Was Keith Lamont Scott killed for simply expressing his right to open carry?

27 comments

• jackslash

  •

  8 years ago

  Michigan is an open carry state, but I never carry a gun openly. I have a concealed pistol permit, and I carry a concealed weapon. Although open carry is legal in many states, it seems very dangerous to me. Most people in Michigan do not know that open carry is legal. If they see you walking down the street with a gun, they will call 911. Then the police will respond with weapons drawn. You will be stopped and interrogated. You may be accidentally shot by cops who fear for their own lives.
• bang69

  •

  8 years ago

  If you are going to carry a gun for self defense. go get a concealed carry permit. and carry that way
• JohnSmith69

  •

  8 years ago

  I'm a huge advocate for gun rights, but people who open carry are idiots. And cops have an absolute right to be concerned about somebody open carrying a firearm. Cops have a right to tell someone where they are working to put down a gun, and they have a right to protect themselves if the person keeps holding their gun when told to drop it. If a cop tells me to drop a weapon and I refuse, then I"m asking to be shot. Responsible gun owners get a concealed carry permit. This is just some liberal professor making shit up.
• dallas702

  •

  8 years ago

  Open carry does NOT mean "in hand, ready to shoot." A rifle carried on a shoulder strap, or even at port arms, is open carry. A rifle pointed at someone with the holder's finger on the trigger guard (or worse, trigger) is an overt threat, and can reasonable be understood to be the criminal act of assault. Likewise a handgun in plain sight, carried in a holster is "open carry." A handgun, carried in a person's hand is an overt threat. The newspaper article offers some very twisted logic to avoid the obvious fact that the individual the police confronted and shot supposedly had the weapon in his hand. I do not know what really happened, and I do have an opinion on whether the cops acted appropriately or committed murder, but that newspaper story is WAY off base.
• dallas702

  •

  8 years ago

  ^^^ "reasonably"
• chessmaster

  •

  8 years ago

  There is still conflicting reports whtger he actually even had a gun or not. Just saying. The police and police lovers can lie just like black lies matter. The truth is nobody except the people there know anything to be fact.
• Beaver_Hunter

  •

  8 years ago

  Excellent point dallas702, a gun in hand as opposed to displaying a shouldered or holstered gun are different. chessmaster, the family has seen the video. They aren't disputing that he had a gun.
• chessmaster

  •

  8 years ago

  "displaying a shouldered or holstered gun are different." I have no doubt a black man would be treated the same whether in hand, holstered or shouldered.
• crsm27

  •

  8 years ago

  Chessmaster you remind me of an interview I saw of DL Hughley. This was after the Micheal brown thing. I mean after all of the investigations were done... ALL OF THEM. The interview said that it was shown Mr. Brown attacked the cop, never had his hands up, was fighting for the gun, etc... I mean all the facts where out there showing this... DL said, "i don't believe none of it"..... So what you are saying is that no matter what anyone is "against" the "black man"... Chessmaster.... then if you honestly think that is the case in 90% of the situations.... then you sir are apart of the problem. That is the truth. We as a society cant move forward when people have that mentality. Just like we cant move forward when people say there isn't a problem as well. Like I have said over and over..... There is problems with innocent people getting shot by some trigger happy police... but 8 out of 10 times it shows that people were in the wrong.... not following orders or commands, doing illegal activities, fighting with the police, etc. But their is still a problem... I acknowledge it. Can you acknowledge the other side of the issue??
• larryfisherman

  •

  8 years ago

  So crsm27- people not following order or commands, doing illegal activities, fighting with the police etc deserve to die?? The problem is these bad police are going with the intent to kill instead of intent to arrest when they come across people who aren't 100% compliant. In the Michael Brown case, if I'm the cop, I'm gonna shoot at this legs if he's charging towards me to get him down. As a cop I am sure Michael doesn't have a gun because he was trying to take mine earlier before he started running away. Killing someone should be the last option, not the first option.
• JamesSD

  •

  8 years ago

  So the verdict is open carry should be legal, but is stupid?
• Tiburon

  •

  8 years ago

  It's very clear that despite the law and the legality of open carry permits, it's ok for cops to say fuck your tights and do what I say? Good to know none of you give a shit about the law and your fellow citizens who follow them. As long as your masters, the police say it's ok to breathe, then you'll breathe
• Tiburon

  •

  8 years ago

  People get mad at other people who are ignorant of the law. People get mad when other people are informed of the law. Nothing makes people happy apparently.
• twentyfive

  •

  8 years ago

  We don't know yet what happened but Tiburon, the smart money says if you live long enough you will learn to pick your battles. I hope that this never happens again, but arguing your rights with a police officer is never smart, that's what courts are for.
• crsm27

  •

  8 years ago

  Larry..... "In the Michael Brown case, if I'm the cop, I'm gonna shoot at this legs if he's charging towards me to get him down. As a cop I am sure Michael doesn't have a gun because he was trying to take mine earlier before he started running away. Killing someone should be the last option, not the first option." Now please I am not trying to pick on you but this shows your ignorance. Police are not taught to "shoot in the leg".... This isn't Hollywood. Cops are taught to take down a threat. Also with "shooting in the leg"..... that opens up the police to all sorts of legal issues. Sorry if you don't see that then you don't see how the world really works. again I am not saying you are dumb... but just ignorant on this issue. Tiburon.... again... if a police officer gives you a command do it. That is plane and simple. It they tell you to drop a weapon, lay on the ground, hands up, don't move, stay where you are, don't be combative, etc.... DO IT. You talk about just listening to a police officer and give away your rights.... That isn't what I am saying... if the cop violates your rights.... you take them to court. You don't play it out on the street. That is what our court system is for. The old saying.... I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
• dallas702

  •

  8 years ago

  Larryfisherman, clearly you have never been on either side of a firearm in a potentially life threatening situation! The statement, "if I'm the cop, I'm gonna shoot at this legs if he's charging towards me to get him down." proves you have no concept of what happens in those few crisis filled seconds. How can an officer (or armed citizen) know that the attacker "charging towards" him is unarmed? If the attacker is on PCP and has a knife, pipe or gun, the attacker will just get pissed off should the shots at his legs actually hit him (very unlikely). There is never time for a second aim point. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it distorts perceptions, and the officer WILL be afraid.. The person being attacked has only an instant to determine the threat and respond. And the, "shoot at his legs" idea ignores reality -completely. A police office who discharges his firearm MISSES over 80% of the time even though all police are trained to shoot center mass (mid chest). Most police involved shootings happen at a distance of less than 10 feet. Most of the time - an officer shooting straight at a supposed assailant, attempting to hit the center of the body - completely misses at less than 10 feet! It is not that police are "bad shots," it is again the result of fear, excitement (not in a good way), dynamic movement by both suspect and shooter, lighting, distractions, and uncertainty. No sane person wants to shoot someone - but also no sane person wants to die. When a firearm comes out of an officers holster, that officer's heart rate will go thru the roof. His mind is outracing his heart. Vision begins to tunnel, and other physiological changes, all very much like shock, occur within a second. There is no way any individual could possibly intentionally hit someone moving towards them in the leg. Try it for yourself. Get a BB pistol and put the barrel in your belt on your right hip. Run for about three miles to get your heart rate up close to that of an officer in a life or death situation Quickly draw a four inch wide by ten inch high target on a piece of paper and tape the top to a swing seat - hurry. Yell for a full minute while jumping up and down as fast as you can.. Push the swing as hard as you can, step backwards three steps, spin around rapidly three times, then draw the BB gun, aim and fire in less than 2 seconds. You will be much calmer and steadier than an officer in fear of his life, but you will not hit that target. An officer practices once or twice a year to qualify to use his (or her) weapon, but otherwise that weapon only comes out of the holster for an occasional cleaning. Most police will serve an entire twenty to forty year career without ever drawing their weapon on duty. And 99.999% of the time, if an officer draws and fires their weapon they truly believe their life is at risk. If they are wrong - they lose their job and may go to jail - and they know that. Yes, sometimes the officer IS wrong. Yes, sometimes a cop overreacts. Yes, sometimes an officer sees a weapon, when there isn't one. But about 99.99% of the time that officer correctly does his job, clocks out, and goes home to play with his kids.
• RandomMember

  •

  8 years ago

  "So the verdict is open carry should be legal, but is stupid?" ----------------------------------- LOL! That's how I read this thread, too. This is TUSCL. Please stop injecting logic into the discussion.
• Beaver_Hunter

  •

  8 years ago

  Larryfisherman, if you train well enough, you can also shoot their bullets out of the air.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  8 years ago

  Those who say that cops should shoot only as a last resort, or should not shoot to kill, or should only use tasers, have never worked in a job where their life could be threatened every minute of every day. The threat of death that cops constantly face is far greater today than it has ever been because of media coverage. And they have to make almost instantaneous judgment calls where their lives are on the line. Nobody can stand in judgment of the calls made by police in these situations unless and until they have worked under the same kind of extreme danger and time pressure. And by the way there is a picture of the dead guy in Charlotte with a gun laying on the ground near his body. Strangely his book is nowhere to be found in the picture.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  I've noticed that some police go berserk even if they find someone who won't answer personal questions, questions about things unrelated to the present situation. So cops have gotten used to the idea of 100% compliance. SJG
• jester214

  •

  8 years ago

  I just watched the cell phone video shot by his wife. Unless the cops are lying and they planted the gun, which seems unlikely to me, then I'm not sure they did much long. You can clearly hear repeated commands for him to drop the weapon before he is shot. His wife didn't help the situation by filming it and screaming at the man and the police.
• larryfisherman

  •

  8 years ago

  Gee crsm you think killing him would bring less legal issues than shooting at his legs?? @dallas and crsm- you know what I mean. I mean not shoot to kill. Michael Brown was shot 12 times, clearly that officer was trying to kill Michael Brown.
• larryfisherman

  •

  8 years ago

  The problem today is police are killing people because they think they MIGHT be a threat, they MIGHT be armed, instead of knowing or there being a good possibility the person is armed and/or a threat. I'm so tired of people always wanting to let the police off the hook. Killing a unarmed man running towards you is not the right thing to do!
• jester214

  •

  8 years ago

  ^The should fire warning shots too, right?
• crsm27

  •

  8 years ago

  ^^ larry^^ So let the man keep running at you, knock the gun out of your hand and kill you? Or let the guy keep walking back to his vehicle and grab a gun, destroy evidence, get into the car and flee, etc.?? Larry... the "shoot not to kill"".... Well a person high on PCP can do amazing things and take bullets and keep coming at you. Also like mentioned before... cops are not that good of shots. Plus they are trained to eliminate a threat.... not "wound". Also see how wounding would play out in the court system. The civil system not criminal. Our tax dollars would be spent on defense of the police and payments to criminals.
• crsm27

  •

  8 years ago

  ^^ Larry^^ Legal issues from a wounding in a civil court..... Guy gets handicapped.... you the initial lump sum of millions (pain and suffering), you pay for all of his health care from the shooting and beyond, you pay for his lost wages, you pay for anything that needs to be done to his home so he can try to return to the "quality of life", you pay for any cosmetic surgery if needed, etc. You see the can of worms it opens up for litigation...... It is sad to say this... but a dead body can't make up a story in court.
• sharkhunter

  •

  8 years ago

  In all the news story, I never heard NC was an open carry state. My local news made it sound like the guy had a gun in his hand and was threatening the police. It's sad that you can't get the correct story watching tv news anymore.