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
What I find interesting is this the same media that rails against private ownership of guns as a perceived threat and yet when the police chief says that he believes the officer that stated that Mr. Scott was holding a handgun and refused to obey commands to drop the gun that somehow does not rise to the level of a perceived threat.
Then there is the black woman that was shot in Philadelphia. She was a police officer, that is the sound of crickets chirping you hear.
Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag5lEfilclE
Sadly, in 2016, in these United States of America, certain parents have to have the following conversation with their sons (and daughters):
“Sweetie, you may think that race relations have improved since Dr. King’s day, but they have not. When you stop your car in a parking lot where there are police officers, don’t be thinking you can behave like any other citizen and that will keep you safe. No, you have to go the extra mile.
“Before you exit the vehicle, take your unregistered, illegally purchased handgun – the one with the serial numbers filed off – and put it in the glove compartment. For goodness sake, don’t have the gun in your hand as you get out of the car. The police officers are liable to get the wrong idea. And certainly don’t point the gun at them – that might really give them the wrong idea!
“Of course, if you did have it in your hand, proper procedure would be for them to ask you if the weapon is loaded and, if the answer is yes, to ask you to hold the weapon by your side or put it in your pocket. But our society is still unjust, so you would be better off just leaving it in the car.
“Promise me you’ll do this. I don’t ever want to get a call that my baby has been the latest victim of police brutality.”
I think that he became a suspect, at least as I intended to use the term, when he was observed carrying a gun in his hand, in public, in a parking lot.
To make it clear, I don’t think that carrying a gun in hand is, or should be, an illegal act. On the other hand, it is a somewhat suspicious activity in a public parking lot. In my opinion, police are justified in briefly detaining and questioning someone doing so (a Terry stop). They are also, in my opinion, justified in requiring the person detained to disarm (briefly). Refusal to comply is not a legitimate option.
Why would anybody care? When a black person becomes a cop they also become white. Nobody cares if whites get killed. All whites are evil and killing them is almost a public service.
I wonder where the actual recipient of the warrant was during this shooting. Was he a friend of Mr. Scott? Had he told Mr. Scott that the police would be coming for him? Or was it just coincidence that Mr. Scott was in the parking lot with his gun when the police came to serve the other guy.
Assuming this is true, I’m not sure if its relevant. It’s not like hoodlums were bussed in from other places. Charlotte sits right on the border with SC.
And Fort Mill, SC, is virtually a suburb of Charlotte.
But we’d have to know what states they are from.
Can I push back against this some?
So, okay, let’s assume Scott was holding a pistol. He’s holding it but it’s not raised.
Yes, it’s a guy with a gun. But if he’s just holding it, he can’t fire it.
And aren’t pistols less effective at range? Plus, unless he’s been trained, and maintains his training on a regular basis, he’s probably a bad shot. So, he’s a bad shot, at a distance, and not in a position to fire.
At the same time, he’s set opposed to a cop, who is trained, and hopefully practices regularly, and is probably wearing a vest.
So in what way is this guy an imminent threat to the officer? Am I missing something here?
I agree completely. Without that detail, that scary 70% figure doesn’t tell us anything useful.
On your first point, if he’s holding it, he can point and fire it in less than a second. That’s imminent.
On your second point, you’re proposing that the cop has to bet his life on the guy being a bad shot. I think that is unreasonable. Also, it seems to me that it proves too much. Heck, what if the guy has already fired 4-5 times, but hasn’t hit anybody. By your logic, the cops could not return fire, because obviously they guy is such a bad shot that he’ll keep missing anyway.
My biggest issue with this argumen is that we have the right to bear arms, specifically to protect us from the government.
What arm of government will we likely be facing? The police.
If holding or being in posession of a gun results in a death sentence, what rght do we really have?
Not sure exactly what a “clearly marked CMPD vest” means, but I can imagine that if someone came up to me demanding I drop my gun and he was not in uniform, I might be confused, or hesitate a bit, trying to determine if he’s an officer making a legitimate request or someone about to rob me.
I doubt regular people can hit their target but the chance of the bullet going into the crowd is just as significant.
Does anyone know what was going through this guy’s mind? Why didn’t he drop the gun?
When I was in college, I traveled backroads between campus and home. Being the speed demon that I was, unmarked police cars would attempt to pull me over frequently. In the middle of nowhere.
I familiarized myself with the dispatch number to assure it was really a cop. I do not equate cop with benign.Even if I’m a lily white girl from a small town with cops in the family.
You don’t have to be black to recognize they are far from perfect.
The NYT has posted video of the incident taken by Scott’s widow. The audio is reasonably interesting; the video is nearly useless.
Language warning.
First of all there is a difference between carrying a gun and having it holstered. Arizona is an open carry state but I can guarantee you that if you walk around with a pistol in your hand rather than in a holster you will be questioned by the police after somebody has called them. I can also guarantee you that that will be told to place the pistol on the ground and you’ll find that hypotheticals and debate are for web sites. The discussion with the officer will not begin until you have complied with the commands.
Just watched the video. At least 12 times he was commanded to drop the gun, in the space of 50 seconds. There is a police car there as well so he knows is the police. i am sorry but this does not looks to me like cops are going wild shooting people dead with no warnings and no reason. Why he did not drop the gun is beyond me.
True, that part wasn’t clear in earlier reports. I also hadn’t realized this was all in broad daylight.
His wife says he “just took his medication,” do we know what that refers to?
Wow.
My comments on the video. Scott’s widow says several times that Scott does not have a weapon or does not have a gun. She says that he has a TBI (traumatic brain injury) and had just taken his medicine.
Her video does not show whether or not Scott has a gun. The view is generally blocked by a police vehicle.
Voices can be heard in the background, presumably the cops, yelling “drop the gun” at least 10 times over the space of about 40 seconds.
About 10 seconds before the shooting, Scott’s widow says: “Keith, don’t do it.” There is a sound like a faint gunshot. Four seconds before the shooting, Scott’s widow repeats: “Keith, Keith, don’t you do it,” several times. There are then four gunshots.
Scott’s widow asks repeatedly, “did you shoot him,” and then says repeatedly “he better not be f-ing dead.”
I find it almost impossible to believe that the cops would yell “drop the gun” 10 times, over 40 seconds, if there was no gun.
There is a tragic possibility that I had not heard before, that Scott may have had a brain injury and on medication, which would explain his apparently erratic behavior.
This is an interesting consideration. I’ll bet there is a lot more to the circumstances that we are unaware of at this point.
I have a couple more comments about the video.
When Scott’s widow says “Keith, don’t do it” or “Keith, don’t you do it,” it is not entirely clear whether she is directing Scott not to do something, or directing the cops not to do something. My impression from her tone and the tempo of her words is that she is directing this instruction to Scott, but this is not completely clear. The video does not show what is going on, and does not indicate the “it” that she is talking about.
The most sensible explanation, to me, is that Scott’s widow senses that he is about to turn on the cops with a gun, and is trying to coax him not to do so.
Most of the video does not show Scott or the cops, but it appears that they are very close together, within 10-15 feet of each other, perhaps less.
CNN is reporting:
A gun recovered at the scene of the fatal shooting of a black man by police in Charlotte, North Carolina, was loaded and fingerprints, DNA and blood from the weapon matched those of the victim, CNN reported on Friday.
In the “Blue Bloods” episode, “Front Page News,” there is a press conference about a police shooting of an armed and agitated man in a park full of children. The police officer twice ordered the man to drop the weapon, then fired as the man began to raise it.
A reporter asks the police commissioner, “Why didn’t the officer just shoot the gun out of the man’s hand?”
(Pause. Cut to the incredulous look on the commissioner’s face.)
As someone who has worked in both journalism and law enforcement, I can tell you that, in this episode, art imitated life. Reporters really do ask ludicrous questions like that, because their only exposure to high-stress shooting situations is what they’ve seen on the big screen at the megaplex.
If the decedent was in fact mentally impaired, I’m sure the Monday morning quarterbacks will say that that fact makes the shooting less justifiable. Of course, the officers couldn’t have known it at the time, but if they had, I would argue that it makes the shooting more justifiable because the mental condition adds an extra unpredictability factor. It may not sound compassionate, but I’m looking at it as a risk professional.
Talk about shooting guns out of perpetrator’s hands, assuming that he is a poor shot, assuming that because the gun was not raised it couldn’t be raised in an instant – these are ideas that do not lead in a constructive direction that improves safety for anyone. Someday soon, in a different case, we’ll hear from progressives statements along the lines of, “OK, the subject had a gun, and it was loaded, and he fired it at the officer – but it was only a flesh wound! The officer didn’t have to return fire and kill him! And he only had a little .22! The officer had a 9mm!”
This just out in the Charlotte Observer:
I agree. It is more tragic if Scott was mentally impaired, but this does not eliminate the danger faced by the cops.
It could mean that the family shares some of the fault, if they allowed someone mentally impaired to have access to a gun. This would depend on more facts and circumstances than we know (or suspect) at this time.
Do you have any conception of how fast someone “just holding” a gun can bring it to bear and fire?