Oh good, so now we've gotten to the part where folks try and trash the dead person even though it doesn't relate to the situation at hand. I was worried this would never come.
His violent criminal past is relevant. Also, I don't consider it "trashing" someone by pointing out their record. If they were a good person, that record would look good, since this guy was a POS, it looks bad.
You saw the picture right hands down be side not acting bad. This is all the more reason we need to see all the videos.
He was an innocent man, otherwise he'd be in jail. He has not broken a law when they pulled up. There is one reason why he's dead, and that's because he didn't obey an aggressive and anxious armed cop blindly. Also, the police did not know this about him at the time, so it is irrelevant. Most importantly, you KNOW all this. Why are you cheerleading? There is plenty of legit evidence you can point to, why resort to this propaganda game in the same way you accuse so many on this board?
Yeah but his hands shouldn't have been at his side and he shouldn't have brought the gun out of the vehicle. You have to wonder what his intentions were. He's had a history of resisting arrest, was he about to head back to prison willingly this time? It sure didn't seem like it.
Good people can have records as well. His past is only relevant if it played a factor in the incident at hand. In this case it did not.
The reason he's dead is because he was a violent felon illegally in possession of a firearm and smoking weed in front of a cop who wouldn't cooperate with police when they attempted to arrest him. Pointing out his record isn't "propaganda"
I would argue it did. He was a violent felon and acting like it. Anyone with a brain would have dropped the gun in the car and just got arrested, this guy had other plans.
His record had nothing to do with anything. He was a guy with some mar1juana and probably a gun. I know folks who are guilty of both of those things. They don't deserve to be dead because of it.
He is NOT dead because of being a felon IN THE PAST. They did not know that. You know that bro. Smoking weed is not a violent action, even if criminal. The way the cop rationalized it is that he appears to be dangerous and is not blindly following orders like a dog. They were frightened of him. Clearly the guy was high as f*** and that exasperated his reaction to cops with guns aggressively surrounding him and barking orders at him. Even if you think smoking weed is wrong, you must understand that people who agree with you smoke weed and they consider it a "mistake" and they would be equally out of control if put in that situation. It's just not an acceptable situation that if someone smokes weed, they should risk getting shot for reacting imperfectly in the face of aggressive armed cops. Even if you believe he did not cooperate, there is absolutely zero logic to saying it has anything to do with past felony or weed smoking.
Do those people have a long history of assault with deadly weapons with intent to kill? Scott did. Would those people fail to drop a gun and fail to cooperate with police if caught? Scott did. I mean, he was a REALLY terrible person given his record of multiple assaults and he clearly didn't learn his lesson by illegally obtaining a firearm and refusing to drop it when police were trying to arrest him. He's not a sympathetic character at all. Maybe you are wanting him to seem that way so that it's less embarrassing for the morons who rioted over this shooting, but sorry, he was a terrible person and it's good that he's dead. It's crazy how often people get upset when dangerous, violent criminals get themselves killed. I guess some people just look at really terrible people and see themselves.
He has a history of violence and resisting arrest, he was resisting arrest when he was killed. That's how it's related.
And before people get butt hurt about me saying that it's a good thing he's dead, just look at what he did with his life. He almost constantly hurt people and even attempted to kill several people. He stabbed his wife a year ago. He was an objectively terrible person by just about any measure. When bad things happen to bad people, it's a good thing. He'll never hurt anyone else.
It's related, but it is not relevant to why he was shot. Again, you know that. You know the difference between related and relevant. It does not in any way justify the decision to shoot, literally no matter which side you're on about the shooting. Because he was not a felon when he died. He was not a felon to the person who shot him to death. Ex felons are not felons, they are not criminals. You have already stated why you believe he was shot. Why bother with this propaganda when you are smart enough to know the difference between relevant and related and how that bit of nuance radically affects your argument?
No, his past crimes do not justify the decision to shoot and I never suggested it did. The weapon along with the refusal to obey police commands justifies the decision to shoot. His past just makes the decision to shoot a good thing. If he was a really good person, it would be a tragedy.
IF that is a gun in his hand (and I think it is), the police have no requirement to wait until he points it at them. If they wait, he can squeeze of a round into them before they can react. If he did not listen to commands with a gun in his hands, "looking like a threat" isn't an issue. He IS a threat. Sort of like a person with a knife is considered a threat within 12 feet or something. They can cover that distance in a blink of an eye with a knife and harm you. I person with a gun in their hand is a threat, they can raise and shoot in a blink of an eye.
Suicide by cop. Once again, we see the George Soros funded, racist rabble-rousers in action, pushing a false narrative in order to get these people stirred up into a literal mob frenzy. Then by the time the true story comes out, it is too late, the damage has been done.
I agree with this, if it was a gun in his hand, which is likely given that the recovered one, then him merely refusing to drop it is justification to shoot. There's no requirement to wait till he shoots someone. If he didn't have bad intentions, he'd have never left the car with the gun still on him.
It's crazy that even in war, it's the imperative of the soldier to not shoot to kill an enemy combatant unless that enemy engages him first, but in an open carry state, even suspicion of that firearm was this man's death sentence...
