Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott


Update:

Keith Scott's funeral

Link Removed
 

trmac2016 said:
Well let us look at this incident closer. This trooper had the same thing happen to him in 5 points and that individual came out with a gun. This one here he was fired and convicted for attempted murder. I am glad that the young man who was shot is ok now. I am also glad that the trooper is not longer a cop.
Click to expand...
So then you're saying that he DIDN'T refuse to obey the cop and was shot anyway?

And define "ok"? Does that mean he's just not DEAD?

Are his normal movements impaired? Does he live with constant pain? Do you CARE?

And no comment on the other cases?
 
I cannot reply on the others because we're I saw the video of the Miami case it was not complete, and I believe it is still under investigation. The SCHP case I can because that case is closed and the trooper is serving time after he plead guilty in that shooting. The other one I will have to look at and get back with you.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Just my two cents about Mr Gruley, the officer he this case lost his job was convicted of a felony is being sued for wrongful death (53m) did he deserve to be jailed maybe, but the jury gave him 5 years probation and 2000 hrs. community service. Have civilians been given similar sentences, yes they have. So far two out of three are not and will not be cops anymore. So basically as Reba says evil can be found everywhere as well as good. I try to respect everyone, it is the behavior that I don't like in people.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
trmac2016 said:
I cannot reply on the others because we're I saw the video of the Miami case it was not complete, and I believe it is still under investigation. The SCHP case I can because that case is closed and the trooper is serving time after he plead guilty in that shooting. The other one I will have to look at and get back with you.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the North Miami police THEMSELVES say that Kinsey obeyed EVERY one of their orders.

They still shot him.

They have issued AT LEAST three mutually exclusive excuses for the shooting.

That's almost ALWAYS a sign of deception, and is a hallmark of FALSE claims of police misconduct, like the false "witness" statements in the shooting of Michael Brown.

Likewise, when the story the police tell changes that often in that short a period of time, it's reliable evidence that THEY are lying.
 
Deanimator said:
I didn't look too closely at the media local to the area, but I'm sure the comments were replete with the usual "ghetto lottery" narrative.
Click to expand...
A little more current (Sept. 12, 2016) from my local SC paper:

Link Removed
 
Reba said:
A little more current (Sept. 12, 2016) from my local SC paper:

Link Removed
Click to expand...

In his statement, taken a week after the shooting, Groubert said: “The subject was highly aggressive and belligerent and ready to attack me from the second I initiated the traffic stop.”
Click to expand...
Typical. That's what my lawyer friends who deal with the police on a regular basis call "testilying".
 
You would be right that is testilying. And unfortunately the trooper was like anyone else, lied trying to justify what he did hoping to get by with it. Point is he plead guilty without a full trial. It is human nature to embellish in attempt to hide guilt, almost all children have done it and if they get away with it this behavior can follow them into adulthood. Is it wrong yes. Does it happen yes. It is unfortunate when police officers or departments do it to cover up wrong doing. I truly hope that in the cases that this has happened the truth comes out. Should every police agency or officer be lumped together, no. Nor should every person of any race, ethnicity or religion be lumped together as bad or good either. People should be treated with respect and dignity at all times.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Deanimator said:
So are James Holmes and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

Being a human being doesn't guarantee that you're a decent human being.

Anthony Abbate was a cop (and at least arguably) a human being when he tried to stomp barmaid Karolina Obyrcka to death for refusing to serve him when drunk.

His friends whom he enlisted to intimidate the victim, her employer, co-workers and witnesses were also cops (and at least arguably) human beings.

Do you consider him and them DECENT human beings?
Click to expand...
I didn't call them decent human beings, I just said human beings not good not bad, but human. I can't say that I agree with or would have done or reacted the way these officers or civilians did. I can't say because I was not there at the time. I can say t I care about people and wish that everyone had everything they would ever need. Fact is that is not realistic, where there are people without hope we will have crime or bad behavior. Cops being human can also act contrary the laws they are asked to enforce. It is to bad that we have to have this conversation at all. I wish you a good live.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
bofh said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are seeing this incident filtered through your bias against LEO's. As a 40 year LEO (21 with the Army and 19 with the state) what makes sense to me about this traffic stop is that there was no busted tail light, pictures of the crime scene prove this. The car and driver matched the description from a crime a couple of days earlier so Yanez needed an excuse to identify the driver. AT THIS TIME there was no justification to do a felony stop because he had no idea if the driver was the suspect or not. The tail light story makes sense because that is something the drive could not readily refute. If he had told the driver it was for speeding or running a stop sign the driver would immediately know if that was true or not. Now this is just my speculation but with my experience this is the scenario that makes sense. This gives Yanez an excuse to approach the driver in a non-threatening way, find out who he is and get a look inside the vehicle. You can argue this point but neither of us was there. You can decide for yourself if that is the slide of a gun visible sticking out from under his shirt. When you look at the video or screenshots from the video take into consideration that the video is a mirror image video and everything is reversed.
Link Removed
 
Hawkeye638 said:
You are seeing this incident filtered through your bias against LEO's. As a 40 year LEO (21 with the Army and 19 with the state) what makes sense to me about this traffic stop is that there was no busted tail light, pictures of the crime scene prove this. The car and driver matched the description from a crime a couple of days earlier so Yanez needed an excuse to identify the driver. AT THIS TIME there was no justification to do a felony stop because he had no idea if the driver was the suspect or not. The tail light story makes sense because that is something the drive could not readily refute. If he had told the driver it was for speeding or running a stop sign the driver would immediately know if that was true or not. Now this is just my speculation but with my experience this is the scenario that makes sense. This gives Yanez an excuse to approach the driver in a non-threatening way, find out who he is and get a look inside the vehicle. You can argue this point but neither of us was there. You can decide for yourself if that is the slide of a gun visible sticking out from under his shirt. When you look at the video or screenshots from the video take into consideration that the video is a mirror image video and everything is reversed.
Link Removed
Click to expand...

Why would a felony stop not be justified when pulling over a felony suspect? The moment the officer decided to pull over the car because the driver looks like a person that robbed a store, the said driver became a felony suspect. Would you walk up to the car window of a suspect to an armed robbery? By doing so, the officer put himself in danger and had his mindset adjusted to the dangerous situation he put himself into. Any visible gun or unexpected motion could have easily triggered the officer to shoot.

One certainly could argue that the whole robbery suspect story was BS and that this was the reason that the officer walked up to the car window, instead of performing a proper felony stop. What the officer radioed in would have been just his justification to perform the stop on record.

As for the video still frame. This has been discussed before in this thread. I have seen better UFO videos. The driver had a carry permit, by the way.
 
bofh said:
As for the video still frame. This has been discussed before in this thread. I have seen better UFO videos. The driver had a carry permit, by the way.
Click to expand...
If that's what the cop defenders are going to hang their hats on, I've seen clearer pictures of bigfoot.
 
I thought that this was argued out, I guess not. Cops stop felons everyday some known some unknown. Politics for stopping felons differ for state to state, county to county, and agency to agency. Are they general as to the officer safety, yes. Sometimes the police act on instinct, measure the danger of making a stop and defusing the driver by telling them the reasons for the stop are entirely different than the true reason. Most of the time it works and well in this case driver was shot and killed. Did the driver tell the officer he had a weapon and a permit? Did the officer see the gun or react to the driver saying he had a weapon or permit? Did the driver reach for his wallet forgetting that gun was on his lap? Or was he reaching for the gun as the officer thought? We only have the video; started after the shooting, and the girl friend and officers statements. I wish that we had a video that was clear and concise but we don't. I don't know, I was not there. This whole topic is speculation or opinions expressed by people that are thought to have there own agendas and some get anger if there point of view is not taken seriously, but the fact is that we just can't see in to the heart of any of the parties involved in any of the listed shootings.

If we continue to close our eyes to other options and listen to media outlets that only talk about one thing and ignore another thing that is worse, than we will continue to have these arguments.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
trmac2016 said:
I thought that this was argued out, I guess not. Cops stop felons everyday some known some unknown. Politics for stopping felons differ for state to state, county to county, and agency to agency. Are they general as to the officer safety, yes. Sometimes the police act on instinct, measure the danger of making a stop and defusing the driver by telling them the reasons for the stop are entirely different than the true reason. Most of the time it works and well in this case driver was shot and killed. Did the driver tell the officer he had a weapon and a permit? Did the officer see the gun or react to the driver saying he had a weapon or permit? Did the driver reach for his wallet forgetting that gun was on his lap? Or was he reaching for the gun as the officer thought? We only have the video; started after the shooting, and the girl friend and officers statements. I wish that we had a video that was clear and concise but we don't. I don't know, I was not there. This whole topic is speculation or opinions expressed by people that are thought to have there own agendas and some get anger if there point of view is not taken seriously, but the fact is that we just can't see in to the heart of any of the parties involved in any of the listed shootings.

If we continue to close our eyes to other options and listen to media outlets that only talk about one thing and ignore another thing that is worse, than we will continue to have these arguments.
Click to expand...

You do not come off as objective and unbiased as you seem to think you are.

Courts are obligated to give a defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt based only on evidence that a judge allows in.

Citizens scrutinizing the available evidence in a public, and highly-publicized case, are under no such limitations, and that goes both ways, either pushing the envelope for a cop against a citizen, or vice versa. For instance, it would not be unusual for a judge to disallow the picture into evidence that Hawkeye638 posted to establish the purpose for which he posted it - that being - that the pic itself does anything to establish that Castile had a gun in his lap when he was stopped, or when he was approached by the cop at his driver's side window. The judge would listen to arguments outside the presence of the jury to determine the probative value vs. the prejudicial value of allowing a witness to testify that he can see a weapon in that picture. It is beyond obvious to this observer that no such conclusion can validly be claimed, therefore, the picture should be disallowed because of its prejudicial value far outweighing any probative value it may contain.

On the other hand, We, The People who happen to be scrutinizing such craptastic proffers of "evidence," have every right and reason to conclude that the person promulgating it as establishing a fact that cannot be discerned from simply viewing the picture is unworthy of our lending credibility to anything they say subsequently. Regardless of Hawkeye638's impressive resume in law enforcement that he seems to think ought to establish him as some kind of expert sufficient to overcome what our own lyin' eyes tell us about that picture, it doesn't work that way. Objective people take what all parties to a given incident have to say at face value until clear and convincing evidence sufficient to disprove what they say comes out, and those objective people then either adjust their view of the incident, or begin to form a view that they purposely refrained from doing until one side or the other's story was substantiated with emerging information.

The friend-girl's excited and spontaneous utterances after she turned the camera on are every bit as worthy of consideration as the cop's utterances on the same recording. My considered opinion is that both peoples' spontaneous utterances on-scene are more credible than the cop's subsequent statements contained in a police report some hours later. She said on the recording that he told the cop he had a permission slip and a weapon. He yelled at one point something to the effect of, "I told him not to reach for it!" She said in response something to the effect of, "You told him to get his license and registration and that's what he was reaching for, Sir." He did not refute that claim on-scene, on-camera. Nothing in the public domain at this time refutes anything she said, but a copy of a letter from the issuing authority for that jurisdiction released by Castile's family acknowledging that Castile did indeed have a permission slip in response to the cop-shop saying publicly they had no indication that he did, definitely does refute that lie that was made in order to sway public opinion towards the cop-shop's predictable position that the shooting was justified simply on the basis that he was armed. Assuming that the gun that is reported to have been on-scene did indeed belong to Castile, that justifies nothing in and of itself.

As citizens not under the control of a judge during a trial that will likely never, ever happen, we are not under any obligation to keep an open mind when the cop's side of the story has already been shown to contain lies. That you overlook the lie that the cop-shop has been shown to have spewed doesn't do much to strengthen the notion that you are being objective. You're only being objective to the extent that all cops are "objective" to - that is - never accept a position stated by a citizen as being objective, knowledgeable, logical and reasonable that isn't full-fledged on the side of cops.

You don't come across nearly as objective as you like to think you do.

Blues
 
trmac2016 said:
I cannot reply on the others because we're I saw the video of the Miami case it was not complete, and I believe it is still under investigation. The SCHP case I can because that case is closed and the trooper is serving time after he plead guilty in that shooting. The other one I will have to look at and get back with you.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer these questions:

And define "ok"? Does that mean he's just not DEAD?

Are his normal movements impaired? Does he live with constant pain? Do you CARE?

And unless I missed a subsequent report, the cop is NOT "serving time". It's entirely possible that he'll serve NO time.

Link Removed
 
BluesStringer said:
You do not come off as objective and unbiased as you seem to think you are.

Courts are obligated to give a defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt based only on evidence that a judge allows in.

Citizens scrutinizing the available evidence in a public, and highly-publicized case, are under no such limitations, and that goes both ways, either pushing the envelope for a cop against a citizen, or vice versa. For instance, it would not be unusual for a judge to disallow the picture into evidence that Hawkeye638 posted to establish the purpose for which he posted it - that being - that the pic itself does anything to establish that Castile had a gun in his lap when he was stopped, or when he was approached by the cop at his driver's side window. The judge would listen to arguments outside the presence of the jury to determine the probative value vs. the prejudicial value of allowing a witness to testify that he can see a weapon in that picture. It is beyond obvious to this observer that no such conclusion can validly be claimed, therefore, the picture should be disallowed because of its prejudicial value far outweighing any probative value it may contain.

On the other hand, We, The People who happen to be scrutinizing such craptastic proffers of "evidence," have every right and reason to conclude that the person promulgating it as establishing a fact that cannot be discerned from simply viewing the picture is unworthy of our lending credibility to anything they say subsequently. Regardless of Hawkeye638's impressive resume in law enforcement that he seems to think ought to establish him as some kind of expert sufficient to overcome what our own lyin' eyes tell us about that picture, it doesn't work that way. Objective people take what all parties to a given incident have to say at face value until clear and convincing evidence sufficient to disprove what they say comes out, and those objective people then either adjust their view of the incident, or begin to form a view that they purposely refrained from doing until one side or the other's story was substantiated with emerging information.

The friend-girl's excited and spontaneous utterances after she turned the camera on are every bit as worthy of consideration as the cop's utterances on the same recording. My considered opinion is that both peoples' spontaneous utterances on-scene are more credible than the cop's subsequent statements contained in a police report some hours later. She said on the recording that he told the cop he had a permission slip and a weapon. He yelled at one point something to the effect of, "I told him not to reach for it!" She said in response something to the effect of, "You told him to get his license and registration and that's what he was reaching for, Sir." He did not refute that claim on-scene, on-camera. Nothing in the public domain at this time refutes anything she said, but a copy of a letter from the issuing authority for that jurisdiction released by Castile's family acknowledging that Castile did indeed have a permission slip in response to the cop-shop saying publicly they had no indication that he did, definitely does refute that lie that was made in order to sway public opinion towards the cop-shop's predictable position that the shooting was justified simply on the basis that he was armed. Assuming that the gun that is reported to have been on-scene did indeed belong to Castile, that justifies nothing in and of itself.

As citizens not under the control of a judge during a trial that will likely never, ever happen, we are not under any obligation to keep an open mind when the cop's side of the story has already been shown to contain lies. That you overlook the lie that the cop-shop has been shown to have spewed doesn't do much to strengthen the notion that you are being objective. You're only being objective to the extent that all cops are "objective" to - that is - never accept a position stated by a citizen as being objective, knowledgeable, logical and reasonable that isn't full-fledged on the side of cops.

You don't come across nearly as objective as you like to think you do.

Blues
Click to expand...
Well said, you sound like an attorney. Everyone has their biases and I am working on them now. It would be nice if we all believe things the same way but that would be way too strange and this world would be so boring, right.

The thing is that my post was meant to point out that we are all human with feeling, emotions, and failings. Too many people will lie to stay out of trouble or promote a their view of an issue or incident. That's why we use reasonable suspicion and probable cause in to prosecute violations of law.

I will work harder on the bias thing. Thanks

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 217 (members: 0, guests: 217)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top