Protests erupt after man killed in officer-involved shooting in Charlotte

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UnBreakable

In this case, the police officer was a plain clothed, undercover officer. That can get confusing, I would imagine, under the best of situations.

Oh, wasn't aware the shooting officer was plain clothed. Still, then, why reach for a book (according to his family it was a book, not a gun)?

Another one bites the dust. Comply or die.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't know. One can only imagine. I guess, if it's true that he was just innocently sitting in his car, reading a book, waiting for his son, and saw a commotion, that was actually a group of under cover officers searching for an individual to serve an arrest warrant, but he didn't know that, he might have gotten out of his car to check it out, thinking something nefarious was up, bringing unwanted attention to himself, and it just went down hill from there. Giving the victim the benefit of the doubt.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UnBreakable

In this case, the police officer was a plain clothed, undercover officer. That can get confusing, I would imagine, under the best of situations.

Oh, wasn't aware the shooting officer was plain clothed. Still, then, why reach for a book (according to his family it was a book, not a gun)?

suppose he had a gun, NC is open carry. he wasnt pointing it officers/people or coming toward them.
plus he was shot whilst inside the vehicle

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UnBreakable

In this case, the police officer was a plain clothed, undercover officer. That can get confusing, I would imagine, under the best of situations.

Oh, wasn't aware the shooting officer was plain clothed. Still, then, why reach for a book (according to his family it was a book, not a gun)?

suppose he had a gun, NC is open carry. he wasnt pointing it officers/people or coming toward them.
plus he was shot whilst inside the vehicle

That's the conundrum I was pointing-out.

a reply to: introvert

So many discrepancies between the various "official" stories (the fact that it's a plural "official stories" already tells you how screwed up the situation with the media is)

Officer was "undercover", or officer was "plainclothed but had a vest on with identifying markers"

Victim had a book in his hand which was mistaken for a weapon, but then they say Police recovered a firearm at the scene

Victim was high on PCP (haven't seen that on any news articles, only in this thread), or he wasn't

Victim is a father of 4, or a father of 7

I'm sure there are others. No way to know at this point, the protesters aren't doing themselves any favors by being destructive and violent

a reply to: windword

One can only imagine.

the cops weren't undercover, they were searching for a individual with outstanding a warrant.
cops when serving a warrant, do not conceal who they are, they plainly wear vests and badges they say and show they are police. plain clothes or not. standard practice across the whole country. no way if just "sitting in his car" he could mistake that.

the girl/ women(his daughter or sister) not sure which one,the OP's article says both. said he was just sitting in his car.
one said she heard it, the other said he was sitting there. they weren't in the car sitting there with him, they have no way of knowing for sure what happen or what he had.

they could be just making up a story, it wouldn't be the first time we've seen people make a narrative against the police that was proven and shown to be false. now would it.

originally posted by: odzeandennz




suppose he had a gun, NC is open carry. he wasnt pointing it officers/people or coming toward them.
plus he was shot whilst inside the vehicle

I heard the police are claiming he did point a gun at them.

But you may be entirely right.

In the mean time, do you think we should go out and riot and burn down neighborhoods while this is being sorted out?

Does the media have a responsibility to blare this and any other story of black men shot by police before the fats are out? How did that work out in the Mike Brown situation. Remember, we heard all of the stories how he was innocently surrendering with his hands up, and the media jumped all over this.

But this time its different right? This time the media KNOWS FOR SURE that this man was totally innocent, and the know for sure this is indicative of a police force that is out to kill black people.

I am not going to allow myself to be blinded by the progressive narrative that is trying to be spun. If these cops are found to have shot an innocent man, then let them rot in jail.

Lastly, remember the outrage the media and others had at Trump supposedly using the word bomb too fast, and supposedly criticizing that the accused terrorists got a good lawyer etc. Now these are the people that are inspiring this vigilante rioting, and are accusing police forces across the country in the court of public opinion.

a reply to: FamCore

I agree. We have to wait until we have solid information and the rioters are not doing anything valuable.

I hope the rioting does not distract from the reality that we need to talk about police-citizen interaction and try to find better ways of dealing with certain situations.

We need to have less violence and less death, whether it be the police or citizens.

a reply to: introvert

Agreed. I don't understand why people don't get that rioting only makes it worse. That said - I'm white and it's beyond pissing me off. LEO should not assume that any interaction with citizens may put their lives in dangers. If that's the mentally, they need to turn in their badge.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: introvert

Agreed. I don't understand why people don't get that rioting only makes it worse. That said - I'm white and it's beyond pissing me off. LEO should not assume that any interaction with citizens may put their lives in dangers. If that's the mentally, they need to turn in their badge.

I agree with this 100%. The problem is that people want to spin this story and make it about the police wanting to kill blacks. This skewed reporting and catering to this narrative is fuels these riots.

Hillary coming out and saying she will talk to white people to solve this proves the racial agenda. This incident was a black cop shooting a black person, but still Hillary will talk to whites to solve it.

By spinning this false narrative, the real problem of police aggression will never be solved, and people are further divided among racial lines, and te poor folks that live in these cities will continue to see their neighborhoods burn.

a reply to: PhyllidiaDavenport

Thats the thing.

They are acting the sterotype so they will be treated as such.


I know some very succefully black people. They were succefull because they rejected African culture.
You know what they call members of the black community? Well I cant say it on ATS but it beguins with a N and ends in a R.

originally posted by: crazyewok

I know some very succefully black people. They were succefull because they rejected African culture.
You know what they call members of the black community? Well I cant say it on ATS but it beguins with a N and ends in a R.

I don't know that I'd refer to it as African Culture - - - but, there certainly is a Black American Culture. And a "Gansta" Culture.

There are plenty of successful people of dark skin. Who took responsibility for themselves and worked hard to become successful.

Blaming others for your lot in life - - - has to end. We don't have a Caste System here. Everyone has the opportunity. They just have to go after it.

A question: why do people automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the police? I really want to understand this. Police can do whatever they want and other police will cover for them simply because they're police too. Can you not see how this attitude will be abused more than help "put some bad guy away"? It's beyond me. You'd think people on a conspiracy site would question the actions of government enforcers more than just automatically siding with them at every chance.

a reply to: kosmicjack

So if a police officer is going to serve a warrant on a person that has committed violent crimes, or responding to a robbery, or a burglary, or to complaints of an individual threatening others with a firearm, or an active shooter situation you don't think they should prepare themselves for the possibility that their life will be in danger?

I don't agree with that at all.

Maybe I misread your statement.

a reply to: underwerks

Just as I thought, you are new to ATS.

Trust me, not many give the police the benefit of the doubt on this site.

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

I blame it on mob mentality. When groups of emotional people who are angry get together no good can from it. That said, to add conspiracy in the mix, there's also agent provocateurs to consider.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I thought, at least that's what I've been told, is that police are taught to see every situation as potentially "life threatening".

a reply to: Swills

That said, to add conspiracy in the mix, there's also agent provocateurs to consider.

That's the first thing that popped into my head.......retribution to Charlotte, because of the Mayor's and the City Council's refusal to repeal their "Bathroom Ordinance".

originally posted by: underwerks
A question: why do people automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the police? I really want to understand this. Police can do whatever they want and other police will cover for them simply because they're police too. Can you not see how this attitude will be abused more than help "put some bad guy away"? It's beyond me. You'd think people on a conspiracy site would question the actions of government enforcers more than just automatically siding with them at every chance.

Sure some do but that is not what I and many others are doing.

I am merely suggesting that we should leave the facts come out, I am not going to go rioting or screaming about how all cops are racist in the mean time.

If a cop shoots a person, I feel that cop is entitled to a fair process. If a person shoots a cop, that person is also entitled to a fair process.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you always assume the cops are guilty? Because from this posts when you say things like "Police can do whatever they want and other police cover for them" it seems that way.

Perhaps you should review your own biases before questioning others.