charlotte riots

[#00Buck]

Well looks like an ankle holster with a handgun.

Here's the full motion video and the video on the police chief saying 100% that he had a gun.

Also the officer that shot the black man was black. So it was a black on black shooting. 

Enjoy your inconvenient facts people.

From the Charlotte Observer the local news organization.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html

[Gamedog]

29 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

Death is not a very fitting punishment for robbery, imo. 

Death is a fitting punishment for holding a loaded gun in someone's face and demanding their possessions 

 

we don't need people like that on the streets

[#00Buck]

3 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Death is a fitting punishment for holding a loaded gun in someone's face and demanding their possessions 

 

we don't need people like that on the streets

Guy who got shot also had a criminal record. 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3532399/keith-lamont-scott-criminal-record-violent-past-arrest-record-includes-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/

His criminal record has him committing offences in three states including multiple assault charges including assault with a deadly weapon. Assault with intent to kill. Drunk driving. He also was arrested in 2005 for shooting at police officers. Also multiple illegal gun offences. Plus he was convicted in 2004 for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It does not say if he was interfering with the minor in a sexual way but I guess details will come out eventually. 

What a nice guy.  

[Another Ampers&]

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

Death is a fitting punishment for [BEING ACCUSED OF] holding a loaded gun in someone's face and demanding their possessions 

 

we don't need people like that on the streets

 

[Gamedog]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

Guy who got shot also had a criminal record. 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3532399/keith-lamont-scott-criminal-record-violent-past-arrest-record-includes-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/

His criminal record has him committing offences in three states including multiple assault charges including assault with a deadly weapon. Assault with intent to kill. Drunk driving. He also was arrested in 2005 for shooting at police officers. Also multiple illegal gun offences. Plus he was convicted in 2004 for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It does not say if he was interfering with the minor is a sexual way but I guess details will come out eventually. 

What a nice guy.  

We need people like him alive and on the street because equality

[Another Ampers&]

7 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

We need people like him alive and on the street because equality

Would you like to justify your allowance to be alive and on the street r/n

[Gamedog]

43 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

Would you like to justify your allowance to be alive and on the street r/n

I don't hold loaded weapons in people's faces and demand shit from them with the threat of death, for one

[Another Ampers&]

35 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

I don't hold loaded weapons in people's faces and demand shit from them with the threat of death, for one

what would you think about yourself if I accused you of doing so right now would your opinion change

[Gator]

36 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

what would you think about yourself if I accused you of doing so right now would your opinion change

are you implying that the criminal record is fictitious?

[Gamedog]

56 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

what would you think about yourself if I accused you of doing so right now would your opinion change

He was caught on camera lmao

[Another Ampers&]

11 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

He was caught on camera lmao

putting a gun in someone's face? The police have since admitted that while he was approached for questioning because he was suspected of a robbery earlier that day, but that he didn't actually do it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/terence-crutcher-keith-scott-police-video-bodycams-evidence

"Police said Scott, 43, got out of his car armed with a gun and refused to drop it when mistakenly confronted by officers seeking to arrest a different man"

I don't see a gun tho all I see are a bunch of cops gathered around their next victim, onlookers shouting "he doesn''t have a gun", a man being shot 4 times seemingly out of nowhere

4 times

so like idk we can talk about how he was "on camera committing armed robbery" when even the people who shot him said he wasn't the one who did it but are you sure that's the hill u wanna die on friend

[MalletFace]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Here's the full motion video and the video on the police chief saying 100% that he had a gun.

He chose his words carefully. He said "in possession," which is a general idea and fact of ownership in a common law state like NC. Scott was probably also in the possession of a knife or two, flammable substances, and bomb-making materials. Saying "Yes, he absolutely was in possession of a handgun" is meaningless because of this, especially when Putney decides to answer the next question - "You couldn't see the gun on the pavement... Will we be able to see that in the video?" - with "I'm not trying the case here; you have to make your own judgement." He also follows this by saying "There is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand."

He also refuses to admit that every step was taken by the officers to avoid the use of lethal force by saying the officers had a duty to react to the threat of a handgun with lethal force. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Directives and the NC General Statutes say otherwise; an officer must use intermediate force (in the form of intermediate weapons) before lethal force (in the form of weapons of death and destruction).

4 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Also the officer that shot the black man was black. So it was a black on black shooting. 

While it doesn't apply to all, many of those heading BLM actions consider a black cop that obeys the law to be an extension of the legitimate use of violence possessed by a law enforcement agency as an element of hierarchies within the state. As all of the legal hierarchies a black officer exists in are likely to be disproportionately white, a black officer that obeys the will of those hierarchies may as well be white.

For a majority of the BLM movement to care that an officer is black, the officer would have to condemn and disobey - or even assault and destroy - the disproportionately white hierarchies they work under. Until they do that, the officer is acting out the will of a disproportionately white hierarchy.

4 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Guy who got shot also had a criminal record. 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3532399/keith-lamont-scott-criminal-record-violent-past-arrest-record-includes-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/

His criminal record has him committing offences in three states including multiple assault charges including assault with a deadly weapon. Assault with intent to kill. Drunk driving. He also was arrested in 2005 for shooting at police officers. Also multiple illegal gun offences. Plus he was convicted in 2004 for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It does not say if he was interfering with the minor is a sexual way but I guess details will come out eventually. 

What a nice guy.  

Part of the issue many BLM leaders take with American society - among others - is that violence executed by the state is permissible and praised, but violence executed by the individual - especially the black individual - is condemned and used as justification for state violence.

Even more, major BLM activists echo the idea from black activists in American history that it is the "evils of capitalism" and "state injustices" that pushes poor blacks - and poor whites - outside of the law.

It only confirms their ideas that he has a criminal record, and that the evidences of violence within would be used to praise and defend the violence of the state confirms them more.

5 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Enjoy your inconvenient facts people.

"Factual objective facts" is what I heard Putney call them.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, MalletFace said:

He chose his words carefully. He said "in possession," which is a general idea and fact of ownership in a common law state like NC. Scott was probably also in the possession of a knife or two, flammable substances, and bomb-making materials. Saying "Yes, he absolutely was in possession of a handgun" is meaningless because of this, especially when Putney decides to answer the next question - "You couldn't see the gun on the pavement... Will we be able to see that in the video?" - with "I'm not trying the case here; you have to make your own judgement." He also follows this by saying "There is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand."

He also refuses to admit that every step was taken by the officers to avoid the use of lethal force by saying the officers had a duty to react to the threat of a handgun with lethal force. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Directives and the NC General Statutes say otherwise; an officer must use intermediate force (in the form of intermediate weapons) before lethal force (in the form of weapons of death and destruction).

While it doesn't apply to all, many of those heading BLM actions consider a black cop that obeys the law to be an extension of the legitimate use of violence possessed by a law enforcement agency as an element of hierarchies within the state. As all of the legal hierarchies a black officer exists in are likely to be disproportionately white, a black officer that obeys the will of those hierarchies may as well be white.

For a majority of the BLM movement to care that an officer is black, the officer would have to condemn and disobey - or even assault and destroy - the disproportionately white hierarchies they work under. Until they do that, the officer is acting out the will of a disproportionately white hierarchy.

Part of the issue many BLM leaders take with American society - among others - is that violence executed by the state is permissible and praised, but violence executed by the individual - especially the black individual - is condemned and used as justification for state violence.

Even more, major BLM activists echo the idea from black activists in American history that it is the "evils of capitalism" and "state injustices" that pushes poor blacks - and poor whites - outside of the law.

It only confirms their ideas that he has a criminal record, and that the evidences of violence within would be used to praise and defend the violence of the state confirms them more.

"Factual objective facts" is what I heard Putney call them.

I was willing to have an open mind about this issue but the fact that you bothered to write a nerd essay has convinced me that I must be 100% correct. 

[MalletFace]

8 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I was willing to have an open mind about this issue but the fact that you bothered to write a nerd essay has convinced me that I must be 100% correct. 

u do u

i only judge a little

[#00Buck]

14 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

u do u

i only judge a little

See!

Your post this time is short and therefore I actually believe this one. 

[Gamedog]

1 hour ago, Another Ampers& said:

putting a gun in someone's face? The police have since admitted that while he was approached for questioning because he was suspected of a robbery earlier that day, but that he didn't actually do it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/terence-crutcher-keith-scott-police-video-bodycams-evidence

"Police said Scott, 43, got out of his car armed with a gun and refused to drop it when mistakenly confronted by officers seeking to arrest a different man"

I don't see a gun tho all I see are a bunch of cops gathered around their next victim, onlookers shouting "he doesn''t have a gun", a man being shot 4 times seemingly out of nowhere

4 times

so like idk we can talk about how he was "on camera committing armed robbery" when even the people who shot him said he wasn't the one who did it but are you sure that's the hill u wanna die on friend

That isn't the guy I'm talking about, I'm referring to the previous dirtbag that BLM claimed was a licensed conceal carrier

[Another Ampers&]

3 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

That isn't the guy I'm talking about, I'm referring to the previous dirtbag that BLM claimed was a licensed conceal carrier

you quoted Buck talking about Keith Scott

to say "people like this need to be removed from the streets"

I ask if you really think that

you say there's video footage of him performing an armed robbery

I post evidence contrary

You say you were talking about a different person

so my question for you is was it a different person also named Keith Scott just curious

[Tsuujou]

13 hours ago, Gamedog said:

we don't need people like that on the streets

That's what prison is for.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

You guys are screaming into a brick wall. Stop while you're ahead.

[#00Buck]

27 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

You guys are screaming into a brick wall. Stop while you're ahead.

What colour are the bricks?

[Gamedog]

8 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

you quoted Buck talking about Keith Scott

to say "people like this need to be removed from the streets"

I ask if you really think that

you say there's video footage of him performing an armed robbery

I post evidence contrary

You say you were talking about a different person

so my question for you is was it a different person also named Keith Scott just curious

Please re read what I originally posted I am on movile

On September 25, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Gamedog said:

In a week there will be pics/tweets/videos of those people inciting violencw

just watch

happens every single time

like the video of that "innocent gun carrier" who turned out to be an illegal gun owner who smoked pot with his girlfriend while his daughter was in the car 

I don't keep track of their names anymore caus I don't care enough about em

hipefulyv this was clear enough? 😵

1 hour ago, XoPachi said:

That's what prison is for.

Free housing and food and release to repeat again

 

nope

[Gamedog]

Aww shit

whaaaat!!!!!!! He didn't do nothing wrong!!

(warning there is bloody photo and pics of child abuse)

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/philando-castile-child-abuse-video-surfaces-castile-girlfriend-smoking-pot-driving-child-car/

 

[willow]

If past criminal records are justification for literally shooting and killing someone, I hope I'm never shot by police because someone might dig up the fact that I got a parking ticket several months ago :v

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

9 minutes ago, willow said:

If past criminal records are justification for literally shooting and killing someone, I hope I'm never shot by police because someone might dig up the fact that I got a parking ticket several months ago :v

So are you trying to say the fact that he was part of an armed robbery doesn't matter? Because if so, quite frankly, that's absolutely fucking ridiculous. At some point you should stop blindly defending people.

[DrGravitas]

7 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

So are you trying to say the fact that he was part of an armed robbery doesn't matter? Because if so, quite frankly, that's absolutely fucking ridiculous. At some point you should stop blindly defending people.

Our entire justice system is designed around not assuming guilt, even given previous convictions. So, yeah...

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

19 minutes ago, DrGravitas said:

Our entire justice system is designed around on not assuming guilt, even given previous convictions. So, yeah...

I know that, but the comparison he made was ridiculous. There's a difference between getting a ticket and being a part of an armed robbery that they have proof you were part of.

[Gamedog]

34 minutes ago, willow said:

If past criminal records are justification for literally shooting and killing someone, I hope I'm never shot by police because someone might dig up the fact that I got a parking ticket several months ago :v

Holding a gun in someone's face is considered a crime and is justification for being killed

[DrGravitas]

17 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

I know that, but the comparison he made was ridiculous. There's a difference between getting a ticket and being a part of an armed robbery that they have proof you were part of..

No, there isn't. Not in our justice system, when considering whether or not an officer was justified in shooting them. That's not not how it works, nor how it should work.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

5 minutes ago, DrGravitas said:

No, there isn't. Not in our justice system, when considering whether or not an officer was justified in shooting them. That's not not how it works, nor how it should work.

He refused to drop his gun, meaning there was a significant risk of the police officer getting shot,  Why is that so hard to understand? It's completely justified, and the fact that he was part of the robbery just shows that there was more danger to the situation. If they had just let him go, they could have been shot, and if he escaped he could have gone out and committed more crimes since he had a history of it. If he didn't have a gun, then being shot wouldn't have been justified. But he did.

[Gamedog]

9 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

if he escaped he could have gone out and committed more crimes since he had a history of it

Put him in jail so he can learn his lesson about committing crimes 

[PastryOfApathy]

20 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Holding a gun in someone's face is considered a crime and is justification for being killed

NO!

The cop should have been able to identify whether it was a real gun, what model and year it was, how many bullets were in it, what the dude who last touched it ate this morning, and the guns favorite 80's pop singer was (SPOILER: It was a Tiffany fanatic) in less than .239 milliseconds.

Then by law, he must have been able to use his judo mastery to subdue the ruffian and drop him off at the local YMCA or local Boy's and Girl's club.

Of course some racist, privileged cishet shitlord like you wouldn't know this smh.

[willow]

46 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

So are you trying to say the fact that he was part of an armed robbery doesn't matter? Because if so, quite frankly, that's absolutely fucking ridiculous. At some point you should stop blindly defending people.

as justification for why he was shot? yeah it really didn't matter. he wasn't in the process of robbing the store when he was pulled over nor did he have a gun pointed at police before he was shot

this isn't blindly defending people either. these are the actual facts of the case

37 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

I know that, but the comparison he made was ridiculous. There's a difference between getting a ticket and being a part of an armed robbery that they have proof you were part of..

but that's kind of my point. I got a ticket MONTHS ago and digging it up as a reason for why me being shot would be justified is in fact ridiculous. 

it's called framing btw.

20 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Holding a gun in someone's face is considered a crime and is justification for being killed

just like, at any time or do you have to be in the act of doing this when you're shot? either way if that's the case then I guess prison population will eventually go down

 

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

Just now, willow said:

as justification for why he was shot? yeah it really didn't matter. he wasn't in the process of robbing the store when he was pulled over nor did he have a gun pointed at police before he was shot

this isn't blindly defending people either. these are the actual facts of the case

but that's kind of my point. I got a ticket MONTHS ago and digging it up as a reason for why me being shot would be justified is in fact ridiculous. 

it's called framing btw.

No, listen. The severity of his crime is far more than fucking getting a ticket. He still had a gun, and could have grabbed it at any time. The point you're trying to make is stupid. Yes, being shot because you got a ticket would be dumb, but you didn't consider the fact that HE HAD A FUCKING GUN AND REFUSED TO DROP IT. It doesn't fucking matter if he wasn't currently robbing the store. He was a wanted suspect of a crime and he was armed. You're basically ignoring this fact and quite frankly it's really obnoxious to repeat myself over and over to get it through your head. Saying the robbery doesn't matter is completely stupid, because like I said before, if he escaped, there was a chance he could have committed more crimes since he had a history of doing so. The fact that you're so nonchalant about the fact he committed armed robbery really worries me.

[Troj]

1 hour ago, willow said:

If past criminal records are justification for literally shooting and killing someone, I hope I'm never shot by police because someone might dig up the fact that I got a parking ticket several months ago :v

And there's the other layer here.

There is ample research and plenty of anecdotes to suggest that justice is not blind, and that factors like socioeconomic status and race not only influence the outcome of your trial and sentencing, but even, whether you're likely to be taken alive or not at the scene of the crime.

Even if suspects are total shitheads, the system still isn't just and fair if white shitheads and black shitheads or rich shitheads and poor shitheads experience radically different outcomes.

Hell, just look at the Stanford Dumpster Rapist, and how the judge didn't want to damage his "bright future." I've known plenty of disadvantaged kids with great potential, and I'm afraid that a judge would just see a future cholo, gang-banger, or buck-toothed redneck, and throw the book at them without a second thought.

I'd be interested to see the actual stats, but it does strike me as interesting how the police are at least capable of taking some very scary violent offenders into custody alive, so it's not like it's impossible to apprehend an agitated or aggressive armed suspect. I'd honestly like to know more about what informs an officer's choices and options in a tense situation like that.

[willow]

15 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

No, listen. The severity of his crime is far more than fucking getting a ticket. He still had a gun, and could have grabbed it at any time. The point you're trying to make is stupid. Yes, being shot because you got a ticket would be dumb, but you didn't consider the fact that HE HAD A FUCKING GUN AND REFUSED TO DROP IT. It doesn't fucking matter if he wasn't currently robbing the store. He was a wanted suspect of a crime and he was armed. You're basically ignoring this fact and quite frankly it's really obnoxious to repeat myself over and over to get it through your head. Saying the robbery doesn't matter is completely stupid, because like I said before, if he escaped, there was a chance he could have committed more crimes since he had a history of doing so. The fact that you're so nonchalant about the fact he committed armed robbery really worries me.

the speed at which you replied to my post leads me to believe you didn't fully read it...

but just to reiterate, he wasn't holding a gun when he was shot. he could have grabbed said gun at any time while he was getting his registration to hand to the officer yes, but doesn't it seem a bit hasty to shoot someone who is not actively posing a threat? that's like arresting someone because they might commit a crime.

I'm not being nonchalant about him committing a crime either. I'm just saying the two don't correlate

Edit: side note, we're not talking about the guy who was just shot in NC. just in case you're referring to that

14 minutes ago, Troj said:

I'd be interested to see the actual stats, but it does strike me as interesting how the police are at least capable of taking some very scary violent offenders into custody alive, so it's not like it's impossible to apprehend an agitated or aggressive armed suspect. 

remember, capable and willing are two different things

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

1 minute ago, willow said:

the speed at which you replied to my post leads me to believe you didn't fully read it...

but just to reiterate, he wasn't holding a gun when he was shot. he could have grabbed said gun at any time while he was getting his registration to hand to the officer yes, but doesn't it seem a bit hasty to shoot someone who is not actively posing a threat? that's like arresting someone because they might commit a crime.

I'm not being nonchalant about him committing a crime either. I'm just saying the two don't correlate

remember, capable and willing are two different things

I did read what you said. I read quickly. It's clear that we aren't gonna agree on this so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

[Troj]

Here's another complicating factor:

If you genuinely believe you live in an unjust, corrupt, grossly-unequal Kafka-esque society, you're going to react in one of several standard ways to being in that situation.

Your perception of your situation might be crazy or might be accurate, mind you, but that doesn't change your experience of it.

If blacks genuinely feel that a statistically-significant number of cops would casually kill them, beat them, and/or plant evidence on them because it's convenient and easy, that's definitely going to shape their attitudes and behaviors towards the cops--which, in turn, will shape the attitudes and behaviors of cops towards blacks.

'Round n' 'round it goes.

[Gamedog]

48 minutes ago, willow said:

 

just like, at any time or do you have to be in the act of doing this when you're shot? either way if that's the case then I guess prison population will eventually go down

 

If you are in the act then you're dead

if you're caught later on then any sudden or dangerous actions or movements will end it

He was reaching for the illegal gun in his WAISTBAND iirc

why is this so hard for you to understand

 

50 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

NO!

The cop should have been able to identify whether it was a real gun, what model and year it was, how many bullets were in it, what the dude who last touched it ate this morning, and the guns favorite 80's pop singer was (SPOILER: It was a Tiffany fanatic) in less than .239 milliseconds.

Then by law, he must have been able to use his judo mastery to subdue the ruffian and drop him off at the local YMCA or local Boy's and Girl's club.

Of course some racist, privileged cishet shitlord like you wouldn't know this smh.

Why didn't he just sling his handcuffs through the window and have em whip around the wrists and snap shut like you see in cartoons

21 minutes ago, Troj said:

Here's another complicating factor:

If you genuinely believe you live in an unjust, corrupt, grossly-unequal Kafka-esque society, you're going to react in one of several standard ways to being in that situation.

Your perception of your situation might be crazy or might be accurate, mind you, but that doesn't change your experience of it.

If blacks genuinely feel that a statistically-significant number of cops would casually kill them, beat them, and/or plant evidence on them because it's convenient and easy, that's definitely going to shape their attitudes and behaviors towards the cops--which, in turn, will shape the attitudes and behaviors of cops towards blacks.

'Round n' 'round it goes.

It would help it if they didn't intentionally, knowingly, and repeatedly commit crimes and carry illegal weapons in their waistbands

but whatever

blacks can't think for themselves and think rationally? Is that what you're implying?

[Cannakitty]

The level of anti-black sentiment going on in this thread is just crazy.

[#00Buck]

49 minutes ago, willow said:

the speed at which you replied to my post leads me to believe you didn't fully read it...

but just to reiterate, he wasn't holding a gun when he was shot. he could have grabbed said gun at any time while he was getting his registration to hand to the officer yes, but doesn't it seem a bit hasty to shoot someone who is not actively posing a threat? that's like arresting someone because they might commit a crime.

I'm not being nonchalant about him committing a crime either. I'm just saying the two don't correlate

Edit: side note, we're not talking about the guy who was just shot in NC. just in case you're referring to that

remember, capable and willing are two different things

Nice try but impossible. 

There is no way he was registered for concealed carry.

He was a multiple convicted violent felon. Impossible for him to legally own a gun of any kind. 

Just having the gun on his person was a criminal offence and incredibly dangerous. 

12 minutes ago, Cannakitty said:

The level of anti-black sentiment going on in this thread is just crazy.

The level of anti-truth sentiment is even higher!

[Cannakitty]

15 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

The level of anti-truth sentiment is even higher!

You're not nothing but a liar who will say anything to harm the image of black people.

Edit: I live in a community that is almost entirely black. Guess what? They're excellent. They're by and large some of the nicest and most intelligent people I have been around. The fact that you would take any bit of information, no matter how small just to confirm your bias that black people are beneath you is gross.

[Vae]

<mod post>
Guys, keep this debate civil.
If you can't debate without stooping to personal attack, and are incapable of participating in a debate of this kind of volatile nature without letting your emotions take the steering wheel, excuse yourself from the thread.
Simple as that.
</mod post>

[#00Buck]

37 minutes ago, Cannakitty said:

You're not nothing but a liar who will say anything to harm the image of black people.

Edit: I live in a community that is almost entirely black. Guess what? They're excellent. They're by and large some of the nicest and most intelligent people I have been around. The fact that you would take any bit of information, no matter how small just to confirm your bias that black people are beneath you is gross.

I've done nothing but state facts and supply links to video evidence and news articles that prove the following:

1) He wasn't reading a book no books were present.

2) He had a gun.

3) The police chief confirms he had a gun.

4) He did not obey the lawful commands of the police officers.

5) He appeared to have a gun in an ankle holster. When told to get on the ground by the police he reaches down towards the gun just before being shot.

6) He was a multiple convicted felon who had interfered with minors, been a drunk driver, assaulted people with deadly weapons, and previously fired shots a police officers. His criminal record spans three states. It was illegal for him to be in possession of a gun. 

7) The officer that shot him was black. It was a black on black shooting. 

8) Black protesters destroyed police cars, threw rocks off a highway bridge onto cars full of innocent people, beat up news crews and tried to burn them alive, beat a white person in a parking lot just for being white, looted stores and robbed people, shot a black person, and burned down entire sections of the city most of which were in black neighbourhoods. 

These are all facts. I have not told any lies. 

Calling me a liar and implying that I'm racist is unacceptable. 

[Hux]

I heard that he was just walking an elderly woman with dementia home after donating blood and giving his paycheck to charity before a racist, neo-Nazi white cop who drinks puppy blood shot him in the face just for being a black guy. 

[Zeke]

If you are talking about Phillando Castille, it was proven that he did have a CCW permit. Plus, traffic violations do not bar you from owning a gun, only violent offenses like domestic disputes and . If that were the case than anyone who has committed a traffic violation is a thug. Most states also honor permits from other states in the case of moving. 

Before you bring up the narrative "Well he was a suspect for armed robbery", that was also proven false. The officer thought he looked like a robber because of hair and "Flared nostrils".  Police profile people. It happens. 

Second warning: Please keep it civil and leave the pot-shots out of this thread. If I have to come back and issue another warning, I am going to infract/suspend the offenders. 

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

If you are talking about Phillando Castille, it was proven that he did have a CCW permit. Plus, traffic violations do not bar you from owning a gun, only violent offenses like domestic disputes and . If that were the case than anyone who has committed a traffic violation is a thug. Most states also honor permits from other states in the case of moving. 

Before you bring up the narrative "Well he was a suspect for armed robbery", that was also proven false. The officer thought he looked like a robber because of hair and "Flared nostrils".  Police profile people. It happens. 

No. I'm not talking about Phillando Castille. The subject has never changed. I've been talking about the Charlotte shooting the entire time. Do not try and make it look like I'm talking about someone else. Do not try and misdirect my argument. I've stated nothing but facts. I have yet to see you or anyone else counter with any facts at all. Just denials. 

I never brought that up and it isn't relevant. I've provided more than enough news and video evidence to show that at this point the shooting appears to be legal and justified and that the rioting, looting, and other criminal activity were totally unjustified. 

[Zeke]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

No. I'm not talking about Phillando Castille. The subject has never changed. I've been talking about the Charlotte shooting the entire time. Do not try and make it look like I'm talking about someone else. Do not try and misdirect my argument. I've stated nothing but facts. I have yet to see you or anyone else counter with any facts at all. Just denials. 

I never brought that up and it isn't relevant. I've provided more than enough news and video evidence to show that at this point the shooting appears to be legal and justified and that the rioting, looting, and other criminal activity were totally unjustified. 

 

 

 

If you mean that potato quality video that makes my eyes hurt and other crap, I am going to be rather skeptical despite the "facts". Sorry dude, but I feel there's more to it than meets the eye. So chill. 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Zeke said:

If you mean that potato quality video that makes my eyes hurt and other crap, I am going to be rather skeptical despite the "facts". 

Skepticism isn't an argument. 

Plus you can google search for the body cam video. It is uploaded to news sources everywhere. If you want a better quality one I'm sure you can find it.

Not to mention the excellent quality video of the police chief confirming that he did in fact have a gun. 

Also the excellent quality video of the looting, fires, beatings and other criminal activity carried out by crowds after the shooting.

News articles are not "other crap." They contain factual information about his criminal record and what took place during the shooting. 

You have posted no evidence of any quality at all in favour of your argument. 

This is supposed to be civil debate. If you have no facts then you're not debating. 

[Zeke]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Skepticism isn't an argument. 

Plus you can google search for the body cam video. It is uploaded to news sources everywhere. If you want a better quality one I'm sure you can find it.

Not to mention the excellent quality video of the police chief confirming that he did in fact have a gun. 

Also the excellent quality video of the looting, fires, beatings and other criminal activity carried out by crowds after the shooting.

News articles are not "other crap." They contain factual information about his criminal record and what took place during the shooting. 

You have posted no evidence of any quality at all in favour of your argument. 

This is supposed to be civil debate. If you have no facts then you're not debating. 

3

I cannot insert in my own opinions in here without having to link to something? Did I miss a memo or something? 

Why don't you provide me a 720p HD video and I'll concede. Or I can just squat in here and throw my 2 cents in here while you can add in your own "valuable insight". 

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

So why is it that my post got deleted but Cannakitty can sit here and call everyone racist with no repercussion?