-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
John
Seems the police want the family to see the truth and pull down this inflammatory situation...will they?
-
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
John
Am I seeing a car surrounded by protesters and the driver gets out with the gun? If that is accurate why would He NOT be allowed to drive away..
-
-
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Originally Posted by
Quest
Seems the police want the family to see the truth and pull down this inflammatory situation...will they?
Well, I'm just putting this stuff out there, not really taking a side but hey if there was an "obvious threat", I don't see why they wouldn't make that public. This is the irrational stuff that stirs everyone up, the contradictory behaviour. If it's so obvious, put it out there, clear the air.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to John For This Useful Post:
-
Senior Member
Apparently, the family of the victim wants the tape to be released:
Keith Scott's Family Sees Videos of His Killing, and Says the Public Should, Too
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The grieving relatives of a man who was killed by the police here watched videos on Thursday of the fatal shooting, a wrenching experience that they said revealed no hint of aggression in him and left the family members convinced that the videos should be made public. But the city's police chief, who had arranged for the private viewing, held fast to his decision not to release the recordings.
The wife and other relatives of the dead man, Keith L. Scott, watched his killing from two angles, recorded Tuesday by police dashboard and body cameras, and "it was incredibly difficult," a family lawyer, Justin Bamberg, said in a statement.
He said the family had come away with more questions than answers and a different interpretation from the account offered by the police, who have said that Mr. Scott, 43, was shot after he got out of his car brandishing a gun.
"When told by police to exit his vehicle, Mr. Scott did so in a very calm, nonaggressive manner," Mr. Bamberg said. "While police did give him several commands, he did not aggressively approach them or raise his hands at members of law enforcement at any time." When an officer opened fire, he added, "Mr. Scott's hands were by his side, and he was slowly walking backwards."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us...=top-news&_r=0
-
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
John
Well, I'm just putting this stuff out there, not really taking a side but hey if there was an "obvious threat", I don't see why they wouldn't make that public. This is the irrational stuff that stirs everyone up, the contradictory behaviour. If it's so obvious, put it out there, clear the air.
This is an ongoing investigation. Police aren't required nor should they be required to release the taping of crimes to the public. There are several reasons...
It would possibly taint the Jury Pool should there be a trial...There are thousands of crimes committed on a daily basis...if the police released the tapes to those crimes, it would hinder their investigation and potentially the prosecution aof the suspects. This crime committed by suspect, Scott is no different.
By all accounts, this police shooting was justifiable. The public has no Constitutional right to view evidence. That's for the judge and jury should there be one.
I wish they didn't show them to the public at all because it only stirs up more division and strife. We're not entitled to anything to do with the police investigation until such time the case goes to trial, or unless the police voluntary release their conclusions.
-
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Valiant Woman For This Useful Post:
curly sue (09-23-2016), Ezekiel 33 (09-23-2016), fuego (09-23-2016)
-
Senior Member
Nothing the family's lawyer says makes any sense to me. "Hands at his side, walking slowly backwards." If he had a gun in his hand and the officer commanded him several times to drop it, he should've dropped it. Period. Don't care if his hands were down. Gun in hand is a threat and he should've obeyed the officers commands to drop the weapon.
Originally Posted by
njtom
Apparently, the family of the victim wants the tape to be released:
Keith Scott’s Family Sees Videos of His Killing, and Says the Public Should, Too
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The grieving relatives of a man who was killed by the police here watched videos on Thursday of the fatal shooting, a wrenching experience that they said revealed no hint of aggression in him and left the family members convinced that the videos should be made public. But the city’s police chief, who had arranged for the private viewing, held fast to his decision not to release the recordings.
The wife and other relatives of the dead man, Keith L. Scott, watched his killing from two angles, recorded Tuesday by police dashboard and body cameras, and “it was incredibly difficult,” a family lawyer, Justin Bamberg, said in a statement.
He said the family had come away with more questions than answers and a different interpretation from the account offered by the police, who have said that Mr. Scott, 43, was shot after he got out of his car brandishing a gun.
“When told by police to exit his vehicle, Mr. Scott did so in a very calm, nonaggressive manner,” Mr. Bamberg said. “While police did give him several commands, he did not aggressively approach them or raise his hands at members of law enforcement at any time.” When an officer opened fire, he added, “Mr. Scott’s hands were by his side, and he was slowly walking backwards.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us...=top-news&_r=0
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Valiant Woman For This Useful Post:
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Valiant Woman
Nothing the family's lawyer says makes any sense to me. "Hands at his side, walking slowly backwards." If he had a gun in his hand and the officer commanded him several times to drop it, he should've dropped it. Period. Don't care if his hands were down. Gun in hand is a threat and he should've obeyed the officers commands to drop the weapon.
The family's account makes no mention of a gun being in his hand.
I agree that if there were a gun in hand (as opposed to being holstered),
it would be a different and more dangerous situation.
Regarding the tape, I understand what you're saying about the importance
of not tainting the potential jury pool, but if the prosecutor decides not to
go to trial, would it make sense to release the tape along with an analysis
of the rationale? I know they're not required to release anything, but I think
it would be good to do so, as the public has an interest in knowing what its
government is doing.
-
-
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
"This is not Charlotte that's out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals."
"We've got the instigators that are coming in from the outside.
They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They're not coming from Charlotte."
and
As shocking as this statement is, it should not be a total surprise. 18 months ago, as the riots flared in Ferguson, there was one man pulling the strings of this 'domestic false flag'... George Soros. In an apparent effort to "keep the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August," liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...-out-state-ids
-
The Following User Says Thank You to John For This Useful Post:
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
njtom
The family's account makes no mention of a gun being in his hand.
I agree that if there were a gun in hand (as opposed to being holstered),
it would be a different and more dangerous situation.
Regarding the tape, I understand what you're saying about the importance
of not tainting the potential jury pool, but if the prosecutor decides not to
go to trial, would it make sense to release the tape along with an analysis
of the rationale? I know they're not required to release anything, but I think
it would be good to do so, as the public has an interest in knowing what its
government is doing.
Yes, we have an interest in what "the government" is doing, but not Law Enforcement Departments. It is for our safety as well as theirs.
Now when there's a threat to the public (serial killer, prison/jail escapes, unusual number of crime sprees, bomb or terrorist threats, etc.), by all means share that information.
But releasing a video to the public of what happened during the perpetration of a crime could potentially do more harm than good. It is the discretion of those in charge and we should respect that.
Should they release ALL videos of police doing their job? Of course not. This case may be different in some aspects, but I don't believe the police should submit to every demand of the public just because the public feels they have a right to know. Police departments shouldn't give in to mobs.
It's the same, IMHO as giving in to the demands of terrorists. IJS
-
-
* Toxic Troll - Negative Nancy
The family's account makes no mention of a gun being in his hand.
That's because they are prepping for a lawsuit of course!
They'll all be buying new houses and cars and taking very nice vacations before long... guaranteed!
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Has your
Ford Edge warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.