FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

I know they say it was simultaneous but is it possible that the male officer fired the taser first (lets say by a second or two) which cause his right arm to drop (I assume you tazer me on the side my arm drops) and she reacted to the arm being dropped by firing her gun? I could see a scenario when your adrenaline is rushed that you would say they both happened at the same time if I was a cop.

I just don't know how every knows they both happened at the same time from the video. Do tazers emit a light when fired or something like that?

This is a good point and would further lend itself to the fact (along with it being a single shot) that she panicked/fired inadvertently. I usually talk to our son who is a LEO about these shootings and he thinks something along these lines is possible.

He also questioned why her finger was actually on the trigger, when he had presented to imminent threat to that point. He said she should have had her finger extended over the trigger guard, which prevents an accidental shot from "reflex" action of the finger, yet still doesn't slow down the ability to fire if he presented a gun. From the video he thinks this is the most likely scenario (reflex shot) and it is a bad shoot.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Honestly, her version of the story is pretty believable and doesn't vary from the video. It also shows much clearer why they were wary of his actions. He hadn't done what was asked of him multiple times......

Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in Terence Crutcher's Shooting - ABC News

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

He also questioned why her finger was actually on the trigger, when he had presented to imminent threat to that point.

This is a point I don't understand. He walks away from the cop for a good 100 feet, to the window. What do we think he was doing? Is she just to assume that his intentions are good despite the fact that he's not following orders? At what point does the cop get to be scared that he could be reaching for a weapon? Are they supposed to just stand there and figure they'll shoot when he pulls out a gun and turns towards them?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

This is a point I don't understand. He walks away from the cop for a good 100 feet, to the window. What do we think he was doing? Is she just to assume that his intentions are good despite the fact that he's not following orders? At what point does the cop get to be scared that he could be reaching for a weapon? Are they supposed to just stand there and figure they'll shoot when he pulls out a gun and turns towards them?

This is a basic training issue. Your finger is never supposed to be touching the trigger unless you are in the act of firing the weapon.

[Dutch]

I was a small arms instructor for 3 years. You don't put your finger on the trigger until you are intending to shoot, not the act of shooting. Reason being is because you want your trigger finger squared properly on the trigger. You can and most likely will pull the gun's aim to the left or right by just throwing your finger down and firing. That is caused when you short touch or over touch the trigger with the center mass of of your finger.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Honestly, her version of the story is pretty believable and doesn't vary from the video. It also shows much clearer why they were wary of his actions. He hadn't done what was asked of him multiple times......

Tulsa Police Officer Shares Her Side of the Story in Terence Crutcher's Shooting - ABC News

Originally Posted by Suicane75

This is a point I don't understand. He walks away from the cop for a good 100 feet, to the window. What do we think he was doing? Is she just to assume that his intentions are good despite the fact that he's not following orders? At what point does the cop get to be scared that he could be reaching for a weapon? Are they supposed to just stand there and figure they'll shoot when he pulls out a gun and turns towards them?

Yes, it's believable, and yes I have zero problem with him being shot... with a taser. But especially once you have 4 officers on the ground, and the man hasn't actually shown a weapon or threat yet, there is no reason to have your finger on the trigger of a real gun. That's poor training and a panicked reaction, just like the Philando Castile incident.

As for the helicopter, I'm guessing that they have one in the air & it goes where there are calls to act as a traffic controller, or if suspects run from a scene. In weird coincidences, I guess the shooter's husband who's also an officer was in that helicopter (and may have been the one who said the Bad Dude remark.)

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

As of this moment this video has been viewed over 500,000 times and has been shared over 23,000 times. People who are already predisposed to not trusting the police are seeing this. This is the kind of stuff feeding what's going on.

That does help make a little more sense of the brother's comments. The Current Year on Twitter: "EARLIER TODAY Brother of #KeithLamontScott calling white people evil.
VIDEO HERE
#Charlotte https://t.co/sEHU8oM8OE"

[Ben E Lou]

Wow...it was posted roughly 24 hours ago, and now it's approaching a million views. Clearly that thing is being spread widely. I'm seeing some people who are taking it as absolute ironclad proof that the entire Charlotte PD is involved in covering this up.

[wustin]

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has more than twice the amount of crime than Greensboro or Raleigh yearly. There should be activism against both sides, crime and policing.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by wustin

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has more than twice the amount of crime than Greensboro or Raleigh yearly. There should be activism against both sides, crime and policing.

It also has a larger population than both combined

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It also has a larger population than both combined

This reminds me of a post from earlier today on my FB feed that I found humorous. It was someone asking why Tulsa, where it's far more likely that the police were in the wrong, was peaceful and Charlotte was violent. There are roughly 7 times more black people in Charlotte than Tulsa, therefore there are roughly 7 times more black knuckleheads in Charlotte prone to taking things too far. Duh.

[Ben E Lou]

BREAKING: Prosecutor announces 1st-degree manslaughter charges against Tulsa officer who fatally shot Terence Crutcher.

— The Associated Press (@AP) September 22, 2016

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

BREAKING: Prosecutor announces 1st-degree manslaughter charges against Tulsa officer who fatally shot Terence Crutcher.

— The Associated Press (@AP) September 22, 2016

We will see if it is just for show or if they actually convict her of it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaril

We will see if it is just for show or if they actually convict her of it.

Last time I checked that was up to a jury, and "the system" can't just get the result they desire.

[wustin]

You can blame the prosecutor for doing a crappy job if the jury rules her innocent I guess.

[PilotMan]

In any regard, it's a lot easier to be not guilty when you're not dead.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wustin

You can blame the prosecutor for doing a crappy job if the jury rules her innocent I guess.

I would expect the accusations more to be along the lines that the prosecutor rigged it to lose on purpose.

And it's going to be a tough case and far from a slam dunk. It's still important to bring though, if the prosecutor sincerely believes the law and facts are on his or her side, and this isn't just motivated by some goal outside the evidence and law.

In my prosecuting days, the very hardest cases were the misdemeanor domestic batteries. No injuries, many uncooperative victims, but situations that were clearly leading down a path to more violence. There were a good number of acquittals, and lots of pleas to lower charges. I felt they were all righteous cases to take, but I'm glad nobody accused us of rigging cases. Plenty of police officers didn't like when we pled cases down or dismissed them, but that was our call and not theirs and they knew better than to give us shit about it. I think people would be surprised by the amount of in-fighting and disagreements among these agencies in law enforcement.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

Plenty of police officers didn't like when we pled cases down or dismissed them, but that was our call and not theirs and they knew better than to give us shit about it.

I've made roughly 100 domestic assault arrests in 5+ years. I had a grand total of 1 of them go to trial (victim didn't show, but apparently made an "excited utterance" to me which got around hearsay). It still ended up getting dismissed since they couldn't prove the domestic relationship without the victim.

I used to get at least annoyed when my cases got plead down or dismissed until I learned that plead down means I get to go home and dismissed means I don't have to show up. I know that unless the person's guilt is blatant or I get a confession, the prosecutor isn't risking their "batting average" for it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I've made roughly 100 domestic assault arrests in 5+ years. I had a grand total of 1 of them go to trial (victim didn't show, but apparently made an "excited utterance" to me which got around hearsay). It still ended up getting dismissed since they couldn't prove the domestic relationship without the victim.

I used to get at least annoyed when my cases got plead down or dismissed until I learned that plead down means I get to go home and dismissed means I don't have to show up. I know that unless the person's guilt is blatant or I get a confession, the prosecutor isn't risking their "batting average" for it.

I think it's best in government to really understand appreciate the importance of your role in the system, perform that part ethically and competently and not to have stress about other peoples' roles (except if you know someone to be breaking the law or engaging in unethical practices). Those arrests may not have led to very many convictions for domestic battery, but they all mattered, many of them shut down a violent confrontation, kept a victim safe, created a paper trail that prosecutors and sentencing judges will use forever, etc. After that, your job is done (unless you're testifying).

Taking a lot of those to trial (or manslaughter-type cases when the law is muddy) definitely decreases your "batting average", and I guess some prosecutors care about that, but it's something I've never seen in the offices I worked in. Of course, I've never seen pressure from police to prosecute a certain way, or any conspiracies to rig cases either. I'm sure it happens, and that there's some offices that are really tainted by that, and other unethical practices, but the vast majority of police and prosecutors are just not involved in anything like that, or shooting people. So it's an odd place to be, when you're criticized when you've done something wrong, but you're also deemed a racist if you do something right because, like it's said about those New Jersey officers, the only reason you did the right thing was because the suspect/defendant was white.

Edit: Black Americans are statistically disadvantaged in almost every facet in American life. Educating, housing, health, economic, everything. White America mostly gets a pass on all that, except for those involved in law enforcement. Which is good in a way, it's the only place where those things are really being challenged (though it's not always a productive challenge). I think that makes some white people really happy and comfortable, to be able to point at "worse" white people who are the real problem. If you're a middle-class professional white guy your internal biases that you might not even be aware of don't really matter at all - even though statistical evidence for those biases exist in all kinds of fields in the U.S. People in law enforcement are some of the few people that really have to confront whatever biases they have if they want to be good at what they do. But it's not like everyone else's hands are clean.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Last time I checked that was up to a jury, and "the system" can't just get the result they desire.

My point is wee have seen other instances with police have been wrongly. Hey maybe they have a fair trial ands find her guilty but for now I remain skeptical.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

My point is wee have seen other instances with police have been wrongly. Hey maybe they have a fair trial ands find her guilty but for now I remain skeptical.

The Baltimore police officers that were indicted were FAR more guilty than this lady. No way she gets convicted. The fact that she was indicted so quickly IMO shows a lack of a thorough investigation. It's not going to take a great lawyer to get her out of this charge. The shame is that she'll likely be found innocent, but be unable to get a job anywhere going forward.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So, a couple days later and we now know:

-the guy in Charlotte charged the police with a gun

Not according to the Charlotte Police Chief.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/charlotte-protests/

Chief Putney warned that video will not provide "definitive visual evidence" that Scott pointed a gun at police officers.

-the other guy in Oklahoma had PCP in the car and all four windows and the sunroof were in fact open when he dropped his right hand toward the window just before being tazed/shot

If all four window were open, when how did blood appear to be smeared on the driver's window?

Tulsa shooting: The unanswered questions - BBC News

It is nowhere near as clear as you are trying to make it.

[RainMaker]

The longer they hold off on the video, the worse the video will likely be.

[CU Tiger]

According to a friend with the Charlotte pd who has seen the video, but wasn't there.

The video will clearly show him exit the vehicle with a gun, clearly visible in his hand, twice. But it's questionable at best if the gun is ever pointed towards officers. But he"certainly made no attempt to discard the weapon despite numerous clear instructions to do so."

He said the video doesn't make it 100% clear which cop shot adding to the conspiracy theory.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The Baltimore police officers that were indicted were FAR more WRONG than this lady. No way she gets convicted. The fact that she was indicted so quickly IMO shows a lack of a thorough investigation. It's not going to take a great lawyer to get her out of this charge. The shame is that she'll likely be found innocent, but be unable to get a job anywhere going forward.

Changed that for you.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

As of this moment this video has been viewed over 500,000 times and has been shared over 23,000 times. People who are already predisposed to not trusting the police are seeing this. This is the kind of stuff feeding what's going on.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

According to a friend with the Charlotte pd who has seen the video, but wasn't there.

The video will clearly show him exit the vehicle with a gun, clearly visible in his hand, twice. But it's questionable at best if the gun is ever pointed towards officers. But he"certainly made no attempt to discard the weapon despite numerous clear instructions to do so."

He said the video doesn't make it 100% clear which cop shot adding to the conspiracy theory.

Two different sides. The lady in that video is so sincere and passionate about this. If she is lying, and people believe her anyway, is that then, the conspiracy?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

This is a point I don't understand. He walks away from the cop for a good 100 feet, to the window. What do we think he was doing? Is she just to assume that his intentions are good despite the fact that he's not following orders? At what point does the cop get to be scared that he could be reaching for a weapon? Are they supposed to just stand there and figure they'll shoot when he pulls out a gun and turns towards them?

His (and my) points are that at that proximity keeping her finger extended along the guard would have added less than a second to the amount of time she required to get off a shot if he had presented a gun, which would still have to aimed after he turned to the officers, in other words she would have been under no greater danger, and it would have prevented a reflex shot, if that is what happened.

What police are supposed to do is to be prepared for, and react to, a credible threat, not an assumed one. Part of the issue stems from both initial and ongoing training. States and cities need to do a better job preparing and training officers.

[JPhillips]

A cop can get scared, but they can't shoot based on being scared. The whole reason for training is so that adrenaline and fear don't cause the officer to make poor decisions.

[Ben E Lou]

The other thing that, if true, sounds pretty compelling to support the narrative that she over-reacted is that the charges indicate that she had already checked the car for weapons. If that's true, I'd think it would be pretty tough to convince a jury that she feared for her life because he reached into a car that she already knew had no weapons in it. For most people on a jury, I'd expect that the car already having been cleared will render the window open vs. window closed argument moot.

[JPhillips]

I'd like to think this would end this guy's political career, but it probably won't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The other thing that, if true, sounds pretty compelling to support the narrative that she over-reacted is that the charges indicate that she had already checked the car for weapons. If that's true, I'd think it would be pretty tough to convince a jury that she feared for her life because he reached into a car that she already knew had no weapons in it. For most people on a jury, I'd expect that the car already having been cleared will render the window open vs. window closed argument moot.

And I can't imagine that'd be a tipping point for 12 jurors. {shrug}

Failed to comply repeatedly & then reached? That's reasonable cause for fearing for one's life under the circumstances. And extremely easily. All it takes is the phrase "did I miss something?"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd like to think this would end this guy's political career, but it probably won't.

I just checked his district. No Democrat has represented them since the Dixiecrat days. That said, the lines were redrawn in February of this year. I don't know NC well enough yet to understand if he has a chance of losing. He has already apologized for the comments, fwiw, so if he's still in a heavily-Republican district, it looks like it'll be a minor blip.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

it takes is the phrase "did I miss something?"

If your defense is "I was worried that I didn't do my job correctly," a decent prosecutor is gonna flip that one around on you with "just like she herself was concerned that she did her job poorly by not clearing the car, we the people should get this officer off the street because she did her job poorly by shooting with no cause." I wouldn't want to go down that road if I were her.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd like to think this would end this guy's political career, but it probably won't.

Yeah, the cold unvarnished truth (of the headline) can be pretty unpopular these days. Telling it like it is can be hazardous to political health.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, in fairness, there are multiple direct comments on video from protesters pretty much declaring all white people to be responsible for the shooting. It won't be remotely hard to defend that statement in a Republican district.

EDIT TO ADD: And again, if his district is Republican, any primary challenger would be absolutely foolish to attack him on it. All his campaign has to do is put together a video mashup in his defense. One of Scott's close relatives (his brother, I think,) is on video calling all white people devils, motherfuckers, and a few other choice things.

[Ben E Lou]

OK, so I didn't get the slur(s) exactly right. Sue me.

EDIT: ***VIDEO IS NSFW DUE TO LANGUAGE***

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If your defense is "I was worried that I didn't do my job correctly," a decent prosecutor is gonna flip that one around on you with "just like she herself was concerned that she did her job poorly by not clearing the car, we the people should get this officer off the street because she did her job poorly by shooting with no cause." I wouldn't want to go down that road if I were her.

Right. Declaring yourself to be incompetent in searching the car opens yourself up to all sorts of questions as to whether you were incompetent in firing your weapon. Her lawyer would be horrified if she said that.

[JPhillips]

It's the second part of his quote that bothers me much more than the first part. When he says, "because we're successful and they're not," that shows a clearly racist worldview. I can accept an apology for "they hate white people." He can say he went too far, that he meant there was anger towards the white community...etc. But I'm not willing to accept an apology for the second part without some clear expression of a worldview that doesn't include the assumption that whites are better than blacks.

But I certainly agree he'll likely be reelected. Hell, he's probably now on the Trump shortlist for HUD Secretary.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

One of Scott's close relatives (his brother, I think,) is on video calling all white people devils, motherfuckers, and a few other choice things.

There's a video of another family member telling an Asian officer to "go make noodle soup for Ling-Ling.”

Which isn't relevant to whether the shooting is justified or not, but it's relevant to the credibility of any theories that originate with this family, and to any question of whether they're trying to incite violence. They seem like delightful people.

[Ben E Lou]

I just realized where I recognized the name of the attorney speaking on behalf of the family: he's the same guy who represented the family of Walter Scott in North Chuck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the second part of his quote that bothers me much more than the first part. When he says, "because we're successful and they're not," that shows a clearly racist worldview.

Or does he simply show a clear understanding of economics?

2010 Median Net Worth of Whites in NC: $68,441
2010 Median Net Worth of Blacks in NC: $3,000

No, I did not omit a zero or any other character.

Taken straight from

RACIAL WEALTH DISPARITY IN NORTH CAROLINA
A Report*for*the*Z.*Smith*Reynolds*Foundation*
Center*on*Poverty,*Work*and*Opportunity*
University*of*North*Carolina,*Chapel*Hill,*NC
September*1,*2010**

[lighthousekeeper]

Mariners Catcher Steve Clevenger released due to these tweets:

“Black people beating whites when a thug got shot holding a gun by a black officer haha s--- cracks me up. Keep kneeling for the Anthem!”

“[Black Lives Matter] is pathetic once again! Obama you are pathetic once again! Everyone involved should be locked behind bars like animals!”


I know I've been spending too much time on the internet when tweets like those above don't even register as being worthy of attention, let alone firing. Just two tweets in a sea of millions of similar facebook posts or news article comments I see every day.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or does he simply show a clear understanding of economics?

2010 Median Net Worth of Whites in NC: $68,441
2010 Median Net Worth of Blacks in NC: $3,000

No, I did not omit a zero or any other character.

Taken straight from

RACIAL WEALTH DISPARITY IN NORTH CAROLINA
A Report*for*the*Z.*Smith*Reynolds*Foundation*
Center*on*Poverty,*Work*and*Opportunity*
University*of*North*Carolina,*Chapel*Hill,*NC
September*1,*2010**

Uh, I think the history of white supremacy from at least 1965 back is clearly relevant here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Uh, I think the history of white supremacy from at least 1965 back is clearly relevant here.

Uh huh. Of COURSE it's someone else's fault. Personality responsibility being an abhorrent concept these days.

I honestly pity anyone who buys into such bullshit.

[JPhillips]

How about I make it illegal for whites to accumulate wealth for a few hundred years and then I complain because you're behind fifty years later.

Speaking of bullshit...

[NobodyHere]

Cell phone video taken by the wife has been released. Doesn't show the actual shooting.

Charlotte Shooting Video: Footage Shows Fatal Encounter Between Police, Keith Lamont Scott - NBC News

IMO it raises more questions than answers.

[ISiddiqui]

What's a TVI? His wife was saying he doesn't have a gun, he has a TVI and just took his medicine.

[Ben E Lou]

TBI

[ISiddiqui]

Ahh... ok, had to googled that - "Traumatic Brain Injury".

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Cell phone video taken by the wife has been released. Doesn't show the actual shooting.

Charlotte Shooting Video: Footage Shows Fatal Encounter Between Police, Keith Lamont Scott - NBC News

IMO it raises more questions than answers.

On both sides. She keeps saying don't do it but at the same time I don't see a gun laying where the pictures showed there is suppose to be one.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a video of another family member telling an Asian officer to "go make noodle soup for Ling-Ling.”

Note to anyone trying to verify this: when trying to Google "Charlotte Asian slur," you might want to pay attention to what you actually type. The "t"is right next to the "r" on your keyboard.