Here is the guy you are rioting for in Charlotte.


ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
One shot to arm or torso should have been sufficient to immobilize the threat, and if it wasn’t they then could have shot again.
Shooting people to disable them does not happen. You don't shot the guns out of people's hands like on tv. You shoot dead center until the threat is neutralized. You don't shoot 1 bullet and "see what happens".
 
Last edited:

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Shooting people to disable them does not happen. You don't shot the guns out of people's hands like on tv. You shoot fead center until the threat is neutralized. You don't shoot 1 bullet and "see what happens".
no but you can use the many non lethal weapons out there the gun should be the last choice not the first.
 

Khalanad75

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2015
462
993
land of confusion
Never said it wasn't a problem. I'm asking that if the weapon wasn't brandished in front of police, would there be any imminent threat for them to draw their weapons and shoot?

I don't argue the fact that as a convicted felon he shouldn't have the gun. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

What I don't agree with is what the OP is saying in that because of his criminal history - because of what he has done to other people - that the LEOs should be justified in shooting him down. This is like saying that if Dr. Dre gets pulled over by the police, just because of what he has done to women and his convictions throughout his life, the LEOs should shoot him dead.

That is not the purpose of law enforcement; the LEOs are there to enforce the law, not judge their decisions based off the character of a person, let alone their prior actions if they have served their time for those actions.

BL.
Why are you under the assumption that it wasn't brandished in front of the cops. The LEO's screaming drop the gun about 14 times kind of tells me that he brandished the gun

Add in the fact the wife was telling him "Don't do it" leans me to that fact as well.
 

webbuzz

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2010
1,522
5,641
@Jess13 Google "Defensive Systems Unit Ballistic Research Facility FBI Academy" and read the PDF in the first link. Warning it is graphic.
[doublepost=1475184485][/doublepost]
no but you can use the many non lethal weapons out there the gun should be the last choice not the first.
People die from less lethal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jess13

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Why are you under the assumption that it wasn't brandished in front of the cops. The LEO's screaming drop the gun about 14 times kind of tells me that he brandished the gun
I wasn't under the assumption. I was asking the question, because I wasn't privy to the incident. I haven't been following this issue as closely as I should have.

Add in the fact the wife was telling him "Don't do it" leans me to that fact as well.
Fair enough point. Again, I haven't followed this closely enough. But that really isn't the point; character assassination as justification to shoot someone dead is never justification to begin with. That has been my point throughout this entire thread.
 

Khalanad75

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2015
462
993
land of confusion
I wasn't under the assumption. I was asking the question, because I wasn't privy to the incident. I haven't been following this issue as closely as I should have.



Fair enough point. Again, I haven't followed this closely enough. But that really isn't the point; character assassination as justification to shoot someone dead is never justification to begin with. That has been my point throughout this entire thread.
But is bringing up past TRUTHS really character assassination?

If someone in the past has shown a tendency towards violence, it's not that far fetched to believe they were resorting to violence again.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
But is bringing up past TRUTHS really character assassination?

If someone in the past has shown a tendency towards violence, it's not that far fetched to believe they were resorting to violence again.
Are past truths ample justification for shooting someone dead?

BL.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
If they are brandishing a firearm and not complying with orders, I lean to yeah.
That's what the LEOs did. I'm asking in reference to the OP. If Scott brandished it in front of the LEOs then they would have justification.

If basing only on his past truths and that being sole justification, that is a different story. If anything, law enforcement would be dealing with the issue at hand, not combing asking him to hold off while they comb through his previous history before making a decision.

BL.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,139
Again, all proving my point. The OP is basing the LEOs actions on the character of the suspect and the fact that he had a gun, not taking into account where the gun was at the time of the incident. According to another post, if it was in an ankle holster, would that be the 'imminent threat' that would cause the LEOs to shoot? Because according to the OP and some others, yes it does.

That leads to the question I had with anyone who has CCL or lives in a state with Open Carry, because even having it in a holster constitutes 'imminent threat'.

BL.
Well if the cops are yelling "Drop the gun" I'm sure it's a safe bet he was holding it. The OP's issue with the character of the suspect is that there always seems to be the fictitious character the family and friends want everyone to believe and the real world one. "He was a family man" vs. "He stabbed me in the ass on two occasions and I filed a restraining order". In other cases they throw a picture up of the victim on T.V. from 9th grade in a button up polo (before he became involved with gangs and got the neck tattoos) vs. the photo taken 2 weeks prior at age 17 of him holding two glocks and a blunt on facebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Khalanad75

Khalanad75

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2015
462
993
land of confusion
Well if the cops are yelling "Drop the gun" I'm sure it's a safe bet he was holding it. The OP's issue with the character of the suspect is that there always seems to be the fictitious character the family and friends want everyone to believe and the real world one. "He was a family man" vs. "He stabbed me in the ass on two occasions and I filed a restraining order". In other cases they throw a picture up of the victim on T.V. from 9th grade in a button up polo (before he became involved with gangs and got the neck tattoos) vs. the photo taken 2 weeks prior at age 17 of him holding two glocks and a blunt on facebook.
Bingo.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Well if the cops are yelling "Drop the gun" I'm sure it's a safe bet he was holding it. The OP's issue with the character of the suspect is that there always seems to be the fictitious character the family and friends want everyone to believe and the real world one. "He was a family man" vs. "He stabbed me in the ass on two occasions and I filed a restraining order". In other cases they throw a picture up of the victim on T.V. from 9th grade in a button up polo (before he became involved with gangs and got the neck tattoos) vs. the photo taken 2 weeks prior at age 17 of him holding two glocks and a blunt on facebook.
And him holding 2 guns at age 17 and a blunt 25 years ago would be ample justification for shooting him now?

My point: Make the justification for shooting him down based on what he is doing at that moment, in that incident; not for what he did 25 years ago in his life. The LEOs wouldn't have time to go back and look at such a picture to say, "oh yeah, he's dangerous!" when he's causing the issue right now.

BL.
 

DrewDaHilp1

macrumors 6502a
Mar 29, 2009
578
11,573
All Your Memes Are Belong to US
And him holding 2 guns at age 17 and a blunt 25 years ago would be ample justification for shooting him now?

My point: Make the justification for shooting him down based on what he is doing at that moment, in that incident; not for what he did 25 years ago in his life.

BL.
I'm not seeing anyone argue that what he did 25 years ago is justification for the shooting.
 

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,582
2,408
United States
The facts are pretty simple:

Regardless of what a person has done in the past, police should exercise the minimal force required to apprehend any suspect or criminal.

Shooting should always be last resort.

At the same time, we are living in a time of paranoia and fear. A worker forgets to throw his lunch bag away, and they call the bomb squad.

I've been stopped by the police numerous times in my life. And they always asked me if I had any weapons. And when I did, I'd hand it to them and we'd walk side by side to the police car. I'd get in the passenger side, they'd get in the driver's side. We'd talk, they'd run my name for warrants, and after they were satisfied that they had no reason to detain me, they'd hand my weapon back to me, I'd get in my car and leave.

Unfortunately, we don't live in those times anymore. Everyone is scared and paranoid. Including the police. They're afraid that if they blink, someone will pull a surprise gun.

At the same time, the assumption that a riot is necessary over racial issues is crazy.

If a black cop shoots a black guy, there's a riot. Same if the cop is white.

If a white guy is shot by either a black or white cop, there's no riot. And it doesn't even make the news.

At some point, the world needs to wake up, and realize that they are the puppets of the media. The media reports the stories which will gain the most extreme reaction and slants it to achieve that goal.

Ignoring all the white people killed every day, and reporting only when black people are killed creates a slanted view in the public's perception. This sensationalism sells advertising, which makes the media tons of money.

If the media reported every story with neutrality, there wouldn't be riots and extreme reactions. Why? Because all races would become desensitized by the casual daily reporting of every shooting in the nation.

Racism is big business for the media. Racial riots make the media boatloads of money. Reporting with a biased perspective is used to manipulate the public to react with extreme outcomes, which in turn makes the media more money.

Want peace??? Turn off the television. When nobody is watching the biased reporting, advertisers will bail out. The less advertising money the media makes, the less incentive they have to stir an empty pot.