Keith Lamont Scott shooting

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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/23...ubt-black-lives-matter-narrative-nc-shooting/
 
The entire truth will never really be known.

With distrust of police as it is some will contend the gun on the ground was dropped there by the police. It's also possible that the ankle holster was dropped but that is less likely. I have personal knowledge that such things HAVE occurred in the past but that doesn't mean it is the case here.

Since he was a convicted felon forbidden to have a gun there is no hope that tracing the gun will lead to him. If that was his gun he had it illegally and thus it cannot be traced. There are millions of such illegal guns floating around.

Perhaps one of his fellow travelers could be persuaded (or bribed, or intimidated into) linking the gun to him but it's unlikely that anyone would believe such a link anyway.

To me the videos are all completely inconclusive.

The BLM people will add this case to their list of instances of police unnecessarily killing a black man. I don't think there is justification for that.

To me it is a case of a convicted felon killed by police under controversial circumstances. In more normal times the police would be believed by default. I think the country should work towards a condition where that is the case again.

The current lack of trust of the police has been occasioned by some past mistakes by police. The BLM people are using this to make political hay whenever the sun shines, and thugs are taking advantage of that situation to sow the seeds of chaos because it fits THEIR purposes to operate in a chaotic world where police are distrusted.

My brother was a policeman for many years. From patrolman to homicide detective etc. He never expressed a fear of being on the street but his wife hated it. She always had the fear that when he went out of the door he wouldn't come back. I never heard her say it to him but I am sure if you asked her opinion she would have said to him "shoot first and ask questions later". There is no reason a good cop should give a skuzzball like Keith Lamont Scott a chance to kill him and prevent him from returning to his family after work.
 
Last edited:
If this go's unpunished this makes it acceptable for law enforcement to shoot people with a gun at their waist.I don't want the government having that kind of power.Get the right to accept this as ok by shooting a black person then they cant complain when the 2nd amendment /NRA/ open carry crowd starts getting mowed down for not putting down their weapons.
 
Let me give you a hypothetical:

Lets say (hypothetically ) that I am a normal white person who has to occasionally go through areas of my town where people like Keith Lamont Scott are likely to be encountered.

Lets say (hypothetically) I have been assaulted, threatened and robbed on at least one occasion by the likes of Keith Lamont Scott.

Lets say (hypothetically) that being tired of victimhood I get a permit to carry a gun to protect myself.

Lets say (hypothetically) that a version of Keith Lamont Scott comes up to me, says he has a gun and demands my money.

Lets say (hypothetically) that I drop my wallet and Keith Lamont Scott bends over to pick up my wallet and when he comes back up I place four rounds in the middle of his chest.

Lets say that, anticipating such an event, I drop a switchblade knife I carry in my pocket next to Keith Lamont's body. (after wiping my fingerprints off the handle).

Would anybody blame me?
 
Tony Stark said:
If this go's unpunished this makes it acceptable for law enforcement to shoot people with a gun at their waist.I don't want the government having that kind of power.Get the right to accept this as ok by shooting a black person then they cant complain when the 2nd amendment /NRA crowd starts getting mowed down for not putting down their weapons.
More...

When I was trained to use my legal carry I was told and even drilled to say to any police I encountered that "I hold a permit to carry a firearm and I am armed"... to show the gun to the police and allow the police to disarm me... and never ever ever to make a motion towards the gun.

This is standard practice and if you carry a gun you know your life may depend on following that drill.

I don't think Keith Lamont Scott followed that drill.

That's why he's dead.
 
Last edited:
oldnemesis said:
When I was trained to use my legal carry I was told and even drilled to say to any police I encountered that "I hold a permit to carry a firearm and I am armed"... to show the gun to the police and allow the police to disarm me... and never ever ever to make a motion towards the gun.

This is standard practice and if you carry a gun you know your life may depend on following that drill.

I don't think Keith Lamont Scott followed that drill.
More...


At the end of the day the standard is now being set that law enforcement can shoot you and not face charges for holding a weapon.Personally I don't like that.
 
Tony Stark said:
At the end of the day the standard is now being set that law enforcement can shoot you and not face charges for holding a weapon.Personally I don't like that.
More...

They are the Police. I am not. They have a responsibility to protect the public. Maybe from me.

If I choose to carry a gun I have the responsibility to PROVE to the police that (unlike other people they may encounter carrying guns) I am not a threat.

The police don't know me.

To prove I am not a threat I get a permit for my gun, act in a non threating manner towards police and ensure that they do not perceive me as a public or a personal threat. If I fail in this responsibility I could be killed.

I have no problem with that at all.
 
oldnemesis said:
If I choose to carry a gun I have the responsibility to PROVE to the police that (unlike other people they may encounter carrying guns) I am not a threat.
More...


I hope the 2nd amendment supporters agrees with that for their sake from now on.If they are legally carrying or exercising their 2nd amendment rights the burden is now on them to prove they are not a threat.Police and the Feds no longer have to lie and say a suspect pointed a gun at them to kill them,just holding a gun is enough justification now.
 
Tony Stark said:
I hope the 2nd amendment supporters agrees with that for their sake from now on.If they are legally carrying or exercising their 2nd amendment rights the burden is now on them to prove they are not a threat.Police and the Feds no longer have to lie and say a suspect pointed a gun at them to kill them,just holding a gun is enough justification now.
More...

You are awfully naïve... and/or looking for an argument to no purpose. If you want a debate for debate sake bother somebody else.

Here is something you might be interested in:

http://concealednation.org/2015/07/...led-we-look-at-all-50-states-for-the-answers/

(that's my brother grilling the driver :-) )

In SC (where I have my permit) I MUST inform. In PA where I also live I do not have to. PA is an 'open carry' state. SC is a never open carry state. i.e. in SC even if I have a permit I cannot openly carry a gun. Ever. If I do I will lose my permit.

In PA I can open carry without a permit of any kind.

So your '2nd amendment rights' have a lot of different interpretations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top