Police shoots another unarmed black man for no reason.

[Red]

In the Charlotte shooting, the victim's wife released the cell phone video that she took at the time of the encounter. I won't post a link, it has profanity in the video. However, the three photos at this link are very interesting. The first photo is a still shot from her video. It shows her husband on the ground, and officers around him. It shows the area on the ground where, in another still shot, what looks like a gun is visible. Yet, that gun is not visible in her shot of her husband after he has been shot. The same area of the ground, near her husband's feet, seems to be visible in both photos. So, why is there no gun visible in her photo? Did the police plant that gun??

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103737896.html

Edit: I just noticed they added the cell phone video after I posted the above link. If this is a problem, because the wife of the victim unleashes a few F bombs late in the sequence, then delete the link by all means. I'd appreciate not being slapped with another infraction. I purposely looked for a link describing this development that did not include the actual cell phone video.

 

[Hotdog]

Computer, please download a spellchecker.

Dont push by buttons.

 

[Hotdog]

In the Charlotte shooting, the victim's wife released the cell phone video that she took at the time of the encounter. I won't post a link, it has profanity in the video. However, the three photos at this link are very interesting. The first photo is a still shot from her video. It shows her husband on the ground, and officers around him. It shows the area on the ground where, in another still shot, what looks like a gun is visible. Yet, that gun is not visible in her shot of her husband after he has been shot. The same area of the ground, near her husband's feet, seems to be visible in both photos. So, why is there no gun visible in her photo? Did the police plant that gun??

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103737896.html

Is it possible the police retrieved the gun from the guy, then threw it on the ground becasue it was evidence? I honestly dont know what the procedure is. But just packing it away into your cop car immediately doesnt sound like the official procedure. I've seen videos where cops leave the gun on the ground or put it on the hood of their car while doing the report and investigation.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Is it possible the police retrieved the gun from the guy, then threw it on the ground becasue it was evidence? I honestly dont know what the procedure is. But just packing it away into your cop car immediately doesnt sound like the official procedure. I've seen videos where cops leave the gun on the ground or put it on the hood of their car while doing the report and investigation.

Depends on the circumstance. If the scene isn't secure you want to secure the evidence immediately. Still photos can be re-sequenced or shown out of context in relation to what they are trying to prove. Moving it to the hood of a car doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to move it to secure it, then secure it.

 

[Red]

Is it possible the police retrieved the gun from the guy, then threw it on the ground becasue it was evidence? I honestly dont know what the procedure is. But just packing it away into your cop car immediately doesnt sound like the official procedure. I've seen videos where cops leave the gun on the ground or put it on the hood of their car while doing the report and investigation.

I had the same thought, when searching for innocent reasons. I thought they bagged evidence, there are fingerprints and DNA involved, and in fact the police claim both fingerprints and DNA were found on the gun. I guess they could have just put it to one side like that. I just assumed they'd be less "casual" with evidence like that.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

I had the same thought, when searching for innocent reasons. I thought they bagged evidence, there are fingerprints and DNA involved, and in fact the police claim both fingerprints and DNA were found on the gun. I guess they could have just put it to one side like that. I just assumed they'd be less "casual" with evidence like that.

Another possibility would be that they did the "kick it out of arms reach" as they approached, then secured it

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Are they undressing him in that second photo?

 

[Red]

Are they undressing him in that second photo?

According to the article: "In the photograph, some of Scott’s clothing appeared to have been removed. It is not known whether that was a result of life-saving efforts or an effort to search him for weapons.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney told The Charlotte Observer in an interview that the department, which monitors social media, got the photograph after the shooting and it appeared to be a genuine, undoctored image"

 

[MVP]

In the Charlotte shooting, the victim's wife released the cell phone video that she took at the time of the encounter. I won't post a link, it has profanity in the video. However, the three photos at this link are very interesting. The first photo is a still shot from her video. It shows her husband on the ground, and officers around him. It shows the area on the ground where, in another still shot, what looks like a gun is visible. Yet, that gun is not visible in her shot of her husband after he has been shot. The same area of the ground, near her husband's feet, seems to be visible in both photos. So, why is there no gun visible in her photo? Did the police plant that gun??

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103737896.html

Edit: I just noticed they added the cell phone video after I posted the above link. If this is a problem, because the wife of the victim unleashes a few F bombs late in the sequence, then delete the link by all means. I'd appreciate not being slapped with another infraction. I purposely looked for a link describing this development that did not include the actual cell phone video.

Interesting. I sure hope police did not plant the gun trying to cover themselves. What is most interesting for me is that both wife and daughter keep yelling in the videos that he has/had no gun. Usually if guy has legal gun members of the family would know it right? So did he have the gun and family had no clue about it or he really did not have any gun?
On a side note, I feel very sorry for the wife... can't imagine what she felt seeing her husband getting killed in the middle of the day just few yards from her.

 

[Hotdog]

I had the same thought, when searching for innocent reasons. I thought they bagged evidence, there are fingerprints and DNA involved, and in fact the police claim both fingerprints and DNA were found on the gun. I guess they could have just put it to one side like that. I just assumed they'd be less "casual" with evidence like that.

I dont think they handle a murder outside of their doing the same as they do inside. I dont think they start collecting DNA and fingerprints, and tip toeing around trying to not contaminate things.

Do outside agencies come in and do an investigation? I dont think they do. Maybe there lies the problem. Might need to start bringing in a independent investigation every time someone dies. But that probabaly means they would have to not enter the crime scene once it happens. Which complicates things.

So back to my point. I dont think they handle evidence the same.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Interesting. I sure hope police did not plant the gun trying to cover themselves. What is most interesting for me is that both wife and daughter keep yelling in the videos that he has/had no gun. Usually if guy has legal gun members of the family would know it right? So did he have the gun and family had no clue about it or he really did not have any gun?
On a side note, I feel very sorry for the wife... can't imagine what she felt seeing her husband getting killed in the middle of the day just few yards from her.

If the guh is a plant it would be very, very bad. It means that cops are driving around with illegal weapons in order to drop them at crime scenes, just in case they accidentally shoot an unarmed person. It means that every cop on that scene, and probably the entire department, would have to be in on the plan to utilize these sorts of cover-ups. I have no doubt that this sort of thing has happened in the past, but I believe that we now live in an era where it would be exponentially more difficult.

I can believe that there are bad cops. I could even be convinced that in some terrible police department somewhere there could be a large percentage of bad cops, but all it would take is for one guy with a conscience to become aware of this sort of planning for a massive scandal to erupt. Ask yourself, if you were a cop and you became aware that some of your fellow officers are carrying around illegal weapons to plant, would you just stand by and say nothing? Would your paycheck be worth enough to you that you could live with knowing that your coworkers, who had sworn to serve and protect the citizens of their community, are going out on patrol every day with illegal tools in order to do the exact opposite of their duty?

It seems highly likely that eventually we will see a video that shows us how that weapon got there. IMO, it's much, much more likely that it was in the possession of the deceased than that it got there in any other way.

I also heard that there is a photo where Scott is wearing an ankle holster. Do people believe the cops planted that on him too, knowing that there may have been dozens of cameras pointed on them at the time? Then again, maybe the ankle holster info I heard is completely incorrect.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

I dont think they handle a murder outside of their doing the same as they do inside. I dont think they start collecting DNA and fingerprints, and tip toeing around trying to not contaminate things.

Do outside agencies come in and do an investigation? I dont think they do. Maybe there lies the problem. Might need to start bringing in a independent investigation every time someone dies. But that probabaly means they would have to not enter the crime scene once it happens. Which complicates things.

So back to my point. I dont think they handle evidence the same.

If anything, at least in Utah, it's an even more intensive investigation because they know how under the microscope it will be. And again, don't know how Charlotte does it, but in Utah an outside jurisdiction handles the officer-involved shooting, and in-house an internal affairs investigation is conducted. Again, outside of moving the gun out of arms reach of the offender, evidence collection is handled intently.

Joe is right also, it would take a conspiracy of massive proportions that would have to take place on epic scale, to include the Department of Justice and FBI on a federal level