Pray for Charlotte, NC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sources-keith-scotts-fingerprints-dna-blood-found-on-gun-at-charlotte-police-shooting-scene/449405173

This is the headline from that site:


Keith Scott's fingerprints, DNA, blood found on gun, police sources say

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait....
The police found a gun on the scene with Scott’s fingerprints, DNA, and blood on it.

Are some of you thinking that the gun was planted? Does the video show a gun being planted after making sure his fingerprints, blood, and DNA got on it? What about the book? None was found. Does the video show them taking a book and hiding it?

The video doesn't show that. Nor does it show a gun. Are you sure the gun wasn't planted? Did you see the two pictures I posted? Do you wonder how the gun managed to materialize in the second one?

Note, I am not saying that I believe the gun was planted. I am simply saying that we know of multiple times that the police have planted weapons as, as such, their claims about guns should be taken with a grain of salt.

Your doubt in this situation is laughable, frankly.

Two police body cameras were running, plus the wife was filming (while yelling) from a short distance away; you seriously find it possible the police planted a gun in the midst of this?

Plus, the police have already stated they found his fingerprints, DNA, and his blood on the gun (which they also have). How do you explain those?

If you still think it's possible they planted the gun, then these are not police we're dealing with here - they're the reincarnations of Harry frickin Houdinni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait....
The police found a gun on the scene with Scott’s fingerprints, DNA, and blood on it.

Are some of you thinking that the gun was planted? Does the video show a gun being planted after making sure his fingerprints, blood, and DNA got on it? What about the book? None was found. Does the video show them taking a book and hiding it?

The video doesn't show that. Nor does it show a gun. Are you sure the gun wasn't planted? Did you see the two pictures I posted? Do you wonder how the gun managed to materialize in the second one?

Note, I am not saying that I believe the gun was planted. I am simply saying that we know of multiple times that the police have planted weapons as, as such, their claims about guns should be taken with a grain of salt.

Your doubt in this situation is laughable, frankly.

Two police body cameras were running, plus the wife was filming (while yelling) from a short distance away; you seriously find it possible the police planted a gun in the midst of this?

Plus, the police have already stated they found his fingerprints, DNA, and his blood on the gun (which they also have). How do you explain those?

If you still think it's possible they planted the gun, then these are not police we're dealing with here - they're the reincarnations of Harry frickin Houdinni.

So gun ownership is now a valid reason for extra judicial execution ?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait....
The police found a gun on the scene with Scott’s fingerprints, DNA, and blood on it.

Are some of you thinking that the gun was planted? Does the video show a gun being planted after making sure his fingerprints, blood, and DNA got on it? What about the book? None was found. Does the video show them taking a book and hiding it?

The video doesn't show that. Nor does it show a gun. Are you sure the gun wasn't planted? Did you see the two pictures I posted? Do you wonder how the gun managed to materialize in the second one?

Note, I am not saying that I believe the gun was planted. I am simply saying that we know of multiple times that the police have planted weapons as, as such, their claims about guns should be taken with a grain of salt.

Your doubt in this situation is laughable, frankly.

Two police body cameras were running, plus the wife was filming (while yelling) from a short distance away; you seriously find it possible the police planted a gun in the midst of this?

Plus, the police have already stated they found his fingerprints, DNA, and his blood on the gun (which they also have). How do you explain those?

If you still think it's possible they planted the gun, then these are not police we're dealing with here - they're the reincarnations of Harry frickin Houdinni.

Yes, I absolutely think it is possible for the gun to have been planted. There is photographic evidence showing the scene immediately after the shooting without the gun on the ground. A later photo shows the gun. How do you explain that? If you have the guy's bleeding body, how hard can it be to get blood, fingerprints, and DNA? Again, I am not saying that I am sure either way. I just don't understand how you can be sure.

It is clear the gun materialized between the two pictures I posted. For all your claims about cameras, can you say how that happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see since the "He was reaching in the car" argument about the shooting in Tulsa was proven to be some bullshit everyone has abandoned the defense of that officer and now they're jumping on the "He had a gun" bandwagon.

Lol - y'all too pressed.

It hasn't been proven to be "some bullshit" at all.

[Anonymous]

Your doubt in this situation is laughable, frankly.

Two police body cameras were running, plus the wife was filming (while yelling) from a short distance away; you seriously find it possible the police planted a gun in the midst of this?

Plus, the police have already stated they found his fingerprints, DNA, and his blood on the gun (which they also have). How do you explain those?

If you still think it's possible they planted the gun, then these are not police we're dealing with here - they're the reincarnations of Harry frickin Houdinni.




Love this!

[Anonymous]

Is it possible one of the officers kicked the gun away from the body when they saw it (after CPR was performed)?

[Anonymous]

Well, I think that since the head of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP went on CNN last night and said that it didn't matter if it was a book or a gun, says it all. She saw the tape and she knows there was a gun, and now she is trying to use semantics to get her point across. Point well taken, there was a gun. Here's an idea, when a police officer, or five police officers, tell you to sit down and shut up, do it, you might not get shot that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once BLM came out with their list of "demands," which reeked of hostility - even hatred - toward whites, along with their anti-Israel rantings, I lost any modicum of respect for them. They should be out there on the airwaves, imploring the rioters to behave peacefully, lest they feed the very sterotypes they are trying to dispel. They were better last night - thanks, National Guard - but the previous two nights showed why police might be nervous around blacks and, in a freak-out moment, prematurely pull the trigger.

The bolded is my sentiments exactly. That is where the movement lost me.

What a coincidence...
Once I saw Rodney King get his ass kicked for 20 minutes with no attempt at apprehension - just an old fashioned ass-whupping by some good ol' boys with guns and badges that's when my mistrust of the police began.
And once I saw Eric Garner get choked out for (GASP!!) selling lose cigarettes that's when my mistrust of the police gained traction.
And once I saw Tamir Rice get blown away in 2 seconds with no hesitation and no attempt at deescalation (if it were indeed somebody waving a gun) that's when my mistrust of police gained grew.
And once I saw Walter Scott get shot in the back while running away and then saw the cop walk up and plant a gun next to him to fabricate some story about a struggle and/or a threat that's when my mistrust of police was certain.

Hmmm....
And, I remember Reginald Denny getting beaten, nearly to death, by 4 black men rioting in LA.
And, I remember a mob, just a couple of days ago, attacking a female truck driver, looting the contents of her truck and setting it on fire.
And, I remember, just s couple nights ago, a “protester” shooting and killing a person in the crowd for no good reason.
I could go on, but you get my point........
So, the pp has a point. There may be a reason that the police, and others, are just a little nervous around large crowds of angry people where BLM has a presence. Especially since some of these folks would like to put the “pigs in a blanket - fry ‘em like bacon.”

So essentially you run out the elevator in your office building when you see a black man in there?
You avoid all contact and correspondence with colleagues who are black because they have a proclivity for violence?
You shun your black neighbors and scurry your kids away from black families at playgrounds because of what some roused up protesters were chanting?

That was some serious mental gymnastics there. I'm impressed.

[Anonymous]

It's obvious the did he/didn't he have a gun debate is a push so how about we switch gears and actually have a reasonable discussion as a PP suggested...

Let's wander back a bit and examine the basis of the confrontation to begin with.
Why the hell were the police even bothering Keith Scott in the first place?
They were not even there for him they were supposed to be serving a warrant on somebody else.
He could have been sitting in his car blasting "F**k the Police" - that still doesn't justify them confronting him and telling him to get out of his car.
It's an open carry state so he could have been sitting in his car waiting to pick his child up from school twirling his gun around like Clint Eastwood in "High Plains Drifter" - that still doesn't justify them confronting him and telling him to drop his weapon.
This is what everybody is overlooking.
This is what nobody is taking into consideration because everyone is so pent up and preoccupied with their wanna-be-detective-mindsets trying to solve the mystery of whether there was a gun present or not.
Nobody's even paying attention to the fact that the police haven't so much as said one word about why they approached Keith Scott to begin with.
Anybody want to address this point or are you all content with just bickering back and forth about obscure photos all day?

[Anonymous]

Yeah no "twirling your gun around" is not covered under open carry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once BLM came out with their list of "demands," which reeked of hostility - even hatred - toward whites, along with their anti-Israel rantings, I lost any modicum of respect for them. They should be out there on the airwaves, imploring the rioters to behave peacefully, lest they feed the very sterotypes they are trying to dispel. They were better last night - thanks, National Guard - but the previous two nights showed why police might be nervous around blacks and, in a freak-out moment, prematurely pull the trigger.

The bolded is my sentiments exactly. That is where the movement lost me.

What a coincidence...
Once I saw Rodney King get his ass kicked for 20 minutes with no attempt at apprehension - just an old fashioned ass-whupping by some good ol' boys with guns and badges that's when my mistrust of the police began.
And once I saw Eric Garner get choked out for (GASP!!) selling lose cigarettes that's when my mistrust of the police gained traction.
And once I saw Tamir Rice get blown away in 2 seconds with no hesitation and no attempt at deescalation (if it were indeed somebody waving a gun) that's when my mistrust of police gained grew.
And once I saw Walter Scott get shot in the back while running away and then saw the cop walk up and plant a gun next to him to fabricate some story about a struggle and/or a threat that's when my mistrust of police was certain.

Hmmm....
And, I remember Reginald Denny getting beaten, nearly to death, by 4 black men rioting in LA.
And, I remember a mob, just a couple of days ago, attacking a female truck driver, looting the contents of her truck and setting it on fire.
And, I remember, just s couple nights ago, a “protester” shooting and killing a person in the crowd for no good reason.
I could go on, but you get my point........
So, the pp has a point. There may be a reason that the police, and others, are just a little nervous around large crowds of angry people where BLM has a presence. Especially since some of these folks would like to put the “pigs in a blanket - fry ‘em like bacon.”

Well, it is said that's just the way they express their frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no "twirling your gun around" is not covered under open carry.

It's already been noted that I have a penchant for being obtuse but I think you get what I'm saying.
So, you got any ideas on why the cops bothered Keith Scott to begin with?

[Anonymous]

"As they entered the complex, the police noticed Keith Lamont Scott, who was not the person they were trying to serve the warrant.

According to a statement by CMPD Chief Kerr Putney, the officers “observed a subject, Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, inside a vehicle in the apartment complex. The subject exited the vehicle armed with a handgun. Officers observed the subject get back into the vehicle at which time they began to approach the subject.”

Putney’s statement continued: “Officers gave loud and clear verbal commands, corroborated by witnesses, for the subject to drop the weapon.”"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no "twirling your gun around" is not covered under open carry.

It's already been noted that I have a penchant for being obtuse but I think you get what I'm saying.
So, you got any ideas on why the cops bothered Keith Scott to begin with?

He fit a suspect description. Instead of identifying himself when the officer approach he did whatever his wife was screaming at him not to do.