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.

 

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

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: windword

Never said they didnt. But The body cams will prove they were correct so when they show him with a gun ill be waiting for a apology.


I am afraid the body cams seem inconclusive - the family have seem them.


Then wait for a conviction. 4 cops say he had a gun. he had a gun in most peoples eyes then. If the body cams are inconclusive their cell phone surely is.




posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Vasa Croe

How many times and in how many different ways do people need to be told that a person's record doesn't matter if the officers have no idea who they are at the time of engagement? It's specious and, frankly, agenda driven to push that issue. IMHO.

And this:




This guy was on borrowed time with his background. It was either death by police, gang or jail.


FFS. You sound like that lady forced to resign yesterday from the Trump campaign. You know, "if you're black and not successful in the last 50 years..."

I hope the day never comes when you are forced to deal with an unexpected confrontation with LEO.
If so, good luck with that.


Not sure how many times...I guess more times than the officers in the video told him to drop the gun, or his wife told him not to do it, or to get out of the car? I mean even Keith didn't get it....he was convicted of multiple crimes and still carried a gun, so.....



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa

Well, I'll believe it when I see them, because right now the evidence seems to show the weapon being placed at the scene.







It's not possible to conclude that from the photo's or the video - the cops could have kicked the gun away from body.
It's inconclusive so far on what we have seen.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

well they do kick weapons away from time to time,and or grab them and toss them out of reach.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I'll go kick rocks when the video come out from the police if I'm wrong about it. Will the others in this thread do the same if it turns out he DID have a gun and the shooting was justified?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I won't. Because your premise was based on his background, not the actual incident itself.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Maybe it's time to remove the gray area. If a person has been guilty of anything other than a class C misdemeanor, the police are allowed to kill the person for any or no reason. Rid society of "bad" people.

This should appease many.




posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I will gladly
go kicks rocks around, as punishment for not trusting the police at their word


...If video evidence exonerates the police!



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime
Dude -- it doesn't matter what the "victim" has done prior. I don't care if this guy was a drug dealer/gangbanger, what ever. We have court and due process.

Basically what I'm saying is, if a police officer shoots someone, the legality of him shooting that person, the right/wrong can only rest in THAT incident. You can't say, well -- the cop didn't do anything wrong, this guy had a rap sheet. The guy having a record doesn't absolve police of wrong doing.

There is procedure and process -- and it doesn't matter if the victim is a criminal, the police still have to operate on procedure and practice. More people die to police than to anyone else, anywhere else in the country, other than Chicago. So much so, that it's not probable cause anymore for black men to flee police in Massachusetts.

I don't know the familiars with this particular case, but I do know that the premise you laid out in the OP is illogical -- you basically said it's OK for the police to break the law because the guy they shot was a criminal, but in the same breath, said it's wrong for citizens to protest a police officer breaking the law to shoot a criminal because they are just becoming criminals themselves -- so does the cop who shot him... like really?

So sick of people who think any criminal deserves death. If you broke the law, it's not okay for police to shoot you in the face -- it's just not. The only time it's okay to be shot to death is if you're actively threatening the lives of people around you at the moment the police action happens. You don't warrant a death sentence for running from police. You don't warrant a death sentence for pulling up your pants. You don't warrant a death sentence when you're a child with a known BB gun. You don't warrant a death sentence for being mentally disabled or deaf. You don't warrant a death sentence for not doing what you're told.

You warrant a death sentence if you hold other lives in jeopardy. That's the only time it's acceptable. That's what the protest is about. Too many people end up dead for nothing. Just take the recent example; A cop got fired because he correctly identified that a man was attempting to commit suicide by cop. He was fired for not shooting the guy, even though he did the RIGHT thing. They said he put the other officers in danger, they put HIM in danger -- he knew what the situation was, the other cops weren't there -- they showed up and unloaded, so they put his life at risk by escalating a situation and discharging rounds -- at a target that had no rounds to fire back who had flat out told the responding officer he was basically committing suicide by cop. The cops want cops to kill everyone they can, or they wouldn't be firing cops who didn't kill people who they didn't have to.

That's what the riot is about. It's about police actions being devoid of protection. Police are supposed to protect us, not anymore, now they are to put us down when we get out of line. They are execution squads now. It's worse than that even -- if you could believe that. Innocent people are getting arrested every day on 100% made up never happened charges on a regular -- not even in major cities, but small suburbs, pretty much everywhere in the country.

I was arrested for DUI/DUI Hit and Run/DUI property damage, that's 3 charges. I passed the sobriety test, was never asked to blow/give urine/give blood, and there was no accident, and no property damage. They took my license on the spot for a year because the police claimed I refused sobriety tests. In my police report [which was two pages] page 1 had the results of the sobriety test, and page two said they never took place.

I had to pay nearly 15 grand because a cop needed to hit his quota and made up bull# and then suppressed video evidence that exonerated me. This is the world we live in right now -- and if you don't have a problem with the police -- you don't get out much or drive a car that's worth more than 50k.

Did you know that in the united states of america -- a police officer only has to SAY you refused a breath test and you automatically get a 1 year suspension 7 days from your stop. It's an easy arrest -- they can make up the probable cause by shutting off their dash cam and saying you swerved over a line or ran a traffic control device.

Would you trust ANYBODY to NOT use this obscene power against people they don't like? There is no getting it back, there is no appeal for this on the street adjudication. The cop is literally your judge, so you better hope you make a good impression.


I'm not saying they shot him because of his record...I am saying his record shows his propensity to illegal activity with weapons that make the police story more viable and the shooting likely justified.

So your stance is, because of a single incident in your life that you were wronged on, that Keith was wronged for a couple decades of criminal activity? I mean he has over 20 years of criminal behavior and prison on there, but hey...he was likely innocent right? Just like you were right?

Oh...and I would really like to see the stats you bring up that more people die to police than anyone else anywhere else in the country...besides Chicago.

As far as I know there were around 1300 police shooting deaths in the last year....over 700 were white, about 370 black and the rest other minorities...combined that still puts whites ahead in the death by police category....but nowhere near the number of people killed by other civilians...



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I won't. Because your premise was based on his background, not the actual incident itself.


You mean the premise that his past assault charges and deadly weapon charges may mean he tried it again?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I don't agree whatsoever with the rioting in Charlotte... but I also don't agree with using the fact that he had a criminal record as justification for the shooting. Big freaking deal, no one knew that at the time.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to:
the forum [/post]


the difference now is that he won't be going to court and found guilty...

it's normal protocol to aim for center mass, because you might miss and kill someone else, then get your crap-filled pants sued off.

shooting suspects because you can't contain your own emotions is not a legitimate defense.
when an unarmed assailant gets shot, the guilt falls on the accuser, jury, and executioner.

stop hiring people that are too scared to uphold justice for one and all.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
stop hiring people that are too scared to uphold justice for one and all.

Cops are whole lot less timid than the average citizen. You might have a couple out there that crap themselves ... but they don't stay on the force very long unless they work Sleepytown, USA.

Just from the sounds I heard before shots were fired ... I'd say it was a good call. Scott was a bad guy and he had been for a long-lotta years (heavy emphasis on 'past tense'). That's my straight-up take on what happened here.

It doesn't matter to me how this thread developed. I just can't shed a tear over this fella or his hood-rat family. They wanted riot ... they got riot ... the piper's been paid.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

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.


Well yes, they told him to put the gun down, and he didn't. I guess you could say that was pretty dumb of the "victim", but I suppose the officers could have waited til one of them were possibly shot.

At that point, I guess we would be talking about murder of a cop eh?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I really don't know what to believe.

CHARLOTTE: GUN HAD HIS FINGERPRINTS


CNN quoted a source close to the investigation as saying that a loaded gun had been recovered at the scene of the crime and that fingerprints, DNA and blood on it matched Scott's.

www.yahoo.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

And what? When you have split seconds to decide on whats a gun and not ill side with the Cops on those instances. WHat you think if i person who means to do harm should be allowwed to shoot a cop just because they cant tell for sure if its a weapon?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Maybe this has been answered, but why would there be any police footage from the shooting officer? It was a plain clothes under cover officer (granted he had the police stickers showing) in an unmarked car who was involved in the shooting...

Other officers were on the scene but we don't know if they actually got the shooting on tape.
edit on 23-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I've talked to someone who personally saw the body cam and dash cam footage. It clearly shows a gun in his hand and clearly shows him point it in the general area of the police before they fire. They aren't releasing it because they are worried that it will inflame the situation because:
He does not point it directly at the officers.
He does not fire at the officers before they shoot him



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

There is a new law in North Carolina that prohibits them from showing police cam footage to the public. Unless the proper requests are submitted to the courts. They are allowing the family to see the tape though. Haven't heard much about that yet.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join