Pray for Charlotte, NC

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So there's a guy with a gun in the car and you want the cops to turn their backs on him to talk to the wife? Bullets travel. From a distance means nothing. They didn't know if this guy was on something, if he was a wildcard who would just start shooting around him.

Where did I say they should turn their backs to him? I said they should have stopped yelling, They should have stayed behind protective cover and they should have been ready to respond to a clear and present danger (such as his pointing the gun). But, they should have attempted to deescalate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's witness looks credible though - LOL

Proven wrong about the book but I am still convinced that the police used unnecessary and unreasonable force.

Jeff I understand your point of view and I respect it.

However if the police have someone pointing a gun at them, at a bus stop where children will soon be arriving no less, how should they have handled it?

I really am curious and I've asked this before ITT and haven't gotten an answer.

Jeff is a tough guy. He wouldn't fear for his life because a felon was brandishing a gun and disobeying orders to drop it (like those wimpy cops!). He would've had this guy disarmed before the kids ever came upon the scene through the magic of his words.

I think it has been proven pretty conclusively that nobody is as tough as an anonymous poster.

Disagree. I would be utterly terrified if someone whipped out a gun in front of me! And I freely admit that I don't know how I'd handle it and I hesitate to second guess others who apparently are doing their best.

There really is nothing tough or brave about posting on DCUM, whether you disclose your name or not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there's a guy with a gun in the car and you want the cops to turn their backs on him to talk to the wife? Bullets travel. From a distance means nothing. They didn't know if this guy was on something, if he was a wildcard who would just start shooting around him.

Where did I say they should turn their backs to him? I said they should have stopped yelling, They should have stayed behind protective cover and they should have been ready to respond to a clear and present danger (such as his pointing the gun). But, they should have attempted to deescalate.

I don't disagree that all police could benefit from deescalation training, but it takes milliseconds to raise and fire a gun. If someone has a gun in their hand, they are milliseconds away from shooting and killing someone. That is an immediate threat. Police, for the safety of themselves and the public, need to address that threat. He was given a simple instruction (drop the gun) and he did not comply.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's witness looks credible though - LOL

Proven wrong about the book but I am still convinced that the police used unnecessary and unreasonable force.

You also said you believed the gun was planted. That's a horrible thing to accuse an officer of, frankly, especially when there was no reason to believe so besides conjecture.

Regarding what you believe about force, that's your prerogative. I, personally, think they gave him time to respond appropriately.

I suggested that planting a gun was a possibility. It was a possibility and should always be considered a possibility in such cases. Do you believe everything government officials say? I suspect not.

Why would he have an ankle holster though?

I didn't know that then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right because all my years working for nonprofits in areas with high poverty and crime mean nothing.

Don't mean shit to me so yeah - you right on the money there!

So you don't care that people work towards actual solutions to inner city problems?

No I don't care about your self-aggrandizement. You can boast about being the Last Grand Master of the Knights Templar - I don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In areas with high crime rates and gang activity shouldn't there be "overaggressive" policing? Maybe there should be more. Maybe then impoverished people who as just trying to feed their kids could relax a little an not worry about always being, assaulted, killed or robbed for what little they have. Maybe then there could be a focus on education and rebuilding neighborhoods. Maybe then grocery stores and other services would feel safe coming back in to these neighborhoods.

Aggressive yes! Over aggressive? Over here implies more than what's needed. So no, I wouldn't agree.

In general it's not a good idea to make problems go away by changing the law so that the problems are no longer problems. However, in the case of inner city crime, I believe this fits the bill perfectly. Drugs, especially marijuana should be legalized and regulated just like tobacco and alcohol. People will always look for a good time and get high, whether it's rush of adrenaline or some altered state of awareness. This activity has controllable risk, like alcohol consumption, and therefore would benefit from similar legalization and control.

That is why I put "overaggressive" in quotes. I feel in certain areas with extreme poverty and extreme crime it isn't aggressive enough. There needs to be tough policing and strong community outreach.

I am not sure about your idea in regards to legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is legal and that doesn't stop people from drinking themselves to death, killing people with their cars. Destroying family lives through years of abuse. While I can agree that drugs are out there so some regulation is better than none.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's witness looks credible though - LOL

Proven wrong about the book but I am still convinced that the police used unnecessary and unreasonable force.

You also said you believed the gun was planted. That's a horrible thing to accuse an officer of, frankly, especially when there was no reason to believe so besides conjecture.

Regarding what you believe about force, that's your prerogative. I, personally, think they gave him time to respond appropriately.

I suggested that planting a gun was a possibility. It was a possibility and should always be considered a possibility in such cases. Do you believe everything government officials say? I suspect not.

Why would he have an ankle holster though?

I didn't know that then.

Don't you think that is part of the problem though?

These bits and pieces in the media that get everyone all fired up before the full story is out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right because all my years working for nonprofits in areas with high poverty and crime mean nothing.

Don't mean shit to me so yeah - you right on the money there!

So you don't care that people work towards actual solutions to inner city problems?

No I don't care about your self-aggrandizement. You can boast about being the Last Grand Master of the Knights Templar - I don't care.

I feel bad for you. You are so angry you cannot look passed your need to personally attack someone.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there's a guy with a gun in the car and you want the cops to turn their backs on him to talk to the wife? Bullets travel. From a distance means nothing. They didn't know if this guy was on something, if he was a wildcard who would just start shooting around him.

Where did I say they should turn their backs to him? I said they should have stopped yelling, They should have stayed behind protective cover and they should have been ready to respond to a clear and present danger (such as his pointing the gun). But, they should have attempted to deescalate.

Easy to say when it's not your life on the line, your kid's life, your wife's life. The criminal here is the one holding the illegal weapon here and refusing to drop it after many, many commands to do so. You wait for the guy to fire the weapon, it's too late. What if he runs and starts shooting at innocent bystanders? A school kid (he was waiting for a bus, right)? Then the cops are on the hook for that.

They were in a no-win situation and I feel incredibly sorry for them and their families. I am actually sickened that people are still protesting in Charlotte, where I live. They should be cleaning up and apologizing to everyone harmed for flipping their shit before having any sense of what actually happened. And the wife should be fined for all the lies she spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right because all my years working for nonprofits in areas with high poverty and crime mean nothing.

Don't mean shit to me so yeah - you right on the money there!

So you don't care that people work towards actual solutions to inner city problems?

No I don't care about your self-aggrandizement. You can boast about being the Last Grand Master of the Knights Templar - I don't care.

I feel bad for you. You are so angry you cannot look passed your need to personally attack someone.

Dude I'm over here cracking up with co-workers about how you think somebody is supposed to do cartwheels cause you said you worked for nonprofits in high poverty/crime areas...
Who is angry - we over here having a ball; keep it up!!!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there's a guy with a gun in the car and you want the cops to turn their backs on him to talk to the wife? Bullets travel. From a distance means nothing. They didn't know if this guy was on something, if he was a wildcard who would just start shooting around him.

Where did I say they should turn their backs to him? I said they should have stopped yelling, They should have stayed behind protective cover and they should have been ready to respond to a clear and present danger (such as his pointing the gun). But, they should have attempted to deescalate.

I don't disagree that all police could benefit from deescalation training, but it takes milliseconds to raise and fire a gun. If someone has a gun in their hand, they are milliseconds away from shooting and killing someone. That is an immediate threat. Police, for the safety of themselves and the public, need to address that threat. He was given a simple instruction (drop the gun) and he did not comply.

I believe I have told this story before, but I'll tell it again. One day my wife and I were confronted by a guy who just said he had been robbed at gun point. I called 911 on my cell phone and then gave him the phone to tell what happened. While he was on the phone, he say the guy walking up the street. At the same time, a police cruiser drove by and he stopped it and pointed out the guy. One officer (for the record, officer was white, suspect was black) jumped out of the car and pursued the guy on foot. The suspect had a "puffy" coat jack like a down jacket but probably not down. He ran up the front steps of a building but then turned around and faced the police officer with his hands in his pockets. All of us thought he probably had his hand on his gun in his coat pocket and could start shooting (by all of us, I mean me, my wife, and the victim). The police officer pulled his weapon and started yelling for the guy to put his hands up. I was certain that the officer would eventually fire. But, he kept calm. This went on for a little while and then the suspect took off running. Suddenly the entire area was wall-to-wall police and they caught the guy after a foot chase. It turned out the gun was non-functional. That was a perfect demonstration of how to not unnecessary escalate a situation and I have nothing but praise for that officer.

Edit: Just for the benefit of the poster above saying that things are different when your or your wife's lives are on the line. When this happened, both me and my wife were pretty close to where any shooting would have taken place and well within range of the suspect had his weapon been functional (it's lack of functionality, of course, was not something we knew).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the wife's claim that her husband was holding a book, multiple media sources report no book was found at all at the scene. Only marihuana, an ankle holster, and a loaded gun with his prints all over it were found.

And the wife also claims she wasn't aware he even owned a gun at all - even though he had it strapped right to his ankle that day.

It's almost like she's completely lying about the whole thing.

+1.

It's pretty obvious, when you watch the video. She shows little interest in approaching and helping her husband, just in taping and cursing the police.

And what about her repeated demands "don't do it Keith!"

Don't do what?

What didn't she want him to do?

What did he tell her he might do?

We obviously can't trust her after all her lies which have come to light. And Keith is dead - at the hands of another AA male. So we are left to speculate.

I wonder if he was planning "suicide by cop" all along? It seems like the most likely scenario to explain this strange set of facts.

If he had a TBI it wouldn't be surprising. Traumatic brain injury, ptsd and suicide go hand in hand. Its a big if though because there has been no medical proof given.

[jsteele]

Just a reminder to please keep language to professional standards. I have deleted a number of posts due to language. There are a number of acceptable substitutes for the commonly used term for feces. Perhaps "stuff" will work?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there's a guy with a gun in the car and you want the cops to turn their backs on him to talk to the wife? Bullets travel. From a distance means nothing. They didn't know if this guy was on something, if he was a wildcard who would just start shooting around him.

Where did I say they should turn their backs to him? I said they should have stopped yelling, They should have stayed behind protective cover and they should have been ready to respond to a clear and present danger (such as his pointing the gun). But, they should have attempted to deescalate.

I don't disagree that all police could benefit from deescalation training, but it takes milliseconds to raise and fire a gun. If someone has a gun in their hand, they are milliseconds away from shooting and killing someone. That is an immediate threat. Police, for the safety of themselves and the public, need to address that threat. He was given a simple instruction (drop the gun) and he did not comply.

I believe I have told this story before, but I'll tell it again. One day my wife and I were confronted by a guy who just said he had been robbed at gun point. I called 911 on my cell phone and then gave him the phone to tell what happened. While he was on the phone, he say the guy walking up the street. At the same time, a police cruiser drove by and he stopped it and pointed out the guy. One officer (for the record, officer was white, suspect was black) jumped out of the car and pursued the guy on foot. The suspect had a "puffy" coat jack like a down jacket but probably not down. He ran up the front steps of a building but then turned around and faced the police officer with his hands in his pockets. All of us thought he probably had his hand on his gun in his coat pocket and could start shooting (by all of us, I mean me, my wife, and the victim). The police officer pulled his weapon and started yelling for the guy to put his hands up. I was certain that the officer would eventually fire. But, he kept calm. This went on for a little while and then the suspect took off running. Suddenly the entire area was wall-to-wall police and they caught the guy after a foot chase. It turned out the gun was non-functional. That was a perfect demonstration of how to not unnecessary escalate a situation and I have nothing but praise for that officer.

Edit: Just for the benefit of the poster above saying that things are different when your or your wife's lives are on the line. When this happened, both me and my wife were pretty close to where any shooting would have taken place and well within range of the suspect had his weapon been functional (it's lack of functionality, of course, was not something we knew).

NP. The officer was lucky the gun was not functional. Otherwise, he'd probably be dead. You can praise dumb heroism all you want, but you have absolutely no moral right to expect it from others. Zero right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the wife's claim that her husband was holding a book, multiple media sources report no book was found at all at the scene. Only marihuana, an ankle holster, and a loaded gun with his prints all over it were found.

And the wife also claims she wasn't aware he even owned a gun at all - even though he had it strapped right to his ankle that day.

It's almost like she's completely lying about the whole thing.

+1.

It's pretty obvious, when you watch the video. She shows little interest in approaching and helping her husband, just in taping and cursing the police.

And what about her repeated demands "don't do it Keith!"

Don't do what?

What didn't she want him to do?

What did he tell her he might do?

We obviously can't trust her after all her lies which have come to light. And Keith is dead - at the hands of another AA male. So we are left to speculate.

I wonder if he was planning "suicide by cop" all along? It seems like the most likely scenario to explain this strange set of facts.

If he had a TBI it wouldn't be surprising. Traumatic brain injury, ptsd and suicide go hand in hand. Its a big if though because there has been no medical proof given.

I agree TBI could be a consistent factor here; I'm trying to understand this shooting and the suspects bizarre behavior which led up to it.

So far, the suicide by cop theory seems the most plausible given the facts.