Charlotte "victims" gun IDed

[Hershmeister]

Felon has a colt mustang 380 in condition 1.....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/update-charlotte-police-release-photos-keith-scotts-marijuana-joint-loaded-gun/

[bersaguy]

At this point I honestly don't think that the rioters that come from outside the shooting area really care about facts. They come there to cause trouble and facts don't count. This will continue as long as it is tolerated by the people with the power to stop it step up and say enough is enough and begin arresting the trouble makers as soon as they arrive..........jmho 

[chances R]

The rioters are backed by the political left in a battleground state.  Facts will not and do not matter.  Police seemed to have done the right thing, but politics are the deciding factor.  Much more reason to riot and fault the police in Tulsa, but NOT a battleground state and already considered a state for Trump.  Like most things, politics and follow the money.

[NoBanStan]

It's a real shame to see rust on that colt....

[bersaguy]

2 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

It's a real shame to see rust on that colt....

I'm just glad he didn't get to use it before he got stopped. It is a shame to see a Mustang in that poor shape. They are a fine 380 weapon..........................jmho

Edited September 26, 2016 by bersaguy

[gregintenn]

A classy weapon indeed for a garden variety thug. What do you all make of it?

[Omega]

2 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

A classy weapon indeed for a garden variety thug. What do you all make of it?

I expected a hi-point.

[gregintenn]

Yeah, That would be easier to digest.

[56FordGuy]

So he was shot because he had a joint and a handgun at the same time.

"No, he was shot because he didn't listen to the police!"

He wasn't hurting anyone. Why did the police have to even get involved? To protect and serve? As a member of the public, I don't feel any safer. They killed a guy who enjoyed firearms and the occasional toke. That could've been an awful lot of people I know personally.

[TNWNGR]

7 minutes ago, 56FordGuy said:

So he was shot because he had a joint and a handgun at the same time.

"No, he was shot because he didn't listen to the police!"

He wasn't hurting anyone. Why did the police have to even get involved? To protect and serve? As a member of the public, I don't feel any safer. They killed a guy who enjoyed firearms and the occasional toke. That could've been an awful lot of people I know personally.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/26/keith-lamont-scott-threatened-wife-gun-last-year/

You know, I'm not sure if you just like spinning people up with some of this garbage you write or are just plain delusional sometimes. The person in question was a convicted felon who served time in prison for shooting someone. Read the above link. All this information's been coming out for the last few days.

[56FordGuy]

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/26/keith-lamont-scott-threatened-wife-gun-last-year/

You know, I'm not sure if you just like spinning people up with some of this garbage you write or are just plain delusional sometimes. The person in question was a convicted felon who served time in prison for shooting someone. Read the above link. All this information's been coming out for the last few days.

Instead of accusing me of just trying to spin people up, why not address the points I tried to make? I'm sorry you find my difference of opinion delusional, kind of makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion when one side has already appointed themselves unquestionably correct. I apologize if my questioning of authority has threatened your safe space, from now on I will try to use more socially appropriate trigger warnings before I question the common point of view here.

When the officers approached him, did they know he was a felon with a gun or had they just observed a gun and what appeared to be a joint? I would go so far as the say the fact he's a felon with a gun shouldn't be a crime, but that's a debate for another time.

The officers observed a firearm and what they assumed to be a small amount of marijuana. If they are otherwise on a mission to serve a warrant, why are they bothering with this guy that's just minding his own business? Is their warrant really not that important? Is a single joint such a heinous crime?

The officers chose to initiate contact with an individual that was minding his own business. Now that individual is dead. If the officers had stayed focused on their assigned task serving a warrant, things might be different. Instead they decided that one individual with one joint was more important and now he's dead. Possession of a small amount of marijuana and a firearm resulted in death. "Well he should've listened to the cops" Well they should've been busy serving a warrant instead of harassing him.

On the one hand, you break the rules and you take your chances. I just want people to look at the bigger picture and question why some of these ridiculous rules exist to start with.

[1madss]

If we agree with it or not a smoking pot in public is currently illegal in most states. Possession of a firearm (even if legally owned) while under the influence is illegal. Would it be any different if he was sitting in the car drinking alcohol?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by 1madss

[Omega]

Yup, and in one story I read it stated that they seen the pot and gave him a pass until the gun showed up.  My thing is this, why was he fondling his gun while smoking pot, and waiting on his kid? 

Another thing that strikes me is that the biggest protests are for what turn out to be POS individuals.  I can see if they got upset at the ones where the individual is clearly innocent of any wrong doing, but these people???

[TNWNGR]

12 hours ago, Omega said:

Yup, and in one story I read it stated that they seen the pot and gave him a pass until the gun showed up.  My thing is this, why was he fondling his gun while smoking pot, and waiting on his kid? 

Another thing that strikes me is that the biggest protests are for what turn out to be POS individuals.  I can see if they got upset at the ones where the individual is clearly innocent of any wrong doing, but these people???

That was my take on the incident even before the individuals prior history and later reports of a traumatic brain injury came to light. Once the combination of illegal drug activity and display of a firearm came into play the totality of the circumstances were too egregious to ignore. If your going to exercise freedom of choice to do illegal things then why be a human billboard in public where either someone calls the police or you are observed by the police? 

Edited September 28, 2016 by TNWNGR

[leroy]

Didya ever wonder just why this guy and his wife were sittin here in the first place...?  Did they live there...?  We're they gonna meet someone..? Wuz there a tupperware party...?  Wuz it someones birthday...?... Notice that no one is talkin about this...

Why wuz this recently deceased model citizen smokin a joint...?  These cops accidently came to serve a warrant on someone else and this dimwit flashed a gun as near as i can tell... How's that for a pleasant greeting from a model citizen in your community...?

These people were'nt waitin to go to a church meeting, nor a dear grandmother's birthday party... This is hoodlum-ism in it's full flower...

It's very likely that thes poor policemen did society in general and the Charlotte community in particular a service on this one.... I'm tired of hearin about the poor put upon black community... When thugs start reformin, and start doin what they need to do, i'll start carin...

non-carin leroy, the dismissive whitey...

[btq96r]

I know there were other circumstances around this event, so I've refrained from jumping in.   But one thing I do not want is for LEOs to automatically equate firearms with criminal behavior, and I think we're trending, or already at that point..at least in the inner cities.  If the trajectory continues, it's going to become a problem felt by lawful gun owners as state legislatures continue to overrule local ordinances on carry for individuals and and in vehicles.  Something to think about as we continue to work towards the fulfillment of the rights we're supposed to have under the 2nd Amendment.

 

4 hours ago, leroy said:

Didya ever wonder just why this guy and his wife were sittin here in the first place...?  Did they live there...?  We're they gonna meet someone..? Wuz there a tupperware party...?  Wuz it someones birthday...?... Notice that no one is talkin about this...

Unless it's shown that they were in a place where they weren't lawfully allowed to be, I don't care.  I know that LEOs will use that determination to help guide their investigations, and I'm fine with that, but the answer to that question isn't evidence, or anything contributing to the event in question.

[Omega]

I see your point as far as equating guns with illegal activity, but in this case they were correct in checking in with him on exactly what he was up to.  A legal CCW or open carrying individual sitting in a car waving a gun around should probably also be asked what he is up to if he is acting in a suspicious manner.  And of course sitting in a car with an illegal substance doesn't help matters, whether the gun is legal or not.  I bet if he would of just acted in a rational manner this incident would not of even made the news, let alone cause riots.

[Capbyrd]

16 hours ago, 56FordGuy said:

When the officers approached him, did they know he was a felon with a gun or had they just observed a gun and what appeared to be a joint? I would go so far as the say the fact he's a felon with a gun shouldn't be a crime, but that's a debate for another time.

 

 

I'll go ahead and add it to this.  His history should not have anything to do with this.  If he is too much of a terrible person to be a part of society, he should still be in jail.  If he has served his time for whatever crime he committed, he should have all his rights restored.  If the person can't be trusted with those rights, he can't be trusted to be a part of society and should be incarcerated. People sure get their panties in a wad about what exactly the second amendment is for every time a politician tries to limit it but those same people are okay with former criminals having their rights stripped.  The second amendment doesn't say except felons, they bad!!!!!!

[Omega]

32 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

 

I'll go ahead and add it to this.  His history should not have anything to do with this.  If he is too much of a terrible person to be a part of society, he should still be in jail.  If he has served his time for whatever crime he committed, he should have all his rights restored.  If the person can't be trusted with those rights, he can't be trusted to be a part of society and should be incarcerated. People sure get their panties in a wad about what exactly the second amendment is for every time a politician tries to limit it but those same people are okay with former criminals having their rights stripped.  The second amendment doesn't say except felons, they bad!!!!!!

It also doesn't say we can't have fully automatic weapons or silencers but they are currently illegal to have unless you pay the $200 Tax.  And if I am in possession of one (legally or otherwise), I will not be surprised if a LEO wants to check me out.  And if they do, I will not be stupid enough to act in a manner as to get myself shot...just saying.  But yes, you are both correct; his past deeds should not have been an issue during the incident since the LEOs had no idea either way before approaching him...that being said, due to his past it is not surprising that he did not want to be caught with a weapon seeing as he was not supposed to have one. So in that light his history has, IMO, everything to do with it.

[MP5_Rizzo]

 I watched the video one time.  The officers requested Mr. Scott to drop the gun repeatedly but Mr. Scott did not for whatever reason.  You think the outcome would be different had he dropped the gun as requested?  Cases like these have something in common, more times than not the suspects do not comply.  That's when unpleasant things start happening!

[leroy]

3 hours ago, Omega said:

I see your point as far as equating guns with illegal activity, but in this case they were correct in checking in with him on exactly what he was up to.  A legal CCW or open carrying individual sitting in a car waving a gun around should probably also be asked what he is up to if he is acting in a suspicious manner.  And of course sitting in a car with an illegal substance doesn't help matters, whether the gun is legal or not.  I bet if he would of just acted in a rational manner this incident would not of even made the news, let alone cause riots.

This is the answer... Good job Omega... Ya hit the nail square on the head brother...

Nobody with good sense would branish a gun at folks they didn't now unless they were up to no good... There are "...no trends to equate gun ownership with criminal activity..." unless you are acting in a criminal manner... I believe that flashing a gun to scare folks off is called "branishing"... It's an implicit threat... It is illegal... Smokin a joint is illegal too, as i recall...   

Your mileage may vary...

Non carin leroy...

[A.J. Holst]

Most recent story I read indicated due to past indiscretions, he was not in legal possession of a firearm.

[JAB]

On 9/27/2016 at 9:28 AM, 1madss said:

If we agree with it or not a smoking pot in public is currently illegal in most states. Possession of a firearm (even if legally owned) while under the influence is illegal. Would it be any different if he was sitting in the car drinking alcohol?

 

 

 

 

Just as devil's advocate think about it this way:

In a few years someone might be saying, "If we agree with it or not owning a semiautomatic firearm is currently illegal in the United States.  Possession of such a firearm (even if it was originally legally purchased) is illegal.  He should have turned that gun in when the law was passed but instead he chose to keep it.  Whether he was actively hurting anyone or not he was still breaking the law.  Would it be any different if the gun was fully automatic?"

I am not saying this guy was a good guy or a bad guy but I do agree with 56FordGuy that we shouldn't always jump to defend the death/abuse/persecution of someone just because, "whether we agree with it or not what he was doing was illegal," because all it takes is a few lines of BS on a piece of paper with enough politicians voting for it for anything to become 'illegal'.

Edited September 28, 2016 by JAB

[chances R]

Don't do stupid stuff

Don't hang around stupid people

Don't go to stupid places

Boring, but more than likely you won't get shot

Edited September 29, 2016 by chances R

[ReeferMac]

On 9/26/2016 at 10:37 PM, 56FordGuy said:

He wasn't hurting anyone. Why did the police have to even get involved? To protect and serve? As a member of the public, I don't feel any safer. They killed a guy who enjoyed firearms and the occasional toke. That could've been an awful lot of people I know personally.

 

Ummmmm.... lets just say I TOTALLY AGREE with your sentiment, however I've seen the wife's video, and somewhere's between the 2nd and 9th time the cop said "DROP THE GUN", I would have complied, obviating the need for the officer to discharge his firearm.

Just sayin..

 

- K