NC - Keith Scott, 43, killed by LEO, Charlotte, 20 Sept 2016 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,001
I would google but I think when I spend the time, people do,not look or care. So if anyone wants to prove me wrong, have at it,
Human, you are an important part of this conversation. Please don't stop participating. We may differ in opinion, but honestly, we *do* care.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,002
Open carry, concealed carry, all require a background check and gun safety class. They are tested and receive a permit, which they MUST show to law enforcement upon demand. It's not the Wild West where you can just strap on a holster or belt. The whole "it's legal in NC" argument is really a non-starter. Your home is the only place you don't need a gun permit -- unless you are a felon or live with one.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

The point, to me is, how does one know who is a good guy with a gun and who is a bad guy?
 
  • #1,003
Not for an ex-felon though, Blue, and it isn't like they don't know they are in possession of an illegal firearm they are never suppose to have. They know because it can get them sent back to prison/jail if they are found to be in possession of one if they are still on parole/probation. Even if not on probation/parole, it can get them a brand new federal gun charge for being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm.. Many in the Chicago gangs are ex-felons who have had that attached felony added to their charges if they are in possession of an illegal firearm at the time they committed a crime or it was found when stopped by police. The gun possession charge for ex-felons enhances their sentence should they be convicted or they can be solely charged with that charge only..

Maybe if he had given them a chance and putdown his firearm he could have told them where he got the weapon.

You are completely missing my point and I'm sorry about that. I know the law, and we've learned a lot about KS throughout this thread. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say then just let it go, okay? Thanks.
 
  • #1,004
Here is an article about William R. Buckley jr. Super conservative mj user. As I said, I am not a drug user and wish people did not use drugs. Even booze, the worst drug of all.

Here is a bit about Buckley.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/feb/29/memoriam_william_f_buckley_conse

Buckley, the scion of a wealthy Connecticut family, came to public prominence with the 1951 publication of "God and Man at Yale," a searing critique of what he saw as agnostic and collectivist tendencies among the faculty and curriculum of his alma mater. In 1955, he founded the National Review, the magazine that became the leading voice of post-war American conservatism and helped lead to the conservative renaissance that resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980............

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/williamfbuckley.jpg
William F. Buckley
William F. Buckley, the dean of American conservatism and advocate of drug legalization, died Wednesday at his home in Connecticut. He was 82.
Buckley, the scion of a wealthy Connecticut family, came to public prominence with the 1951 publication of "God and Man at Yale," a searing critique of what he saw as agnostic and collectivist tendencies among the faculty and curriculum of his alma mater. In 1955, he founded the National Review, the magazine that became the leading voice of post-war American conservatism and helped lead to the conservative renaissance that resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

While Buckley spent much of his career fighting for main-line conservative causes like smaller government, he also used the National Review and his decades-long stint as the host of PBS' "Firing Line" to advance his views in favor of the legalization of drugs. Along with figures like Milton Friedman and George Schulz, Buckley was among the first conservatives to adopt an overtly pro-legalization position.

Writing in the National Review in 1996, Buckley made the case for legalization:

"A conservative should evaluate the practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance in those states whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print-on-paper. I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore if that war against drugs is not working, we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work."

In that same article, Buckley expressed abhorrence at the degree to which drug war zealotry infected the criminal justice system:

"I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
 
  • #1,005
  • #1,006
I think the point of it being open-carry is this: IF they didn't know he was a felon, him having a gun is not a reason to suspect him of anything. If they DID know, then obviously yes. That's my big question right now. Had they identified him before approaching with such aggressive force over these two things: 1) MJ which they intended to ignore and 2) holding a firearm in an open carry state.

If you listen to the press conference made by the police chief it was the illegal act of being in possession and the subsequent visual observance that Scott had a gun is what caused LE to act.

So lets go over this. A minor crime is observed by LE but they decide to continue with their surveillance of the complex in regards to the warrant arrest they are trying to complete. During that surveillance they see the subject with the blunt has a gun. They don't know who this armed criminal is so the make the correct call to suit up, call for uniformed backup and see if this guy is only smoking a blunt and not a danger to anyone.

What happens is Scott decides that not complying with LE commands is a good idea (wrong) and exits his vehicle armed with a gun. He ignores repeated commands to drop the gun.That gets him shot. JMO
 
  • #1,007
Legal...for those without felony convictions.

Though, I think Chapel Hill has banned all open carry.

NC is a funny state for that...you have legal open carry but then again you have the charge of "going armed to the terror of the public" which is essentially causing alarm when open carrying. What entails "alarm" isn't really specifically defined though.

Everything I have read in this thread and everything I have seen in real life and on the internet points to North Carolina being an open carry state. If it is, it is, and I'm right and there's no reason to keep up with the "except for a felon!" reminders. I know. We all know.
:peace:
 
  • #1,008
I think the point of it being open-carry is this: IF they didn't know he was a felon, him having a gun is not a reason to suspect him of anything. If they DID know, then obviously yes. That's my big question right now. Had they identified him before approaching with such aggressive force over these two things: 1) MJ which they intended to ignore and 2) holding a firearm in an open carry state.

I really think a lot of it is going by their gut feelings. They know someone doesn't act this way that is a law abiding gun owner with nothing to hide. They knew there had to a sinister reason why this guy would not putdown his weapon.

I think a lot of it boils down to good common sense.

Ask any legal responsible gun owner if they would have reacted this same way if approached by police. Scratch that. If they had acted like Mr. Scott they too most likely would end up in the same situation.

Gun owners are constantly mindful how to act/react if they are stopped by officers with their legal weapon in their vehicle accompanied by all the paperwork that may be needed like if they have a CWP for instance. This is not how they act when they have done nothing but smoke a joint. I think he knew he was going to be in big doo because of his illegal weapon and him being an ex-felon.

Even open carry has limitations/restrictions even when they are carried by a law abiding citizen.
 
  • #1,009
The point, to me is, how does one know who is a good guy with a gun and who is a bad guy?
Unless a citizen knows the person, they don't. The onus is on LE to check with people who have weapons visible to be sure they are legally carrying.

Imagine *that* being part of your workday. I envy these guys not one bit, not knowing who's the good guy/bad guy and having to approach potentially violent criminals. I know you don't respect them, but I do. The bad ones need to go, but so do the felons that get protected and babied through the system.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,010
Open carry, concealed carry, all require a background check and gun safety class. They are tested and receive a permit, which they MUST show to law enforcement upon demand. It's not the Wild West where you can just strap on a holster or belt. The whole "it's legal in NC" argument is really a non-starter. Your home is the only place it's legal to have a gun without needing a permit --- unless you are a felon or live with one.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Edited to clarify

It's not an argument. It's a statement. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.
:peace:
 
  • #1,011
Everything I have read in this thread and everything I have seen in real life and on the internet points to North Carolina being an open carry state. If it is, it is, and I'm right and there's no reason to keep up with the "except for a felon!" reminders. I know. We all know.
:peace:

Is it legal to brandish a firearm in North Carolina? Or only open carry?
 
  • #1,012
I think the point of it being open-carry is this: IF they didn't know he was a felon, him having a gun is not a reason to suspect him of anything. If they DID know, then obviously yes. That's my big question right now. Had they identified him before approaching with such aggressive force over these two things: 1) MJ which they intended to ignore and 2) holding a firearm in an open carry state.

It makes it seem sloppy, doesn't it? On top of everything else. Maybe when we get more information it will become clearer because I still want the same answers you're looking for.
 
  • #1,013
Is it legal to brandish a firearm in North Carolina? Or only open carry?

Probably not legal, but I'm sure you could google and find out.
 
  • #1,014
  • #1,015
We have a racial problem in this country, for sure. But black people aren't the ones who set up the entire system to benefit themselves. From land ownership to educational opportunities to job opportunities to interactions with police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I was 18 I took a collage co-op job at the RMV. While at work one day, I saw a white woman grab her interracial toddler by the hair and whip him onto a bench. (She was pissed cause he was kept whining for her soda and chips). Then she came up to my desk, and yelled in my face, that the fines and fees we had were "Outrageous"! Without pausing for thought, I said, quietly, " So is the way some people treat their kids".

I lost my job over that. The director of the RMV had me apologize, but the woman said that she was not satisfied with that, and I was fired. Later on, the director said to me, "I hate to let you go, but did you notice her child was Biracial?" I said I don't care what color the child was, no one deserves that kind of treatment. He goes, " I agree with you, But affirmative action would be all over us in a situation like this."

And it's only gotten worse, never has it been an advantage to check that race box, on so many forms, with white.
 
  • #1,016
The absurdity of it all blows my mind, In other states MJ, a small amount is legal.

Guns are legal in NC. Especially open carry,

I am not for drugs. I am not for guns.

America seems to be. But if one is black, you can be dead or incarcerated for it, If you are rich like Rush Limbaugh, your lille drug problem can be forgiven. If you wave a huge weapon at LE and you are white, you may live through it,

Charlie Sheen is on TV with a young kid doing his crazy stuff, but that was OK.

Too weird for me
Guns are NOT legal for convicted felons

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,017
You are completely missing my point and I'm sorry about that. I know the law, and we've learned a lot about KS throughout this thread. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say then just let it go, okay? Thanks.

I really am trying to understand, Blue, and I do guess I am missing your point. You keep saying you know the law then you have to know Mr. Scott was in possession of a dangerous firearm that by law he wasn't suppose to ever have because he was an ex-felon. Right? Is that the law you are talking about? What part of this law makes Mr. Scott have the lawful right to own, open carry or possess a firearm whether its in his own vehicle or anywhere else? Open carry laws come with restrictions. Its not one size fits all. All ex-felons are excluded from those rights and we should be very thankful for that because some do adhere to the rules once they get out of prison.

He knew he was illegally carrying. He knew beforehand he was breaking the law that could land him serious time if he was found to be in possession of one. It wasn't even an open carry situation with him walking down the sidewalk in plain sight at first. His firearm was with him inside of his vehicle until he got out in the open with it when the police approached him.

What I don't understand is what part of the law do you think covers Mr. Scott's right to own any firearm...........open carry or not?

Why in the world would he be sitting there smoking pot when he also knew that was illegal in the state of NC? Especially already knowing he had an illegal firearm with him?

IMO
 
  • #1,018
If that's true, I'm in trubz. I have lots of opinions.

It is, however, politically incorrect to be white and have a racist opinion. Seems tough.
Don't imply I'm racist. You don't know me. And yes you are replying to me, because Blue sneakers was replying to me and you quoted her. You have stated you don't want to get personal, do please don't.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,019
WCCB, Charlotte's CW ‏@WCCBCharlotte [video=twitter;779811287492599808]https://twitter.com/WCCBCharlotte/status/779811287492599808[/video]Charlotte, NC
BREAKING: CMPD released this picture of the gun they say Keith Lamont Scott had when the shooting took place #WCCB

I just want to point out that this is definitely not a koran. And it's not a book. Definitely not a book.

So now the brother in law and sister of Raykeya Scott are nit picking about body cameras, and policy manual language in their press conference—as if they can just find some little minutiae to pounce on, that will make Keith Scott’s own criminal behavior the fault of the officers.

At least we’re finally talking about evidence and truth, and not bald faced lies and “oppression” rhetoric.

The wife yelling at police “he doesn’t have a weapon”! When it’s more than clear that he did, multiple police officers saw it, he refused more than a dozen commands to put it down, and it’s clear to many that she KNEW exactly what he had—a gun and drugs.

Once again, we have family members who told some very tall “tales,” and kept the lies going as long as they possibly could. This happens in these high profile cases over and over and over. These aren’t little mistakes-- they are lies, and quite intentional.

Is it any wonder that most people’s first instinct is to question the truthfulness of those who appear to be “covering” for the criminal activity of the suspect?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...shooting-bring-more-questions-answers-n653906
 
  • #1,020
[video=cnn;justice/2016/09/24/charlotte-police-dashcam-bodycam-video-keith-scott-shooting-orig-aa.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-video/index.html[/video]

Neither police dashcam nor body-camera footage shows Scott pointing a gun at police officers. At one point in the body-camera video, there is a view of Scott from his right side and he has his arm by his body, but it is unclear if there is a gun."You can't clearly identify what, if anything, is in his hand," attorney Justin Bamberg, who represents the Scott family, said at news conference Saturday evening.

Putney had said, before the videos were released, that "there is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
2,214
Total visitors
2,339

Forum statistics

Threads
632,512
Messages
18,627,817
Members
243,174
Latest member
daydoo93
Back
Top