Video filmed by the wife of the Charlotte shooting of Keith Scott by police
DISGUSTING: Charlotte rioters try to toss unconscious photographer INTO A FIRE
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Reality deniers.
The Narrative versus the Facts in Charlotte
Jumping to conclusions with police shootings, denying terrorism with bombings.
By Robert N. Driscoll — September 22, 2016
In Charlotte, a black man is shot and killed by police (specifically, by a black officer, who works under a black chief of police, but don’t let that slow down your “systematic racism” roll). Soon the protests start. The politicians talk. The protests turn violent. The National Guard is called in. Before you can blink, Charlotte is added to the litany of cities cited by the Black Lives Matter movement as examples of “killing of unarmed black men.”
If you hear Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore, and Cleveland read together, what pops to mind? That the police were cleared in each case? Probably not. Add Charlotte to the list, because the narrative matters more than the facts. It is apparently of little significance to anyone that Keith Lamont Scott’s death in Charlotte has not been investigated, or that, in the end, the officer’s use of deadly force might well have been justified (Scott was armed, according to some reports).
As I pointed out within a week of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, federal civil-rights prosecutions are exceedingly rare, and the greater risk is raising community expectations of a prosecution, rather than encouraging the patience to wait for the facts to come out. Unfortunately, when it comes to police-involved shootings, some view the narrative (that structural racism leads to scores of innocent black men being gunned down in the streets by police with impunity) as more important than waiting to see whether a given case actually fits into that narrative.
After Ferguson, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder traveled to Missouri to express his support for the narrative that policing is racially biased, while arguably staying neutral (other than dispatching a huge number of FBI agents to investigate) on the shooting itself. As I wrote after his trip, there may be some short-term political benefit to agreeing with the narrative, but in the long term, if the facts don’t justify a prosecution, the community will have a difficult time when no case is brought (I was unfortunately proven right).
It is easy to see the power of the narrative over the facts by looking at Ferguson. Notwithstanding that Eric Holder’s Justice Department cleared Officer Darren Wilson completely, that the DOJ report established that “hands up, don’t shoot” was a complete fabrication, and that Michael Brown had indeed attacked Officer Wilson after strong-arm robbing a convenience store, “Ferguson” is still cable-news shorthand for an innocent black man being unjustifiably gunned down in the street (“a Ferguson situation”). Charlotte, regardless of the outcome (I’ll go out on a limb and say there will be no prosecution of the officer), is now in the same company. And violent protests, vandalism, and general hooliganism are tacitly tolerated by the political Left because the “narrative” is, in their minds, valid, even if this shooting is eventually found to be justified.
In contrast to the Keith Lamont Scott shooting, compare the typical liberal reaction to the spate of terrorist attacks this past weekend. A man in a Minnesota mall, who according to eyewitnesses mentioned Allah and inquired whether his victims were Muslim before stabbing them,wounded ten people before being shot by an off-duty officer. In addition, two explosive devices were intentionally detonated near the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan, injuring scores of people. Yet the many outlets and people who push the “racially biased policing” narrative without waiting for the facts to develop will rush to assure the public that these incidents are “not terrorism” until it is no longer deniable.
My personal favorite was New York mayor Bill de Blasio, who in the same press conference reported that the explosions in Chelsea had been set off “intentionally” and refused to label the act terrorism. I’m not sure what non-terrorist reason for intentionally exploding devices on the streets of Manhattan Mayor de Blasio wanted to leave open the possibility of, but regardless, the contrast with the police shootings is clear. For the Left, when it comes to terrorist acts, the narrative (we have terrorists in our country committed to killing us) is disputed even if the facts are clear (see, e.g., workplace violence at Fort Hood), while for police shootings the reverse is true: The narrative is endorsed (or at least “understood”) even when the facts don’t support it.
Here’s a crazy thought: What if, when the Scott shooting occurred in Charlotte, the media and the political Left had been as cautious about characterizing the incident as part of the “racially biased policing” narrative as they are about acknowledging that a given terrorist act might have something to do with terrorism? What if the mayor had said: “Why are you protesting? We don’t know anything yet!”? What if a respected community leader had said: “You know, you can’t unburn that black-owned small business if it turns out this officer was innocent, so let’s all calm down.” What if the media and political leaders were just as reluctant to suggest police misconduct prior to a full investigation as they are to suggest that terrorist acts have something to do with terrorism?
It would never happen, because it’s all about the narrative.
— Robert N. Driscoll is the managing partner of McGlinchey Stafford’s Washington, D.C., office and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. You can follow him on Twitter at @RNDriscoll.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440336/terrorism-police-shootings-different
The Narrative versus the Facts in Charlotte
Jumping to conclusions with police shootings, denying terrorism with bombings.
By Robert N. Driscoll — September 22, 2016
In Charlotte, a black man is shot and killed by police (specifically, by a black officer, who works under a black chief of police, but don’t let that slow down your “systematic racism” roll). Soon the protests start. The politicians talk. The protests turn violent. The National Guard is called in. Before you can blink, Charlotte is added to the litany of cities cited by the Black Lives Matter movement as examples of “killing of unarmed black men.”
If you hear Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore, and Cleveland read together, what pops to mind? That the police were cleared in each case? Probably not. Add Charlotte to the list, because the narrative matters more than the facts. It is apparently of little significance to anyone that Keith Lamont Scott’s death in Charlotte has not been investigated, or that, in the end, the officer’s use of deadly force might well have been justified (Scott was armed, according to some reports).
As I pointed out within a week of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, federal civil-rights prosecutions are exceedingly rare, and the greater risk is raising community expectations of a prosecution, rather than encouraging the patience to wait for the facts to come out. Unfortunately, when it comes to police-involved shootings, some view the narrative (that structural racism leads to scores of innocent black men being gunned down in the streets by police with impunity) as more important than waiting to see whether a given case actually fits into that narrative.
After Ferguson, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder traveled to Missouri to express his support for the narrative that policing is racially biased, while arguably staying neutral (other than dispatching a huge number of FBI agents to investigate) on the shooting itself. As I wrote after his trip, there may be some short-term political benefit to agreeing with the narrative, but in the long term, if the facts don’t justify a prosecution, the community will have a difficult time when no case is brought (I was unfortunately proven right).
It is easy to see the power of the narrative over the facts by looking at Ferguson. Notwithstanding that Eric Holder’s Justice Department cleared Officer Darren Wilson completely, that the DOJ report established that “hands up, don’t shoot” was a complete fabrication, and that Michael Brown had indeed attacked Officer Wilson after strong-arm robbing a convenience store, “Ferguson” is still cable-news shorthand for an innocent black man being unjustifiably gunned down in the street (“a Ferguson situation”). Charlotte, regardless of the outcome (I’ll go out on a limb and say there will be no prosecution of the officer), is now in the same company. And violent protests, vandalism, and general hooliganism are tacitly tolerated by the political Left because the “narrative” is, in their minds, valid, even if this shooting is eventually found to be justified.
In contrast to the Keith Lamont Scott shooting, compare the typical liberal reaction to the spate of terrorist attacks this past weekend. A man in a Minnesota mall, who according to eyewitnesses mentioned Allah and inquired whether his victims were Muslim before stabbing them,wounded ten people before being shot by an off-duty officer. In addition, two explosive devices were intentionally detonated near the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan, injuring scores of people. Yet the many outlets and people who push the “racially biased policing” narrative without waiting for the facts to develop will rush to assure the public that these incidents are “not terrorism” until it is no longer deniable.
My personal favorite was New York mayor Bill de Blasio, who in the same press conference reported that the explosions in Chelsea had been set off “intentionally” and refused to label the act terrorism. I’m not sure what non-terrorist reason for intentionally exploding devices on the streets of Manhattan Mayor de Blasio wanted to leave open the possibility of, but regardless, the contrast with the police shootings is clear. For the Left, when it comes to terrorist acts, the narrative (we have terrorists in our country committed to killing us) is disputed even if the facts are clear (see, e.g., workplace violence at Fort Hood), while for police shootings the reverse is true: The narrative is endorsed (or at least “understood”) even when the facts don’t support it.
Here’s a crazy thought: What if, when the Scott shooting occurred in Charlotte, the media and the political Left had been as cautious about characterizing the incident as part of the “racially biased policing” narrative as they are about acknowledging that a given terrorist act might have something to do with terrorism? What if the mayor had said: “Why are you protesting? We don’t know anything yet!”? What if a respected community leader had said: “You know, you can’t unburn that black-owned small business if it turns out this officer was innocent, so let’s all calm down.” What if the media and political leaders were just as reluctant to suggest police misconduct prior to a full investigation as they are to suggest that terrorist acts have something to do with terrorism?
It would never happen, because it’s all about the narrative.
— Robert N. Driscoll is the managing partner of McGlinchey Stafford’s Washington, D.C., office and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. You can follow him on Twitter at @RNDriscoll.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440336/terrorism-police-shootings-different
If Keith Lamont Scott Had Followed Gun Laws, Would He Still Be Alive?
The black man shot and killed by a black police officer in Charlotte, N.C. Tuesday was a felon who had gone to prison for seven years, making it illegal for him to possess a firearm.
According to records from Bexar County, Texas, Keith Lamont Scott was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in July 2005 and sentenced to seven years in prison. In relation to that case, he was charged and found guilty of evading arrest. He was also charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon, reckless driving, and assaulting his wife, but these charges were later dismissed.
Here is information about the case from the Bexar County Clerk of Court, followed by the list of other charges in Texas:
As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
Scott’s criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police chief told reporters Wednesday that officers have said Scott had a handgun when he got out of his car. When he refused to drop the weapon, that’s when officers shot him.
“It’s time to change the narrative, because I can tell you from the facts that the story’s a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media,” Chief Kerr Putney said.
Video footage from a dash-cam of the incident was made available to Scott’s family Wednesday. After viewing the video, the family said they wanted the videos released to the public immediately. In an emailed statement, the family’s attorney, Justin Bamberg, said, “After watching the videos, the family again has more questions than answers.”
Bamberg said it was impossible to see what was in Scott’s hands, and that “he was slowly walking backwards” when he was shot.
Despite reports from sources within the department that say the video shows Scott with a gun, Putney also said he can’t see Scott’s hands well enough to determine whether he was holding a weapon.
“The angle in which he’s standing, I can’t see his hands,” Putney told CNN. “Therefore, I can’t see a weapon in his hands or him pointing a weapon that would be in his hands. I can’t see, based on the angle, that definitive piece of visual evidence that I need.”
However, Putney said, a gun was found at the scene beside Scott.
“We have various statements that he had the weapon, that he wouldn’t drop it, after repeated verbal commands,” Putney said. “At the incident, there is a weapon recovered right there in close proximity to the subject.”
When Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Putney Thursday night if he had “any doubt” that Scott had a gun, the police chief said even though it would be good to have video evidence, sometimes that’s not enough.
“There’s a lot of other evidence that I can’t speak to further,” he said. “The State Bureau of Investigations, an independent investigative body, has taken over. I really can’t speak to the investigation further, but there’s a lot of other evidence that gives us a great deal of support and comfort that the version that you heard from us before is supported by the evidence. . . . that version is still very much accurate.”
When Kelly asked him about fingerprints on the gun and whether it was registered to Scott, Putney said that’s all very relevant, but he can’t speak about it now with the ongoing investigation.
Having a criminal record like Scott’s doesn’t give police officers license to shoot. However, the facts about Scott’s criminal history cast doubt on the narrative that he was a gentle family man who was just sitting in his car reading a book.
Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.
Photo Today / YouTube
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/23...ubt-black-lives-matter-narrative-nc-shooting/
The black man shot and killed by a black police officer in Charlotte, N.C. Tuesday was a felon who had gone to prison for seven years, making it illegal for him to possess a firearm.
According to records from Bexar County, Texas, Keith Lamont Scott was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in July 2005 and sentenced to seven years in prison. In relation to that case, he was charged and found guilty of evading arrest. He was also charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon, reckless driving, and assaulting his wife, but these charges were later dismissed.
Here is information about the case from the Bexar County Clerk of Court, followed by the list of other charges in Texas:
As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
Scott’s criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police chief told reporters Wednesday that officers have said Scott had a handgun when he got out of his car. When he refused to drop the weapon, that’s when officers shot him.
“It’s time to change the narrative, because I can tell you from the facts that the story’s a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media,” Chief Kerr Putney said.
Video footage from a dash-cam of the incident was made available to Scott’s family Wednesday. After viewing the video, the family said they wanted the videos released to the public immediately. In an emailed statement, the family’s attorney, Justin Bamberg, said, “After watching the videos, the family again has more questions than answers.”
Bamberg said it was impossible to see what was in Scott’s hands, and that “he was slowly walking backwards” when he was shot.
Despite reports from sources within the department that say the video shows Scott with a gun, Putney also said he can’t see Scott’s hands well enough to determine whether he was holding a weapon.
“The angle in which he’s standing, I can’t see his hands,” Putney told CNN. “Therefore, I can’t see a weapon in his hands or him pointing a weapon that would be in his hands. I can’t see, based on the angle, that definitive piece of visual evidence that I need.”
However, Putney said, a gun was found at the scene beside Scott.
“We have various statements that he had the weapon, that he wouldn’t drop it, after repeated verbal commands,” Putney said. “At the incident, there is a weapon recovered right there in close proximity to the subject.”
When Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Putney Thursday night if he had “any doubt” that Scott had a gun, the police chief said even though it would be good to have video evidence, sometimes that’s not enough.
“There’s a lot of other evidence that I can’t speak to further,” he said. “The State Bureau of Investigations, an independent investigative body, has taken over. I really can’t speak to the investigation further, but there’s a lot of other evidence that gives us a great deal of support and comfort that the version that you heard from us before is supported by the evidence. . . . that version is still very much accurate.”
When Kelly asked him about fingerprints on the gun and whether it was registered to Scott, Putney said that’s all very relevant, but he can’t speak about it now with the ongoing investigation.
Having a criminal record like Scott’s doesn’t give police officers license to shoot. However, the facts about Scott’s criminal history cast doubt on the narrative that he was a gentle family man who was just sitting in his car reading a book.
Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.
Photo Today / YouTube
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/23...ubt-black-lives-matter-narrative-nc-shooting/
They knew the evils of inflation.
I wonder what they would think if they new they would be paying 10 times that today. Good Kosher meat today would be what a $1.20?
And ricter denies the massive systemic inflation.
wait... you mean meat is 12 dollars or more a pound today.
prices are up 100 times in a century? And we have progressive taxes and death taxes?
What the hell? Who got all the assets that had to sold off to pay taxes?
I wonder what they would think if they new they would be paying 10 times that today. Good Kosher meat today would be what a $1.20?
And ricter denies the massive systemic inflation.
wait... you mean meat is 12 dollars or more a pound today.
prices are up 100 times in a century? And we have progressive taxes and death taxes?
What the hell? Who got all the assets that had to sold off to pay taxes?