Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The evidence seems to lean the opposite way of that assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
Mr. Scott did not help de-escalate the situation.
The evidence seems to support this assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
I believe both of these statements to be true. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course they're not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
Some seem set on proving that he should have been shot. Some of you are comfortable saying he deserved to die based on his past record and noncompliance at the crime scene. No kidding, "he wouldn't have been shot if...." you can play that game all day with the police too. I think it's irresponsible.
Yes, some absolutely do. Some others seem to very comfortable saying the police murdered him in cold blood then planted evidence and coerced testimony out of another person all in support of hiding their actions.
One seems slightly more irresponsible than the other, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
The facts of what actually happened are important to look for improvement, not hypotheticals. Not responding to a police officer, hands by your side, backing away, is not enough to justify lethal force.
If you're surrounded, backing away from one officer with a weapon in your hand (allegedly) is equivalent to moving toward another officer with a weapon in your hand(allegedly). The officer that fired the shots doesn't necessarily have to be the officer in the gravest danger.
In order for deadly force to be justified:
A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or
To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
I'm hoping for a time where we all consider how we can decrease the amount of unnecessary deaths in scenarios like these.
I'm sure the vast majority of us would like to see a large decrease in the amount of unnecessary deaths, LEOs included. Even if this is ruled a justified shooting, I'm sure it will affect Ofc. Vinson for the rest of his life. No one really "wins" in this scenario...
mention a gun.. but doesnt mean its the gun in question.She said it was a 9mm.
Keith Scott supposedly had a rare Colt Mustang II. A mousegun that is a collectors item.
Interesting how his wife reported a felon had a gun in 2015 and the cops didnt arrest him over it.
You're playing semantics. She didn't "report" the gun, she filed a restraining order mentioning the gun. Your issue in that regard is with the court, not LE.
I know you want to continue to find fault with the police, I get it. They are human and make mistakes. However, in this case you are stretching.
I'm curious on your opinion of the looting and general chaos in the name of BLM.
You're playing semantics. She didn't "report" the gun, she filed a restraining order mentioning the gun. Your issue in that regard is with the court, not LE.
I know you want to continue to find fault with the police, I get it. They are human and make mistakes. However, in this case you are stretching.
I'm curious on your opinion of the looting and general chaos in the name of BLM.
She mentioned a felon had a gun and nothing was done about it. Police and courts failed to address this so both are at fault.
and once again, it sure seems odd they found the guy who sold Scott the gun so fast. Awesome police work.
Mr. Scott should not have been shot.
Mr. Scott did not help de-escalate the situation.
I believe both of these statements to be true. They aren't mutually exclusive. Some seem set on proving that he should have been shot. Some of you are comfortable saying he deserved to die based on his past record and noncompliance at the crime scene. No kidding, "he wouldn't have been shot if...." you can play that game all day with the police too. I think it's irresponsible. The facts of what actually happened are important to look for improvement, not hypotheticals. Not responding to a police officer, hands by your side, backing away, is not enough to justify lethal force.
I'm hoping for a time where we all consider how we can decrease the amount of unnecessary deaths in scenarios like these.
Feel the same way. The fact things are not black and white are why policing is a dangerous profession. The guy was not following instructions, but had not actually done anything threatening. He deserved to hit with a nightstick or Tasered, not shot. Had they even tasered him and he died as a result, it would be 100% on him and not the cops fault. But unless he raised the gun, he didn't deserve to be shot. Doesn't mean he was a good guy or that people should burn it's down and break in and loot, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
