- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,411
- Reaction score
- 2,228
- Location
- In a Blue State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
CHARLOTTE — A cellphone camera video made by the wife of Keith L. Scott before he was fatally shot by police here shows the moments before and after the incident, including the wife’s pleas to her husband to get out of his truck, and her pleas to the police not to shoot him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html?_r=0
I bet riots are going to grow from this video. From this perspective, not sure he has a gun.
Should the NY Times have published the video?
[video]http://nyti.ms/2ctlGns[/video]
It doesn't show much. I doubt the rioters will need any excuses. [although, it is Friday night]
It does show a few things.
It shows that the cops were in raid vests so the "weren't in uniform" thing doesn't fly.
It shows that the cops gave multiple orders to drop the gun so the "walked up and assassinated him" stuff doesn't fly either.
It shows the cops giving him medical attention immediately.
You can hear the photographer's voice getting more and more excited just before the shots are fired. The transcript says she was trying to get her husband to stand still and the urgency in her voice could indicate that she perceived that his moves might be considered threatening by the cops.
As far as the question about the Times releasing the video goes, my understanding is that the family wanted it released so I have no problem with it.
It does show a few things.
It shows that the cops were in raid vests so the "weren't in uniform" thing doesn't fly.
It shows that the cops gave multiple orders to drop the gun so the "walked up and assassinated him" stuff doesn't fly either.
It shows the cops giving him medical attention immediately.
You can hear the photographer's voice getting more and more excited just before the shots are fired. The transcript says she was trying to get her husband to stand still and the urgency in her voice could indicate that she perceived that his moves might be considered threatening by the cops.
As far as the question about the Times releasing the video goes, my understanding is that the family wanted it released so I have no problem with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html?_r=0
I bet riots are going to grow from this video. From this perspective, not sure he has a gun.
Should the NY Times have published the video?
[video]http://nyti.ms/2ctlGns[/video]
Sounds to me that this woman knew her Husband was prone to ignoring the police. If anything this video shows that the cops were not out to murder someone that day and if he had only complied, he would be alive.
Tim-
Nope.
It's just fuel on the fire.
Good job NY times clickbait dumpster fire.
Holding it a couple of more days would been better, when people had simmered down.
Seriously, the video adds nothing to the situation and simply serves as a means of stoking the fire and playing on emotions. It's 100% impossible to tell from the video whether he had a gun or not, and she is 100% in a worse position to potentially see if he had a gun or not than the police that were actually close up to him.
Ridiculous and serves absolutely no purpose. Really wishing my wife's first week down in Charlotte wasn't this one....
Seriously, the video adds nothing to the situation and simply serves as a means of stoking the fire and playing on emotions. It's 100% impossible to tell from the video whether he had a gun or not, and she is 100% in a worse position to potentially see if he had a gun or not than the police that were actually close up to him.
Ridiculous and serves absolutely no purpose. Really wishing my wife's first week down in Charlotte wasn't this one....
her husband has a traumatic brain injury
and is pleading with the cops not to shoot her husband.
This is utterly irrelevant if the situation is such that he had a gun and was reacting in a questionable fashion. Having a brain injury and/or being on medication does not make one incapable of posing a threat.
Which is absolutely and 100% irrelevant. The actions of the police should have been SINGULARLY based around the actions of the individual they were dealing with in that situation, not the pleas nor the agitation of an onlooker. Whether she was pleading with the cops or heckling them should have had zero impact on how they handled the situation regarding the victim in this case. The only "purpose" of showing her pleading with the cops from afar is to stoke feelings and attempt to appeal to peoples emotions regarding the issue.
And the man the police were dealing with at that moment may have been unable to understand the situation because he was impaired by a traumatic brain injury, I think that information should have made the police change their tactics.
Actually I think it does serve a purpose. In the video, Scott's wife states that her husband has a traumatic brain injury, and is pleading with the cops not to shoot her husband.
Yeah, we know....They should have just slowly backed off, got in their cars and left right?
Yeah, we know....They should have just slowly backed off, got in their cars and left right?
Believe it or not, when the cops are focused on a guy they believe to be armed who is not following their instructions they probably aren't paying attention to someone else who is yelling at them. Even if they did pay attention his injury does not preclude the threat they are addressing. People with mental issues can and do commit violent acts.
She may have had a life insurance policy.She didn't sound surprised or terrible distraught about the whole thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?