No charges to be filed in charlotte police shooting

Its not my problem either, I asked the question "what did I change from?".

Its irrelevant what I think the punishment should be. I said if she gave a false statement she should be charged.

Y should she go to jail, you don't think a police officer giving a false statement should go to jail.

He was fired, he wasn't punished. Don't play coy you know which officer I am talking about. You argued with Tom Foolery and myself over it.

 

Indeed. It's about the undisputable facts.

The fact still is, that the police officers are unable to prove their version of events, because it's not on any of their own camera's or on the camera's that witnesses used. That leaves reasonable doubt. And apperantly you don't like it that there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

The authority have been busted quiet often these past years that there are absolute violent and even lying people among them, that caused the local authorities millions in damages per incident. These people who work for the authorities are not "special" people, they are just like you and me.

 

He had no gun to put down when he was sitting in his car just waiting for his wife.

 

And just how do you know this and if he did not have one while sitting in the car where did he get it from when they ordered him repeatedly to drop it? Did you not mention in an earlier thread that he had the gun in ankle holster? Yes you did so you just contradicted yourself. Having a gun in a holster even an ankle holster means he did have it to put down while waiting for his wife.

- - - Updated - - -

True but all of the real evidence supports their side and not the lying witnesses who were related to the guy

 

Actually he did... Video from before shows him with it on his ankle in a store.. Text messages between him and his wife show them arguing about the gun. They even tracked down the person who sold him the gun.. You would know this if you would bother to read the articles provided... Why even join a discussion when you refuse to look a the information?

Logic would dictate that you just hate police and will not accept any information counter to that.

 

The audio on all of the videos do indeed support the officers statement that he was holding a gun.

Multiple videos with sound including the one taken by the mans wife clearly record the officer ordering him to put down the gun. That order was repeated MULTIPLE time.

This strongly supports the officers description of events. You would not be telling someone to put down a weapon unless they had a weapon.

 

Your idiotic claim that such shootings are a dime a dozen requires evidence.

The evidence supports the officers side of the story even if not proving it.

No evidence supports the claim that he was murdered or executed or killed in an unjust manner

 

Or in this case a book that turns into a gun... Sounds like a bad Harry Potter movie but that is the narrative these fools are pushing.

 

I think there is a huge difference between having a gun strapped to your ankle or pointing it at the police. And I wouldn't know how anybody can dispute that such a difference is not relevant.

 

He clearly drew it before or immediately after exiting the car so it is irrelevant

 

Yeah... a video where you don't see what goes on.
Not just 1 video,... ALL the video's from multiple angles.
Now that is something.

Not that I am aiming for a conspiracy thing.
It's just leaves room for the doubt.
And cops have been caught lying recently,
with video footages that OTHER people made.

 

Nope. You only got the sound. You can't spot the victim holding a gun, let alone him pointing it at the cops. And I recall that some white cop smacked some black woman in the side of her friends car, yelling get down on the floor while manhandling her, communicating on the dispatch that he is in a fight,... and the video footage of a gasstation shows the only one fighting is himself and the woman gets tossed around like a ragdoll. The cop got fired for being a liar and making a bogus arrest.

It happens. You want a link for it?

- - - Updated - - -

It remains that you can not see anything of that on any video footage. So your "cearly drew" is not a fact at all. If that indeed was the case, than the relatives of the victim had nothing to claim and this would be a total non-discussion.

 

Wrong there was and is physical evidence.

What is your evidence it was not a lawful shooting?

 

One cop or even multiple cops lying does not reflect on other cops.

If he videos did not get clear images they did not get clear images but they did get sound which you are ignoring. He was told multiple times to drop his gun.

You ignore that one of these videos was taken by his wife meaning she would have to part of any cover up.

The evidence supports the officers description of the events and no evidence refutes it.

 

So he didn't have a gun. Then he had a gun but he was just minding his own business in a open carry state. Then he was just rollin' and smokin' a blunt. The he had the gun out but he wasn't brandishing it. Man, this is getting confusing! The facts are he was a convicted felon. He had a loaded, illegal firearm that was proven to be his. His wife knew about the firearm. The cops can be heard on the video telling him to drop the gun. The cop that fired four times hitting him three times was the only cop to fire and he was Black.

His wife was hoping to win the ghetto lottery.

 

Yes physical evidence.

His pointing it at the officers is not required to make it a lawful shooting.

Specious to this matter.

We can see and hear him surrounded by police refusing to drop the gun which was loaded, had a round in the chamber, was cocked and had the safety off.

 

Please post any physical evidence that you have that he was pointing a gun at the police.

 

The sound IS evidence which you keep ignoring. Granted it is not as conclusive as a clear video evidence is but it does stand as evidence which refutes your claims and supports what the officers said.

In other words yes they have audio evidence you have absolutely zero evidence to refute them.

Ok you have an anecdote where a woman was smacked tossed around and " like a ragdoll " and the officer was fired for his wrongful actions. This does not even remotely support or prove your claim which I asked for evidence of your claim was that " Instances where cop murders an unarmed person in the middle of the streets and getting away with it are a dime a dozen, leaving the community to pay millions in damages." That is a direct word for word quote from you in post # 119.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...arges-filed-charlotte-police-shooting-12.html

The anecdote which you just alluded to may well be true but it is not a murder case or even a case of someone being shot nor did the officer get away with it.

So once again back up the rather stupid claim you made.

Yes it is clearly a fact that he drew his gun at one point otherwise the officers would not have been shouting MULTIPLE orders to drop the weapon. That little piece of evidence defeats you every time.

The relatives have nothing to claim they are proven liars and nothing more

- - - Updated - - -

Been done over and over the gun was recovered from the scene and linked to to him. he was ordered repeatedly to drop the weapon.

I will grant that it does not ABSOLUTELY prove he was pointing it at the officers which no one has claimed anyways. It does however strongly and reasonably support the officers description that he was pointing it at them.

Even though others have pointed it out it also bears repeating that POINTING a gun is not required to make it a lawful shooting and this is true whether it is cops or regular citizens who defend themselves. Merely holding a gun can be hostile and in this case he was holding it if nothing else. It was a threat to the officers who attempted to get him to surrender the weapon he refused multiple orders to do so and the shooting was justified.

 

Nope. I am just saying the video evidence does not support the version of the cops.

There is a lack of evidence to support it

 

A lack of physical evidence.

Him having a gun in his hands is. And they are unable to prove it.

Relevant to the matter that the word of an officer can be quiet inconsistant to evidence.

It was claimed that he "cearly drew" the gun.
That is just absolutely not true.
You assume he did, because the cops say so.

 

yes it does support them and quite clearly. The audio is part OF the video evidence and it does absolutely support their description of events.

No there is not a lack of evidence there is evidence it has been shown and demonstrated to you repeatedly. Your version has zero whatsoever.

Some evidence even if not absolutely conclusive is not a lack of evidence it is you with a lack of evidence which by definition means ZERO evience

 

Reason and logic does not say that it is ever OK or lawful to summarily execute someone for not following a lawful order. Detain them, stun gun them, pepper spray them.

The suspect did not point a firearm at the police.

Tell me, why is it civilians are shot and executed by the police who shoot to kill, but terror suspects are always shot and survive and detained?

Care to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing answer that?

This is obtuse lawlessness and rash behavior by rogue political enforcers of the state's will, egregiously violating our rights left and right all the time smeared across tons of outlets for all to see, and you lot think it's just A-O-K for this wild west behavior to continue.

It has nothing to do with "feeling". It has everything to do with expecting a high standard of responsibility by those we entrust in positions of authority, which clearly you don't expect.

What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing joke your argument is.

 

They are not required to prove it beyond in an absolute sense. The gun was his and recovered at the scene. They gave him MULTIPLE orders to drop it. This is in fact reasonable evidence that yes he was pointing it at them.

No evidence of any kind casts any doubt on their description or supports any other version of the events.

 

No truer words have ever been posted in this group.

 

It was not a summary execution it was a self defense shooting. Stunning, pepper spraying them etc are all irrational options once they have a weapon in hand. When they are armed and unwilling to surrender lethal force is the only rational option to use.

he probably did point the weapon at the police and no evidence refutes that likely hood. As has been pointed out it is not even necessary to be pointing it at someone to legally allow for lethal force an this is true for cops and anyone else.

Terror suspects are not always shot survive and detained. San bernandino, the recent attack at OSU both terror suspects an both instances where they were shot and killed.

It was not lawlessness or rash it was lawful and justified.