drugs in public will both get your local LEO attention.

[raging moderate]

54. But if you are white, you will probably live.

Not so likely, if you are Black.

[uponit7771]

61. There was no waving of a gun and the LEO did not have proof it was pot vs cigarette

[Egnever]

104. what makes you so sure there was no gun brandishing?

were you there?

or do you just base that on your mistrust of cops?

[uponit7771]

112. The CPD has not given an account of brandishing a weapon and there's no video of it...

... do you have an account of him brandishing a weapon?

I have close friends that are LEOs who say 9 out of 10 times these situations get like this were its NOT clear cut the killed did something the LEOs fucked up in their training

One obvious thing here is how NEEDLESSLY close to the vehicle the LEOs were seeing Scott was not possing a CURRENT threat from the car.

If he was outside fuckin with people with his gun I can see their reaction but not inside his car rolling a joint...

Who does that?

Who gets angry when they roll a joint!?

[Egnever]

145. Sure they have

Possession of marijuana played a significant role in the police killing of Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Chief Kerr Putney said during a news conference that officers were trying to serve a warrant for someone else when they spotted Scott rolling “what they believed to be a marijuana ‘blunt’ ” in his car. At first they allegedly didn’t think much of it, until they saw Scott had a weapon

[Rex]

146. IKR!? The biggest line of bullshit in all of the lies the PD has told.

NVM the fact the Chief said he never had a gun in his hand, the cops killed him and stripped him of his clothes and planted a gun.

Sick fuckers.

[Egnever]

148. The police chief never said he didn't have a gun in his hand

You look foolish when you repeat that crap.

[Rex]

149. Please

you've already shown you have zero cred on this subject with that silly thread you made to cover for the cops.

[Egnever]

152. Says the guy making stuff up

[EX500rider]

196. ....yes and then they strapped a empty ankle holster on him...

[people]

55. Did he have a gun?

In the latest police released videos, I saw no pictures of him holding a gun. I saw one of the officers quickly bend down to the ground and stand up while Scott was just exiting his car during a lot of yelling and confusion. Where is the picture of Scott taken by the officer who did the shooting? Remember the story all the Chicago cops told about the teenager running towards them and what was it really? What it really was was was that young man walking away from them on the street but it took how long - a year or more to get that video. I'm sorry, without the video I just don't believe it. Even if he had a gun, this an open carry state. Let's face it, if you are black in the U.S., living is precarious.

[uponit7771]

62. +1, "...I saw no pictures of him holding a gun..." but if you question the copologist about this

... you get much great agro.

There's no photo evidence that Scott had a gun in his hand... he MIGHT have had it in his holster and that's given the CPD a lot of BOTD which they haven't earned.

Also the LEO who engaged Scott first did it for some extra fucked up reasoning saying he say him roll a joint which he didn't know was a joint or tobacco and that Scott had a gun which isn't illegal in NC

So now a black man can't roll anything in their own car or have a gun in NC....

If so the police will engage you in a extra fucked up way

[Egnever]

108. So he hiked up his pant legs and exposed the ankle holster for what exactly? to leave it in there?

You are now to the point of calling people names because you can't make this story work for your version of event's

[uponit7771]

109. Please post account that he hiked up his pant leg? thx in advance... I've not read that

[Egnever]

155. .

[Egnever]

106. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028185880

[aggiesal]

67. Even if he had a gun, so what? ...

North Carolina is an open carry state.
He was perfectly legal to carry a gun, regardless.

Or does that law not pertain to minorities?

[jmg257]

69. Well - he wasn't, but they didn't know that at the time.

Maybe the gun in combination with the MJ (supposed MJ) gave them reason to believe something was off?

[hack89]

72. Open carry usually means a holstered gun

not holding a gun in your hand. And certainly not while committing a possible crime. And certainly not after being told to put the gun down.

[uponit7771]

84. This is false, it can also mean a slung rifile and the LEO didn't know it was't a cigarette seeing..

... it wasn't lit

[hack89]

87. Same difference

slung rifle = rifle not in shooting position. Walk around with a loaded rifle not slung over your shoulder and see what happens.

[uponit7771]

88. the gun was not in shooting position

[hack89]

90. It was when he got out of the car. nt

[uponit7771]

91. There is no photo evidence of a gun in Scott's hand

[hack89]

93. Ok.

I take it you are in the "police planted the gun" camp?

[uponit7771]

94. Nope, not at all... There's a view on another site that Scott had a gun ON HIS PERSON but

... not in his hand because

1. The CPD has not explicitly said he was holding a gun, the Chief intimated something of the sort at first then backed off of it when the video came out

2. On Scott's person but not in his hand fits the wife's declaration that he did not have a weapon... well, IN HIS HAND

3. The gun in the holster and not in his hand would fit "drop the gun" also but not as much as a blunt being in his hand

4. Would also fit the LEO in red kicking the gun away from Scott from the right side of the view in the video seeing there was NOTHING in Scott's right hand

5. Would reason that's the reason the other body cams aren't being released becasuse it would show the gun is holstered and NOT in Scott's hand

Just what I've read elsewhere

[hack89]

96. If it was holstered in an ankle holster than how was the gun visible?

Ankle holsters are worn to conceal.

In NC, for it to legal to have a gun in your car it has to be visible. You must have a concealed carry permit to have a concealed gun in your car.

[uponit7771]

97. Exactly, there are no photo evidence of the gun in his hand at all...

... the holstered gun could've simply fallen out when Scott dropped

The gun was visible, they don't mention whether he had it in his hand or not... that's what another poster has said the trouble is with the CPD story right now.

they should be coming out and EXPLICITLY saying the fire arm was in Scott's hand at the time of the shooting and show evidence of such....

case close to a degree after the escalation but surely not before it

Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/24/read-the-charlotte-police-report-on-the-fatal-shooting-of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.42101f189fce

[Rex]

151. I hope the DoJ does a full investigation into this crime.

It is pretty obvious by the PDs obfuscation of the evidence they are guilty of murdering this guy. The CoP waffled every day and refused to release the video footage.

Now it is up to the state or federal government to look into this. Clearly he was reading a book minding his own business in his car with his wife, that has never been a crime.

At least not until now.

[jmg257]

153. Holy shit - the wife was in the car?? I had NOT heard that! nt

[Egnever]

156. That poster just makes stuff up and runs with it

I wouldn't put much credence in what he says.

[jmg257]

157. But wait - maybe SHE planted the gun on Scott without him knowing it...

she was setting him up!

Hiked up his cuff, strapped the ankle holster on him, stuck a gun in there with NO magazine, and then split before the cops showed up.

Scott found the gun while holding his book (and/or cigarette/joint apparently), and was surprised & confused to find it was even there, especially knowing it would be illegal for him to have it, so that is why he ignored police.

Hmmm....

[raging moderate]

158. Actually, that WAS a crime. Under slavery laws.

In certain locations, the sight of a Black man sitting and reading would have been very threatening to the established order which upheld the Universe with a supreme white race in power. And rolling a cigarette? During working hours? And then the sight of a gun! Sometimes I suspect some white people have had subconscious triggers planted through classical conditioning. Sudden tension at a certain sight can be passed down from the ancestors, persisting long after the original reason has ceased to exist. It has occurred to me that the esprit de corps of a uniformed police force could sweep everybody along in the general psychological tide. Subconscious group forces have been treated in such works as The Turn of the Screw and books on the Salem witch trials.

[Egnever]

150. No one has claimed it was holstered except the CT people trying to come up with an excuse.

quite the opposite. The cops said they were going to let him smoke the joint right next to them until they saw him holding the gun.

[Rex]

168. You should stop making up this stuff, it is embarrassing for you.

I know you don't see it, but just FYI.

[Egnever]

171. Hahah

You are one odd cat

[uponit7771]

82. +1, The 2nd amendment is truly a whites only law in America... Scott could've been rolling a cig and

... be left the fuck alone or the LEO could've asked for ID.

Fuck all the excuses... he didn't have to die

[Marr]

71. Because he refused to comply with the police.

If BLM really wants to save lives, they should be educating people on how to be arrested. Almost every video I've seen about a police shooting centers around a suspect who simply refuses to comply with orders from officers who have guns pointed at him/her. It frankly doesn't matter what the initial 'crime' was. Littering could escalate to a confrontation like that, if the litterer chose to put up a fight or, like Scott, pulled a weapon.

If you feel your arrest is unlawful or unwarranted, the time to do something about it is at the courthouse, with a lawyer. Not while you've got guns pointed at you.

[uponit7771]

74. There was no reason to engage Scott at all according to NC law Pot isn't illegal as

... long as its under 1/2 ounce and neither is having a gun.

I don't see any photo evidence of a gun in his hand, since the police didn't have to engage him at all there's little reason to give them the BOTD

[Lee-Lee]

77. Simply not true

Marijuana is still illegal in NC small amounts are just a low level crime that is not always enforced.

When it is enforced is when there are other circumstances- like a gun.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics on a site where normally even law abiding gun owners are derided and people say you should dial 911 if you just see someone carrying a gun suddenly a guy getting high with an illegal gun is an angel who the cops had no reason to bother.

[uponit7771]

81. That's if he knew it was pot, he didn't... rolling a cigarette in America isn't illegal. The mental

... gymnastics here is the thinking that a man killed because he was rolling something in his car has to be engaged like they did at all.

That's what's crazy to me, he wasn't doing shit... so I'm supposed to give the people who killed him a break for what happens afterwards?!?!

REALLY?!?!?!

That's fucked up

[Rex]

83. That posters is always pro cop no matter what they do.

A real waste of time responding to that one.

[uponit7771]

86. Ah, thx for that info... I'm not anti cop and have LEO friends who tell me all the time that 9 out

... or 10 times some of these shootings go this way is because the LEO didn't do what they were trained to do.

The LEO in this instance see's a gun and goes from 1 to 100 and stays withing 50 feet of a person getting out of their car with something in their hands.

Already that's stupid.

The CPD isn't showing body cams of the initial engagement, that's what's really fucked up... it looks like they could've left the guy alone and we would be typing about something else

[Marr]

92. I've seen your posts on this topic. By your logic, no cop would ever be

justified in stopping someone for marijuana possession, and there is no such thing as a justified shooting.

You've argued that rolling a joint in front of the cop isn't anything suspicious, because some people also roll cigarettes. You've argued that some tobacco looks like marijuana. You've claimed the scent of some tobacco is like pot. But the cop doesn't have to possess some psychic ability to read the chemical composition of the substance. He only needs a reasonable suspicion.

You refuse to acknowledge that he was holding a weapon, even though he can be seen clearly to have an empty ankle holster and his pants leg is hitched over it the way it would be after the gun is drawn, because you can't actually make out the gun in the cop's grainy body cam video-- largely because he's holding his hand close to his leg rather than putting his empty hands in the air. Even if I accepted your ludicrous claim that he didn't have a weapon, it would be reasonable for the cops to think he had one.

At every turn, you're arguing absurdity.

[uponit7771]

101. That's if you think he the LEO KNEW it MJ without a shadow of a doubt, He did NOT... there's no

... way to reasonably know what was being rolled from a glance at a window.

This is a tap on the window ... show me some ID shit... not go get your weapon unholstered with a vest shit

[Marr]

117. Wow, you don't understand this at all. Cops aren't courts.

They don't have to know there's a crime going on beyond a shadow of a doubt. They need a reasonable suspicion. That's all.

How can someone be so ignorant of the basic facts of how arrests work, and have so many opinions about them?

[uponit7771]

119. The LEO didnt say he saw pot, just that Scott was rolling a joint so yes, there has to be REASONABLE

... expectation of a crime being committed... stopping people for dumb shit with no evidence is what... 4th amendment?!

Something like that

The LEO didn't know what the fuck Scott was rolling seeing Scott had his windows up and the LEO couldn't smell shit.

Again, weapons unholstered, vested and guns pointing at the man ... for what?!

Also

Ad homs are an indicator of a weak position, yaw starting to get a little belligerent on the subject no?

tia

[Marr]

121. "Didn't say he saw pot, just a joint..." LOL.

Hmm... I don't see any wood here... just a log. I don't see any food here... just a hamburger. I don't see any bizarre claims here... just an uponit post.

[uponit7771]

134. OK, more needless condescension ... there's been no bag of weed shown in from the multiple leaks

... of the CPD also if he had a bag of weed then that would be something the LEO would enforce via an engagement THE FIRST TIME so its reasonable to think there's no 20 or nickle bag of anything.

[Marr]

136. Hey, maybe North Carolina isn't even there.

Maybe it's all one big conspiracy. I mean, all I've ever seen is drawings.

[Egnever]

120. They don't need to know with out a shadow of a doubt they only have to have reasonable suspicion

You need to educate yourself on what police are allowed to do or you are going to get yourself shot.

Go smoke a blunt rolled with tobacco in front of a cop with a weapon in your hand then refuse to drop it. 99.9 % of the time you will wind up shot. The fact you rolled tobacco inside a cigar casing is not going to get you unshot nor will it have any effect whatsoever on the shooting being ruled justified.


Your focus here is on the wrong thing.

Even with the gun and the pot, the cops escalated this too quickly and turned it into a bad situation. That is where the focus should be. By focusing on the things you are focusing on you make it very easy to dismiss your opinions entirely.

No reasonable person is going to buy the it might have been a cigarette line. We are talking about a blunt no one rolls tobacco in a cigar casing the idea someone would when a cigar already has tobacco in it is ridiculous. Nor is anyone going to buy the idea he had an ankle holster and no gun. It is just a ludicrous argument.

By focusing on these aspects you are easily dismissed because the arguments are so specious.

Stick to what is concrete. The cops as they do so often turned a fairly easy to contain situation into one where deadly force became the only option. There were many ways they could have handled this differently to avoid the situation that was created and it is indicative of a police force that relies far to heavily on overwhelming force for compliance instead of working to defuse the situation.

I think you will find very little argument with that approach and much agreement.

By going with the it could have been a cigarette or he had an exposed ankle holster and no gun argument you are asking people to suspend any logic and jump onto a CT bandwagon. Most people will reject that outright and then you lose any credibility when you try to argue the over use of force that IS legitimate.

[Marr]

132. That I agree with. Too often, the police will escalate a situation like

this too fast. Judging from this thread, I also think we have a big problem with people not understanding what the police are allowed to do.

[tonyt53]

143. He showed the gun though. Pot + gun equals reasonable suspicion. They had no idea the amount of pot

So, you're okay with a felon having a gun? The cops didn't know that until later, but you are making excuses for him to have it. Why no outrage over Philip Hasan, a black guy who was killed by cops in OH a couple of days before Scott? Why is this different with Scott?

[uponit7771]

177. There was no evidence it was pot Scott was rolling, just the LEO's conjecture

[peasant one]

100. I get it that marijuana is illegal..

and I get it that Mr. Scott may not have been an angel. You are correct I do not like guns but even if the cops may have had legal grounds to engage Mr. Scott--my question is why in this manner, at this time? (the cops didn't know Mr. Scott's criminal record when they engaged him did they?) If the cops knew Mr. Scott had a gun and were concerned for public safety (including Mr. Scott's safety) why not take it slow--why not spend some time trying to protect the officers and Mr. Scott.

[uponit7771]

103. +1, un-holstered weapons with a vest for someone who was rolling something?!!? Also, the LEO

... at one time, IIRC, tried to break Scott's window with a baton.

Some bullshit in every step they took

[Warren DeMontague]

166. I think the mental gymnastics are amazing when gun fetishists pretend that weed is some

deadly public menace.

[SwankyXomb]

78. MurderKops gotta murder

[Calculating]

79. It was a "respect mah authoritah" thing

Cops don't like it when you don't follow their commands. I get the feeling the profession attracts a lot of HS bullies and other jerks into it.

[EX500rider]

197. "Cops don't like it when you don't follow their commands"

When the command is "drop the gun", yes, they not surprisingly don't like it when you don't, something about not being wanting to be shot I believe...

[Rex]

85. Some cops are murdering assholes that get off on power trips.

He did nothing wrong, he was sitting in his car reading a book. What is sick is how supposed progressives think it is okay for cops to blow away innocent people for sitting in their car reading a book.

[moondust]

89. Because he knew too much?

Maybe he found out something embarrassing or criminal about a top cop or politician or a local oligarch. He therefore had to be silenced before he could use it against them.

[wildeyed]

98. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

lol. No, not that. Guy had serious TBI. I do not think he was blackmailing any oligarchs.

[moondust]

124. He doesn't have to be

blackmailing anybody. All it would take is for somebody to FEAR that he knows something that could end their career or put them in prison if he were to disclose it.

Incidentally, I don't think a TBI automatically makes one a complete vegetable.

[Mike Nelson]

133. #2 is the oddest...

...most police officers consider it a big plus to have a family member present and willing to help. The would go immediately to the family member. Also, police no longer try to arrest people smoking pot in a residential area. They tend to be non-violent and the "crime" is not important. It's simply not a constructive way to spend police resources.

[tonyt53]

144. You've never had a weapon pointed at you evidently. Scott escalated it by not dropping the gun.

[wildeyed]

169. You don't understand that loaded questions are an invalid form of debate.

Evidently.

[Mike Nelson]

170. I have...

...had a gun pointed at me, directly. After being searched, I was told to get out of my house, which I did. The police, then, beat my grandfather. He was with me. The police thought we knew the whereabouts of a man who was just stopped for drunk driving and shot the policeman. The police thought the shooter headed to our house. He didn't, although he was over a lot before he spent some time in jail. Neither my grandfather nor I knew what had happened, so we could not give the police any information. I did not know Mr. Scott had aimed a gun at the police - you don't do that... like you don't shoot police officers; they will come after you.

[Stinky The Clown]

159. No doubt our resident experts will have all sorts of reasons.

Maybe because he carried a basically crappy Mustang .380. I am told by EXPERTS that the Colt is way too heavy for an ankle holster of any type and that he should just have pocket carried instead.

The above was pure snark.

The issue is police force leadership - both professional and civilian - that encourages that sort of yelling, screaming, intimidate behavior with no expectation that the cops will try to deescalate. Then we have the crazy assed citizens, many of whom see guns as the way to safety and order, tolerating such behavior. In short, we have the police forces we are willing to accept.

I truly believe the cops are out of control in so many ways. I get that they have a job to do and I do't wish them to be shot dead doing it, but they need to show some bravery, too. If they aren't willing to take the risk of policing on the street, let them be mall cops. I so fucking sick and tired of them claiming to be in fear for their lives. Far too many persons of color who encounter cops are in fear for their lives; how about some equivalence for those we expect to protect and serve?

Now to derail this post: If there were NO GUNS, this discussion would not need to take place.

[TeeYiYi]

162. It wouldn't have mattered ...

...WHAT he was doing in his car. He could've been working on a cure for cancer in there; it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Once they saw his gender, combined with the color of his skin, they ran his plate and began to strategize the inevitable.

That was the moment he became a dead man sitting. Everything else was theatrics.

All of America needs to wake up and stand together against this insidious and deadly war on black people. That it continues unabated in the 21st century is disgraceful...

It's shocking, really.

TYY

Black.Lives.Matter / No Justice, no Peace.

[Travis_0004]

182. They likely ran his plate after seeing a gun

Regardless of skin color, the cops are going to investigate a gun.

[TeeYiYi]

184. Naw...

They ran the plate the minute they saw a black man sitting alone in a parked car at a school bus stop. He was profiled first and then targeted after his criminal record popped up on their computer screens.

TYY

[mythology]

192. And you know this how?

Stating an opinion as a fact doesn't actually turn an opinion into a fact.

[wildeyed]

185. Then why is open carry legal?

Seriously! If cops feel nervous and run plates EVERY time they see a gun, that would be a huge time suck. I do believe that police have difficult jobs. If open carry makes their jobs more complicated and results in bad judgment calls like this one, then we should stop allowing it. Everyone involved in this sad event wishes it hadn't happened, I GUARANTEE that.

If carrying a gun openly in public was against the law for everyone, the police would be in a MUCH stronger position with their justifications for why the incident occurred in the first place. As it stands, many believe that there is an unwritten law that says open carry is only for whites and that the police make decisions accordingly. That may or may not be true, but that is what people believe. So it would be better to take open carry out of the equation completely.

[Travis_0004]

186. Its not legal for a felon to open carry

Did they run the plates before stopping him, I dont know.

[wildeyed]

191. They failed to turn on their body cameras in a timely fashion, so who knows.

Following protocol does not seem to be a strong point with these guys. If they had, all of this would be resolved long ago.

My SENSE is that they did not run the plates or know anything about this guy before they decided to confront him. If they had, that would be some sort of defense for their actions. You think they would publicize the fact. Or maybe they did but are not releasing a timeline of their actions because there are so many other things that were done wrong. Who knows. It's a shit show.

[Flyboy_451]

173. I have avoided contributing to this discussion...

As a 20 year veteran of law enforcement in a large city, my view certainly carries a bias. As is typical with any such event, information comes out more slowly and less accurately than most of us would prefer. I will try to offer my own insight and questions in the hope of adding something constructive to the conversation. And in the process, maybe we can all learn something that leads us closer to the facts of what took place.

Does anyone know if the officers that claim to have seen the gun and joint have had prior professional dealings with Mr. Scott? You would be amazed at how frequently we interact with the same people over and over on a regular basis. If this is the case (not improbable), they now have first hand information of a felon in possession of a firearm and a controlled substance. The combination of possession while under the influence is a Class A misdemeanor in many (most?) jurisdictions. Possession of a gun by a felon is a felony. No questions asked.

I have heard/read that the officers left the scene and donned protective gear identifying them as police officers before returning. Had I been one of those officers, with the intent of acting on the observation of the gun and joint, I would have ABSOLUTELY called in the registration on the vehicle before approaching. If the vehicle was registered to him, they would also now have knowledge of a felon in possession of a gun and a controlled substance. Does anyone know of any radio communications that took place during this time?

If the statement regarding seeing the gun and joint are accurate, the officers had reasonable cause to investigate a possible class A misdemeanor. Even if it was a home rolled cigarette, reasonable cause to investigate still stands, particularly with the sighting of a firearm. If either of the situations in which the cops learn of the felony record prior to interacting with Mr. Scott, it is absolutely reasonable to treat the situation as a felony stop. Mr. Scott had a violent felony conviction (assault with a deadly weapon), he is in possession of a firearm, and it is now known by the officers. Bear in mind that this is all contingent on on him either being recognized by one of the officers (not unusual), or learned thru communications (what any cop should have done).

So, "Why was it so important to "get" him? If we had the answer to my above questions, your question may be easier to answer.

With regard to your second question, in such situations, it is not uncommon to tightly focus on the immediate situation to the exclusion of pretty much everything else going on around you, or to subconsciously dismiss other activity as not being relevant to the situation. Another reason is that they simply did not know the state of mind of Mr. Scott. had he and his wife just had a fight? Would the immediate presence of his wife have escalated the situation? Mr. Scott certainly knew that he was a felon. Im sure he also knew that if he was caught in possession of a firearm, that he was almost certainly going back to prison. What would he do to avoid that outcome? All said, a very bad situation for everyone involved.

3) Why in heaven's name didn't the cops immediately get help or check on his condition after he was shot?

They did. Immediately after he was shot, an officer knealing next to him instructs another officer to get his bag from his vehicle. He then states that they need gloves and to keep pressure on the wounds. I tried to post a link to the video, but was not successful for some reason.

Regarding your fourth point, the ONLY action that provides MR. Scott with a strong chance of not being shot is to drop whatever is in his hands, be it a gun, cell phone, water bottle or candy bar. Any other action is something that is not expected and too easily misinterpreted as a threatening action.

I wish I knew the answers to any of your questions or mine to a certainty, but unfortunately, all I can offer is a bit more information and a viewpoint that may not have been considered. No matter the outcome, we should all be seeking the truth, not fulfillment of an agenda.

JW

[kwassa]

180. Thank you for this post.

It was helpful to get more background on these situations.

[wildeyed]

183. If any of that happened, the police have not been forthcoming.

The message from the police chief, right out of the box, was that his officers were 100% justified and the video would prove that, but he was never going to release the video, just because. And then he lied about why, saying he was not allowed to by law, when it was totally his call. When video did dribble out, it proved nothing. Also note that a number of officers violated CMPD protocol and failed to activate their body cameras in a timely fashion. If they had followed protocol, this situation would be resolved by now. But because of their incompetence or dishonesty, we will never know what really happened.

That is the major problem, at least as it relates to the protests. Lack of transparency and communication combined with a lack of community trust due to a history of profiling and over-policing of black citizens. There is also a serious problem with housing, transportation and gentrification in Charlotte that feeds the discontent (totally not CMPDs fault), but I won't go into that now.

We can argue and guess as much as we want about this particular incident, but it important to understand, big picture, that the protests were destined to happen. Something would set them off because there is so much underlying systemic injustice. And this police chief is doing a very bad job dealing with the pressure.

[Skittles]

198. excellent post

rises above all the usual DU hysteria

Flyboy, you should post a thread I AM FORMER LEO; ASK ME ANYTHING

but be prepared for an onslaught of sheer hatred

[Flyboy_451]

199. Trust me....

I see plenty of hatred here already. Good thing I'm thick skinned.

And just a note, while I did refer to myself as a veteran, it was meant to reference time of service, not past service. I am still active and on duty 5-6 nights a week.

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement in a place where they are seldom heard.

JW

[Skittles]

200. most of these folk would shit their pants if they tried the job for a couple of weeks

it's amazing how they think LEO have endless amounts of time and information to make a decision