Rawstory: Dash cam video shows unarmed black man with hands in air before Tulsa police shoot him dead

[Gamebreaker]

I'm still waiting to see a video that shows this gun that apparently they knew he was holding. Because it looks like they were searching him for the gun they killed him over, immediately after they shot him. 

[Springfield]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

telling him to put down the gun was the first option.

Ok, telling him to put down the gun was option #1.  Shooting him dead was option #2.

 

Seems like a bit of an escalation, no?  Of course, it's possible that I'm missing the nuance.  That there is more context that I'm missing.

4 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

I'm still waiting to see a video that shows this gun that apparently they knew he was holding. Because it looks like they were searching him for the gun they killed him over, immediately after they shot him. 

Benefit of the doubt to the cops... Maybe they were searching him for additional weapons.  It doesn't seem that they knew he was dead at first and they wanted to protect themselves.

 

I assume that the first step after apprehending a perp is to ensure the officer's safety.

 

Ill say that if anything, this video shows that they try to administor some first aid soon after they shoot him.

[visionary]

Watching the video.  He didn't seem to be a threat or even aware of the police until they initiated the confrontation with him.

Even then he had his back turned and did not seem aggressive.

[Ray-Ban Dan]

1 hour ago, youngchew said:

He didn't seem aggressive at all.  He wasn't moving like he was a threat to them at all.  No, he didn't follow directions, but still.  Maybe another video will make it more clear he had a gun in hand 

Why would they instruct him repeatedly to put a gun down if he wasn't carrying one? You do know that they were parked next to him in plain clothes, right? They had already seen him with marijuana, plus he held a gun up.

And in the dash cam video he clearly appears to be holding something down by his side, that we now know wasn't a book (some of us knew that all along).

Besides, if he weren't holding a gun, then wouldn't they instruct him to get his hands up? 

Not to mention his DNA/blood was found on the gun. It's really not that hard to connect all the dots. That's what Chief Putney was referring to at the news conference.

[Springfield]

Hey guys, guess what?

 

This new "police footage" video has gotten us nowhere.  Who would have guessed?

[Gamebreaker]

6 hours ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Why would they instruct him repeatedly to put a gun down if he wasn't carrying one? You do know that they were parked next to him in plain clothes, right? They had already seen him with marijuana, plus he held a gun up.

And in the dash cam video he clearly appears to be holding something down by his side, that we now know wasn't a book (some of us knew that all along).

Besides, if he weren't holding a gun, then wouldn't they instruct him to get his hands up? 

Not to mention his DNA/blood was found on the gun. It's really not that hard to connect all the dots. That's what Chief Putney was referring to at the news conference.

You are making a lot of assumptions. None of these assumptions rule out a gun being planted. It's really not hard to connect all the dots if you are looking for reasons to believe the police. The only gun I've seen in this entire incident is the one that was lying on the ground away from Scott's body well after he was shot. And a picture of the gun and an ankle holster that I also didn't see on either ankle.

How can you tell he's holding something at his side when that side is not being shown to you AND his back is to the camera view? That is nothing but your own imagination. When has it been said they knew he had marijuana? I thought they found marijuana in the vehicle. 

When I was 17 a friend and I went into a Sports Authority. We were there to buy football gloves. As I went to the checkout with my purchase, I bought my football gloves and then three security guards approached me and asked me to come with them to the security office. I'd been accused of stealing merchandise because another customer(white woman) claimed she saw me take gloves and put them in my waistband. So these three fake ass cops surround me in the security room and demand I strip down to my boxers(something they had zero authority to do). I refused. I did empty my pockets and show them my waist. I had nothing to hide because I am no thief, but I was not stripping in front of them. At one point, and I will never forget this. One of these idiots starts yelling at me,"Stop ****ing lying. I see it. You have a glove right there!!!!" He's pointing at my waist, while I have my shirt raised. I yell back,"Dumbass, where the hell is this glove? You don't see ****!" 

So finally a police officer shows up. He doesn't say a word to me. Just walks right up to me, grabs the front of my shirt, throws me against the wall and pats me down. He finds nothing. He then tells me he's going to arrest me for the gloves laying on the table(gloves I'd just bought). Despite my protest, he's putting handcuffs on me until one of the security guards speaks up and says I did just purchase those and showed him the receipt. The officer then cusses them out for wasting his time and leaves without another word.

All of that happened because someone thought they saw something they absolutely did not see. Your questions of why the police acted a certain way has nothing to do with their actually being a gun. If one officer thought he saw something that looked like a gun, and started yelling drop it, the other ones would just assume he saw it and say the same thing. It proves nothing. 

I want to see what the cops apparently thought they saw when they decided to kill a man who looked completely non-aggressive, and so far NO ONE has seen that. 

[grego]

So, this is where we are. 

We are questioning whether police planted a gun on a suspect they shot -a suspect we know has an extensive criminal record that includes various gun charges including assault with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to kill-  after yelling "drop the gun"  a dozen or more times, and the gun having his DNA and fingerprints on it, along with a gun holster that appears to be visible in the video, and a gun we can see moments after the shooting.

And we think this not because we can see that his hands are empty, just that we can't see Scott holding the actual gun in any video. 

This is actually fascinating. 

[Ray-Ban Dan]

4 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

You are making a lot of assumptions. None of these assumptions rule out a gun being planted. It's really not hard to connect all the dots if you are looking for reasons to believe the police. The only gun I've seen in this entire incident is the one that was lying on the ground away from Scott's body well after he was shot. And a picture of the gun and an ankle holster that I also didn't see on either ankle.

How can you tell he's holding something at his side when that side is not being shown to you AND his back is to the camera view? That is nothing but your own imagination. When has it been said they knew he had marijuana? I thought they found marijuana in the vehicle. 

I want to see what the cops apparently thought they saw when they decided to kill a man who looked completely non-aggressive, and so far NO ONE has seen that. 

The cops were there to serve a warrant unrelated to Scott, they were parked next to the SUV he was sitting in, in plain clothes. It was at that point that they saw him rolling a blunt. They also saw him hold up a gun inside his vehicle. That's what set everything into motion. At that point, they left to go change into their police vests, etc. They returned, and proceeded to surround Scott's vehicle, instructing him to get out of the SUV. 

Its funny you tell me I'M using my imagination, yet you think a gun was planted, despite a mountain of evidence (I guess his DNA/blood was also planted, huh) pointing to him having a gun in his possession. You watch too much CSI, bro.

As for him looking non-agressive. He was instructed probably 10 times or more to drop the gun. You are apparently unaware how fast someone can raise a gun they are holding to their side, and fire. If he drops the weapon, we aren't even having this conversation.

[skinsmarydu]

11 hours ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Why would they instruct him repeatedly to put a gun down if he wasn't carrying one? You do know that they were parked next to him in plain clothes, right? They had already seen him with marijuana, plus he held a gun up.

And in the dash cam video he clearly appears to be holding something down by his side, that we now know wasn't a book (some of us knew that all along).

Besides, if he weren't holding a gun, then wouldn't they instruct him to get his hands up? 

Not to mention his DNA/blood was found on the gun. It's really not that hard to connect all the dots. That's what Chief Putney was referring to at the news conference.

So what if he's sitting in a car, doing whatever.  Is he dangerous?

Police, who were trying to locate a completely different person, on which to serve a valid warrant,  were the "neighborhood watch" who took steps that would, eventually, make the situation dangerous.

 

Does this sound familiar?

Sheesh, people. 

[tshile]

52 minutes ago, grego said:

So, this is where we are. 

 

Yup

But this is what happens when the police have such a long history of failing to hold each other accountable. 

There's such mistrust and resentment people would rath believe cops are going to work itching for a chance to kill a black guy, carry an extra gun around looking for that chance to plant it, etc.

I don't see where we go from there. The divide is not just a disagreement on opinions or facts, it's rooted deep. When people happily jump to the conclusions that the black guy must have done something wrong, or that the cops are looking for their chance to shoot someone, before any information (real, verifiable information that is) can be released... well, I think you're stuck.

[twa]

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

 Is he dangerous?

 

obviously has been in the past, and not listening then certainly indicates that.

but maybe cops should just leave folk alone.....might work

[Ray-Ban Dan]

1 minute ago, skinsmarydu said:

So what if he's sitting in a car, doing whatever.  Is he dangerous?

Police, who were trying to locate a completely different person, on which to serve a valid warrant,  were the "neighborhood watch" who took steps that would, eventually, make the situation dangerous.

 

Does this sound familiar?

Sheesh, people. 

Gamebreaker had just asked about how the marijuana. This is apples to oranges compared to the Zimmerman incident. Not even sure why you went there, to be honest.

And isn't getting out of a car with a loaded weapon, and not dropping it, despite being instructed a dozen times to do so by police, making a situation dangerous?

[justice98]

1 hour ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

The cops were there to serve a warrant unrelated to Scott, they were parked next to the SUV he was sitting in, in plain clothes. It was at that point that they saw him rolling a blunt. They also saw him hold up a gun inside his vehicle. That's what set everything into motion. At that point, they left to go change into their police vests, etc. They returned, and proceeded to surround Scott's vehicle, instructing him to get out of the SUV. 

 

That part seems weird to me.  The whole thing does really.  He gets high waiting for kids at the bus stop, then randomly flashes a gun to random people for reasons unknown.

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Gamebreaker had just asked about how the marijuana. This is apples to oranges compared to the Zimmerman incident. Not even sure why you went there, to be honest.

And isn't getting out of a car with a loaded weapon, and not dropping it, despite being instructed a dozen times to do so by police, making a situation dangerous?

Geez, just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Yeah, to quote you..."how the marijuana", apples to oranges. 

Did they serve the warrant on the person they were seeking?  Or abandon the entire effort because of this?  <you know, apprehending a person they KNEW to be dangerous because of SAID WARRANT> instead of screwing with someone just sitting in a car, again...DOING WHATEVER.  Peacefully, without a warrant pending.  How much farther into warrantless wiretapping do you really want to go?  Damn.

We've been down this road.  You should know.  You were here.

[Ray-Ban Dan]

16 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Geez, just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Yeah, to quote you..."how the marijuana", apples to oranges. 

Did they serve the warrant on the person they were seeking?  Or abandon the entire effort because of this?  <you know, apprehending a person they KNEW to be dangerous because of SAID WARRANT> instead of screwing with someone just sitting in a car, again...DOING WHATEVER.  Peacefully, without a warrant pending.  How much farther into warrantless wiretapping do you really want to go?  Damn.

We've been down this road.  You should know.  You were here.

justice98: well, it might seem weird because you are assuming that he actually was waiting on the school bus. Remember though, that is coming from his wife, the same person that told authorities he never had a gun, and was instead holding a book (that was never found).

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, grego said:

So, this is where we are. 

We are questioning whether police planted a gun on a suspect they shot -a suspect we know has an extensive criminal record that includes various gun charges including assault with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to kill-  after yelling "drop the gun"  a dozen or more times, and the gun having his DNA and fingerprints on it, along with a gun holster that appears to be visible in the video, and a gun we can see moments after the shooting.

And we think this not because we can see that his hands are empty, just that we can't see Scott holding the actual gun in any video. 

This is actually fascinating. 

Two questions for you, do you think an officer has ever planted evidence to absolve himself of a crime or mistake? If so, how do you think he would do it? Please answer honestly and don't deflect. 

34 minutes ago, justice98 said:

That part seems weird to me.  The whole thing does really.  He gets high waiting for kids at the bus stop, then randomly flashes a gun to random people for reasons unknown.

Yeah, almost sounds made the **** up. 

34 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Geez, just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Yeah, to quote you..."how the marijuana", apples to oranges. 

Did they serve the warrant on the person they were seeking?  Or abandon the entire effort because of this?  <you know, apprehending a person they KNEW to be dangerous because of SAID WARRANT> instead of screwing with someone just sitting in a car, again...DOING WHATEVER.  Peacefully, without a warrant pending.  How much farther into warrantless wiretapping do you really want to go?  Damn.

We've been down this road.  You should know.  You were here.

Furthermore, if they saw a gun truthfully, why didn't they ask him for his credentials to have said gun instead of immediately assuming he shouldn't have it. Pointing their guns at him and escalating the situation. You know, asking him to prove he could carry in an open carry state. Kinda how they treat white people.  

[skinsmarydu]

4 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

Furthermore, if they saw a gun truthfully, why didn't they ask him for his credentials to have said gun instead of immediately assuming he shouldn't have it. Pointing their guns at him and escalating the situation. You know, asking him to prove he could carry in an open carry state. Kinda how they treat white people.  

MY POINT EXACTLY!!!  (without my early morning game day hate)  thanks...

[Long n Left]

I haven't been posting much in here, mainly because of a tendency for many to keep running headlong into that brick wall. that, and to muse about the condition and future of the city I live in. Where do we go from here...together?

One question that burns in me though, is, why are the police, who are charged to protect the peace, continually escalating these situations to the point of someone losing their lives? can there not be better rules of engagement in place to try and DE-escalate these tense situations so that everyone walks away? Both sides can be in the wrong, but when 5 guys with guns bully one guy with, or without a weapon, who is the side that brings the engagement to it's tipping point? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

5 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

I haven't been posting much in here, mainly because of a tendency for many to keep running headlong into that brick wall. that, and to muse about the condition and future of the city I live in. Where do we go from here...together?

One question that burns in me though, is, why are the police, who are charged to protect the peace, continually escalating these situations to the point of someone losing their lives? can there not be better rules of engagement in place to try and DE-escalate these tense situations so that everyone walks away? Both sides can be in the wrong, but when 5 guys with guns bully one guy with, or without a weapon, who is the side that brings the engagement to it's tipping point? 

 

Impunity - exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

[grego]

14 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Two questions for you, do you think an officer has ever planted evidence to absolve himself of a crime or mistake? If so, how do you think he would do it? Please answer honestly and don't deflect. 

 

 

Of course cops have planted evidence. The question is, given what we definitively know about the situation, how likely is it. Again, they are screaming 'drop the gun'  but we question whether there was a gun, assume there wasnt and that a cop planted one seconds after the shooting where we can see it. The ankle holster also appears to be visible. 

Given the totality of the facts, it seems absurd to come to this conclusion. We are getting into 9/11 truther territory here. 

[twa]

Being told to put down your gun is bullying?

It would be interesting to hear how they knew he had a gun.....perhaps when the distractions run out.

[skinsmarydu]

Or simple OJ stuff.  As they did it...

They showed his socks, laid out side by side, photo taken at home, from "the scene".

No one does that.  No one.  I don't care who your housekeeper/maid/dirty laundry person is.  You just don't.  **** got planted.  Reasonable beyond a doubt, doubt was there.

[Mooka]

8 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

One question that burns in me though, is, why are the police, who are charged to protect the peace, continually escalating these situations to the point of someone losing their lives? can there not be better rules of engagement in place to try and DE-escalate these tense situations so that everyone walks away? Both sides can be in the wrong, but when 5 guys with guns bully one guy with, or without a weapon, who is the side that brings the engagement to it's tipping point? 

 

These specific cops look like knockers. They roll hard. They're not there to de-escalate anything. 

 

[Gamebreaker]

7 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

I haven't been posting much in here, mainly because of a tendency for many to keep running headlong into that brick wall. that, and to muse about the condition and future of the city I live in. Where do we go from here...together?

One question that burns in me though, is, why are the police, who are charged to protect the peace, continually escalating these situations to the point of someone losing their lives? can there not be better rules of engagement in place to try and DE-escalate these tense situations so that everyone walks away? Both sides can be in the wrong, but when 5 guys with guns bully one guy with, or without a weapon, who is the side that brings the engagement to it's tipping point? 

This goes back to training, or the lack thereof. It also highlights the tendency of law enforcement to consistent give one person with a certain background the benefit of the doubt, and consistently give none to others. 

When only 3% of precincts are reporting crime statistics, and you have a complete dumpster fire of a department in Baltimore, how some people consistently continue to never even admit these shootings could be bad is dumbfounding.  Nope, that stuff only happens on CSI. You can tell which members never go in the "More cops who should be fired" thread.

 

8 minutes ago, grego said:

Of course cops have planted evidence. The question is, given what we definitively know about the situation, how likely is it. Again, they are screaming 'drop the gun'  but we question whether there was a gun, assume there wasnt and that a cop planted one seconds after the shooting where we can see it. The ankle holster also appears to be visible. 

Given the totality of the facts, it seems absurd to come to this conclusion. We are getting into 9/11 truther territory here. 

At what point in the video did you see an ankle holster? And when there is video evidence of half a dozen officers stomping out an unconscious suspect while they scream "Stop resisting!!", I'm capable of believing four officers will scream drop the gun when they don't(and we don't) see one. 

[Gamebreaker]

5 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

These specific cops look like knockers. They roll hard. They're not there to de-escalate anything. 

 

Exactly. But no one on the other side of this argument even knows what a knocker is.