No charges to be filed in charlotte police shooting

I see you are obsessed with trying to bait me instead of dealing with the topic. I said no such thing for the last time. If you want another reply to sate your obsession admit you are not being truthful..

 

Ah yes... because you don't like the arguments,... just run and hide.

 

You didnt argue anything you made things up... I'm right here anytime you want to debate the topic.. Try it.

 

No audio tape supports the version that he was even holding a gun.

The witnesses.

It's the freaking account of the officers.
How about you learn about this story?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-fatal-encounter-between-police-keith-n653426

Putney said Thursday that the videos he has seen don't show "absolute, definitive, visual evidence" that Scott pointed a gun at the officers.

And things never changed from that.
The cops have no evidence he was holding on to a gun, or even pointed one at them.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlotte-shooting-video-footage-shows-fatal-encounter-between-police-keith-n653426

Putney said Thursday that the videos he has seen don't show "absolute, definitive, visual evidence" that Scott pointed a gun at the officers.

And things never changed from that.
The cops have no evidence he was holding on to a gun, or even pointed one at them.

 

Sep 23 2016, 7:23 pm ET

Its not September now is it?

So his wife was lying when she claimed he was holding something? And i already showed you he didnt have to point the gun at the officers to be seen as a threat. So you lose on both counts... Keep trying though!

 

No having a gun isnt merit for execution. What a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts. You do that alot.

But refusal to put the gun down when lawfully told to,which is what happened, IS justification to be shot. And if you die from being shot, that is your own fault.

I know you "feel" differently. And you can choose to "feel" whatever way you want, but the facts, reason, and logic, disagree with you.

 

Holding the gun and refusing to put it down when officers tell you IS a threat. You can disagree. But you are wrong. This was justified. You and supabadbrotha simply dont like police.

 

The officer there can, by his testimony. He is not required to not shoot him because the video is hazy or unreliant and risk being shot himself. Hence, your opinion is obsolete.

 

That does not apply to the lawful order of being told to put it down. If you cannot understand why, then you are simply beyond reason.

- - - Updated - - -

By not putting down the weapon he was aggressive.

Try again.

 

I didn't loose on any counts.
I claim the cops are unable to prove their side of the story.

 

He was in his car with a gun in an ankle holster. The police were in their car so could not see anything on his lap or seat or anywhere else below eye level. Others walk around North Carolina open carrying and they are not asked to put down their gun. Who is the biggest threat? At the time of his death, the police did not know that he was illegally carrying so that is a non-issue.

Who were they staking out? Did he look like Scott? (questions just to put out there )

 

Upon making contact with him, which they are allowed to do, he is required to put down the gun if he decides he wants to hold it and they instruct him to do so. All of your points are non issues. Its not illegal for them to make contact with anyone for any reason. And upon making contact with him he is legally required to put down the gun if instructed to do so, not doing so is a threat. Therefore, his death is on him. The most blatantly justified shooting we have had in awhile.

 

Oh yes it does.

So you didn't listen to the DA's statements about the so-called witnesses who admitted to investigators they saw nothing.

Or the wife who lied to the police about he had not gun and had not had a gun since he had committed and was found guilty of a felony, nothing she says is credible.

So what exactly refutes their statements to investigators.

So what, their sworn statements are to be taken as truthful until refuted by evidence not your hatred of them. The evidence is overwhelming it was a lawful shoot.

What am I missing exactly?

 

Ahhh be careful before you assign positions to people, I disagree with each the posters I quoted and copies their last statements there so we could continue to debate them in this thread on those issues they were addressing there.

Super probably spewed out his milk when he read "You and supabadbrotha"

 

He is not required to even be aggressive in order for someone to use deadly force to stop him. Only appear to turning aggressive and an imminent threat of using deadly force against someone. The DA applied the facts to the law that was clearly shown.

- - - Updated - - -

And then he got out and that is when by his own actions he suffered his own demise.

 

The evidence did they are not required to prove anything and there was no evidence to refute the fact it was a lawful shooting. The witnesses lied including the wife and THEY are the ones who should be facing the charges.

16 career prosecutors reviewed the evidence and the decision was unanimous.

 

That is being disputed and also not good enough to go beyond a doubt that the victim is some gun slinging criminal.
That is just the way it is. They got body camera's for a reason, you know.

 

Yeah well. Instances where a cop murders an unarmed person in the middle of the streets and getting away with it are a dime a dozen, leaving the community paying millions in damages. And it still remains that the cops can not prove their side of the story despite all the camera's that are around.

 

I don't see an example of whatever you claim you were talking about.

Whatever the state law deems is the punishment for making a false statement.

She should be charged for making a false statement if that is the case.

You were just defending a cop who was fired for excessive force and making a false police report.

 

People don't get convicted because there weren't enough camera's around. As the DA laid it out, the evidence is overwhelming it was a lawful shoot. Trying to conflate it to other asserted shootings not only would not hold up in court and makes you look vindictive without cause.

 

You what quote and since I already posted one from you I directed you to look above, if you are too lazy to do that not my problem.

What do YOU believe should be the punishment, cat got your tongue?

And should she go to jail?

Where did I support such actions, if what you say is true he was punished, end of story. Which officier?

 

It's always disputed. Ignorant people dispute truth constantly. And body camera's aren't always perfect, the idea the person is innocent despite what officers and the investigation revealed simply because there is no undisputable video showing him armed with a gun is a simple tons viewpoint. You simply dislike authority. That much is clear.

This is a very justified shooting

 

There is and was no evidence other than the officers testimony. Period! If you got it present it otherwise stop making stuff up.

 

There is also the gun found at the scene, loaded, with his fingerprints.