USA: Police footage of Charlotte shooting fails to resolve questions

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Seems to me that there must be a reason why the police are holding back, what FIVE other bodycam videos?

Which begs the obvious question: Why?

If they are on a sure footing, they can release them all can't they?

What are they hiding?

 

It is not mandatory for officers to wear bodycams and it was earlier stated not al officers were wearing one. 

 

Too bad because it would have further exonerated them. 

 

As it was there are three cameras (bodycam, dashboard cam, wifecam) and they provide ample evidence that Scott was armed, that the police gave Scott many opportunities to follow their instructions and that Scott continually ignored, and that his behavior was erratic.

[Chicog]

So we have seen all the footage available?

 

[ClutchClark]

Just now, Chicog said:

So we have seen all the footage available?

 

 

That is my understanding but someone will hopefully let us both know.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

So we have seen all the footage available?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37464614

 

Quote

Mr Putney said that the officer who shot Mr Scott was not wearing a bodycam, because not all Charlotte police tactical teams wore them.

 

Quote

Mr Putney said Mr Scott, 43, was in possession of marijuana and that he had committed another crime, which the police chief would not elaborate on.

 

He said that the officers who confronted Mr Scott were conducting surveillance when they spotted marijuana in the victim's car, and subsequently saw a gun.

 

In a video released on Friday, filmed by Mr Scott's wife, she can be heard telling officers repeatedly that he does not have a weapon.

 

Mr Putney said that the bodycam footage contained "no definitive visual evidence that he [Mr Scott] had a gun and pointed it at officers", but that police were satisfied he did.

 

[Chicog]

No we haven't.

 

Quote

But that cautious optimism turned to anger about 10 minutes later as protesters learned the police would not be releasing all of the video footage. Chief Putney said that while the information being released constituted “the most complete puzzle that we can without trying the case out in public,” he said that some unreleased videos showed only people driving to the scene. He also said that more footage would be released upon completion of an independent inquiry being conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation “and there has been a definitive decision on the part of the prosecutor.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/us/charlotte-police-videos-keith-scott.html?_r=0

Edited September 26, 2016 by Chicog

[stevenl]

48 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

That is my understanding but someone will hopefully let us both know.

No. We have only seen the footage that Charlotte police deemed most important.

[stevenl]

57 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Seems like the only kind of evidence that will satisfy you is if you can visibly see the gun in his hand. It might or might not come out in the future. The way the law is written is very clear and Mr. Scott was clearly in violation of numerous laws, not only local, but federal laws as well. 

 

Im not distracted from any issue other than what the law states, and what happened. None of this, and I mean none, would have happened if Mr. Scott was not breaking the law. Its not "Society" not the "Police" but Mr. Scott alone. If Mr. Scott was not visibly committing a crime, none of this would have happened. 

 

Any evidence would do. Right now we have no evidence he was holding a gun.

[Strange]

Just now, stevenl said:

Any evidence would do. Right now we have no evidence he was holding a gun.

Ok so what about in any other police shooting, and there were no body cams, and the shooting was justified? 

 

Its clear that you are unwilling to accept what the police say, and in lieu of police reports, the only evidence that will satisfy you is video/photographic evidence. 

 

I get it. You don't like it. But its the way it is. 

 

 

[ClutchClark]

17 minutes ago, Chicog said:

No we haven't.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/us/charlotte-police-videos-keith-scott.html?_r=0

 

This state,ent by police does not necessarily indocate there were additional cameras...only that all video footage has not been released. 

 

It sounds like they are describing additional dashcam footage if it includes traffic.

 

Either way, it will be released in time. 

 

As the CoP stated, this is not the way the American Justice System works--we do not try cases by public opinion but rather in a Court of Law. 

 

The video that has been released was an effort to get the rioters to disperse since it clearly shows Scott wearing an ankle holster and this refutes the claim by the family he does not have any guns and only carries books. The video dispells that family lie. The same lie that the wife repeats several times. 

 

It is already going to be hard enough to find a jury that has not been witness to these videos and has formed some kind of opinion.

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Ok so what about in any other police shooting, and there were no body cams, and the shooting was justified? 

 

Its clear that you are unwilling to accept what the police say, and in lieu of police reports, the only evidence that will satisfy you is video/photographic evidence. 

 

I get it. You don't like it. But its the way it is. 

 

 

Evidence has been produced that he had a gun and that it was in the car or on him. So far no evidence has been produced he was in possession of that gun when he was shot. Unless you can show me otherwise, you and many others are jumping to conclusions.

 

You clearly don't get it.

Edited September 26, 2016 by stevenl

[rockingrobin]

I think the following is a good summary

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

[ClutchClark]

18 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I think the following is a good summary

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

That is a good summary. Thanks.

 

Interesting that a wife would not know her husband owned a firearm when he was wearing an ankle holster and police witnessed him with a pistol. 

 

Maybe they are no longer living together? 

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Evidence has been produced that he had a gun and that it was in the car or on him. So far no evidence has been produced he was in possession of that gun when he was shot. Unless you can show me otherwise, you and many others are jumping to conclusions.

 

You clearly don't get it.

 

Stealing rockinrobin's link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

Quote

Chief Putney has flatly and repeatedly said that Mr. Scott had a gun, but he also acknowledged that no recording exists to definitively prove the department’s account.

 

Quote

Mr. Scott effectively forfeited his right to carry a gun in 2005, when he was convicted in the shooting of a man in San Antonio and sentenced to prison.

 

Quote

“If you see a person with drugs in one hand and a firearm in the other, I think that gives you a basis for thinking that a violation of federal law has occurred, and there might also be state crimes,” said Jeffrey B. Welty, an associate professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 

 

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Stealing rockinrobin's link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

 

In your link it also says that the officers did not know who they were dealing with. That makes the second of your statements immaterial.

 

Regarding the first: Putney was not there, all he has are the statements and videos we all have (sorry, not correct, he has more videos he is refusing to release). And those videos cast doubt on his officers statements.

Regarding the 3rd: yes, laws have been violated, so shoot the guy.

[thaihome]

I think a shooting such as this one in particular falls into the category of justified,  but avoidable.  

TH 

[Scotwight]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Evidence has been produced that he had a gun and that it was in the car or on him. So far no evidence has been produced he was in possession of that gun when he was shot. Unless you can show me otherwise, you and many others are jumping to conclusions.

 

You clearly don't get it.

Listening and watching the video he is told 5 times (I think 5 maybe more) to drop the gun and then you hear shots.  That would seem to me either the cops are brighter than 99% of the cops in the world and were planning a legal shooting scenario or they were just normal cops telling him to drop the gun and he didn't and they shot him.  I shout drop the gun 5 times and you don't - you get shot.  

 

Seriously why would the cops keep shouting drop the gun if he didn't have a gun?

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

In your link it also says that the officers did not know who they were dealing with. That makes the second of your statements immaterial.

 

Regarding the first: Putney was not there, all he has are the statements and videos we all have (sorry, not correct, he has more videos he is refusing to release). And those videos cast doubt on his officers statements.

Regarding the 3rd: yes, laws have been violated, so shoot the guy.

 

1) Putney has access to more details than us.

 

2) Just to be clear...it is a complete assumption on your part that the remaining videos "cast doubt on his officers statements".

 

3) When laws are violated that risk serious bodily injury to police or the public then It is an unwelcome part of the job to shoot the guy. 

 

Its interesting to me how the usual narrative surrounding white officers shooting black guys is racist has been adapted here to fit black officer shoots black guy. i would have thought a bit more solidarity with a black officer would have been in order. After all, Officer Vinson was born with the same oft-cited hardships always claimed for the black community but he grew up a contributing member of society. He did not go astray of the law, he went to college, he found a career path that allowed him to help others. There is nothing in Officer Vinson's history that should lead to anyone turning him into a villain and calling him a liar and executioner YET that is what many people are doing anyway. 

 

Why do so many people still call the police for assistance when they can apparently not be trusted at all? Maybe its time such people start calling BLM to place their lives on the line to help others as the police do every day.

[thaihome]

42 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

Listening and watching the video he is told 5 times (I think 5 maybe more) to drop the gun and then you hear shots.  That would seem to me either the cops are brighter than 99% of the cops in the world and were planning a legal shooting scenario or they were just normal cops telling him to drop the gun and he didn't and they shot him.  I shout drop the gun 5 times and you don't - you get shot.  

 

Seriously why would the cops keep shouting drop the gun if he didn't have a gun?

 

Well, the police did take the time to return to their cars (from a totally unrelated assignment ) and put on full tactical gear before going to roust him for smoking marijuana in his parked car on private property, so they were very prepared for a legal shooting.

TH 

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, thaihome said:

I think a shooting such as this one in particular falls into the category of justified,  but avoidable.  

TH 

 

So true...Scott had so many opportunities to turn this outcome around. 

 

But this guy appears to have tuened left every time he should have turned right many times in his life based on the decades of arrests and convictions on his record.

 

Take heart, the family will get far more from a settlement with the city now that he is dead than he ever would have earned in a job. 

[Ulic]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The fact that he had a gun and no book was found at the scene makes this look like yet another bogus Black Lives Matter issue.

You could well be right but any police officer  throwing down a drop gun would probably also pick up a book. His 14 previous arrests including  for having a hand gun (at least that is what I have read, I can only assume it is true) is what  exonerates police in this case for me. That said many, many innocent black men are killed by police and it is swept under the rug. This is probably not one of them. All police should have  body cameras. The technology is there, it should be used.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, thaihome said:

Well, the police did take the time to return to their cars (from a totally unrelated assignment ) and put on full tactical gear before going to roust him for smoking marijuana in his parked car on private property, so they were very prepared for a legal shooting.

TH 

 

Yeah don't take it out of context:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

Quote

Two officers with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department determined that Mr. Scott, 43, was a potential threat to public safety because they saw him with two items: what they believed was a marijuana cigarette and a gun, according to a statement released on Saturday by the department. The plainclothes officers, who had been near Mr. Scott’s home to serve a warrant on another person, first noticed Mr. Scott when he parked his S.U.V. next to their unmarked police vehicle, which was in his apartment complex in Charlotte’s University City neighborhood. The department said in a statement that its officers initially saw Mr. Scott “rolling what they believed to be a marijuana ‘blunt,’” but ignored the behavior and went about their business.

Later, one of the officers, Brentley Vinson, 26, said he saw Mr. Scott “hold a gun up,” the statement said. (A separate statement issued by the city on Tuesday said that Mr. Scott “exited the vehicle armed with a firearm,” and that officers approached him after he got back inside his white S.U.V.)

After seeing the gun, the authorities said on Saturday, the officers decided to approach Mr. Scott, but they first left the area to don safety vests that identified them as the police. They returned to the vicinity of his S.U.V., and “again” saw Mr. Scott with a gun.

 

[rockingrobin]

Later, one of the officers, Brentley Vinson, 26, said he saw Mr. Scott “hold a gun up,” the statement said. (A separate statement issued by the city on Tuesday said that Mr. Scott “exited the vehicle armed with a firearm,” and that officers approached him after he got back inside his white S.U.V.)

 

After seeing the gun, the authorities said on Saturday, the officers decided to approach Mr. Scott, but they first left the area to don safety vests that identified them as the police. They returned to the vicinity of his S.U.V., and “again” saw Mr. Scott with a gun.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

From the above 2 statements need some further clarification.

Mr Scott exited the vehicle, got back inside and then the police left the scene to don safety vests. 

I would  of thought since he had exited the vehicle with a gun already ,police leaving   the  scene is negligent.Whilst  the police are donning the safety vest Mr Scott could have gone on a  shooting spree

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Later, one of the officers, Brentley Vinson, 26, said he saw Mr. Scott “hold a gun up,” the statement said. (A separate statement issued by the city on Tuesday said that Mr. Scott “exited the vehicle armed with a firearm,” and that officers approached him after he got back inside his white S.U.V.)

 

After seeing the gun, the authorities said on Saturday, the officers decided to approach Mr. Scott, but they first left the area to don safety vests that identified them as the police. They returned to the vicinity of his S.U.V., and “again” saw Mr. Scott with a gun.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

From the above 2 statements need some further clarification.

Mr Scott exited the vehicle, got back inside and then the police left the scene to don safety vests. 

I would  of thought since he had exited the vehicle with a gun already ,police leaving   the  scene is negligent.Whilst  the police are donning the safety vest Mr Scott could have gone on a  shooting spree

 

On duty police have to be able to clearly be identified as on duty police. They were plain clothed officers, and had to don their gear to be clearly identifiable as police. Its not negligence is being thorough. 

[Ulysses G.]

37 minutes ago, Ulic said:

You could well be right but any police officer  throwing down a drop gun would probably also pick up a book.

 

 True, but there were witnesses, including his wife and it would have been seen. 

[Johpa]

9 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

He was not a threat to anyone sitting in his car until he was confronted by the police. The police have said they chose to over look him apparently rolling a joint until they saw a gun in his hand. It's a open carry state and they had no basis to question him on his legal right to have the weapon.

 

Even my most whacked out pals who are 2nd amendment supporters of the NRA's irrational interpretations of that constitutional right (I do not own a weapon but do have such friends) do not equate open carry with having a gun in your hand. I would want my local constable to confront anyone rolling a joint in their car (I have rolled many a joint in my car) while handling, or having adjacent, an unholstered weapon.  And that goes for my State where both open carry and pot are legal.

[starky]

So to summarise maybe big hands small gun, maybe he palmed it, maybe didnt, clearly can see the gun, clearly the video isnt conclusive. Only really 2 sides to this story and one will never be told. Right or wrong dude was dead the second he stepped out of that car, because objectively any officer that thinks he gets out of that car with a weapon is going to see him as a threat and act accordingly in response to his non compliance. Even if he only just had the holster strapped to his leg police have to assume he is armed. The result though fatal is far from surprising and unfortunately left the officer with little choice.

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, starky said:

So to summarise maybe big hands small gun, maybe he palmed it, maybe didnt, clearly can see the gun, clearly the video isnt conclusive. Only really 2 sides to this story and one will never be told. Right or wrong dude was dead the second he stepped out of that car, because objectively any officer that thinks he gets out of that car with a weapon is going to see him as a threat and act accordingly in response to his non compliance. Even if he only just had the holster strapped to his leg police have to assume he is armed. The result though fatal is far from surprising and unfortunately left the officer with little choice.

 

Had Scott exited the vehicle with arms above his head and hands clearly visible then he would be alive today.

 

Had Scott not voluntarily exited his vehicle but rather followed police instruction to drop his firearm...to be followed with an order to stick his hands out the driver side window followed by an order to slowly exit the vehicle he would be alive today. 

 

But the video makes it clear that Scott exited the vehicle impulsively and this quick motion resulted in what you describe. 

[ClutchClark]

11 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Later, one of the officers, Brentley Vinson, 26, said he saw Mr. Scott “hold a gun up,” the statement said. (A separate statement issued by the city on Tuesday said that Mr. Scott “exited the vehicle armed with a firearm,” and that officers approached him after he got back inside his white S.U.V.)

 

After seeing the gun, the authorities said on Saturday, the officers decided to approach Mr. Scott, but they first left the area to don safety vests that identified them as the police. They returned to the vicinity of his S.U.V., and “again” saw Mr. Scott with a gun.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/what-we-know-about-the-details-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html?_r=0

 

From the above 2 statements need some further clarification.

Mr Scott exited the vehicle, got back inside and then the police left the scene to don safety vests. 

I would  of thought since he had exited the vehicle with a gun already ,police leaving   the  scene is negligent.Whilst  the police are donning the safety vest Mr Scott could have gone on a  shooting spree

 

The police would not have left the scene to the point they did not keep Scotts vehicle in view in the event Scott chose to exit the vehicle. The police merely moved to a safe position in the parking lot. 

 

There was no police negligence involved. Had Scott been shooting his pistol, had Scott been moving towards a bystander with his pistol, then these officers would have immediately engaged Scott because that is what police do. They would have identified themselves as officers and openly displayed their shields and they would have ordered him to drop the firearm before firing on Scott IF the situation allowed. 

 

But negligence would have been for the officers to not don their vests prior to engaging Scott since he was seated in his vehicle and no immediate threat existed.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by ClutchClark