Keith Lamont Scott record...multiple armed felonies but yeah...lets protest.

a reply to: Edumakated

why is it that the only examples that seem to show up of this supposed trend in shootings is of thugs.

Easy to develop 'thug' label when the only stories in the main stream is of people getting killed by police... int it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This is what I'm getting.

Police (white and black officers) should not shoot armed felons with illegal firearms that are aimed at the police.

At this point this might not be such a bad idea.

If these types of riots continue and if they become more prevalent; than it might be more economical both in dollars and in human life and limb to allow certain areas of the country to exist in a less/non policed state.

Create zones with in these cities where the police take a hands off approach to crime fighting. Where they do not patrol in the zone only around its parimiter.

Daly life it those zones won't be much different than today. The gangs will run the streets and life will go on. Tensions between the police and the gangs will decrease because the gangs will have a place where they can be free from prosicution.

Yes this might be less ideal for the law abiding people who live in these zones. But how much worse off will they really be? Right now they already live in fear of gang violence... and police violence... and riots. So removing two of the three can't be that much worse.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I want military police

but yeah. Thats the plan. Federal police. Local security type guards for city property. Cops will be armed with radios.

And it will be the polices fault. There is a sytemic problem and adverse culture.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now show me a squeeky clean black man actually reading a book, being shot by police and I may change my opinion. This guy was neither clean, nor reading a book....he was a career criminal in and out of jail numerous times.

By that logic just round up all potential criminals and execute them before they commit any more 'petty' crimes.

All you're doing is blaming the victim, when the real crime committed here was murder.

He blew past potential criminal with felonies and assault charges.

Sure I am blaming him, but would hardly call him a victim. He was a criminal and still actively acting like one with a gun in his possession....at a bus stop waiting to pick up kids....

So you consider all of his charges, reduced or not, to be petty?

Sure....he didn't have to die, but he also didn't have to illegally have a gun to pick up his kid from the bus.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

according to the mayor, they have video of him with the gun in his hand and witness who saw the shooting, they will be released when the investigation is done.

They hide any forensics like video to cover up. But good on them for fomenting insurrection by keeping the 'proof' hidden from the public eye.

My bet is they need to fabricate a lie before releasing anything.

The picture of his gun that he had was taken by a bystander. Nothing covered up at all. But yeah...LEO likely just threw one on the ground after the fact and nobody caught that part....

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Edumakated

why is it that the only examples that seem to show up of this supposed trend in shootings is of thugs.

Easy to develop 'thug' label when the only stories in the main stream is of people getting killed by police... int it.

Any outside of mainstream of those without records you can point to? Seems the majority, if not all, are career criminals that I have seen.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This is what I'm getting.

Police (white and black officers) should not shoot armed felons with illegal firearms that are aimed at the police.

At this point this might not be such a bad idea.

If these types of riots continue and if they become more prevalent; than it might be more economical both in dollars and in human life and limb to allow certain areas of the country to exist in a less/non policed state.

Create zones with in these cities where the police take a hands off approach to crime fighting. Where they do not patrol in the zone only around its parimiter.

Daly life it those zones won't be much different than today. The gangs will run the streets and life will go on. Tensions between the police and the gangs will decrease because the gangs will have a place where they can be free from prosicution.

Yes this might be less ideal for the law abiding people who live in these zones. But how much worse off will they really be? Right now they already live in fear of gang violence... and police violence... and riots. So removing two of the three can't be that much worse.

The very people who complain about the police will be the first ones crying about high crime rates when the police step back from active policing. We see it here in Chicago now. Crime going through the roof because police have stopped being proactive for fear of making a mistake or being accused of being too aggressive.

The reality is that a lot of thugs are taken off the street through petty crime arrests. They may not catch a thug in the act "putting in the work" but they often catch them on traffic violations and find illegal weapons which takes them off the street and thus keeps the murder rate down. Now, the cops are just letting things slide.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

according to the mayor, they have video of him with the gun in his hand and witness who saw the shooting, they will be released when the investigation is done.

They hide any forensics like video to cover up. But good on them for fomenting insurrection by keeping the 'proof' hidden from the public eye.

My bet is they need to fabricate a lie before releasing anything.

The picture of his gun that he had was taken by a bystander. Nothing covered up at all. But yeah...LEO likely just threw one on the ground after the fact and nobody caught that part....

Which you are sure never happens, of course.

I swear, I'm getting to the point of not knowing what to believe.

When a cop approaches a vehicle, they have no idea who is in it and what they are about to do. I expect them to be ready to respond to any perceived threat immediately. I want them to do that. But I also want them thinking clearly and opening while prepared to take action. There is a greater chance that the person they are approaching is just a citizen than a hardened killer.

Here we have someone who was shot dead. That deserves an inquiry, every time. I would expect that inquiry to be quick... as in, clearly justified... most of the time. I expect some times it will take longer, as there will always be instances that don't appear quite right on the surface. But it seems, at least on the surface to me, that these inquiries are problematic.

Firstly, why hide evidence for months behind closed doors? That evidence is not something that can be changed by the public without leaving evidence... there will still be original copies in the possession of the police. By maintaining secrecy of the original, it opens the door to charges that the police themselves altered the evidence, because they have possession of the original.

Second, it is becoming commonplace to use past offenses as an excuse for present actions. While past offenses can be used to indicate an expected pattern of behavior, quite a few leaps of logic can be used. A past domestic argument is not proof of a propensity for public violence. A past weapons offense is not proof of present menacing of a police officer with a weapon. Especially when the officer is not originally aware of the previous record, the officer's actions should not be predicated on those past offenses. If we're going down that path, no one will ever be assumed innocent until proven guilty again.

Thirdly, there seems to be much more concern for officers' Constitutional rights than for victims' safety. Yes, we all want the officers to stay "safe out there" but we also need to stay aware that their job is a choice they made. Their job, IMO if not in the eyes of the law, includes a duty to protect citizens. Shooting someone is not protecting them and should be a last resort always. I understand it's sometimes required, but the first duty is to resolve the situation safely for all involved. That is never accomplished by pulling the gun on initial contact.

Fourthly, resisting arrest and failure to comply are NOT automatic permission for shooting or even escalating a situation. When a police officer approaches me, I have not given up my sovereignty. The officer can arrest me and temporary take that sovereignty if and only if there is some evidence that I have committed a crime. Resisting arrest does not fall into such a category unless there is some evidence that an arrest was warranted in the first place, meaning some evidence that I had committed a crime.

Fifthly, the safest a police officer can be is when confronting a law-abiding citizen. As I stated earlier, that's most of the time. But even a law-abiding citizen can turn into a confrontational person when confrontation is started by a police officer. Far, far, far too many officers today start the encounter on a confrontational note, and anyone who does this on a regular basis should not be allowed to carry a badge or a gun. Such an attitude is bullying, and there should never... NEVER... be a bully with a badge. Of course, everyone can have a bad day; I'm not asking about occasional incidences. I am talking about regular occurrences.

Police are the gatekeepers of society. We need them, desperately. But we need them to be gatekeepers, not executioners. They have to be supervised. The ones supervising them have to be supervised. The final supervisory level must be the people, and to do this the people must have access to the data involved. All evidentiary information should be turned over to the people whenever there is a request for it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Vasa Croe
I don;t care if they are Charles Manson. Records don't matter when it comes to police shootings...

All you are doing is blaming the victim past tense.

"He got what he deserved".

Wheres the vid of him pointing the firearm at police? A gun on ground doesn't mean he drew it or had it in his hand, either.

"Throw down"

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I don;t care if they are Charles Manson. Records don't matter when it comes to police shootings...

All you are doing is blaming the victim past tense.

"He got what he deserved".

Wheres the vid of him pointing the firearm at police? A gun on ground doesn't mean he drew it or had it in his hand, either.

"Throw down"

Regardless of having it pointed at officers, he had one. A convicted felon or anyone with a gun is going to put any LEO on a much higher level of alert. No idea where the video of him pointing it is....body cam footage usually takes a minute before it comes out.

You can justify your case any way you want. So what his past records don't matter in the moment. He had a gun. His past records show he has a propensity for violence and assault, even on minors.

Your throw down link is neat...but like I said. The pic was from a bystander and no mention of it being thrown down....had that been done there would be a whole SLEW of people shouting it all over MSM.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This is actually the FIRST I've heard of that.
Huh.

Oh course we're not going to ever hear the real story at first.

It's always "shock/awe/9/11x11"
Go viral
Go protest
Go riot
And then
Hopefully they can trick us into a war.
A war between (manipulated) us and them.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This is what I'm getting.

Police (white and black officers) should not shoot armed felons with illegal firearms that are aimed at the police.

At this point this might not be such a bad idea.

If these types of riots continue and if they become more prevalent; than it might be more economical both in dollars and in human life and limb to allow certain areas of the country to exist in a less/non policed state.

Create zones with in these cities where the police take a hands off approach to crime fighting. Where they do not patrol in the zone only around its parimiter.

Daly life it those zones won't be much different than today. The gangs will run the streets and life will go on. Tensions between the police and the gangs will decrease because the gangs will have a place where they can be free from prosicution.

Yes this might be less ideal for the law abiding people who live in these zones. But how much worse off will they really be? Right now they already live in fear of gang violence... and police violence... and riots. So removing two of the three can't be that much worse.

The very people who complain about the police will be the first ones crying about high crime rates when the police step back from active policing. We see it here in Chicago now. Crime going through the roof because police have stopped being proactive for fear of making a mistake or being accused of being too aggressive.

The reality is that a lot of thugs are taken off the street through petty crime arrests. They may not catch a thug in the act "putting in the work" but they often catch them on traffic violations and find illegal weapons which takes them off the street and thus keeps the murder rate down. Now, the cops are just letting things slide.

That's OK they can complain... and if they ask imfaticly, through a new set of riots, for the police to come back we can send the police back in. But than they will have asked for more policing of their own free will. The dynamic will have changed.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Regardless of having it pointed at officers, he had one.

I thought it only mattered he had a record.

Not going any further with this for now. Need to see that missing vid bit where they actually discharge their firearms at him, from an angle that shows precisely what he was doing at that specific moment. Everything else is conjecture and (or) justification for another police killing under suspicious circumstances.

Like we haven't seen that before. Better come clean guys, show what you got, its not looking good here either. Enjoy putting down more riots in the mean time.

intrptr out

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I swear, I'm getting to the point of not knowing what to believe.

When a cop approaches a vehicle, they have no idea who is in it and what they are about to do. I expect them to be ready to respond to any perceived threat immediately. I want them to do that. But I also want them thinking clearly and opening while prepared to take action. There is a greater chance that the person they are approaching is just a citizen than a hardened killer.

Here we have someone who was shot dead. That deserves an inquiry, every time. I would expect that inquiry to be quick... as in, clearly justified... most of the time. I expect some times it will take longer, as there will always be instances that don't appear quite right on the surface. But it seems, at least on the surface to me, that these inquiries are problematic.

Firstly, why hide evidence for months behind closed doors? That evidence is not something that can be changed by the public without leaving evidence... there will still be original copies in the possession of the police. By maintaining secrecy of the original, it opens the door to charges that the police themselves altered the evidence, because they have possession of the original.

Second, it is becoming commonplace to use past offenses as an excuse for present actions. While past offenses can be used to indicate an expected pattern of behavior, quite a few leaps of logic can be used. A past domestic argument is not proof of a propensity for public violence. A past weapons offense is not proof of present menacing of a police officer with a weapon. Especially when the officer is not originally aware of the previous record, the officer's actions should not be predicated on those past offenses. If we're going down that path, no one will ever be assumed innocent until proven guilty again.

Thirdly, there seems to be much more concern for officers' Constitutional rights than for victims' safety. Yes, we all want the officers to stay "safe out there" but we also need to stay aware that their job is a choice they made. Their job, IMO if not in the eyes of the law, includes a duty to protect citizens. Shooting someone is not protecting them and should be a last resort always. I understand it's sometimes required, but the first duty is to resolve the situation safely for all involved. That is never accomplished by pulling the gun on initial contact.

Fourthly, resisting arrest and failure to comply are NOT automatic permission for shooting or even escalating a situation. When a police officer approaches me, I have not given up my sovereignty. The officer can arrest me and temporary take that sovereignty if and only if there is some evidence that I have committed a crime. Resisting arrest does not fall into such a category unless there is some evidence that an arrest was warranted in the first place, meaning some evidence that I had committed a crime.

Fifthly, the safest a police officer can be is when confronting a law-abiding citizen. As I stated earlier, that's most of the time. But even a law-abiding citizen can turn into a confrontational person when confrontation is started by a police officer. Far, far, far too many officers today start the encounter on a confrontational note, and anyone who does this on a regular basis should not be allowed to carry a badge or a gun. Such an attitude is bullying, and there should never... NEVER... be a bully with a badge. Of course, everyone can have a bad day; I'm not asking about occasional incidences. I am talking about regular occurrences.

Police are the gatekeepers of society. We need them, desperately. But we need them to be gatekeepers, not executioners. They have to be supervised. The ones supervising them have to be supervised. The final supervisory level must be the people, and to do this the people must have access to the data involved. All evidentiary information should be turned over to the people whenever there is a request for it.

TheRedneck

1) Why hide evidence? I agree. However, evidence is for the court, not the public consumption. I think the issue is that with our 24 hour news cycle, social media, and internet; court procedures have not caught up with how fast information travels. We have a lot of citizen journalists uncovering facts and other information. This is an issue with high profile cases and something I think courts will need to address. From a PR perspective, police departments would do better to release as much information as possible. However, we've also seen where in these cases when they do release information, they also get accused of leaking info to taint juries, etc.

2) The past offenses just point to the character of the person and if their behavior in the altercation could be consistent with past behavior. If we are objectively piecing together was may have happened in a situation, understanding how someone may behave is reasonable.

3) Agree. Officers are too jumpy, but at the same time we can't expect officers to not try to protect themselves. In too many of these cases, the victims are directly responsible for creating the volatile situation by non-compliance. The minute you start talking back, resisting arrest, etc you create a situation where an officer may feel you are unpredictable and are putting their life in danger. I am black. My dad was a cop. He told me from day one how to interact with police. Basically, STFU and if I believe the cop was wrong to deal with it later. Arguing on the side of the street with a cop is not an argument you are going to win under any circumstances.

4) Resisting arrest is not a reason to be shot, but by resisting arrest and mouthing off you escalate the situation. The cop does not know what your intentions may or may not be. Most times resisting arrest does not get you killed, but under certain circumstances it certainly can get you killed. You increase the odds of something bad happening. So again, just STFU and deal with the disagreement later if you value your life.

5) Agree completely. Too many cops have this salty attitude when approaching people. If you approach someone nicely, odds are you will get a nice response.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I don;t care if they are Charles Manson. Records don't matter when it comes to police shootings...

All you are doing is blaming the victim past tense.

"He got what he deserved".

Wheres the vid of him pointing the firearm at police? A gun on ground doesn't mean he drew it or had it in his hand, either.

"Throw down"

Why does it matter if there is video of him pointing his gun at the police? Pointing a gun does not indicate that one intends to shoot someone. You can point a gun at someone all day long and unless you pull the trigger you won't kill them.

So no, just like a gun on the ground, a gun in hand or a gun pointed at a police officer does not mean that a person deserves to be shot and to die.

More too it; pulling the trigger with a gun pointed at the police is a gray area. How do you really know that a gun is pointed directly at someone in a manner that will be fatel. Maybe the gun holder plans to shoot a warning shot, or plans to just grase the officers. There is a possibility that the shooter has absolutely no intention to kill anyone ... so in this case deadly force in retaliation by the police is not warranted.

So where is the video of this person fately shooting a police officer? With out that how can the police be sure that their return of deadly fire was warranted?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Regardless of having it pointed at officers, he had one.

I thought it only mattered he had a record.

Not going any further with this for now. Need to see that missing vid bit where they actually discharge their firearms at him, from an angle that shows precisely what he was doing at that specific moment. Everything else is conjecture and (or) justification for another police killing under suspicious circumstances.

Like we haven't seen that before. Better come clean guys, show what you got, its not looking good here either. Enjoy putting down more riots in the mean time.

intrptr out

Funny...I looked back at my posts and could not find a single one that said it only mattered that he had a record.

Fact is he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm....still doing illegal things. And for what purpose would this upstanding rehab'd felon have the need of a firearm for....while picking up kids at the bus? The police chief even made a statement that his gun was there. I am sure the family will start on the narrative that he borrowed a car and it was in the car and blah blah blah or something stupid like that though.

a reply to: DanDanDat

gun pointed at a police officer does not mean that a person deserves to be shot and to die.

Are you serious??!! This statement is the dumbest statement I have read ... EVER!

If ANY PERSON points a gun at another there is a CLEAR THREAT and one not to be taken lightly. Clearly if this man pointed a gun at the officer the officer better shoot before the other trigger is pulled. Kill or be killed!!

In regards to the riots... it's typical. I don't expect anything less because of the lack of intelligence and education. Violent protesting = more people killed. Makes ZERO sense!!!!

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: DanDanDat

gun pointed at a police officer does not mean that a person deserves to be shot and to die.

Are you serious??!! This statement is the dumbest statement I have read ... EVER!

If ANY PERSON points a gun at another there is a CLEAR THREAT and one not to be taken lightly. Clearly if this man pointed a gun at the officer the officer better shoot before the other trigger is pulled. Kill or be killed!!

In regards to the riots... it's typical. I don't expect anything less because of the lack of intelligence and education. Violent protesting = more people killed. Makes ZERO sense!!!!

I think he was being facetious...

a reply to: intrptr

that's there is some bullsh@@, it has everything to do with it, if a person is up to their old habits. convicted felons aren't allowed to have guns.

the , Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown that.... well here is are the highlights of their study.

Highlights:
Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—

About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.

Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.

More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.

Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.

A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.

An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period

Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010

see how many fit this guy, we know of at least one crime he committed, a convicted felon with a hand gun. he failed to follow lawful orders by police, resisted and lost his life for it.
there are two or three main reasons for a convicted felon having a hand gun, used for defense, which the guy could have had it for, but who and why was he wanting to defend himself from? or use it to commit another crime/ felony, or assault/ kill someone.