Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

[SR9]

Keith Lamont Scott 's shooting was justified. This was not his first run-in with police. People protested his killing, but did not know his record. But, his family did and should have known this was going to happen sooner or later.


He served time in Texas for shooting at police officers.
His wife put 2 restraining orders on him. One for stabbing her in the back and one for threatening to kill her with a gun.
He pulled up next to an unmarked police car and started smoking weed with the gun in plain sight.
The police told him numerous times to drop the gun.
His wife was hollering "Keith, don't do it." You can hear it on her video.
He got shot.

His gun and holster were found on the ground near his feet. The gun had only his finger prints on it.

Enough said.

 

[bofh]

Keith Lamont Scott 's shooting was justified. This was not his first run-in with police. People protested his killing, but did not know his record. But, his family did and should have known this was going to happen sooner or later.


He served time in Texas for shooting at police officers.
His wife put 2 restraining orders on him. One for stabbing her in the back and one for threatening to kill her with a gun.
He pulled up next to an unmarked police car and started smoking weed with the gun in plain sight.
The police told him numerous times to drop the gun.
His wife was hollering "Keith, don't do it." You can hear it on her video.
He got shot.

His gun and holster were found on the ground near his feet. The gun had only his finger prints on it.

Enough said.

Whether a police shooting was justified depends entirely on the circumstances of the shooting and not on the run-ins with the law of the person shot that the shooting officers din't know about at the time of the shooting. While these prior run-ins may explain the behavior of the person shot, they do not explain the behavior of the person doing the shooting.

Your post is mixing the evidence from the scene that relates to the circumstances of the shooting with the classical smear campaign stuff that Bob Owens from Bearing Arms regularly does, also known as, he had it coming.

The evidence is pointing toward that the shooting was justified, given the current "comply or die" laws. LEOs far too often put themselves into a situation where they have no other option than to shoot as directed by SOP.

 

[SR9]

You for get in this modern day police have computers in their car and can pull up the records of criminal offenders. He had a record of violence against police in the past, and the protection order his wife had earlier shows he had a gun.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Keith Lamont Scott 's shooting was justified. This was not his first run-in with police. People protested his killing, but did not know his record. But, his family did and should have known this was going to happen sooner or later.


He served time in Texas for shooting at police officers.
His wife put 2 restraining orders on him. One for stabbing her in the back and one for threatening to kill her with a gun.
He pulled up next to an unmarked police car and started smoking weed with the gun in plain sight.
The police told him numerous times to drop the gun.
His wife was hollering "Keith, don't do it." You can hear it on her video.
He got shot.

His gun and holster were found on the ground near his feet. The gun had only his finger prints on it.

Enough said.

But not all..... In addition

He was a felon
He was in possession of a stolen gun

 

[bofh]

You for get in this modern day police have computers in their car and can pull up the records of criminal offenders. He had a record of violence against police in the past, and the protection order his wife had earlier shows he had a gun.

The officers did no such thing in this case. They didn't know that they were approaching a convicted felon who was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Stop making things up to fit your agenda.

 

[Hawkeye638]

Scott's history is only relevant in trying to sort out what happened after the fact. His criminal history shows that he is a violent man and has shot at police in the past. When trying to decide which side you want to believe, this information is relevant. You can believe his mother who said he was just reading the koran or you can believe the police version. His past violent crimes lends credence to the police version. It is likely that the police did not know of his criminal past at the time they confronted Scott. What mattered is what Scott did or did not do when the police confronted him. They were justified. Period. End of story.

 

[Deanimator]

The pro-Scott forces seem as shady and mendacious as the North Miami cops in the shooting of Charles Kinsey.

Their stories have changed so much, they ought to get jobs with the FOP.

 

[trmac2016]

Police that see a violation and look the other way are considered cowards. So to say Cops put themselves in positions were they have no choice but kill someone is just foolish. How about stop breaking the law and when caught fighting the Cops. Everytime someone steals, someone else pays. How about stop thinking that society owes you something that you have not earned. It is time to stop allowing bullies from running our neighborhoods and take responsibility for for your actions follow the rules that keep our children safe. Life is not a party, the things that we do or don't do have consciences.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Police that see a violation and look the other way are considered cowards. So to say Cops put themselves in positions were they have no choice but kill someone is just foolish. How about stop breaking the law and when caught fighting the Cops. Everytime someone steals, someone else pays. How about stop thinking that society owes you something that you have not earned. It is time to stop allowing bullies from running our neighborhoods and take responsibility for for your actions follow the rules that keep our children safe. Life is not a party, the things that we do or don't do have consciences.

How about stop posting about topics that you have no clue about. LEOs these days have little training and a bully attitude, leading them to make stupid decisions, such as driving up to a suspect in a way that their only option is to shoot him, or using a firearm as a "compliance device" leaving them no other option than to shoot upon perceived (not actual) non-compliance, or shooting a person that is not an imminent threat, or just shooting the wrong person.

The rest of your post is just the usual "he had it coming" BS. Not all police shootings are justified, unless you want the bullies in uniform running your neighborhood. The Keith Lamont Scott shooting seems to be justified. The Charles Kinsey shooting was clearly not, neither was the Philando Castile shooting.

 

[SR9]

Far be it for me to say I told you so, but I told you so, way back when this happened.

 

[bofh]

Far be it for me to say I told you so, but I told you so, way back when this happened.

Your post makes zero sense. Well, most of your posts make not much sense. You told whom, what, and when?

 

[trmac2016]

How about stop posting about topics that you have no clue about. LEOs these days have little training and a bully attitude, leading them to make stupid decisions, such as driving up to a suspect in a way that their only option is to shoot him, or using a firearm as a "compliance device" leaving them no other option than to shoot upon perceived (not actual) non-compliance, or shooting a person that is not an imminent threat, or just shooting the wrong person.

The rest of your post is just the usual "he had it coming" BS. Not all police shootings are justified, unless you want the bullies in uniform running your neighborhood. The Keith Lamont Scott shooting seems to be justified. The Charles Kinsey shooting was clearly not, neither was the Philando Castile shooting.

First I am a 16 year veteran police officer and seen both sides of this topic. All our training says if you see something you can't walk away when there is any possibility of danger to the public. I don't say anymore deserves to be kill by police. We serve the people, and if leaders at the top don't stand behind and just jump to the conclusion that the cop was wrong than the system needs to be fixed. Also if people continue to remain non-compliant then we will continue to see more shootings. Not all Cops are bullies, most are just trying to do their job. You mentioned training, Cops are trained to gain control in some of the most dangerous situations where a second of indecision can get them killed. I know that is the job and what we signed up for, but do you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons. That is not realistic.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

First I am a 16 year veteran police officer and seen both sides of this topic. All our training says if you see something you can't walk away when there is any possibility of danger to the public. I don't say anymore deserves to be kill by police. We serve the people, and if leaders at the top don't stand behind and just jump to the conclusion that the cop was wrong than the system needs to be fixed. Also if people continue to remain non-compliant then we will continue to see more shootings. Not all Cops are bullies, most are just trying to do their job. You mentioned training, Cops are trained to gain control in some of the most dangerous situations where a second of indecision can get them killed. I know that is the job and what we signed up for, but do you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons. That is not realistic.

You clearly do not understand what I have been talking about. I also doubt that you are a "16 year veteran police officer", otherwise you would know what I am talking about.

No one says that a LEO should walk away from a situation. However, how about not screwing it up with a piss-poor bully attitude and piss-poor training? Here are some examples:

• Charles Kinsey: An officer shot at a mentally ill person that was not a threat. He missed 3 times. One of the misses hit Charles Kinsey. There was zero justification for any shooting. The officer is still with the force. Other officers who made false statements about the incident were also not charged.
• Philando Castile: Was shot during a traffic stop by an officer who was afraid of his own shadow and put himself into this situation by not following the correct procedures for a felony stop. The shooting will likely be called justified although it was not.
• Tamir Rice: Officers drove up to a suspect of a "man with a gun" call so close that they endangered their own life. If Tamir Rice had a firearm that shoots actual bullets and ill intend, one of those officers would be dead today. Instead, Tamir Rice is dead.
• In Link Removed, an officer jumped in the bed of a truck of a suspected fleeing drunk driver and shot him. The officer endangered his own life and therefore was justified in shooting the driver?

Lastly, a firearm is not a compliance device. The "comply or die" attitude needs to stop as they set police officers up for failure. It is also unlawful. LEOs are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of such piss-poor policies and training. There is a difference between a person that is a danger and is noncompliant and a person that is not a danger. Persons that are not a danger but noncompliant shouldn't be just shot (and potentially killed). Someone who is dead certainly can't comply anymore!

And please, stop with this "you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons" BS. No one says that.

 

[SR9]

See post #1 lamo

 

[bofh]

See post #1 lamo

See post #2. LMAO :lol:

 

[trmac2016]

You clearly do not understand what I have been talking about. I also doubt that you are a "16 year veteran police officer", otherwise you would know what I am talking about.

No one says that a LEO should walk away from a situation. However, how about not screwing it up with a piss-poor bully attitude and piss-poor training? Here are some examples:

• Charles Kinsey: An officer shot at a mentally ill person that was not a threat. He missed 3 times. One of the misses hit Charles Kinsey. There was zero justification for any shooting. The officer is still with the force. Other officers who made false statements about the incident were also not charged.
• Philando Castile: Was shot during a traffic stop by an officer who was afraid of his own shadow and put himself into this situation by not following the correct procedures for a felony stop. The shooting will likely be called justified although it was not.
• Tamir Rice: Officers drove up to a suspect of a "man with a gun" call so close that they endangered their own life. If Tamir Rice had a firearm that shoots actual bullets and ill intend, one of those officers would be dead today. Instead, Tamir Rice is dead.
• In Link Removed, an officer jumped in the bed of a truck of a suspected fleeing drunk driver and shot him. The officer endangered his own life and therefore was justified in shooting the driver?

Lastly, a firearm is not a compliance device. The "comply or die" attitude needs to stop as they set police officers up for failure. It is also unlawful. LEOs are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of such piss-poor policies and training. There is a difference between a person that is a danger and is noncompliant and a person that is not a danger. Persons that are not a danger but noncompliant shouldn't be just shot (and potentially killed). Someone who is dead certainly can't comply anymore!

And please, stop with this "you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons" BS. No one says that.

I use my real name and personal email for the post so if you would like you can fact check me. I am an honest Cop who cares about my community and the people of the country. There is good and bad in every profession and I don't dispute that Cops make mistakes. Can you tell me that it a lack of training for Cops to expect people to comply. What do consider the mind set of a person confronted by several police officers with weapons out and pointed, but refuses to drop a gun or quickly raises their hand like they have a gun. Are all police shootings warranted? Unless I am standing in that Officer's shoes at the time of the shooting, or the one investigating the shooting I tend to hold my opinion to myself until all the facts are out. To do otherwise is to be in judgement and I am not a judge. Nuf said.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

I use my real name and personal email for the post so if you would like you can fact check me. I am an honest Cop who cares about my community and the people of the country. There is good and bad in every profession and I don't dispute that Cops make mistakes. Can you tell me that it a lack of training for Cops to expect people to comply. What do consider the mind set of a person confronted by several police officers with weapons out and pointed, but refuses to drop a gun or quickly raises their hand like they have a gun. Are all police shootings warranted? Unless I am standing in that Officer's shoes at the time of the shooting, or the one investigating the shooting I tend to hold my opinion to myself until all the facts are out. To do otherwise is to be in judgement and I am not a judge. Nuf said.

You clearly do not want to understand my posts. All 4 examples I posted clearly show piss-poor training and attitude that endangered the lives of officers and others. Not a single gun was pointed at any officer or in the hand of a suspect. In all these cases, the officers actions set themselves up for failure. That is the very definition of piss-poor training and attitude.

PS: I regularly train with current and retired police officers and these discussions come up quite often. Veteran officers understand the difference between a justified shooting and a charlie foxtrot.

 

[trmac2016]

Just thought you should is this post about the Castile shooting, this is why I don't give an opinion before all the facts are in. There is always 2 sides to every story. Fact is that the video on YouTube you don't hear Castile say anything because it didn't start until after the shooting. At least we don't see what happened before, just after. I wonder why.

Link Removed

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Just thought you should is this post about the Castile shooting, this is why I don't give an opinion before all the facts are in. There is always 2 sides to every story. Fact is that the video on YouTube you don't hear Castile say anything because it didn't start until after the shooting. At least we don't see what happened before, just after. I wonder why.

Link Removed

Assuming for a moment that Officer Jeronimo Yanez's statements are true, he was stopping a suspected armed robber, i.e., making a felony stop. However, what he did was no such thing. He stopped Castile's car, walked up to it and asked for license and registration based on a busted tail light. Why? That's not how a felony stop is done. If Officer Yanez really wanted to perform a felony stop, then he purposely put himself and others in danger for no good reason. Once again, the officer set himself up for failure using piss-poor procedure, if the whole felony stop story is actually true.

The linked article provides ZERO justification for shooting Castile, by the way. It mentions his past, which Officer Yanez was apparently in part aware of. From the article: "Philando Castile’s criminal history shows no propensity towards violence." Castile had a carry permit, by the way.

As for your comment about why the video only started after the shooting. Well, one would assume that the passenger in the car was actually following the lawful commands of the officer instead of fiddling around with a phone and risk getting shot because of it. I am honestly surprised that the passenger wasn't told to drop the phone and keep here hands visible. That was poor procedure too, by the way.

If Officer Yanez would have performed a proper arrest based on the suspicion of Castile being an armed robber, Castile would be alive and free today and Officer Yanez would be better off.

 

[trmac2016]

Some of what you say is true and could of and should of been done differently. That is what a Monday morning quarter back does. Like I always told my kids and anyone I train "do what is right and moral, expecially when no one is watching". It is easy to sit back and judge someone after an incident. I have seen citizens that with very little training react the exact same way when put into similar situations. 9 out of 10 shoot the suspect. As far as the the video goes since it doesn't show what led up to the shooting, one has to believe the officers on scene or someone who is so calm when their body Daddy was shot right in front of them. I guess that I know where you're beliefs are.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk