No charges to be filed in charlotte police shooting

Are you just being argumentative, it does not matter if he was merely holding it or already pointing pointing it. The police do not have to wait until he is pointing it after they have determined he is being aggressive, acting dangerously and is refusing multiple commands to drop the weapon.

 

Kenneth Williams, a professor at the Houston College of Law and an expert on police use of force, said the key fact from the video footage was that it appeared Scott ignored commands from officers to drop a weapon.

That meant Scott did not have to raise a gun or point the weapon to be considered an imminent threat, Williams said.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...-protests/article117921218.html#storylink=cpy

Actually no it is the same. Justified shooting.. Get over it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes instead of discussing what happened they are playing stupid games.

 

Police have more sway in self defense then the average citizen. This needs to be changed. It's absurd that police can just shoot people who are armed when the constitution explicitly states we have a right to keep and BEAR arms.

 

LOL yea right ! Why bring it up then? Instead of looking like a fool, you could have just said that you were wrong and then move on.

Further, why have these people not been shot or told "put your guns down"? Some actually have their fingers on triggers!

 

As the DA pointed out the difference is they are required to move forward and disarm and arrest the person, they cannot flee. It is absurd the police cannot defend themselves? Are you not aware tbr police can order you to drop your weapon as they attempt to arrest you? Who is being absurd?

 

He was in his car when the police approached! No aggression involved

 

Why should they arrested?

- - - Updated - - -

And then.....

You guys come here to argue for the criminal who was killed and to try and attack the police yet you did not even educate yourself on the events nor listened to the DA laying out all the evidence and the events and the law.

 

Explain the difference then.

 

When did they find out he was a criminal?

 

LAwful orders exist sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Who are they threatening and did any of them disobey a lawful order? If no and no they its a moot point and you are yet again playing stupid race card games.

 

Just like " hands up don't shoot". Lies to riot on.

- - - Updated - - -

Unbelievable comment.

- - - Updated - - -

And this was the best event the left could come up with to try and get out the black vote, another fail.

 

In laying out a timeline of the shooting, he said officers were staked out in the parking lot of Scott’s apartment complex looking for a suspect in an unrelated case. They saw Scott pull in, then leave.

Murray then showed a surveillance video from a nearby 7-Eleven store of Scott walking in. Murray said there was a bulge clearly visible at the right ankle where Scott holstered his gun.

Then, Murray said, Scott returned to the parking lot next to the officers, hollowed the tobacco out of a cigarello and began stuffing what appeared to be marijuana into it from a pill bottle.

Only when Vinson saw Scott hold up a semi-automatic pistol did officers decide to confront him, Murray said. Vinson and another officer drove away, put on tactical vests labeled “Police” and called for other officers to help them and a marked police SUV with a uniformed officer.

When they arrived, they blocked Scott’s SUV and called on him to come out, then told him at least 10 times to drop the gun, Murray said.

“Mr. Scott did not comply with those commands,” Murray said.

Scott held the gun in his hand, though he didn’t raise it, Murray said. Officers said in interviews with investigators that Scott appeared to have a blank stare and was in a trance-like state, Murray said.

Vinson fired four shots, wounding Scott three times. When Scott fell, his gun landed near his waist and one of the officers pushed it away from him, then stood over it, Murray said.
Gun is key fact

Robert Taylor, a professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas and a former police officer in Portland, Ore, said clearing Vinson of any criminal wrongdoing in the shooting was an easy call.

A person with a gun under those circumstances is a danger to officers and the public, Taylor said. “This is pretty cut and dry,” he said.



Kenneth Williams, a professor at the Houston College of Law and an expert on police use of force, said the key fact from the video footage was that it appeared Scott ignored commands from officers to drop a weapon.

That meant Scott did not have to raise a gun or point the weapon to be considered an imminent threat, Williams said.

“I find it hard to believe a jury of 12 people would convict an officer under those circumstances,” Williams said. “The prosecutor is in a difficult position. Juries give police the benefit of the doubt.”
Legal boundaries

North Carolina law allows the use of lethal force by police “only when it appears reasonably necessary ... to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.”

One of the clarifying gauges: Would another “reasonable officer” in the same situation act the same way?

The so-called “objective reasonableness” standard used in courtrooms originated from a Charlotte excessive force case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s. It asks jurors to assess an officer’s conduct on one key factor: Given the same set of circumstances, would reasonable officers react the same way?

N.C.’s Basic Law Enforcement Training Manual says elements of “objective reasonableness” include the capability of a subject’s ability to carry out the threat of deadly force, whether the threat is imminent and whether the subject has indicated by word or deed that he intends to cause harm.

Criminal charges against police officers related to on-duty shootings are rare. In 2013, Officer Wes Kerrick was arrested and charged with voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of Jonathan Ferrell, an unarmed African-American man.

Then-police chief Rodney Monroe argued that there was no evidence of malice on Kerrick’s part, ruling out a murder or a stronger manslaughter count. Kerrick used bad judgment and excessive force in defending himself, but did not have any premeditation, Monroe said.

Kerrick’s 2015 trial ended with a deadlocked jury that had voted 8-4 for acquittal. Earlier, the city of Charlotte had paid a $2.25 million settlement to Ferrell’s family.


Vinson, who fired the shots, was immediately put on administrative leave, which is routine in such cases.

Vinson, 26, was in plain clothes but wore a vest that identified him as a police officer. He joined CMPD in 2014 and was assigned to the Metro Division. At the time of the shooting, he had no disciplinary actions on his personnel record.

Vinson played football for Ardrey Kell High School and was an all-conference safety and wide receiver in his junior year. He missed playing his senior year because of injury.









Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...-protests/article117921218.html#storylink=cpy

 

Scott was in his car = not threatening anyone

 

Fact remains the cop claim something as in he was pointing a gun, but they are not able to prove that he was pointing a gun or even was holding on to a gun at that time. And I suggest if you got something to dispute about this, than you go and say that and source it.

 

So he was stuffing what appeared to be marijuana while pointing a gun at the cops. I didn't know he had 3 hands. Besides nothing of the sort is supported by the video's that are around.

 

See post 62.. You have no clue what happened as displayed by your replies and lack of debate.

- - - Updated - - -

Not what that says stop playing stupid games or is that all that is left now?

 

Not illegal in Charlotte.

If the LEOs were in their car, how could they see into his car him "hollowed the tobacco out of a cigarello and began stuffing what appeared to be marijuana into it from a pill bottle." - it would be on his lap. Or are they saying he was outside of his car at the time he allegedly held up his pistol which means that after rolling his cig he then reaches down to his ankle and pulls out his gun which he then holds up to them.

 

Evidence?

 

Oh wonderful you now admit things happened that you had no idea of.... And you claimed i didnt know this case? Again laughable. Face it some of you only care about the race of the man shot and not how or why it happened.

 

Just admit it. YOU were wrong in claiming he pointed the gun at the LEO's.

I want to see you post this exactly.

"I was wrong, he didn't point the gun at them."

 

Again -

This is all you have to say.

"I was wrong, he didn't point the gun at the LEO's."

I don't care that it didn't matter, we're never going to agree it was a justifiable shooting. We're past that.

I want you to ADMIT you ERRONEOUSLY asserted this guy pointed the gun at the officers.

 

When did i state as a fact that he pointed the gun at them .. And why does this matter as i have shown that in this case it did not matter.. That is not my opinion that comes from an expert in the field that has no connection to the case ( you would know this if you would bother to read the information provided when you claim i provide nothing)..

This coming from the guy that said "(*)(*)(*)(*) America".. drop it man you are wrong.. Clearly wrong and you have nothing but games.

Again

Kenneth Williams, a professor at the Houston College of Law and an expert on police use of force, said the key fact from the video footage was that it appeared Scott ignored commands from officers to drop a weapon.

That meant Scott did not have to raise a gun or point the weapon to be considered an imminent threat, Williams said.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...-protests/article117921218.html#storylink=cpy

 

You don't think it is rather crucial element that despite all the video's that are around from different angles, than none of them are able to prove the story the cops made? A story that is disputed. Besides it is rather weird to hear a story that one was making a "stuffing what appeared to be marijuana" while refusing to drop a gun. Such a scenario takes 3 hands.

 

Again not what they said.. you want me to debate your spin? No thanks.

 

A large, tough lunatic with a gun that would not comply with orders at gunpoint. Justice was served.

Live bullets are the very best way to stop the threat, not rubber bullets.

How would you, personally deal with violent demented cage fighter coming after you and your family?

Waring, graphic content!

[video=youtube;0FOJ35fymAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FOJ35fymAE[/video]