Friday, September 23, 2016

Police Shooting Of Keith Scott






Keith Lamont Scott was shot by the Charlotte police officers a in three-lined parking lot in Lexington court in South Carolina. As Scott was waiting for his kid to get off the school bus he was approached by cops. The police officers believed that Scott was armed with a gun and asked him to get off the car. They thought that they had seen a gun and shot him. The police ignored Scott's wife when she said that he was not armed and has a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). 

This connects with the Tulsa shooting because the cops believed that they were being threatened in both cases. In both cases the cops believed that they had no other option. They both said they looked suspicious which lead to the shooting. 

If this was your family being pointed a gun, what would you do?
Do you believe its fair that the cops shot him knowing that his wife told them he didnt have a gun

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/23/495200112/witness-video-emerges-from-scene-of-charlotte-police-shooting-of-keith-scott

16 comments:

  1. I'm not sure how Keith Scott acted, but it definitely seems like the police officers were far too rash in their assumptions, and should therefore be punished. If you are approaching someone random as a police officer, with no hard evidence that they are a danger to the public, you should need to have visible proof or undeniably suspicious behavior in order to even feel the need to take your gun out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the comment above me on not being sure how the guy acted. Although we weren't sure how scott acted the police shouldn't have jumped to conclusions and shot him. To do this action the police needed to be sure before acting i think the police deserves harsh consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that these cops are racist because he is black and they assume that he has a weapon.

      Delete
    2. i agree with Ivana because the police had no actual proof that he had a weapon. His wife was telling the cops that he did not have one but they decided to ignore her.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. I do agree that the police took their actions to far because it resulted in the death of the man but we cant not blame the police because we were not there at the moment, but it would of been a lot better for the police to shoot in a non lethal spot so it doesn't result in a death

    ReplyDelete
  4. The cops shouldn't have shot him because they didn't physically see a gun. They could've tazed him or pepper sprayed him or something like that so he would be unable to do anything at the moment. They shouldnt have done something permenant like killing him because that's irreversable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The cops shouldn't have shot him because they didn't physically see a gun. They could've tazed him or pepper sprayed him or something like that so he would be unable to do anything at the moment. They shouldnt have done something permenant like killing him because that's irreversable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with what has been said above^. I think the police was really disrespectful and rash with their assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although we don't know the exact way this victim had acted in the time of the shooting, I still believe he had no right to be shot. In recent shootings just like these, the cops only excuse usually has something to do with they THOUGHT they were armed, or ASSUMED they were reaching for something like a weapon. I understand from a policeman's view that their life is in constant danger, however their "assumptions" should not have action taken upon them when another persons life is on the line also. I find it hard to believe that when a police man feels threatened, the only solution is to shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do agree that the police went too fast in making decisions and it has resulted in a death of an innocent man. This is another part of discrimination, hypothetically, if Keith was a well-dressed white man, the police would most likely have not shot him. Instead of shooting Keith, they should have asked him to put his hands up and get out of the car so they can frisk him instead of shooting him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe that this man was shot for no reason. The police office her shot this man to me should receive a punishment because he had no reason to get shot, all he was doing was sitting in his car. I also think the only reason he was shot because he was black, 95% of the time the police will kill a black male because they're scared or frightened that they will do something to them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The police should not have shot the man because they didn't have enough evidence to determine if he was an imminent threat. They should have asked him to surrender instead of shooting him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Police had no right to shoot. They had no evidence and he wasn't threating the police at all. If it were my family, I would fight back, Its not fair.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do not believe that it is fair that the cops shot this man when the wife explains that he had no gun and has a traumatic brain injury. Although some would argue that the police have the right to shoot when threatened, it is unfair in this case because the wife specifically explains that her husband was not armed and suffers from TBI.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I understand that police officers lives are on the line everyday. Yet that doesn't mean they can jump to conclusions and just shoot someone because they asume they're reaching for a weapon.

    ReplyDelete