newyorknewyork wrote:

Rookie wrote:You wan't to talk about social issues, but your day didn't end with you laying face down in a parking lot in a pool of your own blood. Your day had a perfect ending and it is no accident. The underlying social issues that placed Scott in that parking with a gun and narcotics in a state of mind where he was unresponsive to police is the issue that no one is talking about. It is not just a black thing, it is a white thing also. Black people do not have a monopoly on unemployment, substance abuse and hopelessness. It is an American problem.

Let's just follow a hypothetical here. Let's assume what Scott's wife said is true, that they were picking up their kid at the school bus stop. How does rolling up and smoking a blunt in the car set up the rest of the day for success? Were they then planning to head to the park and have some family activity before heading home to supervise a school study and homework session while the adults prepare a family meal? Then maybe some productive family free time before heading to bed because everyone is up early the next day since it's a weeknight and everyone has school and work in the morning?

Nix, you should be asking why your perfect day was no accident. The choices you made that led to this perfect ending of family bliss, and not just the choices you made that day but likely for your entire life.

Unemployment, hopelessness, lack of education (by choice and laziness), drug addiction and generally having nothing productive to do on a daily basis leads to bad endings. What happens to the children growing up in these homes? It's a never ending cycle and it's a lot easier to blame the world instead of taking personal responsibility for those making bad choices and creating a home environment where their kids can't flourish.

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:At least they can't blame white people for this one. Oh wait some already did.

This country needs a complete overhaul. Start over from scatch

Jeez dude, relax. Why are your reactions so catastrophic?

Sometimes we need to step back and keep things in perspective. I spent today with my wife, sons, daughter in law and grandson. It was a beautiful sunny day. We went out and ate, shopped, played... gave little man a bath. Put him to bed. Perfect day.

Non of the choices he made in this instance based of the information that we know at this moment should have lead to his death.

That makes sense if you do not trust the police version that he was holding a gun. If in fact he was holding a gun and chose not to drop it, then that was a choice that led to his death.

And to address your other point, living in the south and being more exposed to guns and gun culture has given me a different perspective on the use of deadly force. When selecting the caliber of a handgun, people will discuss stopping power and how certain caliber weapons will not stop a person who is high on meth. They will continue to come at you until they are put down. They will also refer to the time it takes for a person to close the distance between them and you if they are charging towards you and the time it takes to discharge a weapon if that person does have one. We are talking seconds here to make life altering decisions.

Nix works with individuals, but also sees the big picture. Like you said, it's a cycle that isn't entirely under an individual's control.

DrAlphaeus wrote:To be fair, it is usually on people who have been more fortunate and successful like nix to stand up for those less fortunate. If you are trapped inside a frame — whether created by others or your own choosing — you can't see the bigger picture like someone who was able to escape or avoid being trapped in the first place.

Nix works with individuals, but also sees the big picture. Like you said, it's a cycle that isn't entirely under an individual's control.

I wasn't trying to single out Nix. I addressed him and quoted him because he looked like he had the most rounded opinion and experiences relevant to the conversation. I was only trying to direct the conversation towards the underlying social issues that no one seems to want to discuss in the media.

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:I saw the video of the North Carolina shooting..I didn't see a gun but Lamont Scott looked like he had a gun, he was walking like he was holding a gun..He simple didn't look like a person backing away from a conflict...He had an object in his right hand. I can't fault the police here...

His main flaw was not coming out with his hands up and attempting to slowly lay on the ground. I can't speak for the officers but I don't feel that he presented any real tldanger to them. Their were multiple officers. They had taken cover behind their vehicles. The man walked out of the car like they requested. When he turned his head to witness all the different officers present is when they took him as a threat. With all that said was there a need for the multiple guns shots with the shoot to kill mentality? Would a shoulder/leg shot not be a more appropriate action in this instance?

If he had a gun in his hand then this is all moot...Dude had a gun holster around his left ankle around his white socks, I saw it, I slowed, froze, the frame from the police body cam...If he had a gun in his hands, all bets are off...Look at the police officer's point of view..You told him to drop the gun several times, he got out the car with gun in hand and moved around in a manner not to resolve the conflict..Be reasonable...

NC is an open carry state. So the main question is if he had a gun in his hand as he came out of the car. Which even after all this still isn't clear for some reason. He was an open target for multiple police officers who we all behind cover. And while his head and body turned he was shot while never even attempting to move his arms. I can't tell you what was going through his head. He was either looking for conflicted which he had no way out of but death. Or he was scared out of his mind and reacted poorly which resulted in his death. At the end of the day police had way more control over the situation and his life then he ever had over theirs.

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:I saw the video of the North Carolina shooting..I didn't see a gun but Lamont Scott looked like he had a gun, he was walking like he was holding a gun..He simple didn't look like a person backing away from a conflict...He had an object in his right hand. I can't fault the police here...

His main flaw was not coming out with his hands up and attempting to slowly lay on the ground. I can't speak for the officers but I don't feel that he presented any real tldanger to them. Their were multiple officers. They had taken cover behind their vehicles. The man walked out of the car like they requested. When he turned his head to witness all the different officers present is when they took him as a threat. With all that said was there a need for the multiple guns shots with the shoot to kill mentality? Would a shoulder/leg shot not be a more appropriate action in this instance?

If he had a gun in his hand then this is all moot...Dude had a gun holster around his left ankle around his white socks, I saw it, I slowed, froze, the frame from the police body cam...If he had a gun in his hands, all bets are off...Look at the police officer's point of view..You told him to drop the gun several times, he got out the car with gun in hand and moved around in a manner not to resolve the conflict..Be reasonable...

NC is an open carry state. So the main question is if he had a gun in his hand as he came out of the car. Which even after all this still isn't clear for some reason. He was an open target for multiple police officers who we all behind cover. And while his head and body turned he was shot while never even attempting to move his arms. I can't tell you what was going through his head. He was either looking for conflicted which he had no way out of but death. Or he was scared out of his mind and reacted poorly which resulted in his death. At the end of the day police had way more control over the situation and his life then he ever had over theirs.

I don't understand the argument if he had a gun in his hands then we need to examine his mental state or wait to see if he raises and fire or he is reacting poorly to commands...All that is just crazy to me..Everyone is trying to get home to their family. If I'm a police officer, I'm not trying to find out if his bullets can pierce the car I'm trying to hide behind or if he is upset or medicated etc...If you have a gun in hand and you refuse to drop it and you are backtracking like some one in combat then all bets are off...Put yourself in the situation, If you had a gun and think you life is in danger and the other person has a gun, are you going to shoot him in the leg and see what happens next??

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:I saw the video of the North Carolina shooting..I didn't see a gun but Lamont Scott looked like he had a gun, he was walking like he was holding a gun..He simple didn't look like a person backing away from a conflict...He had an object in his right hand. I can't fault the police here...

His main flaw was not coming out with his hands up and attempting to slowly lay on the ground. I can't speak for the officers but I don't feel that he presented any real tldanger to them. Their were multiple officers. They had taken cover behind their vehicles. The man walked out of the car like they requested. When he turned his head to witness all the different officers present is when they took him as a threat. With all that said was there a need for the multiple guns shots with the shoot to kill mentality? Would a shoulder/leg shot not be a more appropriate action in this instance?

If he had a gun in his hand then this is all moot...Dude had a gun holster around his left ankle around his white socks, I saw it, I slowed, froze, the frame from the police body cam...If he had a gun in his hands, all bets are off...Look at the police officer's point of view..You told him to drop the gun several times, he got out the car with gun in hand and moved around in a manner not to resolve the conflict..Be reasonable...

NC is an open carry state. So the main question is if he had a gun in his hand as he came out of the car. Which even after all this still isn't clear for some reason. He was an open target for multiple police officers who we all behind cover. And while his head and body turned he was shot while never even attempting to move his arms. I can't tell you what was going through his head. He was either looking for conflicted which he had no way out of but death. Or he was scared out of his mind and reacted poorly which resulted in his death. At the end of the day police had way more control over the situation and his life then he ever had over theirs.

I don't understand the argument if he had a gun in his hands then we need to examine his mental state or wait to see if he raises and fire or he is reacting poorly to commands...All that is just crazy to me..Everyone is trying to get home to their family. If I'm a police officer, I'm not trying to find out if his bullets can pierce the car I'm trying to hide behind or if he is upset or medicated etc...If you have a gun in hand and you refuse to drop it and you are backtracking like some one in combat then all bets are off...Put yourself in the situation, If you had a gun and think you life is in danger and the other person has a gun, are you going to shoot him in the leg and see what happens next??

I keep thinking back and forth on this and it's hard to really take clear position. Openly carrying a gun around is completely legal in NC. This person like everyone else knows the police are probably going to shoot and kill him in this situation based on the history of several such shootings this year. Right or wrong what do you expect him to do? If he complies and they still shoot him he didn't give himself a fighting chance. This is the dilemma created in people's mind by unchecked police brutality.

Also it's a failure of the gun laws that allow people to openly carry but doesn't provide the police with proper protocol for deescalating.

I have a concealed weapons license. At no time in my life have I or will I, take it out during a traffic stop, hold it in my hand, then refuse to drop it when asked by several police officers. And you should "expect" everyone in their right mind to do the same. However, I do agree that the process for obtaining a gun is way too easy and needs stricter requirements. It is a sad commentary that it is easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. Also, police have a ridiculously hard job, but there needs to be more training on how to defuse a situation. Some of these shootings are clearly showing certain officers are just not ready for the stress of a life or death situation.

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:I've watched the videos over and over again and I don't see the point at which Scott directly threatened any of the cops. He wasn't even looking at the cop that shot him and none of the other cops fired their guns. IMO it was a tense situation but had not reached the point where he needed to be shot. He was not pointing the gun at anyone.

It also bothers me that they had to surround Scott just cuz they saw a gun. I'm in Walmart and guys are walking around with guns. There are hunters walking around with rifles here too. What was the particular threat with a guy chilling in his car smoking a blunt even if they did see him with a gun. I actually don't believe they saw the gun initially. Doesn't make sense to light up a blunt and also be holding a gun as you're waiting on your kids and your wife to come back to the car. Why would he unholster his gun from his ankle just to sit in his car smoking?

I think if he did have the gun, he took the gun out after the cops surrounded him. I of course don't know this as fact. It just seems more logical to me.

So if you were a cop and a guy smoking a blunt gets out of the car with gun in hand after you repeatedly tell him to drop that gun..You would wait until he points the gun to you before you decide to take action??

Still don't get why they have to be kill shots. Why not shoot him once to drop him? Why not stun him ... I don't get why we have a system that its either kill or nothing. How hard would it be to put a system or weapon in place that incapacitates but does not kill?

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:I've watched the videos over and over again and I don't see the point at which Scott directly threatened any of the cops. He wasn't even looking at the cop that shot him and none of the other cops fired their guns. IMO it was a tense situation but had not reached the point where he needed to be shot. He was not pointing the gun at anyone.

It also bothers me that they had to surround Scott just cuz they saw a gun. I'm in Walmart and guys are walking around with guns. There are hunters walking around with rifles here too. What was the particular threat with a guy chilling in his car smoking a blunt even if they did see him with a gun. I actually don't believe they saw the gun initially. Doesn't make sense to light up a blunt and also be holding a gun as you're waiting on your kids and your wife to come back to the car. Why would he unholster his gun from his ankle just to sit in his car smoking?

I think if he did have the gun, he took the gun out after the cops surrounded him. I of course don't know this as fact. It just seems more logical to me.

So if you were a cop and a guy smoking a blunt gets out of the car with gun in hand after you repeatedly tell him to drop that gun..You would wait until he points the gun to you before you decide to take action??

Still don't get why they have to be kill shots. Why not shoot him once to drop him? Why not stun him ... I don't get why we have a system that its either kill or nothing. How hard would it be to put a system or weapon in place that incapacitates but does not kill?

Officers have more weapons than their guns. But you want the officer to disuse a situation where they believe a gun is involved by using a weapon less deadly than the one they are facing? That makes no sense at all.

How about if they shot him and put him down and out for 10 minutes so they can disarm him? Maybe there is nothing good enough on the market right now to do this but there should be. It would save lots of lives. Also, why so many shots? Are they nervous that if they don't kill him he will shoot back?

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:I've watched the videos over and over again and I don't see the point at which Scott directly threatened any of the cops. He wasn't even looking at the cop that shot him and none of the other cops fired their guns. IMO it was a tense situation but had not reached the point where he needed to be shot. He was not pointing the gun at anyone.

It also bothers me that they had to surround Scott just cuz they saw a gun. I'm in Walmart and guys are walking around with guns. There are hunters walking around with rifles here too. What was the particular threat with a guy chilling in his car smoking a blunt even if they did see him with a gun. I actually don't believe they saw the gun initially. Doesn't make sense to light up a blunt and also be holding a gun as you're waiting on your kids and your wife to come back to the car. Why would he unholster his gun from his ankle just to sit in his car smoking?

I think if he did have the gun, he took the gun out after the cops surrounded him. I of course don't know this as fact. It just seems more logical to me.

So if you were a cop and a guy smoking a blunt gets out of the car with gun in hand after you repeatedly tell him to drop that gun..You would wait until he points the gun to you before you decide to take action??

Still don't get why they have to be kill shots. Why not shoot him once to drop him? Why not stun him ... I don't get why we have a system that its either kill or nothing. How hard would it be to put a system or weapon in place that incapacitates but does not kill?

If you are a cop and some has a gun then you aren't going to pull out a stun gun...Cops are trained to shoot for the torso, not sure why but a friend who is in that line of work told me they are trained to hit the torso twice then re-evaluate, then another two shots if necessary then re-evaluate...

HofstraBBall wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

holfresh wrote:I saw the video of the North Carolina shooting..I didn't see a gun but Lamont Scott looked like he had a gun, he was walking like he was holding a gun..He simple didn't look like a person backing away from a conflict...He had an object in his right hand. I can't fault the police here...

His main flaw was not coming out with his hands up and attempting to slowly lay on the ground. I can't speak for the officers but I don't feel that he presented any real tldanger to them. Their were multiple officers. They had taken cover behind their vehicles. The man walked out of the car like they requested. When he turned his head to witness all the different officers present is when they took him as a threat. With all that said was there a need for the multiple guns shots with the shoot to kill mentality? Would a shoulder/leg shot not be a more appropriate action in this instance?

If he had a gun in his hand then this is all moot...Dude had a gun holster around his left ankle around his white socks, I saw it, I slowed, froze, the frame from the police body cam...If he had a gun in his hands, all bets are off...Look at the police officer's point of view..You told him to drop the gun several times, he got out the car with gun in hand and moved around in a manner not to resolve the conflict..Be reasonable...

NC is an open carry state. So the main question is if he had a gun in his hand as he came out of the car. Which even after all this still isn't clear for some reason. He was an open target for multiple police officers who we all behind cover. And while his head and body turned he was shot while never even attempting to move his arms. I can't tell you what was going through his head. He was either looking for conflicted which he had no way out of but death. Or he was scared out of his mind and reacted poorly which resulted in his death. At the end of the day police had way more control over the situation and his life then he ever had over theirs.

I don't understand the argument if he had a gun in his hands then we need to examine his mental state or wait to see if he raises and fire or he is reacting poorly to commands...All that is just crazy to me..Everyone is trying to get home to their family. If I'm a police officer, I'm not trying to find out if his bullets can pierce the car I'm trying to hide behind or if he is upset or medicated etc...If you have a gun in hand and you refuse to drop it and you are backtracking like some one in combat then all bets are off...Put yourself in the situation, If you had a gun and think you life is in danger and the other person has a gun, are you going to shoot him in the leg and see what happens next??

I keep thinking back and forth on this and it's hard to really take clear position. Openly carrying a gun around is completely legal in NC. This person like everyone else knows the police are probably going to shoot and kill him in this situation based on the history of several such shootings this year. Right or wrong what do you expect him to do? If he complies and they still shoot him he didn't give himself a fighting chance. This is the dilemma created in people's mind by unchecked police brutality.

Also it's a failure of the gun laws that allow people to openly carry but doesn't provide the police with proper protocol for deescalating.

I have a concealed weapons license. At no time in my life have I or will I, take it out during a traffic stop, hold it in my hand, then refuse to drop it when asked by several police officers. And you should "expect" everyone in their right mind to do the same. However, I do agree that the process for obtaining a gun is way too easy and needs stricter requirements. It is a sad commentary that it is easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. Also, police have a ridiculously hard job, but there needs to be more training on how to defuse a situation. Some of these shootings are clearly showing certain officers are just not ready for the stress of a life or death situation.

NC is open carry, so there's no reason for him to hide it. I don't know your ethnicity, but I can see why black people may justifiably fear for their life when surrounded by the police. If you think you are going to be shot (not sure how many points in your life you felt that) you too would try to defend yourself. This man had no idea if the police would let him live assuming he even had a gun in his hands. And when both your wife and the police are screaming different things at you, you can get easily confused in a very stressful situation. The man sitting in his car minding his own business and not breaking any laws, There was no "situation" till the Police went out of their way to create one.