Charlotte Protests/Riots Discussion

[CLTProductions]

I had a big long response about idealism vs reality. But it's just not worth the back and forth. It's like talking to brick walls of pie in the sky ideals lol. 

My only wish is that people take a step back and think logically and about the reality of the situation. 

[SgtCampsalot]

15 minutes ago, Jayvee said:

Because again, the system is NOT gonna change overnight because of ongoing protests in Charlotte. I'm sorry, I wish it would, but it's not going to. 

You're not entirely wrong, but this is more than just a protest march. There is planning, and debating, and organizing happening there. This is the beginning of a long-term shift (while of course a piece of a national movement) for Charlotte. Future leaders are being seasoned on these streets, connections are being made. Heck I'd want to go into business with someone I meet out there.

Again, I DO hear you, truly. But it seems as though your point is that it is not useful/important/necessary because it is making people uncomfortable, and that that somehow soils the reputation of the city. Just let it happen.

EDIT: ^^I'm empathetic to your feelings. This is a tense subject, for sure.

[CLTProductions]

43 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

You're not entirely wrong, but this is more than just a protest march. There is planning, and debating, and organizing happening there. This is the beginning of a long-term shift (while of course a piece of a national movement) for Charlotte. Future leaders are being seasoned on these streets, connections are being made. Heck I'd want to go into business with someone I meet out there.

Again, I DO hear you, truly. But it seems as though your point is that it is not useful/important/necessary because it is making people uncomfortable, and that that somehow soils the reputation of the city. Just let it happen.

EDIT: ^^I'm empathetic to your feelings. This is a tense subject, for sure.

I agree and it's tough to get across through text on a forum. But what I'm saying is the more the movement goes on. I think the more harmful it becomes. Again, you need to flip the Myers park (to stereotype) type crowd to be sympathetic to the cause. Making them fearful of going uptown now and in the future isn't going to accomplish that. I'm not saying it's not useful. I'm saying things are on a high note now after the extremely low note we were on. Every night it continues there's a risk it turns bad again AND the there's a risk the message then gets redundant those those they're looking to reach (in the sense of, we get it. We need change. We need to release the tapes. Things are kinda out of our control guys).

my entire point is, go out on top while it's on top. The last 2 nights have been great but all it takes is the one thing to happen for it to get out of hand again. Each night this continues there's a risk it gets out of hand again and total undoes all the good of the last 2 days. I do not believe it's worth that risk anymore. 

[ah59396]

1 hour ago, Jayvee said:

I agree and it's tough to get across through text on a forum. But what I'm saying is the more the movement goes on. I think the more harmful it becomes. Again, you need to flip the Myers park (to stereotype) type crowd to be sympathetic to the cause. Making them fearful of going uptown now and in the future isn't going to accomplish that. I'm not saying it's not useful. I'm saying things are on a high note now after the extremely low note we were on. Every night it continues there's a risk it turns bad again AND the there's a risk the message then gets redundant those those they're looking to reach (in the sense of, we get it. We need change. We need to release the tapes. Things are kinda out of our control guys).

my entire point is, go out on top while it's on top. The last 2 nights have been great but all it takes is the one thing to happen for it to get out of hand again. Each night this continues there's a risk it gets out of hand again and total undoes all the good of the last 2 days. I do not believe it's worth that risk anymore. 

I think the point you're missing is that, beyond your personal opinion, it's subjective at best to dictate when a protest has proven a point, gotten it's point across or garnered worthiness.  In the eyes of those involved in this movement (which I'm not, I'm also purely an outsider here) the cause is a very warranted one.

Those protesting aren't really concerned with when you nor I feel it's proven a point.  Protesting should make people discuss, make people feel uncomfortable, and drive home a message that those protesting feel is a voice generally unheard.

Youre right though, we are delving into philisophical differences that quite frankly, you and I appear to be unaligned on.  Which is okay.  I respect your opinion.  I just don't agree with it.

 

edit:  you're also correct that it's super difficult to get your idea across via text.  Too many things flying around in my head.  I need a beer.

[CLTProductions]

Sycamores pumpkin fest has some fantastic beers right now. That cinnamon bun brown. Dang. 

Anywho yeah it's agree to disagree. My bottom line point is that at this point I think it does more harm than good. We hear you. Nothing is gonna change overnight, unfortunately.  

[CLTProductions]

So videos are coming out. Putney is deflecting A LOT. This is all so shady. But again, videos are coming out....so whats next? Does everyone pack up and go home now? What if the video shows the police definitively acted correctly (it wont)? Do people just say sorry and leave? That's what I am saying though all of this. There is no end game. Videos are released...now what? There is not a single thing that the videos can show to change peoples mind....minds are made up. So again, why continue to put Charlotte at risk? Videos were released, thats honestly a huge win. Nothing else protests can accomplish at this point. Police policies are not changing overnight 

[cjd5050]

16 hours ago, Jayvee said:

So videos are coming out. Putney is deflecting A LOT. This is all so shady. But again, videos are coming out....so whats next? Does everyone pack up and go home now? What if the video shows the police definitively acted correctly (it wont)? Do people just say sorry and leave? That's what I am saying though all of this. There is no end game. Videos are released...now what? There is not a single thing that the videos can show to change peoples mind....minds are made up. So again, why continue to put Charlotte at risk? Videos were released, thats honestly a huge win. Nothing else protests can accomplish at this point. Police policies are not changing overnight 

I don't think it's shady at all.  

I think the release of the video was based on the collection of evidence and testing results.  I think the sum of those parts now make it clear that the shooting was justified.  We know now that:

• Scott had a gun.  The gun had his blood, prints and DNA on it.  
• Scott was given multiple warnings to put down the gun.  
• Scott had an ankle holster.  The holster had his DNA on it and was on him at the time of the shooting.  
• It's not conclusive, in the video, that Scott was holding the gun.  Which is unfortunate but understandable due to the size of the gun compared to a hand.  

All of the above makes it clear, to me at least, that there are not going to be charges coming from the SBI against the police officer.  This is why Putney said he decided to release the videos AFTER SBI officials told him it would not have any "adverse impact" to their independent investigation.  Regardless of what you think or want, Putney has from the start said that his aim was to handle the situation correctly instead of quickly.

Correctly means not releasing video that could taint a fair trial if criminal charges were going to happen.  Which is why it's very frustrating that both Mecklenburg District Attorney Andrew Murray and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper did not echo the same.  Personally, I feel Murray wanted to stay out of the line of fire and Cooper picked politics over process...but that's just me.  

We also have to accept that the riots in Charlotte were going to happen regardless of what actually transpired leading up to the death of Scott.  Those who both protested and rioted did not and would not take into consideration the facts of the case.  They only want to consider the narrative they believe in.  That's sad.  The reason it's sad is there is a lot of truth into that narrative but there is also a lot of BS.  The inability and unwillingness of many to separate the two is the problem.  

So to answer your last question of why continue to put Charlotte at risk?  Well it's because the risk that happened was going to happen regardless of what was released or when it was released and it's not the job of Putney to change the process he is bound to in an effort to placate criminals.  That's the risk right?  Riots?  Ya....those are criminals.  There is no risk from protesters.  

[CLTProductions]

WHile I see it that way. Many don't.

Hell, a lot of these protestors still think it was the cops who killed the guy on Wednesday, even though the guy they arrested confessed to killing. 

I agree that Without CLEAR evidence, nothing will be enough, and further agree that There are a lot of people on the streets with no interest in the actual truth, the actual facts and what really did happen. The fact the police is still withholding video is shady. The fact the body cam mic goes on after the shooting is shady. People will say the gun was planted. 

That was my whole point before. When does this end? Facts, video and evidence are out there. While it's not 100% conclusive to a layman it's pretty clear the cops acted more correctly than incorrectly. I think the wife has been the biggest issue. Her "don't you do it" comments are pretty damning in context but her narrative of the book has made many uninterested in facts. 

Again, at this point, people are holding the city hostage. Many uptown businesses are struggling right now. With no end in sight. They want the national guard out of Charlotte but guess what, they put the city in the position for them to have to be here. Sure everything after Wednesday has been peaceful but again, as this continues there's a risk every single night that it turns violent again. 

[cjd5050]

1 hour ago, Jayvee said:

WHile I see it that way. Many don't.

Hell, a lot of these protestors still think it was the cops who killed the guy on Wednesday, even though the guy they arrested confessed to killing. 

I agree that Without CLEAR evidence, nothing will be enough, and further agree that There are a lot of people on the streets with no interest in the actual truth, the actual facts and what really did happen. The fact the police is still withholding video is shady. The fact the body cam mic goes on after the shooting is shady. People will say the gun was planted. 

That was my whole point before. When does this end? Facts, video and evidence are out there. While it's not 100% conclusive to a layman it's pretty clear the cops acted more correctly than incorrectly. I think the wife has been the biggest issue. Her "don't you do it" comments are pretty damning in context but her narrative of the book has made many uninterested in facts. 

Again, at this point, people are holding the city hostage. Many uptown businesses are struggling right now. With no end in sight. They want the national guard out of Charlotte but guess what, they put the city in the position for them to have to be here. Sure everything after Wednesday has been peaceful but again, as this continues there's a risk every single night that it turns violent again. 

Sorry but it's not shady.  You may not like it or understand it but that does not make it shady.

There are rights here at play and those rights trump emotions.    

Some of those rights belong to the cop who fired his service weapon in the line of duty.  If it's possible that charges are going to be brought against him he has rights to a fair trial.  One that would not be possible if a jury pool was tainted by releasing evidence outside of SOP and before it was determined by a 3rd party to be safe.  

You may not like the justice system but that does not matter.  It's what we have.  

The rights of the officer should not be removed simply because criminals want to commit crime.  It's as simple as that.  

[RiverwoodCLT]

Since I have been in Charlotte, we have lost police due to people shooting them.   I am no policeman, but if a person has a gun in their hand and refuses to put it down, do you think of your brother policeman who where shot and killed.  Give an order to put you gun down 11 time, what goes through your mind to shoot or not to shoot.  Is there a way to disarm a person without shooting them.  Would a taser work in this cast.

Alternatives to Bullets

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/23/alternatives-to-bullets#.mZRLBNVsP

 

[cltbwimob]

So, I have a few questions for all the people who attended the protests this past week especially since there are still some planned and I want to know what goes through the mind of a protestor in cases like these...what is your ask?  What do you want to happen to this police officer?

Here's the facts of the case as I know them from all the news reports:

-Black officer shoots black man so it can't possibly be race motivated (although ironically some chant "no Justice, no peace, no racist police ").

-A gun is recovered at the scene with the Mr. Scott's  DNA on it as well as an ankle holster also with his DNA, so it is very likely his gun (no police DNA to my knowledge was on the gun) and it is almost certain that even if it wasn't his gun it was one which he maintained in his possession.  Furthermore it was a Colt .380 which, to my knowledge, is not standard issue for any police department.  As such it is highly unlikely that it was planted on him.

-The gun was loaded and guess what else that the media hasn't picked up on yet...the evidence photo shows the gun was at single-action.  Now I know most here probably have never held a gun so you probably have no idea what single-action is; single-action is the technical term that is more commonly referred to as "cocked".  When a gun is at single-action it only takes very slight trigger pressure to squeeze off a round, even a slight flinch can fire the weapon.  Why is this significant? Because it potentially shows intent to use.  Most (sane) people do not holster a weapon at single-action, and if they do they are an idiot.  So this shows that Mr. Scott likely had the weapon drawn with [potentially] the intent to use, even if he didn't have it pointed at the officer.  And many legal experts will tell you that just because he doesn't have it pointed doesn't mean that deadly force isn't authorized.

-He had drugs on him at the time that were recovered.

-Family repeatedly states he had a book despite evidence to the contrary.  It sounds like there may be a credibility issue on the family's account of the story.  Plus the family has motive to "cover" for Mr. Scott. Family eyewitness accounts always, to a certain extent, lack credibility just by virtue of the fact they are family.

-The only other witnesses on scene, the police officers, to my knowledge have all corroborated the officer's account.

-Video evidence, at least the evidence I've seen, is overall inconclusive, so there is not much to really be gained here either way.

-The officer himself is said to be of unquestionable character.  Some of his former college football teammates said he used to lead things like Bible studies, prayer groups, etc.  So it is unlikely he just harbors a deep seated malice toward anyone or anything.  Additionally he did have a college degree in criminal justice, and he was following his childhood  dream of becoming an officer like his dad.    So, counter to the gross generalizations of some, he is not just one of those idiots who couldn't hold a job outside the police force nor is he one who did not take the gravity of his job seriously.  He wanted to be on the force, he was educated in a relevant field, and he presumably took his job very seriously.

In conclusion, right now we have an incident in which a black officer of purportedly unquestionable character kills a black man who 1) had a gun in his possession which was drawn and cocked, 2) had a bit of a criminal record IIRC (which, as an aside begs the question, why did he have possession of a gun at all), and 3) had possession of marijuana.  Additionally we have inconclusive video evidence and lack of credibility on the part of the family's accounts.

In a justice system where probable cause based on a preponderance of the evidence is required to charge someone, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", can one of you protestors please tell me how we get to probable cause given the facts as we know them?  Better yet, how do we prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is guilty.  Since you all rushed to judgement in this case, surely you must have some facts that the police don't have that allows you to get to probable cause and to a conviction, right?  Surely a protestor who cries for justice wouldn't want to see an officer get unjustly charged and convicted, so you must have some smoking gun evidence that the police just don't have.  Otherwise, could it be the case that what you want is not justice, but blood?  Could it be the case that you did rush to judgement because you are on a witch hunt? Could it be the case that this is really not about righteous indignation, but because you have an ax to grind with the police?

#rantover

[rancenc]

I have a question to pose to the group.....either I over looked the information, especially if it was relayed in the early stages of this event (just the actual shooting).

What prompted the police to turn their attention to Mr Scott?  They were in the neighborhood to serve a warrant on another individual which apparently was not home.  What actions prompted the police to scrutinize and eventually confront the guy?

[cltbwimob]

13 minutes ago, rancenc said:

I have a question to pose to the group.....either I over looked the information, especially if it was relayed in the early stages of this event (just the actual shooting).

What prompted the police to turn their attention to Mr Scott?  They were in the neighborhood to serve a warrant on another individual which apparently was not home.  What actions prompted the police to scrutinize and eventually confront the guy?

From what I read, they saw him smoking marijuana which caused them to turn their attention.

[ah59396]

1 hour ago, cltbwimob said:

From what I read, they saw him smoking marijuana which caused them to turn their attention.

I heard that crap can make you go blind.  At least, that's what my grandma told me.

[jednc]

4 hours ago, ah59396 said:

I heard that crap can make you go blind.  At least, that's what my grandma told me.

I think it just dulls your sense of humor so you think everything is funny.

7 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

So, I have a few questions for all the people who attended the protests this past week especially since there are still some planned and I want to know what goes through the mind of a protestor in cases like these...what is your ask?  What do you want to happen to this police officer?

Here's the facts of the case as I know them from all the news reports:

-Black officer shoots black man so it can't possibly be race motivated (although ironically some chant "no Justice, no peace, no racist police ").

-A gun is recovered at the scene with the Mr. Scott's  DNA on it as well as an ankle holster also with his DNA, so it is very likely his gun (no police DNA to my knowledge was on the gun) and it is almost certain that even if it wasn't his gun it was one which he maintained in his possession.  Furthermore it was a Colt .380 which, to my knowledge, is not standard issue for any police department.  As such it is highly unlikely that it was planted on him.

-The gun was loaded and guess what else that the media hasn't picked up on yet...the evidence photo shows the gun was at single-action.  Now I know most here probably have never held a gun so you probably have no idea what single-action is; single-action is the technical term that is more commonly referred to as "cocked".  When a gun is at single-action it only takes very slight trigger pressure to squeeze off a round, even a slight flinch can fire the weapon.  Why is this significant? Because it potentially shows intent to use.  Most (sane) people do not holster a weapon at single-action, and if they do they are an idiot.  So this shows that Mr. Scott likely had the weapon drawn with [potentially] the intent to use, even if he didn't have it pointed at the officer.  And many legal experts will tell you that just because he doesn't have it pointed doesn't mean that deadly force isn't authorized.

-He had drugs on him at the time that were recovered.

-Family repeatedly states he had a book despite evidence to the contrary.  It sounds like there may be a credibility issue on the family's account of the story.  Plus the family has motive to "cover" for Mr. Scott. Family eyewitness accounts always, to a certain extent, lack credibility just by virtue of the fact they are family.

-The only other witnesses on scene, the police officers, to my knowledge have all corroborated the officer's account.

-Video evidence, at least the evidence I've seen, is overall inconclusive, so there is not much to really be gained here either way.

-The officer himself is said to be of unquestionable character.  Some of his former college football teammates said he used to lead things like Bible studies, prayer groups, etc.  So it is unlikely he just harbors a deep seated malice toward anyone or anything.  Additionally he did have a college degree in criminal justice, and he was following his childhood  dream of becoming an officer like his dad.    So, counter to the gross generalizations of some, he is not just one of those idiots who couldn't hold a job outside the police force nor is he one who did not take the gravity of his job seriously.  He wanted to be on the force, he was educated in a relevant field, and he presumably took his job very seriously.

In conclusion, right now we have an incident in which a black officer of purportedly unquestionable character kills a black man who 1) had a gun in his possession which was drawn and cocked, 2) had a bit of a criminal record IIRC (which, as an aside begs the question, why did he have possession of a gun at all), and 3) had possession of marijuana.  Additionally we have inconclusive video evidence and lack of credibility on the part of the family's accounts.

In a justice system where probable cause based on a preponderance of the evidence is required to charge someone, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", can one of you protestors please tell me how we get to probable cause given the facts as we know them?  Better yet, how do we prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is guilty.  Since you all rushed to judgement in this case, surely you must have some facts that the police don't have that allows you to get to probable cause and to a conviction, right?  Surely a protestor who cries for justice wouldn't want to see an officer get unjustly charged and convicted, so you must have some smoking gun evidence that the police just don't have.  Otherwise, could it be the case that what you want is not justice, but blood?  Could it be the case that you did rush to judgement because you are on a witch hunt? Could it be the case that this is really not about righteous indignation, but because you have an ax to grind with the police?

#rantover

 

So well said that I didn't think my "like" was enough.

[Vitamin_N]

The protesters decided to march through Cherry around 11 pm Sunday night before being contained at Myers Park. Below is an email sent to the Cherry neighborhood email list:

There was no organized planned march in Cherry, and your police certainly don’t chaperone middle of the night recruiting trips for crowds to try and gain support through the Cherry neighborhood or any other. In fact, the majority of the groups are from out of town and do not know the streets, let alone the neighborhood names.  They often get “lost” and have to stop and reorganize what direction they want to go in next.  Very little, if any, of their march routes are thought out in advance.  This of course is partly intentional, to make it harder for police to manage traffic and monitor behavior.

 

Please understand that the police did not "allow" that particular action by the protestors. They are completely responsible for their own actions. 

 

As the various groups have done for several days, they break the law and disobey police directions, including where to march. Often they alternate between hours of peaceful compliance and then sudden sprees of disorder.  Multiple officers have been injured protecting our neighborhoods and businesses.   Many of the officers out at Cherry last night, including myself, still have bruises from objects thrown at us on previous nights.  Please understand that we are literally putting ourselves out in front of your community to prevent harm to you and your neighbors. We will keep doing so for as long as it is necessary for Cherry and for Charlotte.  

 

Last night they entered Cherry by suddenly running and cutting through yards and business lots to avoid police blocking the roads into the neighborhoods. This was an intentional act by them, and the march leaders of the main group refused to have them return to the major roadways for some time last night.  The Cherry neighborhood streets are much narrower than the main roads, and so police had to let them get to a wider section where we could engage them again and direct them back to the sidewalks along main roads where they were supposed to be.

 

There were several hundred law enforcement officers including the helicopter that moved them away from the Cherry area and kept them from doing anything worse than making noise.  That is why the group did not come back through after the first time.  An arrest was made and they were forced back downtown.

 

This is what multiple neighborhoods immediately around uptown have experienced on and off during these incidents.  However, the media has chosen not to focus on the impact that out of town protestors have on peaceful neighborhoods and Charlotteans.

 

Unfortunately no one is able to make any absolute guarantees about protestor actions.  They are responsible for their own activities.   When their activity is an exercise of free speech, then the police department monitors, directs, and assists.  When it becomes unlawful, we step in more strongly. It is a constant back and forth between those two roles.  

 

Thank you for your support.  I hope this information gives you more insight on last night and can address any rumors.  

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

Capt. Nathan King

Providence Division

[RiverwoodCLT]

 I do not see more protest in center city will do any good.   The people voice has been hear,  it is now time to make a legal ruling and move on.  Over a week of protest we have one person shot and killed  by the police and one person shot uptown and has die from a protester.  I have not see how much damage has been done by the protesters.  Uptown Charlotte has about 100,000 people working there.  I am sure all types of people work there.   The protester may be hurting the people they want in their camp. 

It is time for all parties to come to the table and work out a way that can all live in safety.

All the people from out if town go home.

 

 

 

[cjd5050]

16 hours ago, RiverwoodCLT said:

It is time for all parties to come to the table and work out a way that can all live in safety.

Honest question.  Why should these protesters get a seat at the table?  

It's obvious they are upset and vocal but it's also been made clear they are unreasonable and unwilling to consider the facts.  In fact, beyond considering the facts that have shown a propensity to straight up make up bullsh*t to support their narrative.  If we follow Brandolini's Law, it's clear to me that if a solution is the ultimate goal you don't include extra and unnecessary effort in the process.   

 

 

[grodney]

47 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

It's obvious they are upset and vocal but it's also been made clear they are unreasonable and unwilling to consider the facts.

 

This is really off base.  The protests aren't *only* about the Charlotte* incident.  It's far FAR bigger than that.

 

*And the Charlotte incident certainly DOES deserve further examination.  Just because the guy (probably) had a gun and wasn't dropping it, that doesn't justify killing him (in my, and many others', opinion).

The disconnect in this national conversation is that a large segment of our population seems to think that if you aren't following a police officer's orders, it's okay for the police to kill you.  And there's a large segment that disagrees.

[RaleighHeelsfan]

There is no issue here or anywhere else. If you listen to the cop...you don't get shot. The issue is Liberals.

So now we know the true story...the guy who got shot was first being supported by his wife saying "he don't have a gun" yet...just one year prior...put a restraining order out on him because he tried to kill her AND HER KID, WHO HE PUNCHED IN THE FACE 8 TIMES supposedly...with guess what?? A GUN! Shocker...the dude has a wrap sheet 10 pages long and multiple states. Just like the rest of them.

One less low life in the world!!

Bet he purchased the gun LEGALLY from a gun SHOP!......ROTFL

 

10 minutes ago, grodney said:

This is really off base.  The protests aren't *only* about the Charlotte* incident.  It's far FAR bigger than that.

 

*And the Charlotte incident certainly DOES deserve further examination.  Just because the guy (probably) had a gun and wasn't dropping it, that doesn't justify killing him (in my, and many others', opinion).

The disconnect in this national conversation is that a large segment of our population seems to think that if you aren't following a police officer's orders, it's okay for the police to kill you.  And there's a large segment that disagrees.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

There is no issue here or anywhere else. If you listen to the cop...you don't get shot. The issue is Liberals.

So now we know the true story...the guy who got shot was first being supported by his wife saying "he don't have a gun" yet...just one year prior...put a restraining order out on him because he tried to kill her AND HER KID, WHO HE PUNCHED IN THE FACE 8 TIMES supposedly...with guess what?? A GUN! Shocker...the dude has a wrap sheet 10 pages long and multiple states. Just like the rest of them.

One less low life in the world!!

 

 

Oh yes, its liberals fault. You are truly the worst kind of ignorant dude, this coming from a libertarian. 

All people deserve due process. not death. 

Its in the fudgeing constitution. 

 

[RaleighHeelsfan]

I am not the one who supports the rioters. Liberals do. I am not the ignorant one.

 

1 minute ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Oh yes, its liberals fault. You are truly the worst kind of ignorant dude, this coming from a libertarian. 

 

[grodney]

7 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

There is no issue here or anywhere else. If you listen to the cop...you don't get shot. The issue is Liberals.

One less low life in the world!!

 

 

 

This is not a charming take.

[cjd5050]

2 minutes ago, grodney said:

This is really off base.  The protests aren't *only* about the Charlotte* incident.  It's far FAR bigger than that.

 

*And the Charlotte incident certainly DOES deserve further examination.  Just because the guy (probably) had a gun and wasn't dropping it, that doesn't justify killing him (in my, and many others', opinion).

The disconnect in this national conversation is that a large segment of our population seems to think that if you aren't following a police officer's orders, it's okay for the police to kill you.  And there's a large segment that disagrees.

Correct, the protests and protestors are not just about the Charlotte incident.  That said, regardless of what they are protesting about they are ignoring facts and making up their own narrative.  It's a habitual pattern and it's a problem.

It is not probable that he had a gun.  It's a fact.  You may be in denial because there is not 4k video where you can zoom in and enhance like they do on TV shows...but he had a gun.  The gun has his DNA and Blood on it.  So does the ankle holster.  Beyond that, the gun has been confirmed stolen and the man accused of stealing the gun was interviewed and is on record stating he sold the gun to Scott.

As for the disconnect....you seem to want to leave out the important fact that Scott had a gun in your narrative.  You may want to suggest it's just probable he had a gun...but you would be wrong and contributing to the problem.  He had a gun.  It's a fact.  You may want to suggest Brown didn't assault a police officer but it's a fact that he did.

A large segment of our population seems to think laws don't apply to them.  A large segment of our population think it's OK to assault an officer or confront multiple officers with a gun in your hand.  A large segment of our population seems to think they do not need to respond to police orders and seem to indicate that the lives of police officers simply trying to do their job does not apply to them.  

Is this the case all of the time?  No.  What happened in Tulsa is not the same.  That officer should face everything she has coming to her.  She was simply not qualified to be a police officer and killed someone when she was not in danger.  A reasonable person would be able to separate the two.  But they don't.  They group them together, regardless of facts, which only weakens their position but diluting actual issues with false narratives.  

We have serious issues facing our nation today.  The black community is in serious trouble and there are many, many injustices that they face.  Nobody can make a reasonable and factual claim otherwise.  But if these issues are going to be solved...the bullsh*t that is not real needs to be removed from the process.  

 

 

[RaleighHeelsfan]

He only had a book...it was just a book....ROTFL

Now that the facts are out...

same ole...it was just a book...just a book...

2 minutes ago, grodney said:

This is not a charming take.