Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Deceptive Narrative About the Charlotte Shooting
The ongoing rioting in Charlotte led me to look into the details of the shooting earlier this week. The most notable thing is the media’s bizarre focus on whether Keith Lamont Scott (the deceased) was pointing his gun at the police when he was shot. This seems utterly irrelevant to me. Are people really suggesting that a police officer is not legitimately threatened by a man with a gun in his hand, who is failing to comply with police instructions to disarm, until he actually points the gun at the officer?
Here’s a quick review of the facts, as they appear thus far. Officer Brentley Vinson, with other officers, arrived at an apartment complex parking lot around 4 PM on Tuesday, September 20, 2016, searching for a suspect in a case wholly unrelated to Mr. Scott. The officers saw Scott getting out of a parked car while holding a handgun. The officers gave loud, clear, verbal commands to drop the weapon. Scott did not comply and Officer Vinson fatally shot Scott.
Here is an overview of recent headlines focusing on the pointing the gun question:
Keith Scott Shooting: No ‘Definitive’ Evidence He Pointed Gun at Cops, Chief Says – NBC News
Police Say It’s Unclear if Charlotte Man Pointed Gun Before Shooting – ABC News
Charlotte police chief: Keith Scott shooting video ‘does not definitively show gun pointed’ – UPI
There’s No ‘Definitive’ Proof Keith Scott Pointed a Gun at Officers – The Atlantic
Charlotte police chief: Video does not ‘definitively’ show pointed gun – BBC News
Charlotte Police Chief: Video Doesn’t Show “Definitive” Proof Keith Scott Pointed a Gun at Cops – Slate
Charlotte Police: Unclear if Man Pointed Gun Before Fatal Shooting – Yahoo News
CMPD chief: Video provides no ‘definitive’ evidence that victim pointed gun before officer shot him – The Charlotte Observer
Charlotte Police: Video Doesn’t Show ‘Definitive Evidence’ Keith Scott Pointed Gun At Police – WUNC (North Carolina public radio)
Charlotte police chief not certain whether gun pointed at police – Fox8 (local TV station)
All of this strikes me as an intentionally deceptive effort to blame Officer Vinson and exonerate Scott, using a wildly unrealistic standard of police restraint. It seems to me that when a police officer confronts an armed suspect, gun in hand, who refuses to comply with lawful orders to disarm, the officer is justified in shooting immediately.
It’s as if the media desperately want to report: “White Cop Guns Down Innocent Unarmed Black Man!” Oh, he was armed? Let’s try “White Cop Guns Down Innocent Black Man with Holstered Weapon!” You mean it wasn’t holstered? “White Cop Guns Down Innocent Black Man with Gun in Hand Who Wasn’t Pointing It at Cop!” will do.
If there was definitive video evidence that Scott was pointing the weapon at the cops, I imagine that these irresponsible news outlets would be reporting: “White Cop Guns Down Innocent Black Man Who Hadn’t Yet Pulled the Trigger!”
Of course, it wasn’t even a white cop in this instance. Officer Vinson is black. Not that it should make any difference to us, on the side of sanity. But you would think that the proponents of the vicious falsehood that white cops are eagerly gunning down innocent blacks might realize that an incident doesn’t fit their narrative when the cop himself is black.
I’ve saved the best for last, and by “best,” I mean “worst.” Is it any surprise that it comes from the New York Times, a former newspaper? Not to be outdone by the misleading narrative of lesser news outlets, the Times headline asserts:
Charlotte Police Shooting Video Not ‘Definitive,’ Chief Says
No, the Chief did not say that. He said the video “does not give me absolute, definitive visual evidence that confirms that a person is pointing a gun.” The video evidently shows Scott holding a gun in his hand.
The Times does go on to explain this in the news story. But it makes its real point with its misleading headline peddling the Left-wing, Black Lives Matter narrative.
Who cares if Charlotte burns, anyway? They have an election to win!
Published in Policing
Yes – intentionally deceptive.
Yes – utterly unrealistic ROE;
Yes – comply with police orders—ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE ARMED!!!!
The Left does not care one wit about the facts of this unfortunate shooting. The Left promotes chaos and lawlessness—they believe it’s good for GOTV in communities they can’t afford to lose.
The facts do not matter. All that matters is that the Democrats win in November. If they win then this will settle down, if the GOP wins this will continue to ramp up till the next election.
Had Mr. Scott never read a newspaper? Had he not heard of the several famous cases of Police/black perp interaction that are currently tearing the country apart?? The police are all around and he gets out of his car HOLDING A GUN???
You’ve done a great job of showing how the goalposts will be moved if the facts don’t support the desired narrative. Is there any doubt that some were “rooting” for the police officer to be white and for Scott to have been holding a book (as I believe his sister claimed)? Much in the way many wanted for Michael Brown to have had his “hands up.”
The deceptive narrative is causing real damage in Charlotte. National Public Radio is one of the lead proponents of the narrative. It would be great if NPR could be made to defend the shoddy and misleading reporting that they have done that has helped us get to this point. Why are we Federal taxpayers having to subsidize that?
Because it is the narrative the Democrat controlled government wants spread to further its goals.
That’s true evil of it. To whip this turmoil and willingly fray the social fabric that has been fraying, to knowingly endanger people to accumulate power. It’s really horrible, evil behavior.
Why didn’t the police just shoot the gun out of his hand?
You know, like on TV.
Your liberal friends ask you this one too? I get it all the time from mine.
Thanks I’ve been googling and it oddly doesn’t show up in many of the news stories.
It’s in the OP. Around 4 pm.
I gotta watch Rustler’s Rhapsody again.
This confuses me. The New York Times article said.
Earlier in the day, Chief Putney said, “The video does not give me absolute, definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun,” adding that he could not see Mr. Scott’s hands. But the chief, speaking at a news conference, said that eyewitness accounts and other evidence suggested that Mr. Scott was holding a pistol at the time he was shot, and that a weapon had been found at the scene.
If he couldn’t see the suspect’s hands, how could he see a gun from the video?
What a lot of the nation may not know is that just eight days prior to this shooting, a police officer serving a warrant at a residence just outside of Charlotte was shot and died in the hospital. That shooting must have been on the minds of all Charlotte officers before the Scott shooting.
A person with a gun could be pointing a gun somewhere else other than at a police officer and still be endangering someone’s life in the vicinity. A police officer does not discharge his weapon solely in a self-defense capacity. The purpose of the officer is to protect the public by arresting criminals.
Here’s a quick review of the facts, as they appear thus far. Officer Brentley Vinson, with other officers, arrived at an apartment complex parking lot around 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 20, 2016, searching for an unrelated suspect.
AZP I think you meant September 20 in the OP.
Oops. Thanks. I fixed it.
I’m sick of hearing how these incidents are based on race. Most of them happen because the person resisted arrest, had a gun, went for the officer’s gun etc. If a white guy had done the same, he’d have been shot too. Why doesn’t someone stand up and say these things.
Sadly, in today’s culture to do so invites the label of racist. This is enough to get most folks to dummy up.
They do it because it works. It’s just that simple. It’s a big reason we have Trump running for president. It takes someone who just walks through that wall, and those folks are thin on the ground. After the wall is broken others may enter, but the left is always patching and filling that wall.
New Police Rules deemed and decreed by Obama Justice Dept.
you have to wait until the gun is fired and the bullet is coming at you; if you are certain it may strike you, then you may fire on suspect..
— but hit him in the leg
AP,
The media is a co-conspirator in selling this absurd narrative. I’ve heard that 70% or the people arrested are from out of state. This is a manufactured riot, not a protest. The President himself is continuing to mouth the lie and throwing gasoline on the fire.
Your observations of the media coverage of the shooting are spot on. The media have made up an irrelevance to try to maintain the narrative. Nobody is reporting that a Black suspect holding a firearm refused an order to disarm from a Black police officer and then the officer opened fire on the suspect. Such a headline wouldn’t justify the rioting-looting “protest” that has been going on. It only would be an accurate account.
Regards,
Jim
Good point, Mr Gawron. Mr Obama has the moral authority to end all of this. If he were to go on the Telly and send an open message to black protesters–this is a nation of laws, we have no business rioting, please go home and wait for the facts to emerge, stop endangering yourselves and others–this would end. Loretta Lynch could do this. Joe Biden could do this. Hell, Al Sharpton could do this.
We all know why they do not do this.
Ha. Like the rules of engagement he puts on our soldiers. “Call the lawyers before returning fire. If you’re still alive.”
Main Feed please.
RA,
That’s a really good parallel that I hadn’t thought about before. It’s spot on.
Regards,
Jim
This video from the Portland Police Bureau shows just how fast someone holding a gun can use it.
He wasn’t a suspect, was he?
More to the point, I disagree with this standard. Mr. Scott may not have needed to point the gun for the cops to be justified in shooting, but the reasonable perception of a threat is needed. Cops don’t get to shoot people for not following orders alone – including for not disarming.
Granted, that may be implicit in your point. But what I think’s reasonably implicit in the media’s point is that they’re looking for evidence of a threat.
Agree, for instance:
It takes about 1/100th of the time necessary to read your last six words for an armed belligerent to shoot you. Most cops would disagree with your need for “evidence.” Life happens quickly in these scenarios.