Anonymous wrote:Maybe the police are afraid that if the video does not clearly show a gun, the riots will worsen and spread, and additional lives will be lost.

Nah. They're just being racist.

jsteele wrote:Have you seen this interview with a witness of the shooting? She seems pretty credible to me. Her story is completely different from that of the police. If the police have video supporting their story, they should release it. They are not releasing the video they do have. The conclusion seems obvious.

You make a lot of assumptions

Anonymous wrote:Anybody recall how prior to the video being released the University of Cincinnati police made two false claims about the traffic stop and fatal shooting of Samuel DuBose?

They said that an officer was dragged by the car and that he was almost run over by the vehicle - none of which happened as proven by the video.

The lying officer is now awaiting trial on a murder charge and a settlement with the university was reached in January that included $4.85 million as well as undergraduate tuition at the university for DuBose’s children.

What's your point? That officers sometimes lie? Of course they do. So, does that discredit all of them?

It's my belief that we should investigate all shootings with an open mind, not with a jaundiced view, and a determination that the facts are what's important.

Anonymous wrote:Anybody recall how prior to the video being released the University of Cincinnati police made two false claims about the traffic stop and fatal shooting of Samuel DuBose?

They said that an officer was dragged by the car and that he was almost run over by the vehicle - none of which happened as proven by the video.

The lying officer is now awaiting trial on a murder charge and a settlement with the university was reached in January that included $4.85 million as well as undergraduate tuition at the university for DuBose’s children.

And IF there is any wrongdoing shown on this video, I trust that the officer in this case will be held responsible. Not releasing the video doesn't automatically mean cover-up.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on Jeff, "seems pretty credible to me?" Eyewitness account is the weakest form of proof. People can genuinely believe what they think they saw but be mistaken. The woman appears to be sincere, and the information being shared around thus far is very damning, but lets wait for the video to be released.

It doesn't appear that the video will be released, at least not for the immediate future. This woman becomes more credible now that the police don't want to release the video.

Putney said he is working to honor the request from the family of Scott to view the video. It's unclear when or if the video might be released publicly.

"Right now my priority is the people who really are the victims of the shooting," Putney said. "I'm telling you right now if you think I say we should display a victim's worst day for consumption, that is not the transparency I'm speaking of."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd-night-violent-protests-charlotte-police-shooting-42269243

You must have missed this from the same article:

"he said during a news conference that the video does not definitely show Scott pointing a gun at anyone."

You don't have to be pointing a gun at someone to be brandishing it. A CNN article cited earlier noted that the use of lethal force does not have to wait until a gun is POINTED since it can be a matter of milliseconds before shots are fired by the gun.

Maybe the police are afraid that if the video does not clearly show a gun, the riots will worsen and spread, and additional lives will be lost.

Anybody recall how prior to the video being released the University of Cincinnati police made two false claims about the traffic stop and fatal shooting of Samuel DuBose?

They said that an officer was dragged by the car and that he was almost run over by the vehicle - none of which happened as proven by the video.

The lying officer is now awaiting trial on a murder charge and a settlement with the university was reached in January that included $4.85 million as well as undergraduate tuition at the university for DuBose’s children.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on Jeff, "seems pretty credible to me?" Eyewitness account is the weakest form of proof. People can genuinely believe what they think they saw but be mistaken. The woman appears to be sincere, and the information being shared around thus far is very damning, but lets wait for the video to be released.

It doesn't appear that the video will be released, at least not for the immediate future. This woman becomes more credible now that the police don't want to release the video.

Putney said he is working to honor the request from the family of Scott to view the video. It's unclear when or if the video might be released publicly.

"Right now my priority is the people who really are the victims of the shooting," Putney said. "I'm telling you right now if you think I say we should display a victim's worst day for consumption, that is not the transparency I'm speaking of."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd-night-violent-protests-charlotte-police-shooting-42269243

You must have missed this from the same article:

"he said during a news conference that the video does not definitely show Scott pointing a gun at anyone."

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on Jeff, "seems pretty credible to me?" Eyewitness account is the weakest form of proof. People can genuinely believe what they think they saw but be mistaken. The woman appears to be sincere, and the information being shared around thus far is very damning, but lets wait for the video to be released.

It doesn't appear that the video will be released, at least not for the immediate future. This woman becomes more credible now that the police don't want to release the video.

Putney said he is working to honor the request from the family of Scott to view the video. It's unclear when or if the video might be released publicly.

"Right now my priority is the people who really are the victims of the shooting," Putney said. "I'm telling you right now if you think I say we should display a victim's worst day for consumption, that is not the transparency I'm speaking of."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd-night-violent-protests-charlotte-police-shooting-42269243

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Apparently the Charlotte police are refusing to release the video of the shooting. What possible reason could there be for this other than it not supporting their story? If the video shows Scott getting out of the truck with a gun, why wouldn't they want to make that public as a means of calming the demonstrations? I can't help but conclude that the video doesn't show such a thing.

Someone posted here that it is a NC law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/north-carolina-police-recording-law/

The law goes into effect on Oct. 1 and even that law allows police to release the video. FYI, it's not Oct. 1 yet.

I missed that. Thanks. As for the reminder about the date, I didn't need that.

Anonymous wrote:Come on Jeff, "seems pretty credible to me?" Eyewitness account is the weakest form of proof. People can genuinely believe what they think they saw but be mistaken. The woman appears to be sincere, and the information being shared around thus far is very damning, but lets wait for the video to be released.

It doesn't appear that the video will be released, at least not for the immediate future. This woman becomes more credible now that the police don't want to release the video.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Have you seen this interview with a witness of the shooting? She seems pretty credible to me. Her story is completely different from that of the police. If the police have video supporting their story, they should release it. They are not releasing the video they do have. The conclusion seems obvious.

Come on Jeff, "seems pretty credible to me?" Eyewitness account is the weakest form of proof. People can genuinely believe what they think they saw but be mistaken. The woman appears to be sincere, and the information being shared around thus far is very damning, but lets wait for the video to be released.

np
Didn't we have eye witnesses saying that Michael Brown had his hands up and never approached?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Apparently the Charlotte police are refusing to release the video of the shooting. What possible reason could there be for this other than it not supporting their story? If the video shows Scott getting out of the truck with a gun, why wouldn't they want to make that public as a means of calming the demonstrations? I can't help but conclude that the video doesn't show such a thing.

Someone posted here that it is a NC law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/north-carolina-police-recording-law/

The law goes into effect on Oct. 1 and even that law allows police to release the video. FYI, it's not Oct. 1 yet.

Anonymous wrote:So Jeff I just want to clarify..are you saying it's "obvious" the police are lying about there being a gun?

I'm saying that if the police have video showing Scott with a gun, it would be in everyone's interest for them to release it. Since they are not releasing the video, the most obvious conclusion is that it doesn't support what they have been saying. If that is the case, then, yes, they are lying. Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time that police did this.

The victim in Charlotte was Keith Lamont Scott. Not long ago, another Scott, Walter Scott was killed by police in South Carolina. There is video in that case of the police planting a weapon near the body of Walter Scott. So, unsourced pictures of a very unclear object near Keith Lamont Scott are not all that persuasive without more context.

Here is video of the Walter Scott case:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/09/erin-dnt-lah-was-evidence-planted-in-walter-scott-shooting.cnn/video/playlists/south-carolina-police-shooting/

jsteele wrote:Apparently the Charlotte police are refusing to release the video of the shooting. What possible reason could there be for this other than it not supporting their story? If the video shows Scott getting out of the truck with a gun, why wouldn't they want to make that public as a means of calming the demonstrations? I can't help but conclude that the video doesn't show such a thing.

Someone posted here that it is a NC law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/north-carolina-police-recording-law/