There are 100 comments.

1. Member
   Doug Watt

   @DougWatt

   4:15 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 26, 2016

   KurtVH:

   CM:

   KurtVH:

   Doug Watt: …If you had shot him, you’d be on trial in Sanford, FL.

   That’s exactly the point. There shouldn’t be any legal difference between a private citizen and a police officer as regards the determination on whether the shooting is justified (there are differences in penalties in many jurisdictions but that’s a separate issue).

   I’m not certain if you are in agreement here or not. Do you think the avg citizen is justified in shooting someone who is holding a gun? There is a difference between threatening and life-threatening. One is a persuasion tactic of intimidation and the other is a real danger.

   The avg citizen would not be able to meet the burden of self-defense if all the other person was doing was holding a gun. You can not tell me there were no other options when the man was not pointing a gun or shooting after we somehow managed to bring in a terror suspect alive after an actual gun fight.

   I don’t either a police officer or private citizen is justified in shooting someone just holding a gun (that is, absent other aggravating factors).

   @CM and @KurtVH you both have misattributed a statement to me that I never made…If you had shot him, you’d be on trial in Sanford, FL.

   Please see comment #86 posted by CM.

2. Member
   Kozak

   @Kozak

   

   4:44 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 26, 2016

   KurtVH: If it’s not an illegal act (and open carry in NC is not), it’s not suspicious.

   Open carry is problematic in NC because of this law.

   Going Armed to the Terror of the People

   Everyone who takes a CCW class in NC is warned about this.

   Statute

   This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).

   Elements

   A person guilty of this offense

   (1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon

   (2) for the purpose of terrifying others and

   (3) goes about on public highways

   (4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.

   Punishment

   Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).

3. Member
   CM

   @CM

   5:26 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 26, 2016

   Doug Watt:@CM and @KurtVH you both have misattributed a statement to me that I never made…If you had shot him, you’d be on trial in Sanford, FL.

   Please see comment #86 posted by CM.

   It wasn’t on purpose. Kurt truncated the quote for word limits, I’m sure. I just quoted him.

   For the record for any following this post, I am the originator of the bolded words.

4. Member
   CM

   @CM

   5:30 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 26, 2016

   Kozak:

   KurtVH: If it’s not an illegal act (and open carry in NC is not), it’s not suspicious.

   Open carry is problematic in NC because of this law.

   Going Armed to the Terror of the People

   Everyone who takes a CCW class in NC is warned about this.

   Statute

   This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).

   Elements

   A person guilty of this offense

   (1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon

   (2) for the purpose of terrifying others and

   (3) goes about on public highways

   (4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.

   Punishment

   Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).

   Do each of these conditions need to be met? Because a pistol or revolver are not particularly unusual.

5. Member
   Kozak

   @Kozak

   

   6:46 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 26, 2016

   CM: Do each of these conditions need to be met? Because a pistol or revolver are not particularly unusual.

   No. we were told in CCW class, if a person see’s your weapon and “gets scared’ and calls the police you could be charged.  Usually the police just ask you to leave, or put your weapon in your car.

6. Member
   Henry Castaigne

   @HenryCastaigne

   3:41 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 27, 2016

   In case you missed it there is some new information about the subject.

7. Member
   La Tapada

   @LaTapada

   7:05 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 27, 2016

   The news tonight is that Scott’s wife had filed for a restraining order in October 2015, saying that her husband had a history of domestic abuse, that he was very dangerous and that he owned a gun without a permit.

8. Member
   M1919A4

   @M1919A4

   

   8:20 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 28, 2016

   Some of the same information from another source:

   http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/new-information-in-charlotte-police-shooting-undercuts-prevailing-narrative/

   New Information In Charlotte Police Shooting Undercuts Prevailing Narrative

   New information has emerged in the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott that, if accurate, undercuts the prevailing narrative about the Charlotte man who was shot and killed by police.

   The gun that police say the 43-year-old Scott had on him at the time of last Tuesday’s shooting was reportedly stolen in a residential burglary, news station WBTV reports.

   As a felon, Scott, who was black, was legally prohibited from owning a firearm, much less a stolen one. Police also said that they observed Scott smoking marijuana in his vehicle and then wielding a gun outside of his apartment complex before he was approached by officers.

   Scott was shot by Charlotte police officer Brently Vinson, who is also black, after exiting his vehicle while surrounded by police. Vinson believed that Scott’s actions created an imminent physical threat, police officials have said.

   A third piece of evidence undercutting the narrative emerged Monday in the form of a restraining order that Scott’s wife, Rakeyia, filed on Oct. 5, 2015.

   As the Independent Journal Review notes, the document shows that she told police that her husband owned a 9mm handgun and that he had threatened to kill her.

   The retraining order, issued by a Gaston County district court judge, granted Rakeyia Scott a temporary restraining order that prohibited her husband from going near her and three of their children. Keith Scott was also ordered to hand over the 9mm he owned illegally.

   Before filing the order, Rakeyia Scott said that her husband had kicked her, punched their 8-year-old son and threatened to shoot her.

   “He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that,” a police report reads. She reversed course days later, saying that she did not need a restraining order because Scott was no longer a danger to her and their children.

   Rakeyia Scott recorded video of her husband being shot. While the video does not show much of the shooting, Scott is heard telling officers that her husband did not have a firearm. She also yelled to police that he suffered from a traumatic brain injury. Scott sustained the injury in a 2015 motorcycle accident.

   WBTV reported on Monday that police sources said that the gun Scott is said to have had on him was recently stolen in a burglary.

   According to WTVD, the burglar told Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents that he sold the gun to Scott. It is unclear when the burglary and the transaction are believed to have taken place.

   The revelations are in stark contrast to the initial reports about the shooting.

   Just after the incident, Scott’s family claimed that he was shot without justification and that he was in possession of a book, not a gun.

   (continued, next post)

9. Member
   M1919A4

   @M1919A4

   

   8:28 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 28, 2016

   (continued from above)

   Those claims led to anger that helped fuel riots in Charlotte. Dozens of police officers were injured during the riots. Businesses were looted. One man was fatally shot by another man during one night of violence. The Justice Department also began investigating the police shooting.

   But details about the incident, and about Scott’s violent past, trickled out over the course of the past week.

   In 2005, he was sentenced to seven years in prison after being convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon following an incident in San Antonio, Texas, Scott fired 10 rounds from a 9mm, injuring a man. The charges were compounded after Scott attempted to evade arrest. He was released in 2011.

   Police critics initially asserted that Scott did not have a firearm on him at the time of the shooting. Speculation even swirled at progressive news outlets like MSNBC that the gun, which was seen in one photo taken at the time of the incident, had been planted by police.

   But police officials said that a loaded gun was recovered and that it had Scott’s fingerprints and DNA on it.

   Even after it became more likely that Scott possessed a gun, critics lamented that officers should not have instigated the incident just because Scott was seen with marijuana.

   Police officers parked in an unmarked vehicle outside of Scott’s apartment complex while waiting to serve a warrant on another individual. Scott pulled up in his vehicle and then began to roll a marijuana “blunt.”

   “Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation,” a press release from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department states. “A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.”

   The statement claims that officers then decided to take action against Scott.

   “Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers,” the statement reads.

   Scott’s gun was spotted a second time. Officers ordered Scott to exit the vehicle. He initially refused to do so, but after finally exiting, he refused orders to drop the gun. That’s when Vinson fired several fatal rounds.

   Charlotte police chief Kerr Putney said that Vinson will not be charged in the incident.

   It is sad to me that so much anger, damage, and community conflict played out in Charlotte as well as the loss of a life because some damned fools promoted a baseless claim before the facts surrounding the event could be developed.  That was a high price to succor a rebellious political movement.

   I ordinarily would hope that sense would prevail if such an event occurs again; but I am too long in the tooth to put much stock in that hope.

10. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    9:52 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 28, 2016

    La Tapada:The news tonight is that Scott’s wife had filed for a restraining order in October 2015, saying that her husband had a history of domestic abuse, that he was very dangerous and that he owned a gun without a permit.

    Just to clarify here.

    You don’t need a “permit” to own a gun in NC. You can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    As a convicted felon he was barred from owning one.