No charges to be filed in charlotte police shooting

Sorry but there was no actual evidece that the victim was pointing a gun at the police. You should know that at least.

And now you are advocating that the police have a right to kill anyone that the police claim disobeyed an order?

 

But Hillary Clinton tried to play it to the bone and tell the black people she was pandering to, after this shooting, that she will reach out to whites about their racism.

 

When you're a threat to everyone around you because you have a firearm (that you can't legally have because you're a felon) that you've been told over and over to drop and have refused to do so, yes, an execution if that's what you wanna call it, is fine. Better him than an innocent bystander.

 

The Facts:

Scott was a convicted felon.
Scott had a loaded firearm.
The firearm can be connected to Scott.
His wife knew he had the firearm.
The police can be heard in multiple videos telling Scott to put the weapon down.

 

So you are another person who can't be bothered to look at the videos made by the police !

- - - Updated - - -

Those facts are from your link and have nothing to do with your assertion that he pointed a gun at the LEOs!

- - - Updated - - -

He was in his car ! Violent? He was so slow and struggling to stay up right after obeying the police command of get out of the car!

- - - Updated - - -

At the time of his death no one knew he was a felon.

 

There are no videos showing his arms at his side

 

The dude at OSU was in his car, also not threatening anyone.

Until he ran a bunch of people over.

 

And millions of people own cars

 

Never said it for a fact that he did and your last line is just utter nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

I never asserted it so you are just full of it.. I was debating your lack of knowledge of laws and you have yet to display you can learn.

 

It's your assertion they should be arrested not mine, why should they be arrested?

 

Like a child that doesnt get ice cream. "I HATE YOU!" screamed at their parents.

In order to get due process and be considered innocent, you first have to follow authority instructions and then the justice system provides for those rights.

Simply not complying, and attempting to be provided those rights to a trial by a cop on the streets gets you shot.

Its the dame thing over and over and over, and clearly people like you can grasp the concept.

Shut your mouth, do what your told, and have your day in court. It isnt complicated at all.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Do they refute it? And we have the audio on the video which supports their statements to investigators.

By whom and based on what evidence?

What story from whom? A link with a quote please.

 

So you did not and have not listened to the DA's presentation of the evidence and the law yet come here to debate those of us who did and can only ask specious questions.

How typical of these events.

 

He wasn't shot simply because he had been sitting in his car prior to getting out. Are you really this ignorant of the facts?

 

The DA fully went through the law and the events never claiming that any officer was looking straight the barrel and how there is no requirement they are before they can use deadly force. As be notes test show that if the officer waits until the suspect begins to raise the waepon it will be a the at best.

Why are your arguing a specious point.

 

Are you kidding??? Even when a black cop kills a black thug with a loaded pistol, screams of racist whites echo across the country. I heard his lawyer talking about how NC is a concealed carry state but fails to mention that the guy was a felon.

 

You can stop playing coy anytime now. It's extremely simple to understand that it's highly likely the guy was pointing a gun at the police, or at least brandishing it. They wouldn't scream "drop the gun" over and over if he wasn't holding a gun or something that looks just like one.

 

lol. Just say it. You said "pointed gun LEO". YOU said it, in previous threads as well. Like I said, we won't agree that it was justified. End of story.

BUT YOU CLAIMED HE POINTED THE GUN.

Eat. Crow.

 

I did not say they should be arrested. I wrote "why have these people not been shot or told "put your guns down"?

 

I didn't say they did. But when they saw the drugs and the weapon he became a criminal suspect and then he became a criminal suspect holding g a weapon in a threatening manner who was refusing to drop it.

What I said is you are arguimg for a criminal, are you denying he was a criminal before and committed crimes at this scene?

AND the salient thing is you have enter here without even educating yourself on the facts nor listened to the DA explain them and then applied the facts to the law.

 

The fact that he was a felon was not known at the time he was killed.

 

Why should they, that would happen if they were being placed under arrest, are they being put under arrest?

 

Not a single person in any of these pictures has their finger on the trigger.

 

That's why I put it in parentheses. It was an important piece after the fact. They didn't know he was a convicted felon for shooting at someone in the past either, but it goes to show the kind of person he was. With those two facts, it's hard to believe the cops are lying when they say he was pointing a weapon at them, no?

 

Yes, that's correct. He was in possession of a firearm which he couldn't legally be in possession of. Why, in your opinion, would you carry a weapon on you if you can't legally have one? Especially in the city. You're not looking to shoot your next meal. So why in the world would you even need one? The point I'm trying to make is that if this guy would have followed the rules by not carrying a firearm illegally, he'd be alive right now.