charlotte riots

[Zeke]

1 minute ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

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

Canna's was taken care of as well. 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Zeke said:

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". 

Sure you can insert your opinions in here. It's the personal attacks against me that I don't like and that are a violation of the forum rules. 

I'm just pointing out that opinions based upon facts, video evidence, and government records have weight to them.

An unsupported opinion is just that. An opinion and carries very little weight in a debate. 

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

Just now, Zeke said:

Canna's was taken care of as well. 

Oh, alright. Everyone's a little heated right now but going around and screaming "RACIST!" at everyone really butters my toast.

[Zeke]

5 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Sure you can insert your opinions in here. It's the personal attacks against me that I don't like and that are a violation of the forum rules. 

I'm just pointing out that opinions based upon facts, video evidence, and government records have weight to them.

An unsupported opinion is just that. An opinion and carries very little weight in a debate. 

 

 

Except I never attacked you despite what I think of you and I am doing my best to clean up in here. However, that's another matter that does not belong in this thread.

[Troj]

2 hours ago, Gamedog said:

but whatever

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

You know perfectly well that it's not what I'm implying. Don't troll.

Even if they're mis-perceiving or over-estimating the danger that cops pose to them from an objective standpoint--as many people will argue--if they've perceived a serious-enough (whatever that means) level of risk, it's arguably very rational for them to then be suspicious of cops and the justice system, and very rational to want to defend or protect themselves in some way. (Obviously, all of the possible ways of defending and/or protecting yourself are not created equal, in that some are theoretically stupid, immoral, dangerous, illegal, and/or likely to fail.)

Also, cops are also part of this cycle, because they are arguably reacting to blacks as much as blacks are reacting to them.

My sense is that in light of history, blacks have a very valid reason to be skeptical and afraid of the justice system.

How skeptical is too skeptical, or not skeptical enough? I honestly can't say. First, even if you can quantify a risk, that often doesn't change people's subjective feelings about it. (See: The number of people who are afraid to fly in airplanes, or who are terrified of terrorists, despite the chances of being killed by either are statistically quite low.) Second, the relevant facts have been distorted, concealed, lost, or just never fleshed out, and some of the variables in play are hard to quantify, so we don't know exactly how many poisoned Skittles have been previously found in the bowl, which makes it that much harder to state how many poisoned Skittles might be in the bowl right now.

Anyway, long story short, my feeling is that people who believe that the problem can be solved by blacks just being cheerful, trusting, and obedient in spite of their skepticism and fears are basically expecting them to behave irrationally.

[Cannakitty]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

Except I never attacked you despite what I think of you and I am doing my best to clean up in here. However, that's another matter that does not belong in this thread. 

What I am waiting for is DNA evidence on the gun. 

Zeke you are a much smarter being than I.

[#00Buck]

6 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Except I never attacked you despite what I think of you and I am doing my best to clean up in here. However, that's another matter that does not belong in this thread. 

What I am waiting for is DNA evidence on the gun. 

I never said you attacked me. Cannakitty called me a racist twice. Those are the personal attacks I referred to. You tried to misdirect my argument by implying that I was talking about a different shooting. I was not. I had been consistent the entire time and had always been talking about the Charlotte shooting. You also tried to bring up another point that I'd never mentioned and was totally irrelevant to my argument. 

See below what you posted:

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. 

I can't supply you with a better quality video or DNA evidence. The source for all the evidence is the Charlotte Police Department. They are in charge of providing the evidence. This includes the body cam and dash cam videos and a statement by the chief of police that he did indeed have a gun. 

We will all have to wait for more facts to come out. But as the facts have continued to come it the story has shifted from a totally innocent person sitting under a tree reading a book getting shot by a racist white police officer for no reason to a person who is a multiple convicted violent felon with a gun failing to obey police commands and being shot by a black police officer. 

I also look forward to the DNA evidence. It will be nice to know with 100% certainty that the shooting was justified. 

[Zeke]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I never said you attacked me. Cannakitty called me a racist twice. Those are the personal attacks I referred to. You tried to misdirect my argument by implying that I was talking about a different shooting. I was not. I had been consistent the entire time and had always been talking about the Charlotte shooting. You also tried to bring up another point that I'd never mentioned and was totally irrelevant to my argument. 

See below what you posted:

I can't supply you with a better quality video or DNA evidence. The source for all the evidence is the Charlotte Police Department. They are in charge of providing the evidence. This includes the body cam and dash cam videos and a statement by the chief of police that he did indeed have a gun. 

We will all have to wait for more facts to come out. But as the facts have continued to come it the story has shifted from a totally innocent person sitting under a tree reading a book getting shot by a racist white police officer for no reason to a person who is a multiple convicted violent felon with a gun failing to obey police commands and being shot by a black police officer. 

I also look forward to the DNA evidence. It will be nice to know with 100% certainty that the shooting was justified. 

 

But you have your hackles up as if I am attacking you or you are preparing for another direct attack. 
If it bothers you THAT much, then I apologize for misreading. 

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

But you have your hackles up as if I am attacking you or you are preparing for another direct attack. 
If it bothers you THAT much, then I apologize for misreading. 

I do not have my hackles up. You have no idea what I'm thinking or feeling. If you want to know if I feel like I'm being attacked or about to get attacked again please ask me. You can just send me a private message. Do not jump to conclusions about what I'm thinking. That is incredibly unfair. I will tell you honestly how I feel if you ask. 

Yes you did misread. I accept your apology. It is clear that we disagree on this topic. However it is of interest to me that the truth about what happened will eventually be found and I will continue to post up new videos and evidence as it is released by the Charlotte Police Department. 

I will defend myself when people falsely accuse me over and over again of being racist. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself against that kind of false accusation. If I had accused someone of being racist multiple times after being warned to be civil I know I would have received an infraction for it. I just want the facts and the truth to come out. There's nothing wrong with that. 

[DrGravitas]

3 hours ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

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.

My posts were to argue solely about the influence of prior convictions on judgement of danger posed. I made no mention of whether or not I think he had a gun, nor whether I think the shooting was justified because it has no relevance to my assertion.

My assertion was specifically and only that prior convictions do not and should not be considered a factor in determining present danger. Nothing more.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, DrGravitas said:

My posts were to argue solely about the influence of prior convictions on judgement of danger posed. I made no mention of whether or not I think he had a gun, nor whether I think the shooting was justified because it has no relevance to my assertion.

My assertion was specifically and only that prior convictions do not and should not be considered a factor in determining present danger. Nothing more.

Unfortunately the parole board disagrees with you as well as sex offender registries which keep track of dangerous offenders that are at a high risk to commit the exact same crimes that they were previously jailed for. The court system also disagrees with you as they will extend the sentence of a crime if the criminal has committed the same previous offence on multiple occasions. The prison system also has security levels based upon the past violent behaviour of the inmates with the most common violent re-offenders ending up in maximum security. So prior convictions are a factor in determining present danger all across law enforcement. That's how the system works. 

[Recel]

Honestly, I don't even care if the cops shot with a real reason or not. Because either way, what happened after can not be excused in either scenario.

This whole story reminds me why I hate the whole "anti-racism" ideology. Because in my eye, it's everything except anti-racism. All it constantly talks about is skin colour.
All I see is people becoming racist themselves and using the word racism as an excuse for it. It's childish thinking, and a dangerous behaviour. "But teacher! He was racist fiiirst!" The bystanders who got beaten and almost tossed on a bonfire? What was their crime in this situation? Yes. They were the wrong colour. That's all. But people seem to forget what the word "racism" actually means, so they try excuse this behaviour.

I see this so often, on the news, in a conversation (if a subject like this comes up) and yes, even on this forum. People use these kind of word constantly. Racism, sexism, terrorism and so on, often not even knowing what it even means, or simply projecting that meaning into others words.
Some people are extremely skilled at reading "Bear" as "Bunny"!

Stop putting pigments before lives. It's not a hard concept. People died. Don't put a colour in front of "people".

And remember a saying in this thread. If its not your shirt... don't wear it.

/end rant

[Tsuujou]

I'm sort of confused where I stand on this issue, truthfully. I think I'm big chunks of both sides.

I've always been pretty chunky on all sides though. 

[evan]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Unfortunately the parole board disagrees with you as well as sex offender registries which keep track of dangerous offenders that are at a high risk to commit the exact same crimes that they were previously jailed for. The court system also disagrees with you as they will extend the sentence of a crime if the criminal has committed the same previous offence on multiple occasions. The prison system also has security levels based upon the past violent behaviour of the inmates with the most common violent re-offenders ending up in maximum security. So prior convictions are a factor in determining present danger all across law enforcement. That's how the system works. 

your examples refer to incarceration. Gravitas is looking at the point of arrest. being shot during arrest is not a form of incarceration.

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, evan said:

your examples refer to incarceration. Gravitas is looking at the point of arrest. being shot during arrest is not a form of incarceration.

It is possible to check the record of a person before approaching them for the arrest. 

In a targeted raid against a drug dealer for example the SWAT team will go over their previous record and look for things from the past that indicate a present danger. 

For example if the criminal has previously made explosives they may call the bomb squad to come along. 

If they previously kept dangerous animals they may call animal control. 

If they are known to take hostages they may set up a sniper post. 

These are all things commonly done in law enforcement as standard procedure. Previous records are used to prepare for present situations. Not to do so would be negligent. 

[evan]

1 minute ago, XoPachi said:

I'm sort of confused where I stand on this issue, truthfully. I think I'm big chunks of both sides.

I've always been pretty chunky on all sides though. 

when BLM first started being a thing i was very very strongly against it, and then more cases came out and i felt compelled to believe that the situation had a complex set of reasons to exist.

i do not support riots, however i have seen many civilized people i know insist that moderated, non-anarchist actions will work. both in context of what leaders such as MLK meant, as well as the actions he despised  (eg, he did NOT support black panthers, nor did he the white moderate.)

 

[DrGravitas]

7 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Unfortunately the parole board disagrees with you as well as sex offender registries which keep track of dangerous offenders that are at a high risk to commit the exact same crimes that they were previously jailed for. The court system also disagrees with you as they will extend the sentence of a crime if the criminal has committed the same previous offence on multiple occasions. The prison system also has security levels based upon the past violent behaviour of the inmates with the most common violent re-offenders ending up in maximum security. So prior convictions are a factor in determining present danger all across law enforcement. That's how the system works. 

What you describe is not what I would call 'present danger', but what it is to pose a danger in a general sense. I am referring to 'present danger" as in, danger at present, as judged by the officer at the time of arrest.

[#00Buck]

Just now, DrGravitas said:

What you describe is not what I would call 'present danger', but what it is to pose a danger in a general sense. I am referring to 'present danger" as in, danger at present, as judged by the officer at the time of arrest.

Please see my response to Evan's post. 

If you were on your way to arrest a criminal who had previously set explosives would it make sense to tell the bomb squad not to come with you to the arrest?

Past records determine the threat of present dangers. This is standard practise in police work. 

[evan]

Just now, #00Buck said:

It is possible to check the record of a person before approaching them for the arrest. 

In a target raid against a drug dealer for example the SWAT team will go over their previous record and look for things from the past that indicate a present danger. 

For example if the criminal has previously made explosives they may call the bomb squad to come along. 

If they previously kept dangerous animals they may call animal control. 

If they are known to take hostages they may set up a sniper post. 

These are all things commonly done in law enforcement as standard procedure. Previous records are used to prepare for present situations. Not to do so would be negligent. 

and if we assume all factors allow a civilian to be treated with valid concerns for criminal behaviour, at what point would you say is someone with convictions dangerous enough to be shot instead of detained?  would you say that since there was maybe one or two patrol cars, that the decision to escalate to bullets was reflective of the convictions?

i don't know much about the situation. i'd like to see more of the reasoning behind any given stance than i would make one, which is why i'm trying to pressure your stance.

[#00Buck]

12 minutes ago, evan said:

and if we assume all factors allow a civilian to be treated with valid concerns for criminal behaviour, at what point would you say is someone with convictions dangerous enough to be shot instead of detained?  would you say that since there was maybe one or two patrol cars, that the decision to escalate to bullets was reflective of the convictions?

i don't know much about the situation. i'd like to see more of the reasoning behind any given stance than i would make one, which is why i'm trying to pressure your stance.

If you read the thread from the start I've posted video that show everything that has taken place so far including the body cam video, dash cam video, cell phone video, video of the police chief stating to the public that he did have a gun, his criminal record, video of the rioting, and a frame by frame of the body cam video showing what appears to be an ankle holster with a gun in it and him disobeying police commands just before he was shot. 

Check it out and come to your own conclusions. As I've said before the truth will come out eventually. I look forward to the DNA testing on the gun so I can know 100% that the shooting was legal and justified. 

[Tsuujou]

Just now, evan said:

i do not support riots, however i have seen many civilized people i know insist that moderated, non-anarchist actions will work. both in context of what leaders such as MLK meant, as well as the actions he despised  (eg, he did NOT support black panthers, nor did he the white moderate.)

 

I honestly wouldn't care if they held riots that were targeting police and relevant government property (that's PROPERTY, not PEOPLE). Smashing cruisers, vandalizing stations with anti-oppression messages, etc. Not that I throw blanket distrust and hate over each individual cop, but shit, I'd probs get a kick out of it because fuck the corruption in the force. :y

I had a lot more to say, but whatever.

 

[Gamedog]

This website is being overrun by over sensitive tantrum princesses and I'm tired of it

2 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

I honestly wouldn't care if they held riots that were targeting police and relevant government property (that's PROPERTY, not PEOPLE). Smashing cruisers, vandalizing stations with anti-oppression messages, etc. Not that I throw blanket distrust and hate over each individual cop, but shit, I'd probs get a kick out of it because fuck the corruption in the force. :y

I had a lot more to say, but whatever.

 

If you're white, your house is a symbol of oppression!!!

 

i bet you'd be the first one screaming if that happened though

[MalletFace]

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

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

Okay.

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

2) He had a gun.

Possessed. Big legal difference in a common law state..

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

3) The police chief confirms he had a gun.

Possessed. Big legal difference in a common law state. He also confirmed that "there is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand."

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

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.

I thought he was supposed to have been told to drop the gun when he got out of the vehicle.

Was he not going for it in his pocket, though?

I also thought he was aiming it at the officers at the time.

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

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. 

Putney said that the officers only bothered with Scott because he was committing a crime while possessing a firearm. Apparently the chief of Charlotte-Mecklenburg police forgot that marijuana possession is a civil - not criminal - offence in NC, and that possession of a firearm while committing a civil offense does not make it a criminal offense in an open carry state like NC.

Putney never said that they decided to stop and check Scott's records to consider his right to possess a firearm. It might be wise for Putney to have omitted that if the officers did check, though. Stopping just to check that one may own a firearm is in violation of the NC General Statutes. That's considered a violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights in such a gun-friendly state.

Marijuana possession does not revoke one's gun rights in NC, so they had no good reason to know he could not possess a firearm unless they knew of him and his record beforehand.

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

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

Okay.

54 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

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. 

Which sections? Charlotte looks like crap right now, but I don't see much of anything different from a month ago.

I-85 has some burn marks. There are some burn barrels at night.

11 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I also look forward to the DNA evidence.

I am not sure of the value of DNA evidence in this situation.

While it was said that Scott's DNA and blood were found on a handgun at the scene, the presence of the DNA means very little. By itself, the DNA suggests little more than that Scott committed a minor felony.

One can't say much about DNA until where the gun was found and how it got onto the concrete are revealed.

1 minute ago, DrGravitas said:

My assertion was specifically and only that prior convictions do not and should not be considered a factor in determining present danger. Nothing more.

That is actually the law in NC. The only time an officer is allowed to act differently in NC based on prior convictions is when they are escorting a felon in state custody.

An officer can shoot a felon on the spot if the officer even thinks the felon is about to make an escape from custody, but the officer must progress through all types of force outlined in the General Statutes and in local ordinances/directives/laws when dealing with anything but a convicted felon in state custody.

Judges can have prior convictions of a defendant admitted in court if the defendant is testifying, but that's an element of the judicial and not the executive.

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

Unfortunately the parole board disagrees with you as well as sex offender registries which keep track of dangerous offenders that are at a high risk to commit the exact same crimes that they were previously jailed for. The court system also disagrees with you as they will extend the sentence of a crime if the criminal has committed the same previous offence on multiple occasions. The prison system also has security levels based upon the past violent behaviour of the inmates with the most common violent re-offenders ending up in maximum security. So prior convictions are a factor in determining present danger all across law enforcement. That's how the system works. 

You've conflated several different elements of the executive and the judiciary in a state like NC. They each follow different laws, and the laws they follow are not only at the state level.

Just as the issue of use of force gets its own subdivision in the NC General Statutes, things like the Post-Release Commission, officers, and structured sentencing get their own articles/chapters/subdivisions. Laws from other sections do not necessarily apply to things in other sections just because they all fall under the umbrella of law enforcement.

8 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

It is possible to check the record of a person before approaching them for the arrest. 

If it is to check for an individual's right to own a firearm, that is a violation of NC's General Statutes. That's considered a violation of the 4th and 2nd Amendments by our Supreme Court.

An officer cannot stop you just to ask for a permit. An officer cannot ask you to provide identification just so they can check your rights. An officer cannot run an individual's plate's based on implied consent just to check that they may own a firearm.

An officer would be notified of the person's rights if they attempted to charge the individual with a civil offense, but Putney said the officers were not going to charge Scott with the civil offense until they saw the gun and decided he could not have the gun based on the civil offense.

9 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

...a targeted raid...

That's a pre-meditated arrest and seizure based on a warrant issued by the judiciary. The judiciary is more free to call upon an individual's past in NC.

20 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

For example if the criminal has previously made explosives they may call the bomb squad to come along. 

Why are the officers going, though? Are they acting on a warrant issued by the judiciary? Are they acting on something other than a civil offense?

If they are acting on a civil offense, that's illegal in NC, especially if the individual is permitted to make explosives and has no prior felonies.

22 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If they previously kept dangerous animals they may call animal control. 

This is either through warrant or based on evidence that suggests a criminal offense. It is okay to do that in NC in this case because it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights or the General Statutes.

25 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If they are known to take hostages they may set up a sniper post. 

Why are the officers going, though? Are they acting on a warrant issued by the judiciary? Are they acting on something other than a civil offense?

If they are acting on a civil offense, that's illegal in NC.

It would be interesting if police departments where possessing marijuana is a civil offense used snipers to give a dude a ticket for marijuana possession, though.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, MalletFace said:

Okay.

Possessed. Big legal difference in a common law state..

Possessed. Big legal difference in a common law state. He also confirmed that "there is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand."

I thought he was supposed to have been told to drop the gun when he got out of the vehicle.

Was he not going for it in his pocket, though?

I also thought he was aiming it at the officers at the time.

Putney said that the officers only bothered with Scott because he was committing a crime while possessing a firearm. Apparently the chief of Charlotte-Mecklenburg police forgot that marijuana possession is a civil - not criminal - offence in NC, and that possession of a firearm while committing a civil offense does not make it a criminal offense in an open carry state like NC.

Putney never said that they decided to stop and check Scott's records to consider his right to possess a firearm. It might be wise for Putney to have omitted that if the officers did check, though. Stopping just to check that one may own a firearm is in violation of the NC General Statutes. That's considered a violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights in such a gun-friendly state.

Marijuana possession does not revoke one's gun rights in NC, so they had no good reason to know he could not possess a firearm unless they knew of him and his record beforehand.

Okay.

Which sections? Charlotte looks like crap right now, but I don't see much of anything different from a month ago.

I-85 has some burn marks. There are some burn barrels at night.

I am not sure of the value of DNA evidence in this situation.

While it was said that Scott's DNA and blood were found on a handgun at the scene, the presence of the DNA means very little. By itself, the DNA suggests little more than that Scott committed a minor felony.

One can't say much about DNA until where the gun was found and how it got onto the concrete are revealed.

That is actually the law in NC. The only time an officer is allowed to act differently in NC based on prior convictions is when they are escorting a felon in state custody.

An officer can shoot a felon on the spot if the officer even thinks the felon is about to make an escape from custody, but the officer must progress through all types of force outlined in the General Statutes and in local ordinances/directives/laws when dealing with anything but a convicted felon in state custody.

Judges can have prior convictions of a defendant admitted in court if the defendant is testifying, but that's an element of the judicial and not the executive.

You've conflated several different elements of the executive and the judiciary in a state like NC. They each follow different laws, and the laws they follow are not only at the state level.

Just as the issue of use of force gets its own subdivision in the NC General Statutes, things like the Post-Release Commission, officers, and structured sentencing get their own articles/chapters/subdivisions. Laws from other sections do not necessarily apply to things in other sections just because they all fall under the umbrella of law enforcement.

If it is to check for an individual's right to own a firearm, that is a violation of NC's General Statutes. That's considered a violation of the 4th and 2nd Amendments by our Supreme Court.

An officer cannot stop you just to ask for a permit. An officer cannot ask you to provide identification just so they can check your rights. An officer cannot run an individual's plate's based on implied consent just to check that they may own a firearm.

An officer would be notified of the person's rights if they attempted to charge the individual with a civil offense, but Putney said the officers were not going to charge Scott with the civil offense until they saw the gun and decided he could not have the gun based on the civil offense.

That's a pre-meditated arrest and seizure based on a warrant issued by the judiciary. The judiciary is more free to call upon an individual's past in NC.

Why are the officers going, though? Are they acting on a warrant issued by the judiciary? Are they acting on something other than a civil offense?

If they are acting on a civil offense, that's illegal in NC, especially if the individual is permitted to make explosives and has no prior felonies.

This is either through warrant or based on evidence that suggests a criminal offense. It is okay to do that in NC in this case because it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights or the General Statutes.

Why are the officers going, though? Are they acting on a warrant issued by the judiciary? Are they acting on something other than a civil offense?

If they are acting on a civil offense, that's illegal in NC.

It would be interesting if police departments where possessing marijuana is a civil offense used snipers to give a dude a ticket for marijuana possession, though.

Wow you sure put a lot of work into picking through my posts. 

But in essence the facts remain and you have provided no proof that the shooting was unjustified. 

Also your arguments about gun permits are moot as he was a multiple felon and ineligible for a carry permit. 

[Tsuujou]

5 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

i bet you'd be the first one screaming if that happened though

prolly not

[Gamedog]

Just now, XoPachi said:

prolly not

Self flagellation then?

 

i have committed many sins such as being white, please take my house and smash my car windows in

ny ancestors bought slaves from yours and this is my reparation

 

[Tsuujou]

Just now, Gamedog said:

Self flagellation then?

You're assuming my race.

[#00Buck]

10 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

I honestly wouldn't care if they held riots that were targeting police and relevant government property (that's PROPERTY, not PEOPLE). Smashing cruisers, vandalizing stations with anti-oppression messages, etc. Not that I throw blanket distrust and hate over each individual cop, but shit, I'd probs get a kick out of it because fuck the corruption in the force. :y

I had a lot more to say, but whatever.

 

Yeah but your taxes pay to replace everything they burn. 

It isn't as simple as blowing up King Fossil which is cheaper and more fun.

[Tsuujou]

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

Yeah but your taxes pay to replace everything they burn. 

It isn't as simple as blowing up King Fossil which is cheaper and more fun.

King Fossil probably cost more than EARTH. Shit ain't cheap, my guy. :^Y

[#00Buck]

Just now, XoPachi said:

King Fossil probably cost more than EARTH. Shit ain't cheap, my guy. :^Y

Just wait for him to open his mouth and then fire away and drop bombs. #Gradiuslivesmatter

[Gamedog]

7 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

You're assuming my race.

Am I wrong?

[MalletFace]

13 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Also your arguments about gun permits are moot as he was a multiple felon and ineligible for a carry permit. 

They couldn't have known his gun rights and have acted justifiably under the NC general statutes. An officer must have a reason to check one's rights before they are able to do so in NC. A civil offense is not a valid reason in NC. This is meant to protect legal gun owners from incurring unreasonable infractions, but it turns out that pro-gun laws don't always work out so well.

13 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

a carry permit. 

No such thing in NC: only concealed carry and purchase license. One can take a gun openly just about anywhere.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, MalletFace said:

They couldn't have known his gun rights and have acted justifiably under the NC general statutes. An officer must have a reason to check one's rights before they are able to do so in NC. A civil offense is not a valid reason in NC. This is meant to protect legal gun owners from incurring unreasonable infractions, but it turns out that pro-gun laws don't always work out so well.

No such thing in NC: only concealed carry and purchase license. One can take a gun openly just about anywhere.

Unless you are wearing shorts a gun in an ankle holster is concealed. 

You need a CCW to have it. Pants which he is clearly wearing = concealment. 

Plus in NC convicted felons cannot own a gun. That is the law. 

The only way is if they were convicted of a non-violent felony and they have their criminal record expunged. 

He was a violent offender. Sorry but you're totally wrong on this but good try. 

[Tsuujou]

7 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Am I wrong?

No one will ever know! 

(You're welcome to continue guessing)

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

No one will ever know! 

(You're welcome to continue guessing)

My race is more obscure than yours. 

[Tsuujou]

7 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

My race is more obscure than yours. 

Probably. It's not about obscurity though. I've made it a top priority to keep my ethnicity hidden from everyone. Personal reasons. That's all.

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

Probably. It's not about obscurity though. I've made it a top priority to keep my ethnicity hidden from everyone. Personal reasons. That's all.

Me too. I don't want people to know that I'm not white. 

[MalletFace]

12 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Unless you are wearing shorts a gun in an ankle holster is concealed. 

Not in NC. If the holster is "visible and readily discernible" - and you thought it was in that funky-ass video - the gun is not concealed.

12 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Plus in NC convicted felons cannot own a gun. That is the law. 

A convicted felon can indeed own no firearm in NC. Putney said they were arresting Scott because he had a gun while committing a civil offense.

That is not a criminal offense in NC. I don't see where Putney said they were arresting Scott because he was a felon with a gun.

14 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

The only way is if they were convicted of a non-violent felony and they have their criminal record expunged. 

He was a violent offender.

Cool. An officer is still not permitted to do anything special to the dude unless he is a felon under state custody.

Being a felon doesn't just make all one's rights go away.

[Tsuujou]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Me too. I don't want people to know that I'm not white. 

:^)

[#00Buck]

7 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Not in NC. If the holster is "visible and readily discernible" - and you thought it was in that funky-ass video - the gun is not concealed.

A convicted felon can indeed own no firearm in NC. Putney said they were arresting Scott because he had a gun while committing a civil offense.

That is not a criminal offense in NC. I don't see where Putney said they were arresting Scott because he was a felon with a gun.

Cool. An officer is still not permitted to do anything special to the dude unless he is a felon under state custody.

Being a felon doesn't just make all one's rights go away.

Yes because he was drawing the gun to shoot at police. 

It must be open and visible 100% of the time. 

If he walked around all day with one pant leg pulled up so that the gun was visible all day long it would not be concealed. 

But he would still be a felon in possession of a gun which is a criminal offence!

He clearly had the gun concealed and pulled his pant leg up to get the gun when the police moved in to arrest him. 

[Gamedog]

Being a felon makes people more likely to find your presence threatening and believe that you're more likely to resort to violence 

[Gator]

excuse me for rambling incoherently, but i just woke up and i haven't really said anything in this thread yet so i'm gonna...

i honestly give zero shits if the shooting was justified or not.  i don't know, i don't care, because it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the riots are justified.  they aren't.  period.  if that cop had screeched some racial slur at the top of his lungs and gone flying into the guy with fists of KKK-fueled fury (which would be strange, considering he is black, but apparently being a police officer gives him a free White Card?), it would not have changed the fact that this shit people are doing is disgusting, and that aiming racism and hate toward white people (because that IS being done by many of these people, and people in/supporting the blm movement especially; some of them are literally just using this incident as an excuse to express that hate) is NOT a helpful way to address your concerns about poor decisions within the police force.  i don't know what kind of dream world some of these people are living in, but being black--especially in a place like charlotte--does not equal being automatically looked down on, underprivileged, and at risk for violence, from police or otherwise.  do some cops make bad decisions?  absolutely.  is it possible that there is racism within various branches of the police force throughout the country?  sure.  do i believe this guy's race had anything to do with the shooting?  no.  but even if it had, it wouldn't change the fact that the responses have been completely unwarranted.  one racist cop would not be reason enough to throw a tantrum in the streets and attack innocent civilians.  an entire racist police force would not be reason enough to do that.  random people you don't even know, and white people as a whole, had nothing whatsoever to do with this incident.  they are taking out their unwarranted rage in a totally uncalled for way and hurting people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it--including other black people.  a felon got shot by a police officer of the same race because he had a gun which he refused to drop.  whether the cop was in the right or not does not affect whether or not the incident calls for a huge blowup of violence and racism, because no matter what happened or why, it doesn't.  this isn't the days of slavery or lynching.  "white people" are not some kind of boogeyman out to get everyone with darker skin.  and frankly, neither is the police force.  this shit is all ridiculous and i don't want to have to be afraid to walk to my job at night because a bunch of nutjobs saw an opportunity to throw a fit and get some free TVs.

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Gator said:

excuse me for rambling incoherently, but i just woke up and i haven't really said anything in this thread yet so i'm gonna...

i honestly give zero shits if the shooting was justified or not.  i don't know, i don't care, because it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the riots are justified.  they aren't.  period.  if that cop had screeched some racial slur at the top of his lungs and gone flying into the guy with fists of KKK-fueled fury (which would be strange, considering he is black, but apparently being a police officer gives him a free White Card?), it would not have changed the fact that this shit people are doing is disgusting, and that aiming racism and hate toward white people (because that IS being done by many of these people, and people in/supporting the blm movement especially; some of them are literally just using this incident as an excuse to express that hate) is NOT a helpful way to address your concerns about poor decisions within the police force.  i don't know what kind of dream world some of these people are living in, but being black--especially in a place like charlotte--does not equal being automatically looked down on, underprivileged, and at risk for violence, from police or otherwise.  do some cops make bad decisions?  absolutely.  is it possible that there is racism within various branches of the police force throughout the country?  sure.  do i believe this guy's race had anything to do with the shooting?  no.  but even if it had, it wouldn't change the fact that the responses have been completely unwarranted.  one racist cop would not be reason enough to throw a tantrum in the streets and attack innocent civilians.  an entire racist police force would not be reason enough to do that.  random people you don't even know, and white people as a whole, had nothing whatsoever to do with this incident.  they are taking out their unwarranted rage in a totally uncalled for way and hurting people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it--including other black people.  a felon got shot by a police officer of the same race because he had a gun which he refused to drop.  whether the cop was in the right or not does not affect whether or not the incident calls for a huge blowup of violence and racism, because no matter what happened or why, it doesn't.  this isn't the days of slavery or lynching.  "white people" are not some kind of boogeyman out to get everyone with darker skin.  and frankly, neither is the police force.  this shit is all ridiculous and i don't want to have to be afraid to walk to my job at night because a bunch of nutjobs saw an opportunity to throw a fit and get some free TVs.

This is an effort post I can get behind. Well written thanks for sharing. 

[Gamedog]

Black police officers are simply Uncle Toms

duhhhh

👮🏿❌

[Falaffel]

4 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Black police officers are simply Uncle Toms

duhhhh

👮🏿❌

leave

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

7 minutes ago, Falaffel said:

leave

"THIS PERSON SAID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE SO LET ME REPLY WITH AN OH SO WITTY RESPONSE! THAT'LL SHOW HIM!"

[FlynnCoyote]

Race riots, Incoming dud president, I do not envy americans right now at all. Exactly how bad does a group have to get before it can be declared a criminal organization?

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Race riots, Incoming dud president, I do not envy americans right now at all. Exactly how bad does a group have to get before it can be declared a criminal organization?

 

Bar seems to be pretty low. KKK is still out and about in the states. One Two

[FlynnCoyote]

Maybe we should lock all the members of BLM and the KKK together in the biggest stadium(s) we can find and just let them talk it out?

Or just seal it permanently and get on with our lives, whatever works.

[Falaffel]

58 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

"THIS PERSON SAID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE SO LET ME REPLY WITH AN OH SO WITTY RESPONSE! THAT'LL SHOW HIM!"

also leave