Did I miss a Charlotte NC thread or have we gotten numb?

[slterry]

Correct.

However, the report released by the police department states the police approached him due to observing the marijuana possession.   Once the police engage in a lawful stop, they do have the right to ask someone to drop any weapons they are holding, legal or not.  Most concealed carry permits require the holder to inform the officer if they are carrying when stopped by the police.

 

That's actually not completely correct. They did NOT engage him because of the marijuana, because their warrant arrest on the other criminal was their priority. Shortly after, the suspect in the car (that we now know is Mr. Scott) flashed a gun at the (undercover) officers. At that point, that became priority. They left the scene to gear up in marked vests, and returned to engage and arrest him. 

 

As an officer's wife IN Charlotte, NC, I can tell you that the exhaustion is real. Our officers have been working 12-24 hour days depending on their roles, and today is day seven. I am hoping it calms down soon. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's actually not completely correct. They did NOT engage him because of the marijuana, because their warrant arrest on the other criminal was their priority. Shortly after, the suspect in the car (that we now know is Mr. Scott) flashed a gun at the (undercover) officers. At that point, that became priority. They left the scene to gear up in marked vests, and returned to engage and arrest him. 

 

As an officer's wife IN Charlotte, NC, I can tell you that the exhaustion is real. Our officers have been working 12-24 hour days depending on their roles, and today is day seven. I am hoping it calms down soon. 

http://www.crimeincharlotte.com/keith-lamont-scott-official-police-statement-9242016/#.V-kU48kW9zk

 

 

"The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.†Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

 

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun. Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers."

[slterry]

http://www.crimeincharlotte.com/keith-lamont-scott-official-police-statement-9242016/#.V-kU48kW9zk

 

 

"The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.†Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

 

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun. Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers."

I was speaking to your previous quote that, to me, sounded like they engaged him because of the marijuana only, which wasn't the case. If I misread, I apologize. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was speaking to your previous quote that, to me, sounded like they engaged him because of the marijuana only, which wasn't the case. If I misread, I apologize.

It was their justification for a legal stop. Seeing the gun alone in NC would not justify the stop.

[SKL]

I'm sorry, but if I had a gun that I refused to put down after officers hollered for me to do so multiple times, I would expect to be shot.  Open / concealed carry state or no.

 

I have a hard time believing that the cops did all that hollering "put down the gun" if they did not in fact see a gun.

 

I think it's great if we have dash cams and body cams to prove how things went down, but those are not the only evidence in the case.  I don't understand how we suddenly decided that without a video clearly proving the cops right, the cops have to be wrong.  I guess we'd better release all the nation's prisoners since there wasn't clear video evidence of their crimes.  (Though, releasing clear video of actual crimes gets dicey too - when it puts the criminal at a disadvantage.)

 

To me, what all 3 videos proved was that the cops hollered many times for the guy to put down his gun.  If he had a gun on his person and he was defying the cops, then I can understand them viewing him as very dangerous.  There may have been other indicators as well - we were not there and are not privy to all the information.  Now knowing he was a felon and shouldn't have had a gun, I believe they rightly judged that he was dangerous.

 

If we were in a country where cops were hardly ever shot at in encounters with gun-toting criminals, perhaps it would be ridiculous to shoot a guy who wasn't actively shooting.  Unfortunately that isn't our reality.

[Tanaqui]

I have a hard time believing that the cops did all that hollering "put down the gun" if they did not in fact see a gun.

 

The cynic in me doesn't have a hard time believing that at all - however, I have not watched the video, so I don't know what happened.

 

[Tanaqui]

I have a hard time believing that the cops did all that hollering "put down the gun" if they did not in fact see a gun.

 

The cynic in me doesn't have a hard time believing that at all - however, I have not watched the video, so I don't know what happened.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sorry, but if I had a gun that I refused to put down after officers hollered for me to do so multiple times, I would expect to be shot.  Open / concealed carry state or no.

 

I have a hard time believing that the cops did all that hollering "put down the gun" if they did not in fact see a gun.

 

I think it's great if we have dash cams and body cams to prove how things went down, but those are not the only evidence in the case.  I don't understand how we suddenly decided that without a video clearly proving the cops right, the cops have to be wrong.  I guess we'd better release all the nation's prisoners since there wasn't clear video evidence of their crimes.  (Though, releasing clear video of actual crimes gets dicey too - when it puts the criminal at a disadvantage.)

 

To me, what all 3 videos proved was that the cops hollered many times for the guy to put down his gun.  If he had a gun on his person and he was defying the cops, then I can understand them viewing him as very dangerous.  There may have been other indicators as well - we were not there and are not privy to all the information.  Now knowing he was a felon and shouldn't have had a gun, I believe they rightly judged that he was dangerous.

 

If we were in a country where cops were hardly ever shot at in encounters with gun-toting criminals, perhaps it would be ridiculous to shoot a guy who wasn't actively shooting.  Unfortunately that isn't our reality.

 

The bolded is a (poor) strawman.  No video /= cops must be guilty.  In the same vein, we also should not automatically assume the police are telling the truth as we do have cases where they have clearly lied.

 

One of the issues BLM has raised is that investigations of police shootings are usually done via local agencies that have a vested interest in the police being exonerated.

[ktgrok]

So the police statement says they shot him for not dropping the gun. He wasn't aiming at anyone, wasn't threatening anyone, just wasn't following orders to drop it. He was backing away, hands at his sides. They admit this. 

 

Do they not know that a person with mental health issues will generally NOT follow shouted orders? That the more you yell and escalate things, the more they shut down? If not, why don't they know this? Shouldn't that be part of their training?

 

And they give, as one of the two reasons for shooting him, that he was perceived as a danger to himself. Well....being shot is also pretty dangerous. Are they seriously saying they shot him to keep him from shooting himself???? How does that many any sense at all???

[Tanaqui]

Do they not know that a person with mental health issues will generally NOT follow shouted orders? That the more you yell and escalate things, the more they shut down? If not, why don't they know this? Shouldn't that be part of their training?

 

And just to reiterate this point, the mentally ill of any race are much, much more at risk of being shot by the cops than the rest of us. (Though race exacerbates this. It's like you double dip.)

 

[slterry]

The bolded is a (poor) strawman.  No video /= cops must be guilty.  In the same vein, we also should not automatically assume the police are telling the truth as we do have cases where they have clearly lied.

 

One of the issues BLM has raised is that investigations of police shootings are usually done via local agencies that have a vested interest in the police being exonerated.

Which is not the case at all in either of the two controversial shootings in Charlotte. They are investigated by the SBI/state attorney general (though to be fair in the Kerrick trial, they charged him within 24 hours through the local department and then sent it out for prosecution to the state).

Edited September 26, 2016 by slterry

[SKL]

So the police statement says they shot him for not dropping the gun. He wasn't aiming at anyone, wasn't threatening anyone, just wasn't following orders to drop it. He was backing away, hands at his sides. They admit this. 

 

 

I don't see what "backing away, hands at sides" proves though.  He was backing up protectively, but was still well within shooting range if he decided to shoot the cops.  Hands at sides, but holding a gun - can still shoot and hurt and kill.

 

Now if he were walking away with his own back to the cops, you could argue he wasn't as much of a threat to the cops.  He was still facing the cops.  We don't know where his gun was pointing.

[SKL]

How were they supposed to diagnose him as mentally ill before deciding whether he was a threat?

[Ann.without.an.e]

We sit back and we watch and we judge and we riot...but we have no idea what really happened.  We also judge that a police officer was trigger happy and maybe he should've waited until the gun was pointed at someone, but then wouldn't it be too late?  These men face crime all.day.long.  We are watching a single incidence in one video/situation but they face it all day long.  Of course they are on edge.  They are threatened constantly.  I live in Charlotte and just before this incident, less than 45 minutes away,  a loved officer was shot and killed.  We see it as one incidence ya'll, but this is their lives.  They lay their lives down every.single.day and we judge from our high seats of safety.  Now, police do need limits and they shouldn't have free reign, but if someone has a gun and won't put it down, in my opinion, they have the right to shoot. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Attolia

[jeninok]

NM.

Edited September 26, 2016 by jeninok

[goldberry]

How were they supposed to diagnose him as mentally ill before deciding whether he was a threat?

 

The wife told them he had TBI. Granted, they don't know to believe her or not, but it should have at least factored in their decision making.

 

Wasn't there another case where the doctor got shot trying to help the mentally ill patient?  In that case, the doctor identified himself and that the patient was mentally ill.

[ktgrok]

Question, what happens if the person doesn't speak English, or is deaf? Do they get shot too, for not following orders?

[HomeAgain]

Question, what happens if the person doesn't speak English, or is deaf? Do they get shot too, for not following orders?

 

Yes. Often.  Including a well publicized case in NC recently.

[KarenNC]

Question, what happens if the person doesn't speak English, or is deaf? Do they get shot too, for not following orders?

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article98872112.html

 

This was in August. State trooper was African-American, Daniel Harris was white. 

[SKL]

The wife told them he had TBI. Granted, they don't know to believe her or not, but it should have at least factored in their decision making.

 

1) We don't know if they heard the wife say that.  They were kinda busy focusing on what was in front of them - and yelling.

2) I have no idea what TBI is, do the cops?

3) The wife also said he didn't have a gun.  She might have a credibility problem since they saw a gun.

4) Mental problems or no, a gun is a gun.  People with mental problems can and do shoot people.  Cops die just as easy whether the shooter was sane or not.  So while a mental health consideration might have made a difference, it might not have.

[MomatHWTK]

So the police statement says they shot him for not dropping the gun. He wasn't aiming at anyone, wasn't threatening anyone, just wasn't following orders to drop it. He was backing away, hands at his sides. They admit this. 

 

Do they not know that a person with mental health issues will generally NOT follow shouted orders? That the more you yell and escalate things, the more they shut down? If not, why don't they know this? Shouldn't that be part of their training?

 

And they give, as one of the two reasons for shooting him, that he was perceived as a danger to himself. Well....being shot is also pretty dangerous. Are they seriously saying they shot him to keep him from shooting himself???? How does that many any sense at all???

This sums up the societal divide. Some people believe that having the firearm in his hand would be sufficient cause for a deadly force response. We as a society need to establish clear, legal guidelines that reflect the will of the people. Then our officers need to be trained, prepared and compensated accordingly. 

[MomatHWTK]

And just to reiterate this point, the mentally ill of any race are much, much more at risk of being shot by the cops than the rest of us. (Though race exacerbates this. It's like you double dip.)

 

My son is a big guy with ASD. I am always on edge when we are out and about. I can only hope that I can avoid or explain a meltdown adequately should one occur. We have been very aggressive in warning him of the risks of a public meltdown. : ( 

[MomatHWTK]

Question, what happens if the person doesn't speak English, or is deaf? Do they get shot too, for not following orders?

Yes. I think there have been cases where this has happened. 

[ktgrok]

This sums up the societal divide. Some people believe that having the firearm in his hand would be sufficient cause for a deadly force response. We as a society need to establish clear, legal guidelines that reflect the will of the people. Then our officers need to be trained, prepared and compensated accordingly. 

 

Agreed. I mean, in a state where open carry is legal, he was basically shot for openly carrying. Or for not complying with a lawful order from a policeman. Which really, shouldn't get your shot either. And yet...here we are. 

 

I do very much wonder what he was doing when his wife was yelling, "Keith, don't do it! Don't you do it, Keith!!!"  WHAT was he doing? My guess is, whatever it was, is what got him shot. 

[Corraleno]

Wasn't there another case where the doctor got shot trying to help the mentally ill patient?  In that case, the doctor identified himself and that the patient was mentally ill.

 

In July a black behavioral therapist was shot by police while trying to talk to an autistic man who had wandered away from a mental health center. The therapist had identified himself, explained to police that the other man was autistic and only had a toy truck, and was lying on the ground with his hands up when he was shot for no apparent reason. The policeman later claimed that he didn't mean to shoot the therapist — he was actually aiming for the autistic guy playing with the toy truck.  Like, oh okay, that's fine then.  :confused1:

[swimmermom3]

This is what happened according to the official statement from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department:

 

"There have been numerous unconfirmed reports published in the media concerning this case. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has prepared the following case update to provide factual information about the officer-involved shooting.

Two plain clothes officers were sitting inside of their unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs, when a white SUV pulled in and parked beside of them.

The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.†Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun.

Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers.

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.

A uniformed officer in a marked patrol vehicle arrived to assist the officers. The uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene."

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1143232625751292&id=124757580932140

 

According to this account, Mr. Scott was in his vehicle when the police chose to engage him. He exited the vehicle because the police were demanding that he do so.

 

Susan in TX

 

From the video footage that I saw, the officers really took their sweet time in rendering aid. It basically looked like they let him bleed out.  Did anyone see something different?

 

 

[swimmermom3]

Agreed. I mean, in a state where open carry is legal, he was basically shot for openly carrying. Or for not complying with a lawful order from a policeman. Which really, shouldn't get your shot either. And yet...here we are. 

 

I do very much wonder what he was doing when his wife was yelling, "Keith, don't do it! Don't you do it, Keith!!!"  WHAT was he doing? My guess is, whatever it was, is what got him shot. 

 

I was thinking that could go two ways: the first is how you've interpreted it and then possibly she's calling his name to get his attention and telling the police not to shoot him.

[HomeAgain]

From the video footage that I saw, the officers really took their sweet time in rendering aid. It basically looked like they let him bleed out. Did anyone see something different?

 

 

At the end of the body cam vid, one of the officers did ask for first aid stuff, to stop the bleeding. No call to 911 that I could see or hear, and their behavior struck me as bizarre- detached and cold, no inkling of humanity in the course of their work.

[poppy]

Which is not the case at all in either of the two controversial shootings in Charlotte. They are investigated by the SBI/state attorney general (though to be fair in the Kerrick trial, they charged him within 24 hours through the local department and then sent it out for prosecution to the state).

Thank you BLM - the movement has made a real difference.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ktgrok]

I was thinking that could go two ways: the first is how you've interpreted it and then possibly she's calling his name to get his attention and telling the police not to shoot him.

 

I suppose, but that's not how it sounded when I listened/watched. It didn't sound like, "Keith. Don't you do it." It sounded like she was talking to him. 

[Scarlett]

I suppose, but that's not how it sounded when I listened/watched. It didn't sound like, "Keith. Don't you do it." It sounded like she was talking to him.

I watched it about 10 times. She was so vulgar and combative I had trouble focusing on WHAT. she meant. But I heard real .....terror.....when she was saying, Keith, don't make them break the window, just come out.

 

But when she was screaming, Keith Keith don't do it don't you do it......it was very difficult to know where the punctuation should be.

[goldberry]

I'm wondering about the gun...  A gun could be planted easily enough, but an ankle holster that was on him?  And if he had a gun, did the wife really not know?

 

So much unclear...

[ktgrok]

Why was he so dangerous they had to shoot him when he was backing away, but it was safe to try to beat in the window of the car moments earlier?

[Corraleno]

I don't understand how continuing to hold a gun, while walking with his back to the cops, would be proof he wouldn't do anything.  It is pretty easy to turn around and shoot.  When the police tell you to stop, you stop.  When they say put down the gun, you put down the gun.  We used to, at least, agree that the police were the authority. 

 

Apparently in NC, not only is it legal to open carry, it is legal to challenge a police order to drop a gun:

 

"[Law professor Joseph E.] Kennedy told ABC News that in North Carolina, someone may legally challenge a police officer's request to put a gun down.

"Having a gun makes you armed, but it doesn't necessarily make you dangerous," he said.

He spoke critically of open-carry laws and said that the laws put both citizens and police officers in an "impossible situation" because of the legal justification for citizens to be armed in public.

 

Another question is why does a mentally ill man, with a felony conviction, have a gun?  I thought even the most conservative of gun rights people agreed that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns.  The police didn't know either fact, but, they did, apparently, judge correctly that the man was unstable, and ought not have a gun.

 

We'll never know if they "judged correctly" that he was dangerous, because they killed him without making any attempt at deescalating the situation. The guy was sitting in his car minding his own business when he was suddenly surrounded by cops trying to smash his window and screaming orders at him. If there was a gun in his hand when he exited the car, it's not visible in the video. What is clear from the video is that he was slowly backing away from the cops with his hands down at his sides; he was not threatening them or pointing a gun at anyone. 

 

 

How should it have factored in?  Could it have factored in and made them act MORE quickly, instead of less?  Reason wasn't working, he wasn't listening, and becoming more agitated?  

 

Being mentally ill, confused, and agitated should not be grounds for a summary execution.

[SKL]

Again, someone explain to me why backing away makes the gun less likely to shoot one of the cops?
 

Also, at least one of the cops was in a different location, perhaps in the direction he was backing toward.  It looked to me like he was trying to decide how he could get himself out of the situation instead of give himself up.  The cops were still yelling "drop the gun" over and over.

 

We're so smart with our armchair judgment of what the cops did and how they felt during this incident.  Nobody's pointing a gun at us.

 

I've had a couple friends who were robbed at gunpoint.  That experience changed their views about things.  It's one thing to talk about woulda coulda shoulda.  It's another to be in the line of fire of an armed guy caught in a crime and resisting arrest.

Edited September 27, 2016 by SKL

[Ann.without.an.e]

Why was he so dangerous they had to shoot him when he was backing away, but it was safe to try to beat in the window of the car moments earlier?

 

 

He wasn't following police commands.  Period.  I just don't understand our society.  These men put their lives at risk constantly and now we are telling them that they can't protect themselves?  Ya'll do realize that if this trend continues, we won't be able to find men/women willing to do this necessary job?  If you protect yourself, you are demonized and charged?  To be honest, as hard as it would be, even if he didn't have a gun but it was reasonable to think that he had one, they shouldn't be charged for shooting.  He didn't drop it.  If a police officer thinks that what you have in your hand is a threat and they tell you to repeatedly to drop it, you had better drop it.  period. It is a mentality of disrespect of authority and the idea that we don't need to follow commands.  It isn't fair for them to have to risk their lives so much and then we crucify them for making the tough calls.  

Edited September 27, 2016 by Attolia

[ktgrok]

He wasn't following police commands.  Period.  I just don't understand our society.  These men put their lives at risk constantly and now we are telling them that they can't protect themselves?  Ya'll do realize that if this trend continues, we won't be able to find men/women willing to do this necessary job?  If you protect yourself, you are demonized and charged?  To be honest, as hard as it would be, even if he didn't have a gun but it was reasonable to think that he had one, they shouldn't be charged for shooting.  He didn't drop it.  If a police officer thinks that what you have in your hand is a threat and they tell you to repeatedly to drop it, you had better drop it.  period. It is a mentality of disrespect of authority and the idea that we don't need to follow commands.  It isn't fair for them to have to risk their lives so much and then we crucify them for making the tough calls.  

 

First, legally, he may not have needed to. See previous post. 

 

More importantly, often people CANNOT process things being yelled at them. The cops had guns too, pointed AT HIM, and were trying to smash his window in. Is HE not allowed to be scared? Are the mentally ill supposed to stop being mentally ill if a police person gives them an order? Maybe a deaf person should stop being deaf so they can hear the order? Someone who doesn't speak english should learn it right then, so they can understand the order? As has been said over and over, if a person with a mental illness, autism, PTSD, etc is yelled at, they may be incapable of processing what they are hearing. That's not disrespect it is biology. 

[TechWife]

 

Another question is why does a mentally ill man, with a felony conviction, have a gun?  I thought even the most conservative of gun rights people agreed that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns.  The police didn't know either fact, but, they did, apparently, judge correctly that the man was unstable, and ought not have a gun.

 

 

You are incorrect. Mental illness is too wide of a parameter with too many things falling under it to say that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns. I am very much in favor of reasonable gun control, and I think that parameter is too wide. Gun rights folks certainly think it's too wide. 

 

As to why he had a gun, well, it's long been known that criminals don't follow the law. Just because the law says that someone with a felony conviction can't have a gun doesn't mean they aren't going to be able to get a gun. It just means they won't do so legally. 

[alisoncooks]

I try to not get involved in these types of threads, but this quote struck me:

 

 

At the end of the body cam vid, one of the officers did ask for first aid stuff, to stop the bleeding. No call to 911 that I could see or hear, and their behavior struck me as bizarre- detached and cold, no inkling of humanity in the course of their work.

 

They have to be detached.  Any workers in life/death/emotionally charged situations have to put their feelings aside to function well.  EMT, 911 operators, police officers, emergency room doctors... I'm sure most of them go home and weep for what they've seen, but to function and do their job, they have to shut that part of them away.

[TechWife]

 

How should it have factored in?  Could it have factored in and made them act MORE quickly, instead of less?  Reason wasn't working, he wasn't listening, and becoming more agitated?  

 

That doesn't mean their action should have been one that took his life. Toddlers aren't reasonable, don't listen and agitate easily. I'm very glad that they aren't typically shot by the police for behaving in this manner. 

 

There are a variety of alternatives available to law enforcement officers. The main issue is why shooting someone is the first resort instead of the last resort. That is what people are concerned about, and rightfully so. 

[SKL]

First, legally, he may not have needed to. See previous post. 

 

More importantly, often people CANNOT process things being yelled at them. The cops had guns too, pointed AT HIM, and were trying to smash his window in. Is HE not allowed to be scared? Are the mentally ill supposed to stop being mentally ill if a police person gives them an order? Maybe a deaf person should stop being deaf so they can hear the order? Someone who doesn't speak english should learn it right then, so they can understand the order? As has been said over and over, if a person with a mental illness, autism, PTSD, etc is yelled at, they may be incapable of processing what they are hearing. That's not disrespect it is biology. 

 

You are looking only from one side.  You apparently are not considering the fact that the cops could feel they were in danger of being shot regardless of whether the guy was deaf, mentally ill, slow, scared, numb, whatever.  And a guy with any or all of those conditions could shoot and kill someone.

 

Today's local news has a guy who shot his daughter twice.  They say maybe he shot because of his diabetes.  I don't understand any of that, but maybe he's a nice guy whose physical problem made him do something horrible.  The fact remains that his daughter has been shot twice, once in the head.  The fact remains he was dangerous with a gun in his hand, regardless of why.  An innocent person may die.  It happens.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

First, legally, he may not have needed to. See previous post. 

 

More importantly, often people CANNOT process things being yelled at them. The cops had guns too, pointed AT HIM, and were trying to smash his window in. Is HE not allowed to be scared? Are the mentally ill supposed to stop being mentally ill if a police person gives them an order? Maybe a deaf person should stop being deaf so they can hear the order? Someone who doesn't speak english should learn it right then, so they can understand the order? As has been said over and over, if a person with a mental illness, autism, PTSD, etc is yelled at, they may be incapable of processing what they are hearing. That's not disrespect it is biology. 

 

I haven't had time to research the North Carolina laws, but that does seem to be an unusual interpretation of open carry laws.  With that said, I would think that would only apply to someone carrying lawfully, and that may have not been the case here for two reasons (no legal right to carry and viewed in the commission of a crime).

 

I think the point about the police attempting to break the window is very interesting and it does raise a question of whether they really were in fear for their safety.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[TechWife]

 

Also, at least one of the cops was in a different location, perhaps in the direction he was backing toward.  It looked to me like he was trying to decide how he could get himself out of the situation instead of give himself up.  The cops were still yelling "drop the gun" over and over.

 

 

 

 

Looking for a way out is not a crime. Running from the police is a crime, but it is not one punishable by death. Neither is it appropriate for the police to shoot someone who is running away from them unless they clearly pose a danger to others. Police are supposed to shoot people who are threatening lives, not people who aren't following instructions. 

[TechWife]

You are looking only from one side.  You apparently are not considering the fact that the cops could feel they were in danger of being shot regardless of whether the guy was deaf, mentally ill, slow, scared, numb, whatever.  And a guy with any or all of those conditions could shoot and kill someone.

 

 

 

What someone "feels" is an awfully low threshold. The police should be acting on knowledge, not feelings. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/new-revelations-in-keith-scott-case_/326706427

 

The wife is a liar....she kept telling the police that he didn't have a gun, when in fact she had filed a restraining order against him and noted that he had a gun.  If he was known to have fire arms, was so violent that she filed a restraining order, then why would she act like he couldn't be violent?

 

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/new-revelations-in-keith-scott-case_/326706427

Edited September 27, 2016 by Attolia

[SKL]

Looking for a way out is not a crime. Running from the police is a crime, but it is not one punishable by death. Neither is it appropriate for the police to shoot someone who is running away from them unless they clearly pose a danger to others. Police are supposed to shoot people who are threatening lives, not people who aren't following instructions. 

 

The officer who shot him says he did so because he felt he was in grave danger of being shot himself.  The investigation needs to focus on whether that was true.  Neither you nor I know the answer to that.

 

There is a difference between being shot in self-defense and being shot just because you pissed off a cop.

 

Everyone keeps saying turning, running, deafness/inattention, etc is not reason to be shot.  True.  But that ignores the reason given for the shooting, by the guy who fired the gun.

 

[SKL]

What someone "feels" is an awfully low threshold. The police should be acting on knowledge, not feelings. 

 

Like it or not, cops are humans.  They don't want to die.  When we figure out a way to prevent cops from having human feelings, then maybe some folks won't be shot - and maybe some additional criminals will be shot.  Because emotions also cause cops to hesitate and miss an opportunity to stop a murder.

 

Furthermore - you want to go by knowledge?  Well, turns out the guy had a loaded gun and a history of criminal activity.  I don't know all of the details, but hopefully you didn't expect the cops to know it all either before they decided what to do.

Edited September 27, 2016 by SKL

[Ann.without.an.e]

This is too close to home for me, I suppose.  I have friends in CMPD, I have mutual friends with Vinson - an outstanding man whose father was the first black detective for CMPD.  I have seen my home ravaged over this.  I was just uptown the other day for business and seriously...not recognizable.  Charlotte is a fantastic place.  We have an excellent police chief, this was a respectable officer.  I guess I trust them.  I don't trust the opinions and words of people who take out restraining orders against their husband for being violent, for hitting a child, and having a weapon and then claim he could never shoot a police officer and didn't have a gun?  This family went up in arms with rage when in fact they themselves were afraid of him and they knew his history.  I'm sorry y'all, it doesn't add up.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Attolia

[SKL]

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/new-revelations-in-keith-scott-case_/326706427

 

The wife is a liar....she kept telling the police that he didn't have a gun, when in fact she had filed a restraining order against him and noted that he had a gun.  If he was known to have fire arms, was so violent that she filed a restraining order, then why would she act like he couldn't be violent?

 

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/new-revelations-in-keith-scott-case_/326706427

 

Wow, is that from a reliable source?  That article contains a lot of reason to believe this guy is capable of shooting the cops.

 

Perhaps we could stop feeling sorry for the guy for being "incapable" of following the police commands.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by SKL

[Ann.without.an.e]

Wow, is that from a reliable source?  That article contains a lot of reason to believe this guy is capable of shooting the cops.

 

Perhaps we could stop feeling sorry for the guy for being "incapable" of following the police commands.

 

 

 

Very reliable.  Local news channel but it is on several news sources.  Google it. 

 

 

Here is another news source...

 

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/court-records-show-keith-scotts-wife-filed-for-restraining-order/450911728

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/27/charlotte-man-shot-by-police-claimed-was-killer-wife-said-in-court-records.html

 

 

 

these aren't those off-beat papers that just support causes.  These are local news channels.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Attolia