Charlotte "victims" gun IDed

[bersaguy]

It turns out there were several reasons the man should not have even posessed a weapon. He was according to his with suffering a mental condition, He was a felon that spent time in Texas prison for shooting someone there. He was using illegal drugs at the time. He refused to follow direct orders from law enforcemnt officers. If I had all that going against me and I did what he did and me being white I would have expected them to shoot me too..............jmho

[JAB]

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

It turns out there were several reasons the man should not have even posessed a weapon. He was according to his with suffering a mental condition, He was a felon that spent time in Texas prison for shooting someone there. He was using illegal drugs at the time. He refused to follow direct orders from law enforcemnt officers. If I had all that going against me and I did what he did and me being white I would have expected them to shoot me too..............jmho

Again, devil's advocate:

1. Did the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was suffering from a mental condition and, therefore, shouldn't have a firearm?

2. DId the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was a felon in possession of a firearm?  For that matter, did they even know at the time they initiated contact that he had a firearm on him at all?

3. Did the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was using illegal drugs?  I have been in close proximity to people smoking pot outside and can say that a single joint isn't always all that easy to smell outside from several feet away.

4. Yes, once he was told to drop the gun he should have done so.  However, as I think 56FordGuy was saying, what justification - what 'probable cause' - did they have for initiating contact in the first place?  If officers had not initiated contact they would never have gotten to the point of ordering him to drop the firearm to begin with.

I say, again, that I am not defending the guy who was shot nor am I deriding the officers.  I am simply saying that the first 3 issues listed are known only after the fact.  Therefore, those issues are justification in hindsight which may not have existed at the time when officers first initiated contact.  Further, until contact was initiated the fourth issue didn't exist, either.  Therefore, none of those issues can be cited as justification for initiating contact to begin with.

This is not about cop bashing.  Some may call it 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking' but it is no more MMQ than using facts that the officers likely did not know at the time to justify the incident after the fact.

I will say that, knowing these things after the fact, I am kind of ticked off.  I am ticked that a mentally disturbed, pot smoking felon had a Colt Mustang - a gun I would very much like to own.  I hope this isn't a department that will give that poor, innocent pistol the death penalty (destruction) once it is no longer needed as evidence.

Edited September 29, 2016 by JAB

[Omega]

You guys need to read the stories in the links.  He was seen rolling a blunt, given a pass then he was observed with a gun.  That alone with no other facts is enough to make contact.  The fact that he was a felon in possession of a gun is probably the reason he did not comply with the LEOs, that and the fact that he MAY of had some mental defect.  He could have been a minister or priest under the initial reason for the contact and I would of still supported LEO making contact and reacting in the same way if said minister/priest acted in the same manner.  You guys are just making things difficult by trying to make this into something which it is not.  Just like the rioters, you guys are picking the wrong case/individual to try and support.  There are plenty of cases where LEO is either totally in the wrong, or just made bad choices, this is just not one of those cases.

[JAB]

10 minutes ago, Omega said:

You guys need to read the stories in the links.  He was seen rolling a blunt, given a pass then he was observed with a gun.  That alone with no other facts is enough to make contact.  The fact that he was a felon in possession of a gun is probably the reason he did not comply with the LEOs, that and the fact that he MAY of had some mental defect.  He could have been a minister or priest under the initial reason for the contact and I would of still supported LEO making contact and reacting in the same way if said minister/priest acted in the same manner.  You guys are just making things difficult by trying to make this into something which it is not.  Just like the rioters, you guys are picking the wrong case/individual to try and support.  There are plenty of cases where LEO is either totally in the wrong, or just made bad choices, this is just not one of those cases.

As I said, I am not necessarily supporting the dead dude.  I was simply wondering about the justification for initiating contact.  If, indeed, he was seen rolling a joint and if somehow the observer could tell that it was, indeed, a joint and not a hand-rolled tobacco cigarette and he was, indeed, observed with a gun then absolutely that justified initiating contact.  At that point, not dropping the firearm justified the shooting.  If that is/was the case then I agree - move along, nothing to see, here.

Edited September 29, 2016 by JAB

[Capbyrd]

7 minutes ago, Omega said:

He was seen rolling a blunt, given a pass then he was observed with a gun.  That alone with no other facts is enough to make contact.  

 

And that in and of itself is a problem.  I'd rather a guy be smoking weed and have a gun than any number of prescription drugs and have a gun.  But that aint illegal.  


And I'm not going to just take a cop's word for it.  Probable cause is a joke and they have probable cause for EVERYTHING.  Literally saying I smelled weed gives them a pass to do ANYTHING.  I've been pulled over for matching a description so many times.  They are just looking for a reason to hurt someone, physically or otherwise.  I've also been pulled over for being fat.  I'm not quite where ChuckTShoes is at on cops, but every story that comes out makes me angrier and angrier.  

[suspiciousmind]

On September 26, 2016 at 0:58 PM, Hershmeister said:

 

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/

 

That's condition 0, cocked and UNlocked, right?

[Omega]

22 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

And that in and of itself is a problem.  I'd rather a guy be smoking weed and have a gun than any number of prescription drugs and have a gun.  But that aint illegal.  


And I'm not going to just take a cop's word for it.  Probable cause is a joke and they have probable cause for EVERYTHING.  Literally saying I smelled weed gives them a pass to do ANYTHING.  I've been pulled over for matching a description so many times.  They are just looking for a reason to hurt someone, physically or otherwise.  I've also been pulled over for being fat.  I'm not quite where ChuckTShoes is at on cops, but every story that comes out makes me angrier and angrier.  

Actually, being in possession of a gun while under the influence, of anything, is illegal.  You can disagree whether something should be illegal or not, but that does not change the fact that LEO had a valid reason to make contact.  Just like speeding, I know if I speed I can get a ticket and do it anyway, so I don't blame the cop when he pulls me over.  I may not agree with the posted speed limits but know it is illegal to break that limit.

[Capbyrd]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

Actually, being in possession of a gun while under the influence, of anything, is illegal.  You can disagree whether something should be illegal or not, but that does not change the fact that LEO had a valid reason to make contact.  Just like speeding, I know if I speed I can get a ticket and do it anyway, so I don't blame the cop when he pulls me over.  I may not agree with the posted speed limits but know it is illegal to break that limit.

 

 

So when they make guns illegal, you're just going to turn them all in right?  And the cops aren't bad guys, they're just doing their job.  

[leroy]

I never cease to be amused (...not amazed... i'm too old for that..) at the lengths that some of our brothers and sisters here go to justify the actions of a bunch of hoodlums.. The fact of the matter is that this guy was a damned hoodlum... He and his wife or girlfriend were sittin in a public place and he branished a gun to a couple of cops that pulled up on unrelated business... He paid the price this idiotic (...and unlawful...) behavior and for disregarding repeated commands to drop a firearm... My guess is that if he had have listened to the police and his wife, he would be here today... He aint...

You that think this recently deceased citizen was unjustly put upon need to think about this... Channon Christian and Chris Newsome pulled into an apartment complex some years ago and were kidnapped, brutalized, and murdered in the worst kidnap-murder ever committed (...that we know of...) in Tennessee history; and that's since 1796... They committed no crime that we know of; but there were hoodlums and savages sittin there and grabbed them up... Maybe someone should have checked on their killers... In case ya think that aint important, just think a bit and insert your loved ones names into that situation; and you will more clearly understand why this policing and "law and order" thing is so important... It deters or prevents crime... All kinds of it, from the most heinous to the most innocuous that most folks quibble about the most...

RE:   Back to the issue at hand... You, me, nor anyone else; except maybe the wife or girlfriend, knows for sure why they were sittin there... My bet is that it wasn't to go to a bible study or to comfort a sick friend... The fact is that you, me, nor anyone else will ever know the truth of this matter... 

The libertarians and free spirits among us seem to think that anytime the police ask a question, make a contact, or even shoot a hoodlum; it's somehow an "unjust stop and question".... On the one hand, everybody wants to be safe, on the other hand the police are the oppressive enemy... It is amazing, indeed...

The truth of the matter is that police are under attack everywhere... They are edgy and nervous; and they well should be...

All that bein said; anyone who is approached by LE should pay attention... Failure to do so could cause you to assume room temperature... The truth is that the police have "police power" and they can detain you and ask you questions.... They can also defend themselves if they think you are a threat to them or someone else... They can even shoot you for tryin to run away, if they deem you a threat to themselves or others... You all are gonna have to accept that unpleasant truth...

There are plenty of ways for citizens to voice their grievances in court for an "unjust stop"... There ain't any way to undo a shooting for failure to comply with police commands to drop a weapon... The "police oppression" jhadists in the black community are lookin for one thing, and one thing only... They want a different protocol for approaching black suspects than for the rest of us other citizens; or even a "pass" for criminal activity... More than that, there are folks in the black community who are tryin to do the right thing that have stood up and said that many of these protesters are paid outsiders... My... My... I wonder why that is...?  Could it be that someone or something is trying to stir up trouble...?...

The truth of the matter is; i think, that there are some folks in very responsible and powerful position in this country that want a "South Africa" attitude where some folks are allowed to run wild and commit crime as long as the "right folks" are wronged... They give lip service to "law and order", but are ok with killin, stealin, and law breakin, as long as it's directed at whitey or some other out of favor group that's victimized.... You that side with this sort of foolishness need to think about that a bit and do some readin about what is goin on in South Africa... It's horrifying...

The fact of the matter is that you are gonna have to have law and order, with all it's real and perceived injusties and inconveniences for potential malefactors; or you are gonna have no law at all...There is nothin in between the two choices... I doubt that even the most hardy of the "victim's advocates" and "unjust stop" jhadists among us want the latter... 

Your mileage on this issue may vary...

non carin leroy... the dismissive "law and order" geezer

Edited September 29, 2016 by leroy

[Garufa]

Knocked that outta the park, Leroy.  

Comments could be made on the minutia but that's the problem today.  People simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Omega]

2 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

 

 

So when they make guns illegal, you're just going to turn them all in right?  And the cops aren't bad guys, they're just doing their job.  

So when a LEO next pulls you over we are going to hear about it in the news?

[TripleGGG]

Well said Leroy.  

So my brother had to go to Charlotte since he is a Sergeant in the prison system in NC.  They were told to do nothing but try and keep things peaceful.  His reply when I sent a text asking how things were.....

"Not good had lieutenant Stabbed in neck and sergeant stabbed in stomach numerous times and both had to be airlifted, 2 more officers beat severely with broom handles and were taken by ambulance. Not a good day at all, just getting home."

I have no further comments other than enough is enough.  Acting like these thugs are not domestic terrorists is truly sad.  The PC agenda has reached a place that something has to give. I don't care if your white, black, green, yellow, conservative, liberal, Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatever. Unfortunately things will probably get much uglier before any signs of improvement. 

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by ggwilde

[leroy]

gg... Amen brother... Well said.. "Enough is enough"... I'm kninda like you, there are places where it will get worse before it gets better...

leroy

[gregintenn]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:44 PM, JAB said:

Again, devil's advocate:

1. Did the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was suffering from a mental condition and, therefore, shouldn't have a firearm?

2. DId the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was a felon in possession of a firearm?  For that matter, did they even know at the time they initiated contact that he had a firearm on him at all?

3. Did the police know at the time they initiated contact that he was using illegal drugs?  I have been in close proximity to people smoking pot outside and can say that a single joint isn't always all that easy to smell outside from several feet away.

4. Yes, once he was told to drop the gun he should have done so.  However, as I think 56FordGuy was saying, what justification - what 'probable cause' - did they have for initiating contact in the first place?  If officers had not initiated contact they would never have gotten to the point of ordering him to drop the firearm to begin with.

I say, again, that I am not defending the guy who was shot nor am I deriding the officers.  I am simply saying that the first 3 issues listed are known only after the fact.  Therefore, those issues are justification in hindsight which may not have existed at the time when officers first initiated contact.  Further, until contact was initiated the fourth issue didn't exist, either.  Therefore, none of those issues can be cited as justification for initiating contact to begin with.

This is not about cop bashing.  Some may call it 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking' but it is no more MMQ than using facts that the officers likely did not know at the time to justify the incident after the fact.

I will say that, knowing these things after the fact, I am kind of ticked off.  I am ticked that a mentally disturbed, pot smoking felon had a Colt Mustang - a gun I would very much like to own.  I hope this isn't a department that will give that poor, innocent pistol the death penalty (destruction) once it is no longer needed as evidence.

O.k. I'll play along. I'll preface this for the few who don't already know that I don't care for law enforcement personnel. That being said, In your mind, when the police see this thug smoking a doobie and holding a gun, what the hell would you expect them to do?

[56FordGuy]

On September 27, 2016 at 7:28 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?

 

 

 

 

Actually, that's not true. 25 states have legalized marijuana, along with DC. Marijuana is legal in some form in most of the country, and half the states with I think 5 more set to vote on it next month. 

 

On September 28, 2016 at 11:37 AM, JAB said:

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'.

This is the point I was trying to make. Instead of saying "Well, he broke the law and had it coming" I'd like to see more people questioning and even working on fixing a lot of laws that shouldn't exist to start with. I have problems with the laws that allowed the officers to initiate contact in the first place in this situation. 

After the officers escalated the situation by initiating contact, should he have been shot? The only way I can answer that is to put myself in the officers' shoes. As a private citizen that carries a handgun, could I legally shoot someone that's engaging in whatever activity this individual was? 

[1madss]

Wow I was quoted twice in one thread. 

As long as you have a medical card your statement is correct. Only 3 have recreational use. From the Federal perspective it is legal in exactly zero states. No where in the world is it completely "legal" to smoke pot. 

I think I like the way Leroy said it. " Back to the issue at hand"

 

 

[leroy]

56....

Have ya had a stroke brother...?

Quote

This is the point I was trying to make. Instead of saying "Well, he broke the law and had it coming" I'd like to see more people questioning and even working on fixing a lot of laws that shouldn't exist to start with. I have problems with the laws that allowed the officers to initiate contact in the first place in this situation. 

This "model citizen" branished a pistol at a bunch of people he didn't know brother... Whadda ya think the police are gonna do when they are the ones he branished the pistol at...?   You, me, nor anyone else aint gonna get a pass on this one... Hell, Wyatt Erp couldn't get a pass on this...

Puzzled leroy...

Edited October 2, 2016 by leroy

[56FordGuy]

1 hour ago, leroy said:

56....

Have ya had a stroke brother...?

This "model citizen" branished a pistol at a bunch of people he didn't know brother... Whadda ya think the police are gonna do when they are the ones he branished the pistol at...?   You, me, nor anyone else aint gonna get a pass on this one... Hell, Wyatt Erp couldn't get a pass on this...

Puzzled leroy...

 

"The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.” Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun."

 

I guess I don't see where the brandishing was, but that depends on exactly what happened in the car where he was sitting. In either case, short of pointing a gun at someone I don't believe it they should've had cause to make contact. It could've been someone with a HCP unholstering to go into a posted business, or any number of things. I'm aware that possessing a firearm and marijuana are both crimes in Charlotte, but why are they? 

 

 

5 hours ago, 1madss said:

Only 3 have recreational use.

Not to pick nits, but 4 do. 

[TNWNGR]

@56FordGuy take the marijuana and handgun a few steps further. The subject was seated behind the steering wheel of a parked P/U truck located in a multi housing residential area. IOW he had the opportunity and means to drive the vehicle and potentially endanger others after being observed using what officers believed to be marijuana. Would it have been any different if he was drinking a beer or sipping from a half pint of hooch in a brown paper bag? Now factor in the handgun that by some accounts was pointed at plain clothes officers. So now you've got a guy toking a joint with a gun.

Someone ingesting a mind altering substance and armed with a handgun is kind of concerning to me. I believe it would pass the reasonable prudent man doctrine as well. So the police are kind of in a duty to act position. What happened later was pretty crappy but came down to not putting the gun down. As to the why marijuana and firearms laws are in place your preaching at the wrong people. Trying to tie that into the police interactions on this is moot but I don't disagree with your dissatisfaction on marijuana and firearms laws. But again, parked or otherwise the marijuana and handgun with a subject behind the wheel of a motor vehicle made for additional urgencies. 

It's only after the fact the past criminal history of the subject came to light which provides some insight as to how Mr. Scott had responded in the past. Now whatever was going through the minds of the Charlotte, S.C. officers involved in all of the above is supposition on my part but I've been in similar circumstances with less dramatic endings. If you want to limit police citizen contact powers then go after your legislators. 

[ReeferMac]

10 hours ago, 56FordGuy said:

 I'm aware that possessing a firearm and marijuana are both crimes in Charlotte, but why are they? 

 

Dude, are you smokin too much? THE POLICE OBSERVED HIM IN VIOLATION OF 2 LAWS!!!!

What, do you have to break 3 before they make contact?

He was observed in the possession of a controlled substance.

He was observed in the possession of a controlled firearm (not a rifle, a pistol).

How much does one have to do before YOU think it's reasonable for police to initiate contact?

Sheesh!

 

- K

 

[56FordGuy]

1 hour ago, ReeferMac said:

 

Dude, are you smokin too much? THE POLICE OBSERVED HIM IN VIOLATION OF 2 LAWS!!!!

What, do you have to break 3 before they make contact?

He was observed in the possession of a controlled substance.

He was observed in the possession of a controlled firearm (not a rifle, a pistol).

How much does one have to do before YOU think it's reasonable for police to initiate contact?

Sheesh!

 

- K

 

I think a victim is required before a crime has been committed. Who was harmed by him possessing marijuana and a firearm?

[1madss]

12 hours ago, 56FordGuy said:

Not to pick nits, but 4 do. 

Good to know. I don't care enough to follow this. But you obviously do. 

Let's replace the joint with something legal so you won't continue to be distracted by it. Substitute a large can in a brown paper bag. He is sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle drinking and in possession of a gun. Should that be ignored as well? Just as been mentioned on earlier posts that you continue to ignore. It is illegal to in possession of a gun while under the influence ANYTHING. So the Cops ignore the guy drinking in his car with a gun and he drives off and kills someone while DUI. Does that answer your question as to who is harmed by his actions?

This is as bad as the BLM members when questioned about black on black violence. The question is always ignored and the rhetoric fires back up. Ignoring the problem is not helping anything.

We all get your point that you've beaten to death that there are laws in place that we do not agree with. Yet as responsible adults we obey these laws and if we do break them we protest in court not on the street with a gun in our face. Condoning other behavior is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that anybody here wants/needs you as their moral compass.

At this point I am bowing out of this "discussion". Leroy/TNWNGR are doing a good job of voicing a sane/responsible perspective.

[56FordGuy]

4 minutes ago, 1madss said:

Let's replace the joint with something legal so you won't continue to be distracted by it. Substitute a large can in a brown paper bag. He is sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle drinking and in possession of a gun. Should that be ignored as well? 

Show me the victim of this crime. I still struggle with how people who generally claim to be conservative, fans of small government and freedom are so willing to say "Well, you just can't break the law" regardless of what that law is or why it exists. When those laws cause problems, like they did in this situation everyone wants to ignore that and focus on "Well, he knew what he was doing." Here's an unnecessary law that resulted in a man being killed, and we're all supposed to just go along with the idea that this unnecessary law should exist? 

 

2 hours ago, ReeferMac said:

Dude, are you smokin too much?

Maybe I am, because I really don't understand how we're all just supposed to accept "Well, the government made a rule so that's all there is to it."

 

[Chucktshoes]

27 minutes ago, 56FordGuy said:

Show me the victim of this crime. I still struggle with how people who generally claim to be conservative, fans of small government and freedom are so willing to say "Well, you just can't break the law" regardless of what that law is or why it exists. When those laws cause problems, like they did in this situation everyone wants to ignore that and focus on "Well, he knew what he was doing." Here's an unnecessary law that resulted in a man being killed, and we're all supposed to just go along with the idea that this unnecessary law should exist? 

 

Maybe I am, because I really don't understand how we're all just supposed to accept "Well, the government made a rule so that's all there is to it."

 

Malum prohibitum is Malum in se. 

[Omega]

6 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Malum prohibitum is Malum in se. 

Stupid is as stupid does.  

You are too wrapped up on whether the pot should be illegal or not, bottom line is he died for being stupid.