Home
Yes, NAACP leader actually said this about Charlotte shooting: ‘It really doesn’t matter if he had a gun’

A North Carolina NAACP leader told CNN’s Carol Costello Thursday that it was irrelevant that black Charlotte resident Keith Scott was brandishing a firearm when he was shot and killed by a police officer.

Although Scott’s relatives claimed that he was holding a book when he was shot, police claim that body camera footage shows he actually held a firearm in a threatening manner.

“I think the most important part is the contrast in him having a book versus a gun. But in my mind and in most of the community’s mind, it really doesn’t matter if he had a gun,” Commie Mack, president of the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP told Costello.

“At the end of the day we have the right under the Second Amendment to carry here in North Carolina,” she continued. “And [the police’s] responsibility was to engage him in a more de-escalated way, to find out if he had a permit for his gun and allow him to go on his merry way and he would still be living today. That’s not what happened.”

She concluded that video indicating Scott was armed didn’t really matter.

“So I don’t want anyone to walk away from this conversation today thinking that a video showing he had a gun in any way says that he was guilty of anything,” she said.



Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09...y-doesnt-matter-gun-393331#ixzz4L660sf3h



I think he should try it, one more problem solved.
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


Yep.
Originally Posted by bea175
Yes, NAACP leader actually said this about Charlotte shooting: ‘It really doesn’t matter if he had a gun’

A North Carolina NAACP leader told CNN’s Carol Costello Thursday that it was irrelevant that black Charlotte resident Keith Scott was brandishing a firearm when he was shot and killed by a police officer.

Although Scott’s relatives claimed that he was holding a book when he was shot, police claim that body camera footage shows he actually held a firearm in a threatening manner.

“I think the most important part is the contrast in him having a book versus a gun. But in my mind and in most of the community’s mind, it really doesn’t matter if he had a gun,” Commie Mack, president of the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP told Costello.

“At the end of the day we have the right under the Second Amendment to carry here in North Carolina,” she continued. “And [the police’s] responsibility was to engage him in a more de-escalated way, to find out if he had a permit for his gun and allow him to go on his merry way and he would still be living today. That’s not what happened.”

She concluded that video indicating Scott was armed didn’t really matter.

“So I don’t want anyone to walk away from this conversation today thinking that a video showing he had a gun in any way says that he was guilty of anything,” she said.



Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09...y-doesnt-matter-gun-393331#ixzz4L660sf3h






Question for you resident Yanks, since when is 'carrying' the same as 'brandishing'?
He said "Brandishing", quite a bit of difference between Brandishing and having.
I want to see his conceal carry permit
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


It seems to be a new reality these days.
It does matter that as a convicted felon he had a gun. It does matter that he had an extensive rap sheet with multiple violent convictions.
Originally Posted by EdM
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


Yep.


Yes I agree but in NC where open carry is legal I guess it is against open carry law to walk around in public with the gun in your hand. That is considered brandishing.
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/21/keith-scott-rioters-brandishing-weapon-lawful-open-carry/
Originally Posted by JSTUART


Question for you resident Yanks, since when is 'carrying' the same as 'brandishing'?

Lawful open carry
[Linked Image]

Brandishing
[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.



No, he was ordered to drop the gun. He got bac in his vehicle and a second time got out with gun refusing to drop it after additional commands to do so.....


That's what got him shot
The narrative was "book" until the video came out.

Now the narrative is "had a gun on him in a gun legal state"

Still not the exact truth..
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


Tell the truth.

The official narrative is that he had a gun, was told several times to drop the gun, and refused. He was an armed threat so we shot him.

Your statement sounds like what a kool-aid drinking BLM person would say.





P
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


When I was in NM a the funeral, I was rear ended. Good looking lady cop stops and asks for DL, Ins, and registration. I went back to my truck to get them, handed them to her and pulled my wallet out and took out my CC card and handed it to her. She said, "what's this?" I said "it's for your warm fuzzy." She said, "where is it?" I patted my hip. She said thanks for letting me know and handed my card back. She said, "how does it work in Idaho?" I explained that with my enhanced card I was good for 37 states. She was impressed. Nice lady.
There's video of the incident looping on CNN now. Vid taken by wife. Cops keep yelling, 'Drop the gun'. She keeps telling them, 'he doesn't have a gun'.

So either she's wrong or the cops were wrong and planted the gun post shooting to cover stuff up.

K.I.S.S. He probably had a gun and it was in his hand.
Originally Posted by CrowRifle
It does matter that as a convicted felon he had a gun. It does matter that he had an extensive rap sheet with multiple violent convictions.


Well, there's that, but lets not worry over such a lil' inconsequential law. smirk
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I'm not in favor of setting the precedent that simply having a firearm on your person is reason enough to shoot someone. The official narrative is he had a gun so we shot him. That doesn't sit well with me.


Tell the truth.

The official narrative is that he had a gun, was told several times to drop the gun, and refused. He was an armed threat so we shot him.

Your statement sounds like what a kool-aid drinking BLM person would say.




P


Lolol. Okay but maybe I was talking about Jack Yantis or any of the many questionable shootings that are becoming a daily or weekly occurrence. It's always the same shtick....he had a gun so we shot him.
Originally Posted by Steve
There's video of the incident looping on CNN now. Vid taken by wife. Cops keep yelling, 'Drop the gun'. She keeps telling them, 'he doesn't have a gun'.

So either she's wrong or the cops were wrong and planted the gun post shooting to cover stuff up.

K.I.S.S. He probably had a gun and it was in his hand.


Then the dead bastard should have complied with the commands and his ass would still be sucking air! Good shoot as far as I care..
Originally Posted by RWE
The narrative was "book" until the video came out.

Now the narrative is "had a gun on him in a gun legal state"

Still not the exact truth..


Kinda like the Clintons getting caught in their own hubris: the story evolves as the truth comes out.
© 24hourcampfire