Charlotte Police Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Let us discuss! (1 Viewer)

[Soundwave]

I agree they should report what is actually happening, but they should also verify it. What was actually happening was family members reported he had a book. Should they report what family members said, or only after verifying that it is true? What about the media that reported he had a gun and pointed it at officers? Police originally reported that it was unclear if he pointed the gun at police, but watching the video we know that obviously he did not. Why say something is unclear when it obviously is not? Why not say it the other way "it is unclear that he did not point the gun at police" or why even mention that at all?

They should report it as claims, not fact. Just like I said earlier. "The family claims...." "Witnesses claim............" etc.

Were the clips of protesters or of rioters? Previously you said the protesters, but you were talking about watching the first night of riots and it sounds like you are conflating the two groups. I think even if the book is completely out of the narrative, there would still be protests, so I think it is disingenuous to imply the protests were only about something that was originally reported that turned out to be untrue.

I meant rioters.

 

[Galbreath34]

I think your need to feel indignant has either overtaken your honesty or colored your memory. I defy you to cite any source that wasn't saying something like "witnesses said" or "according to reports from eye-witnesses", which is exactly what you're claiming they didn't do.

It's tough for all when a subject makes you emotional, but breathe, look at actual articles or listen to videos again and see if your characterization isn't just plain nuts. I mean they use appropriate language for these kinds of things thousands of times a year on all kinds of stories. I mean even when they're showing video of a bank robber they'll say "the alleged robber". I seriously doubt there's any example in any of the coverage that fits the sloppy nature your need for rage is concocting in your mind.

 

[V Chip]

They should report it as claims, not fact. Just like I said earlier. "The family claims...." "Witnesses claim............" etc.


I meant rioters.

So the people rioting stopped and talked to the cameras and said that they were rioting because he was reading a book?

C'mon.

 

[Soundwave]

So the people rioting stopped and talked to the cameras and said that they were rioting because he was reading a book?

C'mon.

Whatever the hell you call the line of people in cops faces shoving books in their faces and essentially trying to instigate the cops to do something. I don't know what term you want to use. They surely weren't peaceful protestors just holding up signs and signing kumbaya that you have mentioned. And they obviously weren't burning down a building at that very second. The difference seems to be just semantics. I think you know exactly what I mean and just decide to argue semantics.

And now I have 2 people claiming I have pre-conceived notions. Every single one of my posts in this thread are asking for the truth. Asking that things be handled responsibly. Would really love to filter out the bull from the crap.

 

[V Chip]

Whatever the hell you call the line of people in cops faces shoving books in their faces and essentially trying to instigate the cops to do something. I don't know what term you want to use. They surely weren't peaceful protestors just holding up signs and signing kumbaya that you have mentioned. And they obviously weren't burning down a building at that very second. The difference seems to be just semantics. I think you know exactly what I mean and just decide to argue semantics.

And now I have 2 people claiming I have pre-conceived notions. Every single one of my posts in this thread are asking for the truth. Asking that things be handled responsibly. Would really love to filter out the bull from the crap.

I would too! Unfortunately your bull is someone else's crap, and your crap is someone else's bull.

For example, the protests were completely peaceful before the cops in riot gear showed up. Did you know that? Why do you need police in riot gear to show up to a protest and then begin to herd the protesters into a smaller area, or away from certain areas? Do you think that has any impact at all on the people who are protesting?

It's this odd notion to be able to blame one side or the other exclusively; you can see it in the language people use. I think there is much blame to go around and dislike seeing it all placed at either end.

Lately I haven't been posting much because all too often people see/read what they want to see/read and then very quickly get upset with their own interpretation of what was said instead of what was actually said without taking the time to verify or give any benefit of the doubt.

 

[Soundwave]

I think your need to feel indignant has either overtaken your honesty or colored your memory. I defy you to cite any source that wasn't saying something like "witnesses said" or "according to reports from eye-witnesses", which is exactly what you're claiming they didn't do.

It's tough for all when a subject makes you emotional, but breathe, look at actual articles or listen to videos again and see if your characterization isn't just plain nuts. I mean they use appropriate language for these kinds of things thousands of times a year on all kinds of stories. I mean even when they're showing video of a bank robber they'll say "the alleged robber". I seriously doubt there's any example in any of the coverage that fits the sloppy nature your need for rage is concocting in your mind.

Appreciate the kind words, but maybe you should take a closer look at the things I have actually said before drawing your own pre-conceived notions of me.

I said "if it was reported as fact". As far as I know, only 1 or maybe 2 people have met that criteria. The rest do not.

Take the video I posted earlier in the thread as a prime example (post #44). You have a "witness" that claims Keith Scott was reading a book and it fell off his lap. Is that true? If not, that is where I have a huge problem.

Then you have a reporter who, barely, but does use the "appropriate" language when covering that narrative (although there were some phrases I would rather he toned down a bit but that is another discussion). He does say "witnesses claim" and "People say" and just enough of the right stuff. So obviously I was not referring to him or other reporters like him.

I think maybe there are key words or context in what I have said that you may have missed. But also it may not be a bad time to talk about the media's role in these things.

 

[Soundwave]

I would too! Unfortunately your bull is someone else's crap, and your crap is someone else's bull.

For example, the protests were completely peaceful before the cops in riot gear showed up. Did you know that? Why do you need police in riot gear to show up to a protest and then begin to herd the protesters into a smaller area, or away from certain areas? Do you think that has any impact at all on the people who are protesting?

It's this odd notion to be able to blame one side or the other exclusively; you can see it in the language people use. I think there is much blame to go around and dislike seeing it all placed at either end.

Lately I haven't been posting much because all too often people see/read what they want to see/read and then very quickly get upset with their own interpretation of what was said instead of what was actually said without taking the time to verify or give any benefit of the doubt.

The reason I have green thumbed every one of your posts is that even though we may disagree (although I'm not sure on how much we actually do) I find them useful.

 

[Galbreath34]

Dude read yourself. They reported what a witness was saying, just as you were saying they "should" have, then turning around and saying that that was somehow some irresponsible thing saying it was a fact beyond dispute and intentionally misleading the public. How can you hold that contradiction up and not see it is beyond me.

You're ragingly emotional, at this point it's not worth speaking to you because reason and new information as as likely to go through as it is in arguing with a religious zealot in a fit of passion. Just don't do anything violent in protest of the imagined injustice you're tilting against. Step back and calm down before it goes that far. When you're talking about holding terror trials for the media fomenting riots, and mischaracterizing them you sound like a Ted Kaczynsiki or something.

 

[rajncajn]

So what of the family who obviously lied about him not having a weapon and likely lied about it being just a book? Should they have any accountability for inciting riots, which got 2? more people killed, several injured, several arrested and an awful lot of property damage?

 

[Det. Brees]

Yeah, the lower training is on citizens and government not on cops. It's not like they're fighting to be untrained. Still, scary that in LA you can get a badge and a gun easier than you can be allowed to charge for a manicure.

No, its on the gov. but until the citizens demand a higher standard, the length of the police academy will not change. A new cadet headed to the academy doesn't have enough pull, its going to take a effort from society.

Last year I had more hours of continuing education than I did in the academy 17 years ago.

 

[keepoursaints]

So what of the family who obviously lied about him not having a weapon and likely lied about it being just a book? Should they have any accountability for inciting riots, which got 2? more people killed, several injured, several arrested and an awful lot of property damage?

If Michael Brown's mom and step dad weren't charged for standing on cars and telling them to "burn this ***** down!" then noway anything happens to them

 

[Det. Brees]

Yes, depending on the jurisdiction and how they assign duties to new officers, although I suspect its actually more than 8 weeks for most departments. (I think NOPD is now 26 weeks)

Like I said, this assumes its the right kind of training. If its BS training, you can make it for 2 years and it wont matter.

Mostly I was just struck by the numbers in the linked CNN article about requirements for other professions.

I cant believe anyone thinks a barber really needs 1500 hours of training. But I dont want to threadjack so I'll leave it.

yes, there is a significant variation in training time from dept. to dept. Here we have a 10 week state course then a 8 week city course, then your with a field training officer for a minimum of 8 more weeks. Now our work weeks are on a 9 day cycle instead of a 7 day cycle. so 8 weeks instead of 56 days its 72 days.

 

[coldseat]

So what of the family who obviously lied about him not having a weapon and likely lied about it being just a book? Should they have any accountability for inciting riots, which got 2? more people killed, several injured, several arrested and an awful lot of property damage?

NO! That's just ridiculous. They already lost their husband/father, that should be enough for those of you seeking some sort of accountability because you believe they're responsible for inciting riots.

Do we know for sure there wasn't also a book? Do we know he wasn't reading a book or that reading a book wasn't his usual ritual while waiting for his child?

 

[rajncajn]

NO! That's just ridiculous. They already lost their husband/father, that should be enough for those of you seeking some sort of accountability because you believe they're responsible for inciting riots.

Do we know for sure there wasn't also a book? Do we know he wasn't reading a book or that reading a book wasn't his usual ritual while waiting for his child?

This is purely theoretical since we do not, in fact, know for sure it was not a book. The point is, if his wife knew he had a gun and not a book yet still led people to believe that it was just a book knowing that it would send people into a frenzy should she be held accountable for the rioting that ensued? Could, say, a business owner who's business was destroyed as a result of the rioting have grounds to sue the wife for inciting the riots based on a lie? Or worse yet, one of the people that were killed during the riots, could their family file a wrongful death claim against the wife?

 

[coldseat]

This is purely theoretical since we do not, in fact, know for sure it was not a book. The point is, if his wife knew he had a gun and not a book yet still led people to believe that it was just a book knowing that it would send people into a frenzy should she be held accountable for the rioting that ensued? Could, say, a business owner who's business was destroyed as a result of the rioting have grounds to sue the wife for inciting the riots based on a lie? Or worse yet, one of the people that were killed during the riots, could their family file a wrongful death claim against the wife?

No. There's no way to prove that she was even lying, much less lying with the intent or inciting a riot. I doubt that was her intention. No jury would convict and I doubt a judge would even let this go to trial. More than likely they'd throw it out of court because it would be frivolous.

How do you even know that she knew he had a gun. You don't.