It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Police chief: Officers gave man multiple warnings to drop gun before fatal shooting

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Excuse me? "Ignorant Cracker"??? How incredibly racist of you. That type of racism goes BOTH WAYS, as you were so quick to point out to the other poster. The "C" word is offensive to us European Americans.

A race war is so very close at hand now, fed by individuals who feel the need to insult one race at the expense of peace and civilized discourse. We don't need it fed by derogatory insults.

There is a real problem with violence and crimes in this country. The fact that it was a black officer who shot the man who had a gun and refused to put it down was lost on the fools who used last night as an excuse to loot and burn stuff. It has been known for YEARS, if you have a gun in front of the police and do not put it down, it's a 'blue suicide'. They WILL shoot you, and chances are, you won't survive it. This is true for all colors and races.

Our race war will spill over into Canada eventually. Go ahead and call your neighbors the "c" word.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

but his sister and daughter said he was just sittin in his car reading a book, waiting on jr to come home from school. and cops came up and busted out the window and shot him. gotta be true his sister said she heard it. daughter said he was sitting there, even though neither one was in the car with him.

why can't we just believe what they say and give him the benefit of the doubt,instead of the po lease, they are just shooting up black men every where and they aren't doing nothing but sitting there.



edit on 21-9-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
This is why video evidence is so necessary with police interactions, because wording is everything.

warned "Multiple times" could just as easily mean "DROPTHEGUNDROPTHEGUN*BANG*"

either side could have misconstrued events, but saying "well he should have followed directions," sometimes that's not as easy as it sounds.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Its strange how when there is video evidence, the police chief and their squad take their time to release a statement, but when its the LEOs words against eye witness and no video evidence present, the narrative always seems to favor the LEOS.

a bit strange how, when theres no footage, verbal warnings and all standard procedure were applied.
strange.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Excuse me? "Ignorant Cracker"??? How incredibly racist of you. That type of racism goes BOTH WAYS, as you were so quick to point out to the other poster. The "C" word is offensive to us European Americans.

Well, I'm a European Canadian...and definitely not a cracker. I don't use 'redneck' or any such appellations as they are pejorative , but Cracker is as Cracker does.
And in reference to earlier posts...it is the Rock video I am commenting on.

Sure...I'm racist. That really comes out in my posting history.

edit on 21-9-2016 by JohnnyCanuck because: life is chiil.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

because when you fire a gun, you arent firing to maim unless you are in hollywood. aim for center mass, pull the trigger. I can shoot you in the leg sure, but what happens if i clip you femoral artery. Shooting someone in the leg is a hollywood fabrication, not real life.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I suppose eventually police will only be able to use lethal force on white people.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
So they shoot to kill then perform CPR? Does anyone else see a bit of a logical fallacy here?

Why not shoot them in the stomach and legs? Why go for a kill shot right away?


Because real world shooting isn't a movie.

Entire threads have been authored on the logical fallacy of "shoot to wound."



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Im sure he dindu nuffin



BLM would have you think blacks are incapable of crime.


That's the thing. He may not have actually done anything ... except show up at the wrong place at the wrong time with a gun in his hands and choose to defy a group of LEOs who were already on edge because they were expecting to potentially be facing an armed and dangerous suspect.

In those moments, whether or not you listen and obey makes a difference and I'm not sure he did.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude





“there is more to this story than initially reported”


That’s usually true from both sides



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
So they shoot to kill then perform CPR? Does anyone else see a bit of a logical fallacy here?

Why not shoot them in the stomach and legs? Why go for a kill shot right away?


The man had a firearm in his hand. He was asked to drop it, more than once, and he refused to comply. At this point, he is not only a threat to police, but to anyone else who might be walking or driving by. If they shot him in the leg, he'd still have his gun. And some people don't crumple and give up when they've been shot. In fact, some people decide to go out in a blaze of glory.

Once a person has deliberately crossed that line and refused to drop a weapon when ordered to do so by police, they already have made the choice that they are willing to die. Hesitation or underestimating the level of threat beyond that point could result in many people losing their lives who were not given that choice. Far better to make the difficult choice to eliminate the known threat completely than risk the safety of other innocent people by not acting when the opportunity was given.

I wouldn't want to be faced with the choice of whether or not to use deadly force. I have a great measure of respect for our police and military, who have to worry about that every day.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   


a reply to: JohnnyCanuck Excuse me? "Ignorant Cracker"??? How incredibly racist of you. That type of racism goes BOTH WAYS, as you were so quick to point out to the other poster. The "C" word is offensive to us European Americans.


Not really, I ain't offended at all. "Cracker" is a derogatory word in reference to yard slaves who whipped other slaves. In essence it is the precursor to "Uncle Tom" and is considerably nastier than calling another person the "N" word. Although why someone would refer to their own people as any of those, I am confused.

K, back on topic . . . How many threads do we need on this incident which isn't really an incident.

Recap: Cops serving warrant. Man at scene confronts cops with a gun (already high stress situation). Cops tell man to drop gun. Man refuses. Black cop shoots man with gun. Everyone hollers racist cop shooting unarmed black man. People use as excuse to riot.

Did I miss anything? Nope, didn't think so. This boils down to people are stupid.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Slanter




warned "Multiple times" could just as easily mean "DROPTHEGUNDROPTHEGUN*BANG*"


Hey, sometimes that is all there is time for. Or would you prefer to wait for the guy to shoot you before you get to return fire?

I understand that NATO and the UN require this of our military (in fact, after getting shot at you must request permission from higher to return fire), but we do not yet require this of LEOs or soon there would be NONE.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: network dude





“there is more to this story than initially reported”


That’s usually true from both sides





Yes, there are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: network dude

This goes back to the protesters and BLM not wanting equality but supremacy. They don't want the rule of law to apply to them.

If you brandish a gun and cops tell you to put it down, put the damn thing down. If you're a legal carrier of that gun, you'll then work it out. Instead, BLM and the protesters seem to believe you can ignore cops while brandishing a gun and they shouldn't do anything.

That is until they see someone outside their home with a gun, at which point they'll call the cops and expect the cops to confront the individual.


I agree for the most part, but even brandishing a weapon can be done in a non-threatening way. If a suspect has a weapon, by all means, have your finger at the ready and your firearm trained on that individual ready to put him down at a moment's notice, but just shooting people because they don't listen to you and are brandishing a weapon (not the same as threatening you with imminent use of said weapon) does not mean that shots SHOULD be fired.

I think that, in most of these cases, it boils down to lack of proper training. Yes, some of these instances might be racial or blatant abuse of authority and deadly force, but for the most part, I think that many PDs (and the like) set their officers up for failure in many of these situations, and then it falls on the individual officer when something like this happens and they make what they feel is an appropriate life-or-death decision.

Most times, it's a sucky situation all around.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're right. Just because a guy is pointing a gun doesn't mean you should shoot him. Maybe you should just let him shoot you.





posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Of course they did. The police won't shoot you for no reason. This Myth of the evil white (even though in this case he was black) police officer who shoot black people for sport is nothing more than racially-motivated propaganda by the Black Lives Matter terrorist organisation to drum up support with the uneducated and the ignorant for their seditious cause.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What the hell does that video have to do with what I said? Did you even read my comment thoroughly, or did you just skim through it an have a knee-jerk reaction and feel a need to jump on YouTube?

I specifically noted that just because someone is brandishing a weapon does not always equate to an immediate threat to one's life, and that an officer's commands--which should be followed--being ignored does not immediately abolish that individual's right to life.

Yes, there are instances where, obviously, the officer needs to shoot first, but that's not what I was discussing, nor was it the point that I was making. You took my comment, tried to turn it into something that it's not, and then posted a tragic traffic stop from 1998 to (apparently) make me feel stupid. (it didn't work)

I'm one of the first people on ATS to note when a shooting was justified, even in the cases of unarmed people and emotionally ignorant commenters, so please don't feel a need to lecture me about when an officer should or should not shoot first.

And nothing that you said or the video that you posted is an intelligent argument against what I said in my post...especially about the lack of training that officers generally receive.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The video I posted is a widely used training video for police.

My point is at what point do you as a cop look at someone brandishing a gun and refusing to comply and continue to assume they aren't going to shoot at you?

Obviously the guy in the training video gave his perp every benefit of the doubt. He assumed that the guy pointing the gun at him wasn't serious and wasn't going to shoot.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, from how I've been trained (I'm not a cop, but have quite a bit of tactical pistol, hand-to-hand defense training [Krav Maga], and have been trained by may who have been [and are currently] LEOs and Special Forces guys), there are myriad things to consider when determining if someone is a threat (potential or imminent), and just having a weapon and not listening to commands are not enough to always determine whether or not a thread is imminent and has earned the loss of their life.

My entire point (again) is not that LEOs don't sometimes need to shoot first--obviously they do--but that the two indicators above are not enough in and of themselves.

Now, given that the officers seem to be correct that he had a gun, and that they immediately tried to render CPR and other first-aid after the shooting, I would argue that this does not seem to be a shooting that occurred for any other reason than the officers truly thinking that they were in danger--but that's the thing about that, is that there are two sides to the story, and after the family watched the video, they describe Mr. Scott acting in a non-threatening manner and walking slowly away from the officers when they shot.


The family wants police to immediately release the videos to the public, Bamberg said.

But Charlotte-Mecklenberg police Chief Kerr Putney told reporters earlier Thursday that he's not going to do that because he doesn't want to jeopardize the investigation.

Asked whether there was a time at which the public could expect to see it, Putney said there should be no such expectation.

...

Putney later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the decision wouldn't be his to make much longer anyway, as the investigation was being turned over to North Carolina's State Bureau of Investigation.

Putney said video does not provide "definitive visual evidence" that Scott pointed a gun at police officers, including Brentley Vinson, who shot Scott. But other evidence and witness accounts support the police narrative that officers opened fire only after Scott refused to drop his weapon, he said.

The family says the video shows Scott acting calmly and non-aggressively on Tuesday. "When he was shot and killed, Mr. Scott's hands were by his side and he was slowly walking backwards," Bamberg said.


...

Mayor Jennifer Roberts also watched the videos.

"It is not a very clear picture, and the gun in question is a small gun and it was not easy to see with the way the motion was happening," she told "Anderson Cooper 360."

The mayor said she is leaning toward releasing the footage to the public, but must remain mindful of the ongoing investigations into Scott's shooting.

CNN

Who is right? I don't know, and that raises enough concerns for me that we just don't have enough evidence as the Court of Public Opinion to make intelligent claims concerning justification of the shooting, although we're getting closer and closer by the day. But I will tell you this--if you are an officer, and you have your pistol trained on a suspect with a gun and his hands are down and he's not advancing on you, you are already in the position to fire first IF he makes an aggressive, threatening move. There's no need to fire 'just in case.'

I try to empathize with the officers and include the fact that adrenaline is pumping and that they're only human and sometimes make mistakes, but that doesn't negate the fact that this shooting may have been unnecessary if only they had been less aggressive with the trigger finger and more aggressive with their words or non-lethal rounds of some sort.

I'm waiting to see if/when the video is released--right now I cautiously side with the official story, so like in football where there has to be a preponderance of evidence to overturn a call, the video evidence will have to be quite damning against the officers for me to consider it unjustified. If he's really not pointing a gun, though, and is moving slowly and without threatening actions, I'm going to have to call it for the family, I think, unless other evidence comes out.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join