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.

 

Where Did Keith Lamont Scott Get His Gun?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


You are using a bona fide logical fallacy...

The 'illogical fallacy' is on the part of those that see a gun where there is none.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey


You are using a bona fide logical fallacy...

The 'illogical fallacy' is on the part of those that see a gun where there is none.


Then so are the bullets that killed Scott




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

the breaking and entering suspect told agents at the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives that he had sold the gun to Scott, ABC 11 reported Monday. He is now in custody.


The person that sold him the stolen gun should be charged with murder under "Felony Murder doctrine.
dictionary.law.com...
As he was part of the crime by selling a felon a gun that caused a death.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No...its all good....Today there was a carjacking (everyday)....Lowlife stole a woman's purse...the purse belonging to the woman...contained $$, credit cards, phone...and her handgun.

The thief got it all...and thats just one example how guns get into the hands of criminals....

Oh yeah....AND she was a local JUDGE!



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No...its all good....Today there was a carjacking (everyday)....Lowlife stole a woman's purse...the purse belonging to the woman...contained $$, credit cards, phone...and her handgun.

The thief got it all...and thats just one example how guns get into the hands of criminals....

Oh yeah....AND she was a local JUDGE!


And your point is what, That the woman should not have had a gun as a law officer of the court.
Or is it no one should have a gun so that criminals can not steal a gun.

I would far rather have a gun so i can prevent criminals from robbing and in some cases killing those they rob by fitting the criminal for a body bag.

My view comes from my background as a federal security officer while i was going to collage after i left the navy and Vietnam and as a retired EMT that has seen what criminals do to there victims.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe


The one that WAS in his ankle holster, which IS clearly seen in the video, that the police saw in his hand and told him to drop 11 times. Unless it is your opinion that he just wore that ankle holster for the cool factor that is......

Again, no gun in hand.


Allegedly.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

You guys are the ones going on he threatened the officers, had a gun, but can't show that anywhere.

Down with forensics, up with accusations.

intrptr out


Forensics is an examination of all relevant data and coming to a conclusion about it.

Fixating on one single element and ignoring all other data is not forensics.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Any intelligent person will tell a woman that the purse is the WORST place to keep a concealed weapon--I would think that a judge would know that.

Fear of one of my firearms falling into criminal hands is the only reason that I haven't installed a holster in my truck--I don't want it visible and at the ready for some random thief to take at will.

Either way, good on her for carrying, bad on her for doing it in such a manner to make the theft of the firearm easy.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

What Intrptr doesn't understand (well, in his case, isn't willing to accept) is that there is a gun in an evidence locker with Scott's fingerprints and DNA on it, that was fully loaded and had the hammer cocked. Apparently that gun doesn't exist, though...at least in his world.

Well, it does, but since it isn't seen clearly on any video of the incident, it MUST be a fabricated point and a plant by the officers.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Shamrock6

What Intrptr doesn't understand (well, in his case, isn't willing to accept) is that there is a gun in an evidence locker with Scott's fingerprints and DNA on it, that was fully loaded and had the hammer cocked. Apparently that gun doesn't exist, though...at least in his world.

Well, it does, but since it isn't seen clearly on any video of the incident, it MUST be a fabricated point and a plant by the officers.



If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Similar logic to that being employed by quite a few that saw there was no gun.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr

You guys are the ones going on he threatened the officers, had a gun, but can't show that anywhere.

Down with forensics, up with accusations.

intrptr out


Forensics is an examination of all relevant data and coming to a conclusion about it.

Fixating on one single element and ignoring all other data is not forensics.

Yah, smoking guns are overrated.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Not when they're in an evidence locker and recovered at the scene. Then they're tangible proof that it exists. You're just hiding behind a fabricated, ideologically driven, logical-fallacy supported basis that there is some big conspiracy since you didn't see it on some shaky video.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Then they're tangible proof that it exists.


But not a threat at the time of the shooting, got it. Prove it was threatening the officers requiring a lethal response. That burden is on the ones justifying the killing of a US citizen, who 'apparently' was just sitting in his car and not showing any threatening intent at all, right up to the moment he was killed.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Then they're tangible proof that it exists.


But not a threat at the time of the shooting, got it. Prove it was threatening the officers requiring a lethal response. That burden is on the ones justifying the killing of a US citizen, who 'apparently' was just sitting in his car and not showing any threatening intent at all, right up to the moment he was killed.


I would take a guy with a gun at my kids bus stop as a threat, especially if I watched him handling it in his car. Even with my CC permit, the last place I would actually show my gun would be a bus stop full of children.

Now in the aftermath we hear he has beaten and threatened his own kids with shooting them and saying he's a killer.

With all the supposition going on here, who's to say he wasn't there, with his gun cocked and loaded to kill kids getting off the bus? I mean his background would certainly make it a possibility.
edit on 9/28/16 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


I would take a guy with a gun at my kids bus stop as a threat, especially if I watched him handling it in his car.

You got anything but here-say?

I'll wait...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe


I would take a guy with a gun at my kids bus stop as a threat, especially if I watched him handling it in his car.

You got anything but here-say?

I'll wait...


Do you? The gun is in EVIDENCE.

And yes as far as his record....direct from his wife's mouth.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Do you? The gun is in EVIDENCE.

But the evidence he threatened anyone with it, 'missing'. Cops who killed a man, yelling 'drop the gun' 11 times and no footage of him brandishing 'said' firearm?

Tsk, tsk.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Would you consider someone walking through a parking lot with a gun in their hand a potential threat?

What about someone walking with a gun in their hand towards a mall entrance like what just happened in Washington?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
But not a threat at the time of the shooting, got it.


You don't know that--again, you're basing that on the logical fallacy that I (and someone else) pointed out earlier. Why can't you accept that basing an argument on such grounds is an unintelligent endeavor. You are being unintelligent about this, and I would contend that you're being purposefully obtuse concerning this incident because you're trying to push your own ideology that cops are bad. Peddle it somewhere else, because no one here is buying your snake oil.

Prove it was threatening the officers requiring a lethal response. That burden is on the ones justifying the killing of a US citizen, who 'apparently' was just sitting in his car and not showing any threatening intent at all, right up to the moment he was killed.

I don't have to prove it, because the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. And the burden of proof that the shooting wasn't justified is on the prosecution if it goes to trial, but it won't even go to a grand jury until the investigation(s) is/are completed and all evidence collected, which they're not, yet.

I would tell you to prove that it wasn't there, and then you'd say that you couldn't see it in the couple short frames of video that were possibly in view if he had the gun in his hand, and then I would remind you that lack of evidence is not evidence that it doesn't exist, then I'd remind you that the gun is in custody, the officers told him 11 times to drop the weapon, his wife yelled "Keith, don't you do it," (or something really similar but vague), and then that's when he got shot.

Then you would claim that the gun wasn't there because your all-seeing eyes can't find it in the video, and we'd go for round whatever-the-hell of this pointless, circuitous discussion, and it will continue ad nauseam. It's pointless--just please, for the sake of logic and sanity, leave this discussion. Regardless, unless you come with proof that the gun was not in his hand or used in a threatening way, which said evidence does not exist at the moment, other than your wild speculation, then we're done here.


You got anything but here-say?


And for the love of god, it's "hearsay," not "here-say." I can't take that mistake anymore...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Do you? The gun is in EVIDENCE.

But the evidence he threatened anyone with it, 'missing'. Cops who killed a man, yelling 'drop the gun' 11 times and no footage of him brandishing 'said' firearm?

Tsk, tsk.




With your way of thinking, if I as a police officer responded to a call where a person was walking/standing in a parking lot near an area where there were other people (apartment complex, mall, movie theater, etc) with a gun in their hand and I asked them to drop it multiple times I shouldn't shoot until they point it at a person?

What if the suspect is quicker than me? What if he is able to shoot an innocent person before I can take him out? What if that person was one of your loved ones?




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join