Keith Scott - Charlotte shooting victim exposed as career criminal and ex-con

[IsaacNewton]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

When his wife was screaming "Keith don't do it, don't do it Keith."

What was she talking about?

She meant "Keith don't do what they say so they can shoot you so I can get paid and shit"

 

[Trump.Stamped]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

 

[IsaacNewton]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

 

[PK1]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

 

[Trump.Stamped]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

Look at the last part of what I wrote. Criminals act a certain way, which is what officers respond to. That is very relevant, I would say.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

 

[Trump.Stamped]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

But they sure are allowed to be crucified by it, aren't they!?

 

[IsaacNewton]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

But they sure are allowed to be crucified by it, aren't they!?

Yes, that is how it works for all humans. All people get crucified by public opinion. Why do you think crowds chanted 'Burn her, burn her' when someone was fingered as a witch! And then people were burned. It is the human condition. The police are trained against this and the law prohibits them from being judge, jury, and executioner. Except in places like China or Russia. Or North Korea.

 

[PK1]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

 

[Pop23]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

Exactly, they react to clear and present danger. When confronted with such, they are authorized to use deadly force

And your use of a genuine genius as a screen name is insulting.

Cuz, you're a fool.

 

[Pop23]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

 

[PK1]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

Probably. The cops may have had run-ins with this guy before. And anyway, most black males are criminals. That's what their culture preaches. School bad, jail good.

 

[Pop23]

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

Don't know, do you?

Here's a couple of things I do know. When a felon is released, especially one that was convicted for what this one was, the police know who they are, and simply running a plate gets you that info.

 

[PK1]

Not relevant in the court of law, or is it?

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

Don't know, do you?

Here's a couple of things I do know. When a felon is released, especially one that was convicted for what this one was, the police know who they are, and simply running a plate gets you that info.

You don't know either, or do you claim you do?
BTW, it's not always illegal for a felon to have a gun.

 

[Pop23]

How they act is. If you stand there and rationally talk to the officer, the gun doesn't even come out. You act like an idiot, refuse to listen, walk away from, put your hands up when you weren't even asked to, etc, what would you think if you were the officer?

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

Don't know, do you?

Here's a couple of things I do know. When a felon is released, especially one that was convicted for what this one was, the police know who they are, and simply running a plate gets you that info.

You don't know either, or do you claim you do?
BTW, it's not always illegal for a felon to have a gun.

Well that was a brilliant response.

 

[PK1]

What LAW did Scott break?
Perhaps it's the cops who were acting like idiots, or cowards.

Felon with a gun to begin with.

Did the cops know Scott was a felon before he was shot multiple times?

Don't know, do you?

Here's a couple of things I do know. When a felon is released, especially one that was convicted for what this one was, the police know who they are, and simply running a plate gets you that info.

You don't know either, or do you claim you do?
BTW, it's not always illegal for a felon to have a gun.

Well that was a brilliant response.

Is that the best you could do?
LOL!

 

[Bush92]

He had a weapon. Suicide by cop. Protest are helping to deliver North Carolina to Trump.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

What any person's past is, unless they just committed some heinous crime, is irrelevant.

The police have no prosecutorial authority. To try to bring up someone's distant past as a reason to murder them in the present is a huge Red Herring. It is the argument of the weak.

It is relevant when the media makes these people out to be saints right off the bat. Criminals act a certain way compared to normal, law abiding citizens. So yes, it is relevant.

Not to the police. They aren't allowed to operate on public opinion.

But they sure are allowed to be crucified by it, aren't they!?

Yes, that is how it works for all humans. All people get crucified by public opinion. Why do you think crowds chanted 'Burn her, burn her' when someone was fingered as a witch! And then people were burned. It is the human condition. The police are trained against this and the law prohibits them from being judge, jury, and executioner. Except in places like China or Russia. Or North Korea.

You aren't listening. You have never been in the cops shoes, so you don't understand the dangers we face every day.

And you forget that public opinion cost Darren Wilson his career. He did nothing wrong and will never work in law enforcement, or peace again.