If the government of NC wants to preview to the nation of how a racist police state works it is doing a damn good job. While at present NC is one of the United States it is no more part of the United States than a foreign police state where the rule of law and equality before the law do not exist. What NC needs is that those who are still permitted to vote throw these neo-confederates out of office. The gang now ruling NC have no intention of releasing those tapes which would show that a black person in NC lives in a different country that a white one. The only power of law is the federal government and a grand jury should be convened and the tapes should be subpoenaed.
5
Why does the New York Times and other news media continue to foist on the
American people the lie that more black people than whites are kiled by the police?
"A new study confirms that black men and women are .... more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias. “It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California." NYTs 07/11/2016
American people the lie that more black people than whites are kiled by the police?
"A new study confirms that black men and women are .... more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias. “It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California." NYTs 07/11/2016
8
Is this the same NY Times who called releasing the video of Michael Brown robbing the nearby convenience store incendiary and unnecessarily prejudicial to his family?
10
The NYT should point out ...... in old letters across the Front Page ....... that regardless of whether these police shootings are found to be justifiable or not, the person killed would most likely be alive if he/she had simply followed the police's orders and directions.
They represent the State, your community. Do what they tell you and argue about it later. Else you have a good chance of being tasered or shot.
They represent the State, your community. Do what they tell you and argue about it later. Else you have a good chance of being tasered or shot.
10
It "will take 'years' to heal" from the Chicago debacle of covering up the brutal slaying of Laquan McDonald? It will be decades if we're lucky, which we will not be as long as we accept racism parading as conservatism throughout this country.
In the meantime, the North Carolina legislature continues inexorably to wrap itself in one shame after another in its serial commitment state-level bigotry, even after the nation's businesses and event-organizers spurn economic activity in the Tarheel State.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
In the meantime, the North Carolina legislature continues inexorably to wrap itself in one shame after another in its serial commitment state-level bigotry, even after the nation's businesses and event-organizers spurn economic activity in the Tarheel State.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
12
The question I have is, even if he did have a gun, it's an open carry state. Would a white man leaving a car with a gun be treated to instant death? Or would he be a proud supporter of his 2nd Ammendment rights? If a black man does it...it's "OMG, he's got a gun." The open carry, concealed carry laws in this country create a huge problem for police at every encounter. The police in this country do have to assume everyone is armed, and that's why mainly they don't support the broad distribution of weapons, armor, high velocity weapons, cop killer bullits in the public space. And that's why they are on a hair trigger. And that's why they need to preconceive situations, because there is no time in the moment, and that's why racial bias becomes a prevalent knee jerk.
10
No reasonable, concerned citizen can accept the deeply flawed social proposition that, irrespective of manifest conflicts if interest, the police can be trusted to investigate itself.
The video should be released to the public immediately and a independent civilian prosecutor named to investigate the case.
The video should be released to the public immediately and a independent civilian prosecutor named to investigate the case.
10
What we really need is prosecution reform. The decision of whether or not to prosecute an officer is usually in the hands of a local District Attorney, who must depend on the police department's help in order to win cases against criminals. There is no reason the community should have any trust that when the police kill and unarmed citizen, that justice will be done.
When a killing receives wide attention, as the shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte have, the outrage leads to violence. But this is not a good way to get justice. What about shootings that don't get publicized for one reason or another?
When a police officer kills an unarmed, or possibly unarmed, citizen, an independent state- (or, possibly, Federal-) level prosecutor should investigate, with full powers of subpoena, and, if warranted, prosecute.
When a killing receives wide attention, as the shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte have, the outrage leads to violence. But this is not a good way to get justice. What about shootings that don't get publicized for one reason or another?
When a police officer kills an unarmed, or possibly unarmed, citizen, an independent state- (or, possibly, Federal-) level prosecutor should investigate, with full powers of subpoena, and, if warranted, prosecute.
5
Indeed. Because that video was paid for by the taxpayer, it is public property. It canno be withheld.
6
It's impossible to express adequately my disdain and anger at the liberal media for poorly handling this and all other similar issues. The self righteous empowerment of the worst societal components (rioters) in favor of police officers is inexcusable. I hope no one on the NYTs editorial Board ever has to call 911 or the police for assistance. Giving this BLM group and their political backers power will only have a bad outcome for this poor city as well as our country. Reverse discrimination is rampant and we are now empowering the "bad actors". It's a disgrace and I also blame Obama for his continued passive aggressive enabling behavior. His personal hatred for the white founders of America is at play.
6
I did hear one reasonable justification to hold the video back--they are still interviewing witnesses and wanted to finish this task before releasing the video. as frustrating as this is, I do see how witness accounts may be more credible without having to consider the impact of witnesses potentially viewing the video or talking with those that had. Of course once witness interviews are complete this justification disappears...
11
If the video has to be with held, it is up to the police and the mayor to explain exactly HOW the video could impede the investigation, and why in cities where the videos where released before in other incidents the release was okay for those investigations, but not in Charlotte.
The fact is, the video cannot show a gun or the police would have released it and if the police are saying it wasn't visible on the video but it was there, they have to say that.
As the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated long ago, when the gun police produce after any fatal shooting, it is always suspect as a police plant.
What we need in this country is a disarmed police force as they have in Britain. Then maybe we'd attract a different sort of person to the police force.
Witness the recent police shooter in Tulsa--would you want that lady with the badge carrying a gun to use on citizens? She was a time bomb waiting to explode. How many police in Charlotte, Chicago, and Tulsa are like her?
The fact is, the video cannot show a gun or the police would have released it and if the police are saying it wasn't visible on the video but it was there, they have to say that.
As the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated long ago, when the gun police produce after any fatal shooting, it is always suspect as a police plant.
What we need in this country is a disarmed police force as they have in Britain. Then maybe we'd attract a different sort of person to the police force.
Witness the recent police shooter in Tulsa--would you want that lady with the badge carrying a gun to use on citizens? She was a time bomb waiting to explode. How many police in Charlotte, Chicago, and Tulsa are like her?
4
I see no reason to release the video. What, to satisfy some media and rioters demands? Is the media qualified to analyze any video to pass judgement on the content? The media should report what happened and stop at that. The video should be released to the family of the victim and then only after a verdict is rendered to the public. This perverse rant to view a video of a possible crime before the evidence is gathered puts us back to judgement by the masses without due process.
10
The NYT continues to support mob justice, when it suits its political agenda of course. A blanket statement to release video evidence in all cases is problematic. In certain cases, such as the awful incident in SC, the video is very clear as to what happened, but that video was taken by a witness on the scene. However, in many cases, the video evidence is not definitive when standing alone. To insist on always releasing such evidence prior to completing a thorough investigation, invites jumping to misguided and incorrect assumptions about the tragic events in question. Video evidence that is inconclusive will fan the flames because it doesn't show the imminent threat that the officers and witnesses may have observed, if that threat in fact existed. The police chief in Charlotte has been honest and forthright in his statements. He has clearly stated that the video is not clear as to what was in the victim's hand. This, of course, fuels the fire since protesters are claiming it was a book, not a gun. If this video is unclear, protesters are hell bent on saying it was a book. Was it? The police chief says no book was found at the scene, but a handgun was found. We must, as a society, wait for all the facts to be determined via a professional investigation. To do otherwise is inviting mob justice.
5
Another issue being ignored here. Are Charlotte officials referring to all the video footage in their possession or just some of the video. Further what about this gun they say they recovered. No doubt by now they have detailed information about the weapon they say Mr. Brown had in his possession. Why no information about that weapon ?? Was it owned by Mr. Brown ? Were his fingerprints on it ? Where and when was it purchased ? And did Mr. Brown have any weapon violations on his record ? Any arrests at all ? It seems more than logical if Charlotte had any negative information about Mr. Brown that would be public by now. And why isn't the media asking these questions ??
Instead the police get away with showing a photo that appears to have a gun lying on the ground that is clearly meant to implicate Mr. Brown without any further information provided about this gun which is in their possession.
Instead the police get away with showing a photo that appears to have a gun lying on the ground that is clearly meant to implicate Mr. Brown without any further information provided about this gun which is in their possession.
I have come to believe the NC legislature passes only ill-advised measures. Remember the bathroom scandal? It overturned a more liberal Charlotte ordinance and they resolved that the state can overrule anything a city wants to do if it conflicts with what the conservative Republicans think is right...this precident is dangerous and has hurt the NC economy (may they all loose in Nov.. I'll do my part to make it happen). On to the latest NC outrage. Just release the video and stop pretending it will all somehow go away and Charlotte can get back to normal (like shooting people). I have come to think of police as less than heroic in certain situations. Please, please don't hurt me! I am so afraid that I am going to take out my gun and kill you, even if you don't have a gun aimed at me but your hands in the air. Wasn't too thrilled about the national police union endorsing Trump. Do you think he is going to protect you as others think Trump is going to protect them from the realities of the world.
5
There is no legal reason? How about poisoning the jury pool? If releasing the video results in an acquittal will that be an acceptable result?
2
The wholesale release of way too many police videos of officers shooting black men is just another way of dehumanizing and entire segment of our population.
1
This shooting, like all police shootings, needs to be investigated by an outside agency. And that investigation needed to start days ago. Loyalty is a laudable characteristic, but no department can be left to investigate itself, just as we would not let grieving relatives investigate. Now we are left to imagine what evidence is suppressed, destroyed, planted, or left to languish until attention moves on.
3
Where‘s President Obama been this week? Would not some presidential leadership help the situation in Charlotte right now?
Earlier this week, we were treated to Pres. Obama’s rebuttal to Trump’s lunk-headed and clumsy attempt to woo African-American voters. The president’s words were haughty and his attitude dismissive of Trump. Yet now we see more racial unrest and violence on TV.
Is it just me, or do the optics here just not jive? How do we reconcile Obama’s blitheness with new video tape of what looks like race riots?
I know supporters of Pres. Obama think the man walks on water, and I appreciate that. But perhaps the only good thing about this depressing election of 2016 is that regardless of who wins, we will have a new president. Obama right now seems tired and quite out of touch.
Earlier this week, we were treated to Pres. Obama’s rebuttal to Trump’s lunk-headed and clumsy attempt to woo African-American voters. The president’s words were haughty and his attitude dismissive of Trump. Yet now we see more racial unrest and violence on TV.
Is it just me, or do the optics here just not jive? How do we reconcile Obama’s blitheness with new video tape of what looks like race riots?
I know supporters of Pres. Obama think the man walks on water, and I appreciate that. But perhaps the only good thing about this depressing election of 2016 is that regardless of who wins, we will have a new president. Obama right now seems tired and quite out of touch.
3
The Charlotte police chief just spoke and I am convinced he is drunk with power. He does nothing but throw salt in the wounds. He is certainly not Chief Brown here in Dallas who is so highly esteemed by all and handled our tragedy this past summer with the utmost respect for all.
5
For comparison Britain with a largely unarmed police force has had 60 deaths caused by the police since 1990. Allowing for USA's larger population that is equivalent to 298 killed by US police over the same period.
Having an mainly unarmed population also reduces the kill rate by civilians.
Having an mainly unarmed population also reduces the kill rate by civilians.
4
Given the epidemic of death by police, given the outrage of citizens of all races, not to release the video is instigating violence.
Our militarized police forces are frightening. We, the citizens, are not the enemy, we are the employers. These men and women are in uniform to protect the citizenry, not to be given a pass to murder.
If those on the right would stop protecting the NRA, would demand gun controls, would demand the removal of military firearms from the public, then just perhaps our police would be less frightened of the people they've been charged to protect. Perhaps these murders would stop.
Our militarized police forces are frightening. We, the citizens, are not the enemy, we are the employers. These men and women are in uniform to protect the citizenry, not to be given a pass to murder.
If those on the right would stop protecting the NRA, would demand gun controls, would demand the removal of military firearms from the public, then just perhaps our police would be less frightened of the people they've been charged to protect. Perhaps these murders would stop.
4
There is justification for not releasing the video for a short period while the police gather witness statements. Otherwise, the police would loose a critical tool in evaluating witnesses' credibility and reliability because the witnesses likely will view the video and might alter their stories accordingly. Also, the release of the video might foreclose pursuit of some lead that otherwise could be productive. But once that short black out period has expired, the video should be released. People including the Police Chief and witnesses are then characterizing what occurred and the video simply adds to the information available to the public. Neither witness nor police characterizations of what occurred are likely to be dispositive and so the fact the video likely will not provide certainty is irrelevant. At least the video would be one piece of evidence the public could evaluate together.
2
I want to defend Mayor Roberts' re: the editorial's criticism that she is "at sea and out of touch" with the transparency needed to calm this situation. She is a hostage of the ignorance of our State's legislature. This is not the first time they have created a landmine for her and for our City (remember HB2 - the "bathroom bill"). They are the ones responsible for this situation, not Jennifer Roberts. To see her in action in our City is to know that she is a compassionate and intelligent public servant; she has taken courageous political action regarding race issues, gun violence, and the rights of all citizens to live and work in a meaningful way.
3
tell me
what is th point of having bodycams if th public are not allowed to see them
if youre going to rely on th word of cops, why do you need cams ?
are americans so cowed at this point that a two bit police chief can give you th finger and you meekly obey, and slink away quietly like good obedient sheep
land of th free, home of th brave
dont make me laugh
1
It is likely that this was not a racially motivated killing--a black officer in a relatively integrated southern city under the leadership of a black chief of police shoots a black man. The real problem is likely the lack of training of police throughout the U.S. in how and when to use their weapons. A police gun should only be used when lives are threatened by a "suspect". Too often police are just plain scared and use their guns when they think they are in danger, but really never were. Our police need much better psychological training in how to confront those they fear out of prejudice, which may not be racial bias, but rather situational bias.
1
One only has to compare the way the Tulsa police and local government handled the killing of Terrence Crutcher and the way the Charlotte police and local government handled the killing of Keith Scott. Black people were, of course, outraged at the unjustified killing of Crutcher by a single police officer, but the officials did not try to cover it up. Helicopter and dash cam video was released. The officer's story that Crutcher wouldn't show his hands was discredited by video of him walking slowly to his car with his hands in the air. Her claim that he was reaching into the car window and she was worried that he might be reaching for a gun (as opposed to his vehicle registration and insurance card) was discredited when the video and on-site photos showed that the window was up and, in fact, covered with Crutcher's blood on the outside. The anger of people in Tulsa was tempered by the fact that the Tulsa officials were running an open and transparent investigation, not forming a blue line around Betty Jo Shelby to defend her. All people wanted was to be sure that justice was being pursued regardless of the victim's color.
Just the opposite happened in Charlotte, with the mayor, officials, and police immediately begin, not an impartial investigation, but a defense of the shooter. The community saw no justice would be forthcoming and the anger and rage of years of police mistreatment boiled over. Even then, only a handful of demonstrators actually committed vandalism.
Just the opposite happened in Charlotte, with the mayor, officials, and police immediately begin, not an impartial investigation, but a defense of the shooter. The community saw no justice would be forthcoming and the anger and rage of years of police mistreatment boiled over. Even then, only a handful of demonstrators actually committed vandalism.
2
There is an unfortunate dichotomy here. On one hand - nobody would ever consider that evidence in a police investigation should be made public at any time before a trial. It would taint the jury pool, to say the very least.
On the other hand - the public believes that body cams and dash cams are akin to YouTube or another channel for reality TV. It seems that anything and everything caught by those cameras is fair game.
This confusion needs to be addressed.
At the end of the day - is the priority to produce a clean, unbiased, unmolested investigation? Or is it to keep the populace in check?
Apparently, we have created a situation where doing both is nigh impossible.
On the other hand - the public believes that body cams and dash cams are akin to YouTube or another channel for reality TV. It seems that anything and everything caught by those cameras is fair game.
This confusion needs to be addressed.
At the end of the day - is the priority to produce a clean, unbiased, unmolested investigation? Or is it to keep the populace in check?
Apparently, we have created a situation where doing both is nigh impossible.
4
The police chief's excuse for not releasing the video is an insult to the public. He says it is "inconclusive." So that means he doesn't think members of the public can deal with inconclusive information -- or even form reasonable opinions about what is inconclusive? Only he can? There goes democracy out the window. In comes a police state where the cops decide what information we're mature enough to deal with. In fact, this was one of the arguments used by Fascists in the 1930's: the public had to be manipulated for its own good.
4
The police department is a publicly funded institution. The dash and body cams they use? Yeah, those are probably provided for by tax-payers, too.
Law enforcement doesn't own the video footage; the People do.
Release the video. Now.
Law enforcement doesn't own the video footage; the People do.
Release the video. Now.
3
The issue of police videos could not be more simple in that these videos are public property, held by public servants. As such, this property belongs to those who request it, not those who collect it. Release the videos or be prepared to be released from your jobs. The idea that these videos should be held in confidence because they are part of police investigations is absurd. Only investigations involving the police get shrouded in secrecy. Other criminal inquiries involving video are on the news every day.
Boy, oh, boy! It probably needs a renaissance man to solve the current crises of race related shootings, involving police officers, who mostly do splendid jobs in protecting and serving the community. Incriminations and recriminations abound in these unfortunate circumstances, and damage to the property by the miscreants still is not the right was to express a dudgeon.
Even a quidnunc will stumble to find any long lasting answers for all these miseries. An average reader may not be in a position to admonish the involved parties, but making a few written observations may hopefully start a conversation or kindle a thought or two. Everything hinges on hope.
On a few occasions, as in delayed release, of the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald by the Cleveland police has ruffled a lot of feathers, understandably. If a person moves away from the cops, with hands raised, it is conceivable that he or she becomes much less threatening or even ceases to be a threat to the approaching cop. Shooting an unarmed and fleeing person in the back, as had happened in Charleston, SC, is downright cowardly. One wonders if cops are well versed in hand to hand combat, because quite a number of cops appear to be disturbingly portly. Just saying.
Even a quidnunc will stumble to find any long lasting answers for all these miseries. An average reader may not be in a position to admonish the involved parties, but making a few written observations may hopefully start a conversation or kindle a thought or two. Everything hinges on hope.
On a few occasions, as in delayed release, of the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald by the Cleveland police has ruffled a lot of feathers, understandably. If a person moves away from the cops, with hands raised, it is conceivable that he or she becomes much less threatening or even ceases to be a threat to the approaching cop. Shooting an unarmed and fleeing person in the back, as had happened in Charleston, SC, is downright cowardly. One wonders if cops are well versed in hand to hand combat, because quite a number of cops appear to be disturbingly portly. Just saying.
chief putzney meant translucency, not transparency
Video cameras have become so miniaturized that they can now be fitted onto a gun and focused on what the gun is targeted on. This should supplement body cameras and vehicle cameras. This is the only solution between parties that do not trust each other - more videos. Hiding it only encourages coverups and distrust - and impunity.
The NRA should also be held to account. Given their push to arm everybody, law enforcement has no choice but to play the odds and believe everybody is now armed. At least law enforcement will have an easy rational to shoot to kill any armed NRA member - they were armed after all.
Being armed makes you less safe and subject to being legitimately shot by a cop.
The NRA should also be held to account. Given their push to arm everybody, law enforcement has no choice but to play the odds and believe everybody is now armed. At least law enforcement will have an easy rational to shoot to kill any armed NRA member - they were armed after all.
Being armed makes you less safe and subject to being legitimately shot by a cop.
If there was a gun, there would be fingerprints on the gun . . . unless the deceased wiped the gun clean.
3
If Scott was walking backwards with his hands down (not that having his hands up helped that poor man in Tulsa) and not towards the officers - I don't understand the necessity of shooting him dead. The more I read about these cases, the more it seems to me that a complete re-training of officers in the field should be mandatory for all police departments in this country. I don't care how much it costs. It's already cost enough in lives.
(And if Scott did have a gun in his hand while walking backwards why did it take 12 hours for police to find it and show the public?)
If it was found immediately at the scene - say he dropped it - then why not photograph it in situ? Does that photo exist? What - did Scott throw the gun into the next field while being shot?
(Having the police chief hold up a gun the next day and declare that this was the gun the victim was holding is not proof of anything much anymore - unfortunately.)
And another thing: Isn't NC an OPEN CARRY state? So, in other words, Scott carrying a gun in his car or anywhere else is perfectly legal. Oh wait, maybe that law only applies to white folk. It's funny how that can get mixed up.
I live in NC now and I love my town and I respect the police who keep us safe. But it's not easy to read this story and keep quiet.
(And if Scott did have a gun in his hand while walking backwards why did it take 12 hours for police to find it and show the public?)
If it was found immediately at the scene - say he dropped it - then why not photograph it in situ? Does that photo exist? What - did Scott throw the gun into the next field while being shot?
(Having the police chief hold up a gun the next day and declare that this was the gun the victim was holding is not proof of anything much anymore - unfortunately.)
And another thing: Isn't NC an OPEN CARRY state? So, in other words, Scott carrying a gun in his car or anywhere else is perfectly legal. Oh wait, maybe that law only applies to white folk. It's funny how that can get mixed up.
I live in NC now and I love my town and I respect the police who keep us safe. But it's not easy to read this story and keep quiet.
3
Before criticizing Mayor Roberts, please understand the position of Mayor in Charlotte is part-time, and we have a "weak mayor" system. This is outdated for city of this size, to be sure. But Roberts has no authority - no Mayor of Charlotte does. (Too bad NC voters didn't think about that before sending Pat McCrory to Raleigh!)
The narrative should not drive the investigation. If there is a charge of this black officer, who could or would be able to be seated on a jury as all would of seen this video? The bigger question that should be asked by editorial boards all across the country is this, namely: what is in the nature of the human animal no matter the race that isn't capable of doing exactly what the police ask? I personally believe that the male for the most part isn't given to strict adherence to rules, whether in a classroom(ask teachers and principals how it is going), males can't sit still for the most part, they are active and they aren't going to do exactly what many police officers want them to do, and each police officer might be asking for a different thing, to get out of the car or not, get their ID(now most police would be worried if someone is reaching for a gun), so how do you police in a day and age in which you must assume that many of all races are carrying weapons?
1
It is still very hard for me to understand the intellect that starts from "this isn't fair" and ends up at "let's destroy our community and make our lives miserable".
4
Kimbo NJ said that that 'the media should stop to prey on these very few tragic incidents'.
Obviously 'to prey' and 'very few tragic incidents' is in the eyes of the beholder.
The UK Guardian has a daily clock ticking of how many civilians are killed by police every year in the supposedly greatest nation in the world.
Since Jan. 1rst of 2017 a total of 791 civilians have been shot dead by police officers as of this morning, and the clock is ticking, ticking, ticking with more than three months to go.
Compared to all other advanced countries that have sensible gun laws, our 'peace officers' kill a lot more civilians a year than the ones that are shot by 'bad' guys in the other nations per capita.
There is indeed something rotten in the state of the US police.
Obviously 'to prey' and 'very few tragic incidents' is in the eyes of the beholder.
The UK Guardian has a daily clock ticking of how many civilians are killed by police every year in the supposedly greatest nation in the world.
Since Jan. 1rst of 2017 a total of 791 civilians have been shot dead by police officers as of this morning, and the clock is ticking, ticking, ticking with more than three months to go.
Compared to all other advanced countries that have sensible gun laws, our 'peace officers' kill a lot more civilians a year than the ones that are shot by 'bad' guys in the other nations per capita.
There is indeed something rotten in the state of the US police.
2
Ask yourself this, if your son or daughter were shot by police would you want to see the video?
Of course you would. If it showed that your child was unarmed would you be so understanding that the officer had feared for his/her life when there are multiple officers there ? Not likely.
Our black citizens have to live in fear for their families. What the hell has happened to the United States that bigotry rules.
Of course you would. If it showed that your child was unarmed would you be so understanding that the officer had feared for his/her life when there are multiple officers there ? Not likely.
Our black citizens have to live in fear for their families. What the hell has happened to the United States that bigotry rules.
2
now, more reason than ever to boycott North Carolina!
1
As an NC resident, I am so ashamed of my state. If NC wants to be part of the "New South" and attract more residents and businesses, it must leave the bigotry and racism of the past behind.
RELEASE THE TAPES CHARLOTTE POLICE!
RELEASE THE TAPES CHARLOTTE POLICE!
8
I would actually like to add something to the mix on this, having to do not just with whether or not the tapes should be shared, and I think they should, but with some of the outrage connected to the killing of these civilians rather than wounding. I am not suggesting that any of these individuals should have been shot to begin with, but shoot to kill? The recent bombing suspect in NY was shot 11 times and taken down without being mortally wounded. Why are all of these victims being killed, the targets of a shoot to kill mentality? There are other ways to stop someone, if you absolutely have to, without killing them! Outrageous!!!
1
I am all for the Editorial call in this case. The video should not only be released, but examined by independent experts, whether it might have been altered before its release. Neither the government, nor its opponents are to be trusted.
In this open carry state, did he or did he not point a weapon at a police officer? That's all the "definition" you need to determine if it was murder or self-defense. With the video, who will you believe? The police or your lying eyes?
In re the Chicago Police shooting of Laquan McDonald: "But when the video was finally made public 13 months later, it showed the young man moving away from the officers when one of them executed him."
The coverup is still going on, as evidenced by the quoted sentence. Substitute for the words "executed him" "shot him sixteen times."
The coverup is still going on, as evidenced by the quoted sentence. Substitute for the words "executed him" "shot him sixteen times."
2
If you can't see the problem, you are the problem.
2
As a man and a human being,I really object to the race baiting going on by the NY Times. We live in a violent society where many of us are armed to the teeth. The Police are for the most part armed to the teeth and live in the heart of this violent world. I'm afraid of the Police and many of my fellow armed citizens. I'm White. The video isn't going to change a thing either way.
A friend of mine, 55, white women, we'll dressed was stopped for a minor accident. She was asked for her license and registration. She reached into her pocketbook and the officer told her to take her hands out of the bag as he reached for his gun. These cops are afraid and well armed. Our kids are afraid and well armed. We are afraid and well armed. Fear and arms means there will be a body count. Stop the race baiting and tell the truth. Our cops are just like us and they aren't mentally equipped to carry deadly force without killing people in stressful situations.
A friend of mine, 55, white women, we'll dressed was stopped for a minor accident. She was asked for her license and registration. She reached into her pocketbook and the officer told her to take her hands out of the bag as he reached for his gun. These cops are afraid and well armed. Our kids are afraid and well armed. We are afraid and well armed. Fear and arms means there will be a body count. Stop the race baiting and tell the truth. Our cops are just like us and they aren't mentally equipped to carry deadly force without killing people in stressful situations.
The family wants the tapes to be released and so they should be. If the police don't release the tapes, these demonstrations will continue. If Charlotte wants to spend its money on police overtime forever then hold on to the video. These demonstrations will continue forever. And we all should video any time we see police approach anyone. It would certainly help if many citizens had also videoed this murder.
2
Why a video taken with a body camera paid for by the public to record encounters with the public and used by an officer in the employ of the public can't be seen by the public is beyond mystifying. Unlike witness interviews and other evidence being painstakingly gathered in the course of an investigation, where premature release to the public might prejudice the course of the investigation or the accounts of subsequently interviewed witnesses, or sway a potential jury before 'having all the facts,' the video presents no such risks. It is what is. Indeed, if taken by a bystander it would be up on YouTube in a heartbeat. The only reason police do not release videos to the public is so the officers involved can first view them and tailor their accounts of what happened to explain away what the camera's unblinking eye shows. The Chicago police execution video mentioned in the editorial is a classic example.
Citizen videos have revealed the corruption of police nationwide, who are being shown to be the murderous, bigoted, out-of-control thugs that people of color have always said they were. It's at the point that merely being approached by an officer for any reason whatever should put any black person in "reasonable fear of his life" and under the stand-your-ground laws popular in Red states would arguably justify immediately shooting the cop dead in self-defense. Cops who kill people of color with impunity won't stop until they realize that blue is a color, too.
Citizen videos have revealed the corruption of police nationwide, who are being shown to be the murderous, bigoted, out-of-control thugs that people of color have always said they were. It's at the point that merely being approached by an officer for any reason whatever should put any black person in "reasonable fear of his life" and under the stand-your-ground laws popular in Red states would arguably justify immediately shooting the cop dead in self-defense. Cops who kill people of color with impunity won't stop until they realize that blue is a color, too.
1
I recall Lee Iacocca's book titled "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?"
Where are the community leaders who can view the videos in private and appease the public who are bent on taking the law into their own hands? Leadership is lacking? Or, are they creating the problem by taking sides, mostly with the protesters? I have not seen any leader coming to aid of the police force who put their safety and life on line daily. Looking at the visual alone on the video does not conclusively prove that police fired an "unarmed man." We do not know exactly what happened besides the pictures like the sound/noise, suspicious subtle moves, gestures, gait and so on. Police take no pleasure in shooting someone for its own sake! Public show of the video will result interpretations of many variations according to the individuals’ bias. Nothing can satisfy everyone. I call on leaders at all levels to step up and calm down the situation instead of trying to take sides that only makes things worse. No one has any sympathy at all for the tough task police has to take on!
Again: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
Where are the community leaders who can view the videos in private and appease the public who are bent on taking the law into their own hands? Leadership is lacking? Or, are they creating the problem by taking sides, mostly with the protesters? I have not seen any leader coming to aid of the police force who put their safety and life on line daily. Looking at the visual alone on the video does not conclusively prove that police fired an "unarmed man." We do not know exactly what happened besides the pictures like the sound/noise, suspicious subtle moves, gestures, gait and so on. Police take no pleasure in shooting someone for its own sake! Public show of the video will result interpretations of many variations according to the individuals’ bias. Nothing can satisfy everyone. I call on leaders at all levels to step up and calm down the situation instead of trying to take sides that only makes things worse. No one has any sympathy at all for the tough task police has to take on!
Again: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
Release the tape, assign a special prosecutor who is NOT associated with the police. Then, change the law to prohibit police from discharging their weapons if an accused person can be confined, is not a threat to the public, and does not have a weapon that poses an immediate threat to the police. Failing to follow orders from the police can never be a cause of shooting a citizen. If police can retreat while awaiting back-up, that must be mandated. If the assailant is outside a police vehicle without a gun, deadly force is not permissible. It is madness to imagine that fear can be used as a justification for killing as a reason to use a gun when any other method is possible.
1
It appears that the Charlotte government leaders would prefer to put up with riots on a daily basis than releasing a video that was taken in a public domain. Look at all the cameras and videos taken in Manhattan every day. It would be silly for NYPD to refuse to release a video of an incident they were involved in Manhattan when most likely cameras in the area would record what transpired. I think we are beyond the age when the police should assume they are the only ones with cameras. We saw that when Walter Scott was shot in his back several times in North Charleston and the officer planting evidence near his body. Unknown to him someone was recording. I'm sure with the right magnification that video can be magnified to show what exactly was in the hand of the other Mr. Scott who was shot to death.
1
I can think of several reasons why it might not be advisable for the Charlotte police to release the video. Videos can be ambiguous. If the film does not clearly show 1) Mr. Scott had a gun; 2) he brandished it in a threatening manner; 3) he was warned to drop the gun; 4) he did not comply; 5) Officer VInson is clearly the shooter -- then you could end up is nothing but grist for activists. The video could conform to the official version, but it may not be so cut and dried as to convince everyone.
I don't know the legalities of releasing the tape in relationship to prosecution. But just because a mob (including the Times EB) demands something doesn't mean they get it nor does it mean they have legal standing.
Let me remind everyone about the Zapruder film. After all these years of examination by various legal bodies and experts, it is still unclear what the film shows -- from when the first shot was fired until the fatal shot. And it never will be clear. In conjunction with other evidence (acoustic, jiggle analysis of the film, eye and ear witness testimony) we have a clearer idea of what happened, but the film by itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Why should we think that dash and body cams will be unambiguous? In all likelihood they won't be and it will be the combination of the film, testimony and forensics that will lead to a legal determination of what happened. Let's let the legal system handle this and get the mob out of it.
I don't know the legalities of releasing the tape in relationship to prosecution. But just because a mob (including the Times EB) demands something doesn't mean they get it nor does it mean they have legal standing.
Let me remind everyone about the Zapruder film. After all these years of examination by various legal bodies and experts, it is still unclear what the film shows -- from when the first shot was fired until the fatal shot. And it never will be clear. In conjunction with other evidence (acoustic, jiggle analysis of the film, eye and ear witness testimony) we have a clearer idea of what happened, but the film by itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Why should we think that dash and body cams will be unambiguous? In all likelihood they won't be and it will be the combination of the film, testimony and forensics that will lead to a legal determination of what happened. Let's let the legal system handle this and get the mob out of it.
15
Just because the video may be ambiguous and not definitive as to the events as they transpired, that is not a reason in and of itself to delay release of the video to the public.
The public and press are not children that need to be spoon fed pre-screened and pre-approved information by government agents. The police force has a long rich history of dishonesty and deception, especially when investigating itself. The public interest is best served by transparency and full and prompt disclosure.
The public and press are not children that need to be spoon fed pre-screened and pre-approved information by government agents. The police force has a long rich history of dishonesty and deception, especially when investigating itself. The public interest is best served by transparency and full and prompt disclosure.
2
You ignore the fact that the video is public property, not police property, and cannot be withheld under the law.
1
If the video is ambiguous, that's good for the city. Cops are not held to absolutes - they don't have to show the person absolutely had a gun in order to justify the use of deadly force. The fact that the officer could reasonably think the man had a gun would be enough to justify the deadly force. And the police chief knows this. So one has to wonder if the video is actually ambiguous at all.
I pulled over on the side of the road near Dodger Stadium when I took a wrong turn. An L A police officer stopped. He held me for close to an hour. I kept asking why. He said he didn't like what he saw. I asked for another officer. No. I asked to turn off car. No. I asked if I could record. No. I asked for a jacket. No. I passed all his tests.
I filled a complaint. The LA Police dept. said they reviewed the video ( which I was unaware of ) and found no violation on the part of the officer. I asked to see the video. No. Unless you get a lawyer.
Many times I thought of running while being held and I thought of all the black men who sometimes choose to run. We know how that turns out.
We need a justice system that takes into account reasonable and unreasonable use / abuse of power. Till then I advise all people to be very cautious when stopped by the police. There is a dangerous tension in our country and not all officers are skilled in deescalation or discernment. Some have the opposite inclination.
"Be careful out there".
I filled a complaint. The LA Police dept. said they reviewed the video ( which I was unaware of ) and found no violation on the part of the officer. I asked to see the video. No. Unless you get a lawyer.
Many times I thought of running while being held and I thought of all the black men who sometimes choose to run. We know how that turns out.
We need a justice system that takes into account reasonable and unreasonable use / abuse of power. Till then I advise all people to be very cautious when stopped by the police. There is a dangerous tension in our country and not all officers are skilled in deescalation or discernment. Some have the opposite inclination.
"Be careful out there".
42
There is a dangerous tension in our country and not all [commenters] are skilled in deescalation or discernment. Some have the opposite inclination.
"Be careful out there".
"Be careful out there".
1
"We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality." Dr King, August 28, 1963, The March on Washington: For Jobs and Freedom.
Raise your hand if you have ever seen the media show this part of the speech? Raise your hand if any teacher or professor in your classroom has ever referenced this part of the I Have A Dream speech? Raise your hand if you have heard any talking head referenced this quote since the Ferguson upraising?
But America has the "finest" educational system in the world.
Ok.
Raise your hand if you have ever seen the media show this part of the speech? Raise your hand if any teacher or professor in your classroom has ever referenced this part of the I Have A Dream speech? Raise your hand if you have heard any talking head referenced this quote since the Ferguson upraising?
But America has the "finest" educational system in the world.
Ok.
23
Great post. Thx!!!
1
They said he was holding a gun. Family said he was holding a book.
Now they say they cant tell if he was *pointing* a gun. Family says he was "nonaggressive." So I guess the bookish gentleman was, indeed, armed.
Meanwhile, the Mayor goes to all the media to publicly stick her head in the ground. What is this??
Show the video. Both sides (& political leaders -- I haven't even gotten to your benighted governor) are both harming the public & your fair city.
Now they say they cant tell if he was *pointing* a gun. Family says he was "nonaggressive." So I guess the bookish gentleman was, indeed, armed.
Meanwhile, the Mayor goes to all the media to publicly stick her head in the ground. What is this??
Show the video. Both sides (& political leaders -- I haven't even gotten to your benighted governor) are both harming the public & your fair city.
I understand perfectly due process demands that the police undertake a complete investigation before releasing material evidence that could be used in an indictment and trial. Having said that, our experience in Chicago, is that these investigations seem to go on and on and on. What slows these investigations down is the inability to obtain cooperation from fellow officers involved in the incident. Unlike other occupations, where fellow colleagues also are reluctant to whistle blow, but often are not needed, in police abuse cases fellow officers become the primary source of evidence. In all of these abuse cases the video presented often presents a cloudy picture of what happened. But that cloud would clear up if fellow officers were more transparent about what they heard and observed.
The Charlotte Police Department has pledged to release the video right after Donald J. Trump releases his tax returns.
1
Both have been handed over to government authorities, the IRS and FBI.
Maybe I'd be willing to believe the Charlotte police, but there have been way too many cases of police misconduct and outright deception when it comes to matters like this. And everyone knows this - that's why they're angry. We're supposed to believe the police when, in many past incidents, they've been shown to have lied about these things? This is a problem a long time coming and they haven't adapted well to the digital age where people can see for themselves the truth of a matter. This is a problem they have largely brought onto themselves. They need to release the video.
4
"Who ya gonna believe? My gun story, or your own lying eyes?" If the cover story about gun-brandishing had been truthful, the video would have been released by the police department and spread all over media in an instant. When are these people going to learn the definition of "cover-up"? No one is falling for the "ongoing investigation" line - releasing the video doesn't impair the "ongoing investigation" one iota. The video won't be destroyed or changed by having people view it and form their own conclusions. The only thing that will be impaired is the cover-up, which these efforts at secrecy prove.
4
I can understand not releasing all details of a crime when the police are still looking for the suspect. But what harm to the "investigation" would be caused by publicly releasing the video? The police have seen it and the family has seen it.
From comments I read about from the family's lawyer, it appears as though the video in inconclusive as to whether Mr. Scott was holding a gun or something else. That's going to satisfy no one, but at least it eliminates the suspicion that the police are hiding something.
In the end the only way the police can prove the killing was justified is to produce the alleged gun and provide evidence linking ownership of that gun to Mr. Scott.
From comments I read about from the family's lawyer, it appears as though the video in inconclusive as to whether Mr. Scott was holding a gun or something else. That's going to satisfy no one, but at least it eliminates the suspicion that the police are hiding something.
In the end the only way the police can prove the killing was justified is to produce the alleged gun and provide evidence linking ownership of that gun to Mr. Scott.
1
It is past time for transparency. Yes, police should be required to release all videos to the public upon request. The police are public servants and not above the law. I grew up in a family of police officers and they were good people, who are by the way for releasing the videos. The current stonewalling is bad and readers below who want to blame it on the media are getting this wrong. Time is past for the Police to stop circling the wagons. If police officers are afraid of getting shot on the job, then they might be in the wrong line of work. The public's safety must always come first. If that is not how you think then again you are in the wrong line of work. The police do a tremendous job day in and day out without a doubt and conceal carry gun laws are making them more edgy but the public relies on them to be a steadying hand. An innocent person, no matter how irritating, should not be killed by a police officer. An officer cannot see themselves as judge, jury and executioner all in one. This can not be us against them. We need this to stop for everyone's sake.
4
The Editorial Board misses the point entirely. It's not about the evidence, or part of the evidence of a shooting. It's not about letting the public come to their own conclusions, before a state and/or federal inquiry is completed.
It's about law and order while the facts are collected, and the information released to public.
The media, including the New York Times, is looking for more 'transparency'. Is riots and looting and pre-judging transparency?
The facts will come out - let the investigation proceed and between the local, state and federal officials, justice will be served. Social media should not dictate nor influence law in this country.
It's about law and order while the facts are collected, and the information released to public.
The media, including the New York Times, is looking for more 'transparency'. Is riots and looting and pre-judging transparency?
The facts will come out - let the investigation proceed and between the local, state and federal officials, justice will be served. Social media should not dictate nor influence law in this country.
7
Release the video to be sure, but only after nailing down initial accounts from all on-scene personnel without them having benefit of the video evidence.
3
Yes. Indeed. Of course.
1
Criminal justice report after independent investigative journalism report show that 99% of the time police body and dash cams support the police version of events.
It is disingenuous of the NYT to fail to acknowledge these findings as well as to rarely push for controls that will actually help low income blacks get out their own way to finally succeed at something in life: lower the 72% illegitimate birth rate that produces generational poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and lifetime welfare dependency, young males proving their "manhood" via non-stop run-ins with police over drugs, guns and crime - or just ego.
It is disingenuous of the NYT to fail to acknowledge these findings as well as to rarely push for controls that will actually help low income blacks get out their own way to finally succeed at something in life: lower the 72% illegitimate birth rate that produces generational poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and lifetime welfare dependency, young males proving their "manhood" via non-stop run-ins with police over drugs, guns and crime - or just ego.
3
I have very divided feelings about this issue. Yes, the video should be released eventually, and especially if this case seems to be disappearing from public view and the police are exonerated. On the other hand it is still under investigation, and should not be tried by the news and social media. It might incite more riots and violence. Isn't that what the NYT and other news organizations want - violence and riots? Add more fuel to a burning city? On the other hand, sometimes it's best to release everything and get it out in the open. Otherwise problems will never get resolved.
4
Please point to a case where release of a video caused rioting.
Okay, apparently it is difficult to see what was in Keith Scott's hand. So, show us what he had in his hand. The longer the police wait the more I suspect they are finding a weapon and attempting to make sure his hand prints on put on it. No, the longer the police put off full transparency the more I believe they are tampering with the evidence. Of course, this attitude of the Charlotte police does a serious disservice to law enforcement nationally.
5
We are passed the time when it was acceptable for someone in authority to tell us that an event has been investigated, they know what happened and we can all go back to our homes, now. The distrust of the police, politicians, media, business leaders--anyone who presumes to decide anything for us--has reached a point where even when there is transparency it is doubted and mistrusted. The conspiracy theorists go to work the minute an event occurs, cooking up a vision of an event before some people even know the event occurred. The Twitterers and the Fox Newsers get busy spreading whatever version of events will serve their view the best. Whether the video is released or not, it's too late now. People are certain they know what happened in Charlotte--many were certain within moments of the shooting itself. If video is released now, many will say it has been altered to prove a point of view different than their own. There is no objective truth anymore. Everything is subjective.
1
I can understand all the for and against positions regarding releasing the Charlotte police video. However, the protests, which started out peacefully, but devolved into rioting and mob behavior are part of a greater problem facing our nation. The reality is that law and order in a democracy is maintained partially by the police, but mostly by the majority of people who chose to be law abiding. NYC has the largest municipal police force in the country, with about 35K uniformed officers. But in a city of over 8.5 mil people that's about 1 cop for every 242+ people. Do the math. Moreover, the police rely on cooperation from people in the community to be able to do their job. This is a social contract that must be honored or else it means nothing and people will ultimately revolt against those who are infringing on their rights.
What has happened in Charlotte is tragic, but the authorities are only making it worse. The police cannot continue to take lives with impunity and then justify that with "we were afraid" or "we thought there was a gun" when they are the ones with both guns and apparently a license to kill. We are the ones who are afraid. For ourselves and our loves ones. Yes, people will see what they want to see in the video, but they will also see that the authorities are willing to confront the truth, whatever that may be.
What has happened in Charlotte is tragic, but the authorities are only making it worse. The police cannot continue to take lives with impunity and then justify that with "we were afraid" or "we thought there was a gun" when they are the ones with both guns and apparently a license to kill. We are the ones who are afraid. For ourselves and our loves ones. Yes, people will see what they want to see in the video, but they will also see that the authorities are willing to confront the truth, whatever that may be.
3
Release the video. By not releasing the video, the lack of transparency continues to inflame the situation. Whether or not the video shows anything decisive is not the point. By not revealing what is on the video, people will assume the police are hiding something and this will further erode trust in the police.
12
The travesty will continue as long as police enter every situation with guns drawn and fingers on the trigger. The cops must keep their weapons holstered or in the trunk. They must stop acting as though every situation is life threatening. When they do draw their weapons, they should aim at non-life threatening targets, like legs. Keep their guns put away and when necessary aim for the legs.
The comments to this article that ague against disclosure are absurd. The only reason police are being held accountable is that with modern technology there are video's to prove that they are unnecessarily shooting Black men in circumstances that are statistically improbably for White men. The police never give a plausible explanation for why disclosure will "impede" an investigation. More likely it will "impede" a cover-up. The history of the world is rife with police and governmental abuse of power. If the police are losing credibility and trust, it is up to them to earn it not suppress information to keep the public in the dark.
2
My personal opinion is mixed. But because the NYT is, and pretty much all commenters will be, in favour of releasing the video, I will present the counter-argument.
Prong 1: Yesterday I watched on TV a similar stretch of raw video from a street confrontation. It was, like all other such clips I've seen, incomprehensible chaos. Video has an undeserved aura of presenting objective, easily construed truth. Often it doesn't. You see only what the camera's POV shows, especially if it's amateur cellphone video. It's like a Rorschach test. However, these videos are not presented in a vacuum; you've already been told what to see. 'This inkblot is a duck'; you will not be able to unsee the duck. Similarly, if all the media coverage drumbeats the message, 'this is an unarmed black man being shot for no good reason by a racist cop', that is what you will see.
I suppose the jury pool is already tainted enough that no further harm could be done, and, as noted, to sit on the film will be construed as stonewalling. But it's a lose-lose situation for the Charlotte PD.
What we really need to do is address the mutual distrust that makes a black civilian assume any cop may to shoot him just because he's black, and a cop assume any black man may commit 'revenge' murder of any random cop. (At least Black Lives Matter no longer chants 'what do we want? dead cops! when do we want them? now!') We won't have that discussion. Angry street riots are so much more exhilarating!
Prong 1: Yesterday I watched on TV a similar stretch of raw video from a street confrontation. It was, like all other such clips I've seen, incomprehensible chaos. Video has an undeserved aura of presenting objective, easily construed truth. Often it doesn't. You see only what the camera's POV shows, especially if it's amateur cellphone video. It's like a Rorschach test. However, these videos are not presented in a vacuum; you've already been told what to see. 'This inkblot is a duck'; you will not be able to unsee the duck. Similarly, if all the media coverage drumbeats the message, 'this is an unarmed black man being shot for no good reason by a racist cop', that is what you will see.
I suppose the jury pool is already tainted enough that no further harm could be done, and, as noted, to sit on the film will be construed as stonewalling. But it's a lose-lose situation for the Charlotte PD.
What we really need to do is address the mutual distrust that makes a black civilian assume any cop may to shoot him just because he's black, and a cop assume any black man may commit 'revenge' murder of any random cop. (At least Black Lives Matter no longer chants 'what do we want? dead cops! when do we want them? now!') We won't have that discussion. Angry street riots are so much more exhilarating!
3
As I spoke to a VERY conservative young friend yesterday, he just didn't and couldn't see why people are upset and protesting, and even rioting. No, I cannot explain rioting, though I did see on the live feed Wednesday night police, rather than forming a picket line, actively using tear gas in what had seemed to be a peaceful demonstration up to that point.
But I tried to explain to him that he's never been Black (neither have I) and that he has NO idea what it's like to live your life constantly under suspicion. He's never been stopped by the police for anything but a traffic violation, yet I've never met a Black man who hasn't been stopped and questioned. I had it happen a couple of times in my college and post-college years. But my young friend has NEVER had it happen and has the simplistic idea: "If a policeman tells you not to move and put your hands in the air and you don't, he's justified in shooting you!" Which, is, of course, the rule expressed by the Trumpists....unless your name is "Bundy" (and White) in which case you're opposing the oppressive and illegal government (in their POV).
Can you imagine the reaction if the Bundys, father and son, et al, had been Black??????? Most of us Whites don't recognize White Privilege because it's always there as a set of behaviors and we don't realize it. We expect it but People of Color have learned NOT to expect those same reactions and behaviors. And my young friend just doesn't understand that.
But I tried to explain to him that he's never been Black (neither have I) and that he has NO idea what it's like to live your life constantly under suspicion. He's never been stopped by the police for anything but a traffic violation, yet I've never met a Black man who hasn't been stopped and questioned. I had it happen a couple of times in my college and post-college years. But my young friend has NEVER had it happen and has the simplistic idea: "If a policeman tells you not to move and put your hands in the air and you don't, he's justified in shooting you!" Which, is, of course, the rule expressed by the Trumpists....unless your name is "Bundy" (and White) in which case you're opposing the oppressive and illegal government (in their POV).
Can you imagine the reaction if the Bundys, father and son, et al, had been Black??????? Most of us Whites don't recognize White Privilege because it's always there as a set of behaviors and we don't realize it. We expect it but People of Color have learned NOT to expect those same reactions and behaviors. And my young friend just doesn't understand that.
1
Why isn't The New York Times as adamant about the federal government releasing video(s) of United States drone strikes, deployed bomber attacks, and cruise missiles fired into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen since 9/11. How many civilians have we killed in total during our 15 year war, the longest war in American history...100's of thousands? How has this promulgated the escalation of Islamic terrorist recruitment, and anti-American sentiment globally?
5
Demanding the release of evidence midway through an investigation just feeds the lynch mob mentality that has taken hold of this case. If it were released, people would still see whatever they already think. The real failure lies with Obama. He's the chief law enforcement officer, but he's totally checked out of this crisis, where we have National Guard troops in the streets. Hey Barack, how about skipping a round of golf and fly down to Charlotte? Your presence would benefit both the police and African Americans. Just another case of him being too lazy to do the hard work of uniting people.
2
Release it now why? So the rioters can be the judge and the jury? This serves no legitimate purpose and legitimizes the rioters who are using this as another excuse to wreak havoc for pleasure. Their concerns are legitimate; their actions are disgusting and should be condemned.
There is a process. Let the local law enforcement do their job, then have the federal law enforcement do theirs. Only then, with a full report, should the video be seen.
Enough of vigilante justice and trial in the streets. Who knows what happened right now other than those in a position to properly review the evidence. It is not my place nor a protester's place to judge at this stage.
There is a process. Let the local law enforcement do their job, then have the federal law enforcement do theirs. Only then, with a full report, should the video be seen.
Enough of vigilante justice and trial in the streets. Who knows what happened right now other than those in a position to properly review the evidence. It is not my place nor a protester's place to judge at this stage.
12
@Surgeon: "Enough of vigilante justice and trial in the streets."
Um, Surgeon, that's what people are rioting AGAINST. Those in law enforcement who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner in the streets.
Um, Surgeon, that's what people are rioting AGAINST. Those in law enforcement who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner in the streets.
1
Release it immediately if it supported the police's story to avoid civil unrest. Hide it and stall if it didn't support the police's story and risk civil unrest, knowing that finding the cops had lied would have led to much greater unrest.
1
We live in a reality TV world with 24 hours a day seven days a week reporting of everyday movements of ordinary people. The police chief should release the videos when it is appropriate to do so. The family has seen these which they had every right to request to see as it concerned their relative. We really do not have the right to demand we view these videos because many might rush to judgement before all the facts are released. Some people are already convicting this police officer before they know what truly happened that day. The truth will come out soon enough. We just have to wait.
3
Putney's fate as police chief was sealed the minute he said, "I said transparency, not full transparency. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder."
The question of whether or not to release the video was an IQ test. Chief but he failed. He'll soon join the ranks of the unempliyed former police chiefs of Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson, et al.
The question of whether or not to release the video was an IQ test. Chief but he failed. He'll soon join the ranks of the unempliyed former police chiefs of Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson, et al.
1
The cops are the hired help of we the people whom they are sworn to protect and serve. They work for and answer to us. Not the reverse.
In exchange for a uniform and a badge and gun along with a law enforcement professional license to deprive us of our divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they should be held to the utmost of honesty and integrity with every reasonable doubt and presumption resolved in favor of innocent civilians who encounter cops.
The right of the people to know what their hired help are doing trumps the rights of cops to privacy and due process. Particularly when a civilian is dead. In an open carry state where cops were focused on pursuing other individuals how a black man bystander ended up dead in Tulsa and Charlotte is an abomination.
Whether or not either man had a gun while black is armed while white and criminally resisting Lee Harvey Oswald, Ahmad Rahami and Cliven Bundy not relevant.
The idea that color diversity matters in any local police department is belied by black police chiefs in Cleveland and Baltimore who presided over the killings of Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray under black mayors. Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney's colored face should not distract from his duplicitous biased cop double talk. Putney is not judge, jury and prosecutor.
In exchange for a uniform and a badge and gun along with a law enforcement professional license to deprive us of our divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they should be held to the utmost of honesty and integrity with every reasonable doubt and presumption resolved in favor of innocent civilians who encounter cops.
The right of the people to know what their hired help are doing trumps the rights of cops to privacy and due process. Particularly when a civilian is dead. In an open carry state where cops were focused on pursuing other individuals how a black man bystander ended up dead in Tulsa and Charlotte is an abomination.
Whether or not either man had a gun while black is armed while white and criminally resisting Lee Harvey Oswald, Ahmad Rahami and Cliven Bundy not relevant.
The idea that color diversity matters in any local police department is belied by black police chiefs in Cleveland and Baltimore who presided over the killings of Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray under black mayors. Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney's colored face should not distract from his duplicitous biased cop double talk. Putney is not judge, jury and prosecutor.
2
"Some police departments are starting to understand that public trust depends on good faith and openness."
Is there any trust left within marginalized community's?
Is there any trust left within marginalized community's?
1
Class prejudice and ordinary bigotry based on race a degree of wealth or education have been within the mindset of Charlotte North Carolina for decades. Glass Skyscrapers and slick malls serving posh neighborhoods are all fraudulence, only a few are seriously deceived. A population of poor whites and blacks festers because hardly anyone actually gives a damn, why should they? There is a long tradition of police protecting the merchant class and today there is the added layer of wage earner angst. The Chief of Police has his job because he fully understands who runs Charlotte and what is expected of him. Tulsa Oklahoma is still a seriously Christian community that believes in human dignity and seeks as best it can to get past a long history of racism. Releasing the police video in Charlotte disrupts a contrived image that hardly anyone takes seriously anymore.
Take guns away from police. A majority of police do not have proper judgement about the right circumstances in which to fire a weapon, and that same vast majority have very serious issues either psychological or have deeply ingrained racial bias. Being as cops are not psychologically screened or monitored through their careers, I'd say that handing them weapons is a public threat.
1
" The North Carolina legislature, however, made that far more difficult when it passed an ill-advised measure this year that allows police departments to withhold camera footage from the public unless a court orders the release."
I wonder who the unwell adviser was and the reasons he/she gave the Legislature for this measure being necessary?
Does the Legislature need to ask for any public submissions or involve the public in any other way before a measure such as this is voted on ?
Given the importance such an initiative represents to the public interest one would assume the public being involved in its adoption is critical as well as be given clear reasons on why such a measure needs to be taken and to what purpose.
Ideally speaking of course.
I wonder who the unwell adviser was and the reasons he/she gave the Legislature for this measure being necessary?
Does the Legislature need to ask for any public submissions or involve the public in any other way before a measure such as this is voted on ?
Given the importance such an initiative represents to the public interest one would assume the public being involved in its adoption is critical as well as be given clear reasons on why such a measure needs to be taken and to what purpose.
Ideally speaking of course.
There is a reason why police vehicles record encounters with the public, from dashboard cameras, and that reason is so a record may exist for both sides, in an encounter, to see and hear, the content of the encounter.
The tapes are public record, accessible by the public, as is any public record, on demand, with a nominal fee payable for reproduction.
Anyone, engaging in actions such as this, including this police chief, is breaking the law and desperately trying to buy time, as he and his partners seek a way to modify the tape and remove sections that show the police murdered this man.
They may also be setting up a deal with the family, to end this latest murderous attack on a black American, quickly.
Regardless, the people, all of the people, have the unequivocal right to see this tape, and no one, no one, my deny that right.
The tapes are public record, accessible by the public, as is any public record, on demand, with a nominal fee payable for reproduction.
Anyone, engaging in actions such as this, including this police chief, is breaking the law and desperately trying to buy time, as he and his partners seek a way to modify the tape and remove sections that show the police murdered this man.
They may also be setting up a deal with the family, to end this latest murderous attack on a black American, quickly.
Regardless, the people, all of the people, have the unequivocal right to see this tape, and no one, no one, my deny that right.
1
"The North Carolina legislature, however, made that far more difficult when it passed an ill-advised measure this year that allows police departments to withhold camera footage from the public unless a court orders the release."
I find the above to be against the law, and an outright violation of the peoples rights, guaranteed in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
It is patently obvious what this state government is seeking to do, which is two things, first, reduce liability, and second, disenfranchise black, and other minority Americans.
It's as simple as that, and our Supreme Court should rule that no state legislature may abrogate any part of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
I find the above to be against the law, and an outright violation of the peoples rights, guaranteed in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
It is patently obvious what this state government is seeking to do, which is two things, first, reduce liability, and second, disenfranchise black, and other minority Americans.
It's as simple as that, and our Supreme Court should rule that no state legislature may abrogate any part of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
3
Well, the North Carolina legislature has had a busy year passing regressive laws, eh?
As I said yesterday in response to another article on this topic, the public is the rightful owner of police videos, being that police departments -- including their dashcams, bodycams, and the archive and storage services for preserving the footage they yield -- are funded through taxes dollars. So as upsetting or controversial as this footage is to view, the recordings should be considered public property.
The decision to release or not release footage -- regardless of what it might or might not reveal -- should not reside with a police chief. The video belongs to the public at large, or at least to taxpayers of that community. It should be readily available to citizens who wish to see the work of the men and women sworn to protect and serve them.
In this particular case, Chief Putney does no favors to either the public or his own department by holding onto the video.
As I said yesterday in response to another article on this topic, the public is the rightful owner of police videos, being that police departments -- including their dashcams, bodycams, and the archive and storage services for preserving the footage they yield -- are funded through taxes dollars. So as upsetting or controversial as this footage is to view, the recordings should be considered public property.
The decision to release or not release footage -- regardless of what it might or might not reveal -- should not reside with a police chief. The video belongs to the public at large, or at least to taxpayers of that community. It should be readily available to citizens who wish to see the work of the men and women sworn to protect and serve them.
In this particular case, Chief Putney does no favors to either the public or his own department by holding onto the video.
22
The editors are right in their call for the city of Charlotte to release the police video. They have been wrong about almost everything else to do with their reporting of police shootings.
We need transparency in the ways that our police interact with our citizens. The use of camera phones, dash cams, body cams et al have proven that too many cops are brownshirts with a badge. Their bullying and hair trigger responses to seemingly unprovoked acts has been revealed and must lead to much needed reform. We'd like to think that the bullies are a small % of the nation's force, but it's obvious by now that the public must keep an eye on their behavior.
The bullies have poisoned the well for everybody else.
The editors have chosen to ignore or excuse the daily reality of violence and criminal behavior in black urban neighborhoods. That is not excusing the police, but it is the daily reality in which they work. Since the nation's urban police departments have been well integrated with minorities, something else is at work in police / suspect shootings than just racism.
We have a major dysfunctional cultural problem in our country. Both within our police departments and within our African American urban communities.
Both communities need the light of investigative reporting to expose the problems. This is not a false equivalency. This is a cause and effect situation. To deny its reality is to whistle past the graveyard which is what the editors have chosen to do.
We need transparency in the ways that our police interact with our citizens. The use of camera phones, dash cams, body cams et al have proven that too many cops are brownshirts with a badge. Their bullying and hair trigger responses to seemingly unprovoked acts has been revealed and must lead to much needed reform. We'd like to think that the bullies are a small % of the nation's force, but it's obvious by now that the public must keep an eye on their behavior.
The bullies have poisoned the well for everybody else.
The editors have chosen to ignore or excuse the daily reality of violence and criminal behavior in black urban neighborhoods. That is not excusing the police, but it is the daily reality in which they work. Since the nation's urban police departments have been well integrated with minorities, something else is at work in police / suspect shootings than just racism.
We have a major dysfunctional cultural problem in our country. Both within our police departments and within our African American urban communities.
Both communities need the light of investigative reporting to expose the problems. This is not a false equivalency. This is a cause and effect situation. To deny its reality is to whistle past the graveyard which is what the editors have chosen to do.
It's time for the wizards of Silicon Valley to help in this problem. Place an optical switch in each policeman's handgun holster and write the software so that drawing your service weapon turns on a body camera if being worn. Furthermore, make deletion of body camera footage difficult. Then, whether immediately made available or made available for the judicial system, there will be a more complete record.
1
It has become acceptable that the citizenry in our "land of the free" be denied much of anything which might in any way implicate those we entrust to write, uphold and enforce the law of covering tracks which might hide mistakes or wrongdoing.
Like our parents when we were young the Charlotte PD claim to know what is best and expect the citizenry to sit down and stop questioning their authority. While that is generally considered acceptable in dealing with little kids who often ask unanswerable questions, treating adults with the same dismissive responses doesn't cut it.
If there is nothing to hide except the possibility of exposure to offensive gore there is no reason to withhold information of police activity from interested adult citizens.
Police are people drawn from among us and who for reasons best known to themselves accept a responsibility which has the possibility of altering or even ending the life of another.
If we trust the men and women who end up in this service are vetted and then trained to handle situations which may demand decisions of this sort to be made flawlessly we are being unrealistic. We should however expect them to behave in a manner which requires they exercise judgement, even flawed, at all times.
The video may be gruesome, but the citizens of Charlotte have a right to determine that the police involved behaved in an acceptable manner.
This is not an unreasonable expectation.
Like our parents when we were young the Charlotte PD claim to know what is best and expect the citizenry to sit down and stop questioning their authority. While that is generally considered acceptable in dealing with little kids who often ask unanswerable questions, treating adults with the same dismissive responses doesn't cut it.
If there is nothing to hide except the possibility of exposure to offensive gore there is no reason to withhold information of police activity from interested adult citizens.
Police are people drawn from among us and who for reasons best known to themselves accept a responsibility which has the possibility of altering or even ending the life of another.
If we trust the men and women who end up in this service are vetted and then trained to handle situations which may demand decisions of this sort to be made flawlessly we are being unrealistic. We should however expect them to behave in a manner which requires they exercise judgement, even flawed, at all times.
The video may be gruesome, but the citizens of Charlotte have a right to determine that the police involved behaved in an acceptable manner.
This is not an unreasonable expectation.
1
It appears police release video only when it supports their narrative i.e. the video of Michael Brown doing a strong-arm robbery before his death in Ferguson. The Chicago police, with Mayor Rahm Emanuel's full knowledge, suppressed a video until pressured. Admittedly there have been exceptions as in Tulsa. But they should release this video and equally important, the results of fingerprint testing of the weapon allegedly found at the scene. The absence of his fingerprints would be exculpatory while their presence would indicate he possessed a weapon.
Nearly 1,000 people are shot and killed by police each year in the United States. A much greater number are annually shot and wounded by police. A disproportional number of those killed and wounded by police are Black or Hispanic.
Why are so many people being shot by American police officers? Why do police so often try to avoid scrutiny when an officer is involved in a shooting? Why are the police not held accountable for their actions?
Why are so many people being shot by American police officers? Why do police so often try to avoid scrutiny when an officer is involved in a shooting? Why are the police not held accountable for their actions?
2
All police incidents require fair investigation.
The focus on several police incidents nationally,while ignoring the epidemic of homicides and crime, including more than 500 homicides and 300 shootings in Chicago alone so far this year, is shocking.
The anti-police rhetoric is damaging to the country.
If all police incidents were miraculously eliminated, the homicide and crime rate nationwide would not change.
The focus on several police incidents nationally,while ignoring the epidemic of homicides and crime, including more than 500 homicides and 300 shootings in Chicago alone so far this year, is shocking.
The anti-police rhetoric is damaging to the country.
If all police incidents were miraculously eliminated, the homicide and crime rate nationwide would not change.
3
After reading comments in many media outlets one can conclude that many white people have zero empathy for the plight of African American men, and some outright hatred. Racism is still very blatant and real. Is some of our fear and distrust justifiable, maybe. Does the black community have a degree of responsibility in our fear and distrust, maybe. But I have experienced police over reaction far too many times and have very little trust and respect for this institution as a whole. Robots are our only answer and that's a scary thought.
Solaris says, "We are constantly reminded that the Black community is welcome to protest peacefully and with civility - surely that will get their message across."
It is a well known documented fact that outside agitators come in to try to take the peace out of peaceful protests. Frankly, I believe they are paid by the "law and order" crowd to "prove" that demonstrators are in the wrong for having the nerve to disagree with unfair practices.
Keep holding peaceful protests people and document BAD cops and other BAD actors. Let's demand restoration of civility and respect in America - starting with getting BAD cops out of OUR local law enforcement.
It is a well known documented fact that outside agitators come in to try to take the peace out of peaceful protests. Frankly, I believe they are paid by the "law and order" crowd to "prove" that demonstrators are in the wrong for having the nerve to disagree with unfair practices.
Keep holding peaceful protests people and document BAD cops and other BAD actors. Let's demand restoration of civility and respect in America - starting with getting BAD cops out of OUR local law enforcement.
1
Peaceful protest...like Colin Kaepernick's?
At this point they ought to release the video. The longer they keep it hidden the less anything they say to explain it, the incident, or why the public in Charlotte shouldn't see it, the worse things will be. They never be believed or trusted no matter how things work out. It's not a matter of transparency or confidentiality any longer. Charlotte has had riots over this. It's better to see what occurred, warts and all, than keeping it under wraps. People will imagine the worst and believe that a black man was killed for no reason whether that's the case or not.
Every time a company tries to cover things up it comes out. The same goes for police departments. If the shooting can be justified people should be able to see it. If it's questionable the same thing holds true. If it wasn't justified there will be problems but I think that being honest works much better than the hedge game most public agencies use to avoid being held publicly responsible for the mistakes their employees make. This incident took a man's life, affected his family, seems to have occurred along the same lines as other incidents involving the shooting of a black man by police: there is no reason to keep it a secret.
Every time a company tries to cover things up it comes out. The same goes for police departments. If the shooting can be justified people should be able to see it. If it's questionable the same thing holds true. If it wasn't justified there will be problems but I think that being honest works much better than the hedge game most public agencies use to avoid being held publicly responsible for the mistakes their employees make. This incident took a man's life, affected his family, seems to have occurred along the same lines as other incidents involving the shooting of a black man by police: there is no reason to keep it a secret.
A North Carolina law goes into effect next week that prevents making police videos public. Good old North Carolina. Good old Governor McCrory - the hate-filled supposedly "real" christian. I sincerely hope the Good People of North Carolina get rid of him and his cronies on November 8 and get rid of the archaic laws that protect only entitled white men like him.
9
"Police Chief Kerr Putney added to that anger at a news conference on Thursday when he said that the video did not give him “absolute, definitive, visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun,” though he insisted that there was evidence to suggest that the police account of the event was correct."
I have to hand it to Charlotte: they have made every mistake in the book regarding transparency. How frustrating it must be for the public--AND the family--to have a statement like the above, all innuendo, all heresay, all concocted viewpoints that in the end, simply reinforce the idea of absolute power in the Charlotte PD.
Could the police have planted the gun, a rogue cop trying to alter the reality of this shooting? Of course, and unless the video is released, we will never know. Could this be an open and shut case that the police was right to shoot the victim? Of course, but unless the video is released, we will never know.
Bits and pieces of evidence, and stonewalling by the Police Chief have made this crisis, already pretty bad, even worse. No wonder the city is under a state of emergency.
Let's face it, truth will eventually come out. So why hold up that moment and enrage a city already split open by yet another police shooting of an African American. Charlotte, you have the tape: release it.
I have to hand it to Charlotte: they have made every mistake in the book regarding transparency. How frustrating it must be for the public--AND the family--to have a statement like the above, all innuendo, all heresay, all concocted viewpoints that in the end, simply reinforce the idea of absolute power in the Charlotte PD.
Could the police have planted the gun, a rogue cop trying to alter the reality of this shooting? Of course, and unless the video is released, we will never know. Could this be an open and shut case that the police was right to shoot the victim? Of course, but unless the video is released, we will never know.
Bits and pieces of evidence, and stonewalling by the Police Chief have made this crisis, already pretty bad, even worse. No wonder the city is under a state of emergency.
Let's face it, truth will eventually come out. So why hold up that moment and enrage a city already split open by yet another police shooting of an African American. Charlotte, you have the tape: release it.
6
Is there a gun and whose fingerprints are on the gun?
If the Police Chief believes there is additional evidence that contradicts the video, then viewing the video will just mislead the public and create another very large public relations problem. When the rest of the evidence is considered, if the verdict is not what people want, there will be more riots and unrest.
In this case, calling for the release of the video is reckless. Even setting the expectation that the video can be released before a full investigation is irresponsible. The implication is that the police are guilty and hiding something is hardly helpful.
In this case, calling for the release of the video is reckless. Even setting the expectation that the video can be released before a full investigation is irresponsible. The implication is that the police are guilty and hiding something is hardly helpful.
5
You have such faith that the police are not manufacturing evidence and doctoring the video . I guess our world views have been informed differently because I have no such confidence .
1
If HB2 had been repealed; this wouldn't have happened. If one is not free all are not free....
Transgender rights matter
Transgender rights matter
1
The initial intent of equipping Police with cameras was to assure accountability following several years of killings. In this case, Chief Putney is not accountable and should be. One can only assume the video is damning of the police, otherwise, the police would release it to buttress their claims.
6
Once again, it looks like the early votes were wrong. Gun, not book. Reports today say the police showed the video to the gun-holding man's family - if a man is holding a gun and refusing to put it down, I have a hard time using the word victim - and the family's public response was incredibly subdued, as they recognize the man had a gun, too. So for me, unless something comes out of left field, this particular matter is closed.
Whoever floated rumors about a book and whipped the town into a violent frenzy that cost additional lives, wrecked businesses, destroyed other property, and cost taxpayers a lot of money... they should be arrested. That just might include the media as well...
Whoever floated rumors about a book and whipped the town into a violent frenzy that cost additional lives, wrecked businesses, destroyed other property, and cost taxpayers a lot of money... they should be arrested. That just might include the media as well...
3
And the family is asking the police to disclose the video.
"I have a hard time using the word victim."
North Carolina is an open-carry state, and if Mr. Scott was carrying a gun, he was actually well within his both constitutional right and the state law. The family's attorney and the police chief each stated the video does not clearly show anything, not even a gun and, if anything, raises more questions than answers.
We have been exposed to the grotesque reality that many black victims have been killed by those meant to protect us. In Tulsa, we heard a police official (from a helicopter!) conclude that an unarmed Terence Crutcher "looks like a bad guy," before he was executed with his hands up.
The facts in the North Carolina case are far from conclusive. How anyone can believe unverified police testimony in this climate is baffling to me. But your admitted-refusal to see this man as even a *possible* victim is, sadly, the very reality that drives us to protest: a systemic rejection to recognize humanity and the right to live in people of color. You have already drawn your conclusion. I urge you to revisit this with both an open mind and heart.
North Carolina is an open-carry state, and if Mr. Scott was carrying a gun, he was actually well within his both constitutional right and the state law. The family's attorney and the police chief each stated the video does not clearly show anything, not even a gun and, if anything, raises more questions than answers.
We have been exposed to the grotesque reality that many black victims have been killed by those meant to protect us. In Tulsa, we heard a police official (from a helicopter!) conclude that an unarmed Terence Crutcher "looks like a bad guy," before he was executed with his hands up.
The facts in the North Carolina case are far from conclusive. How anyone can believe unverified police testimony in this climate is baffling to me. But your admitted-refusal to see this man as even a *possible* victim is, sadly, the very reality that drives us to protest: a systemic rejection to recognize humanity and the right to live in people of color. You have already drawn your conclusion. I urge you to revisit this with both an open mind and heart.
It is a fact that Republicans approve of the police killings and are passing laws to keep police misconduct secret. Governor McCrory and his Republican legislature refuses to represent minorities in his state, what does that say about the Republican party? Louisiana also passed the same law pretty much saying that minorities don't count in their states either.
1
I think the more transparency there is the better it is. I see no harm in releasing the video. It is what it is, once it is released there is one less reason for people to suspect a cover up.
3
Among other ridiculous and indefensible things he said at yesterday's press conference, when asked by reporters how he could "square" his commitment to full transparency with his refusal to release the video, Chief Putney flippantly said, "I said transparency, not full transparency. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder...."
I suspect the first glimmers of reality are starting to seep into Putney's awareness that his tenure as police chief is about to suffer a sudden attenuation.
I suspect the first glimmers of reality are starting to seep into Putney's awareness that his tenure as police chief is about to suffer a sudden attenuation.
6
patience, citizens
th cops need more time to Photoshop th video to fit their agenda
as soon as their version of th truth is donne youll see it
3
"lack of an open governmental response led to demonstrations in places like Ferguson, Mo., Cleveland and Baltimore." The editors saw videos and called the public response "demonstrations" while the rest of the world saw the same videos and called these "riots." See - it all depends on what you want to believe. And that's the reason videos should not be released. The other - actually prime - reason for not releasing videos is that these become "evidence" used by both prosecutor and defendant. Releasing these before a trial spoils use for both and prejudices potential jurors.
There is a responsibility for both angry public and government leaders when a questionable police shooting occurs. Within a week prosecutors should be able to determine whether or not indicting the officer is justified - but they need to be allowed that time by the public - and should never succumb to satisfying a mob. Surrendering the normal justice process - which by design moves slowly - to potentially quell civil unrest will eventually lead to repeated unrest every time there is a police shooting. That is exactly what is happening now nation wide.
Seek justice - there is the means and the process; and never give in to the mob.
There is a responsibility for both angry public and government leaders when a questionable police shooting occurs. Within a week prosecutors should be able to determine whether or not indicting the officer is justified - but they need to be allowed that time by the public - and should never succumb to satisfying a mob. Surrendering the normal justice process - which by design moves slowly - to potentially quell civil unrest will eventually lead to repeated unrest every time there is a police shooting. That is exactly what is happening now nation wide.
Seek justice - there is the means and the process; and never give in to the mob.
2
How many incidents of cops being exonerated in these types of shootings do these vulgar, filthy rioters need before they don't have a moral right to presume injustice?
The Times has a political agenda. We all know it. So....cut it out already.
The Times has a political agenda. We all know it. So....cut it out already.
5
Information on Scott from the Charlotte Observer that is not widely known and which ought to be considered even if the gun was merely in his hand and not aimed at the police.
A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.
A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.
4
So, the logical conclusion is that he "deserved" to be shot and killed, eh?
In perfect trumpian fashion, you insinuate and offer bits of information that lead to the only conclusion possible - i.e., that what America needs is a good "cleansing" of the dregs of our society. We need to deny entry to some, ship out a few million already here, and "eliminate" those who don't qualify for the other "solutions." Am I right, or am I right?
Wow! I guess all of us straight white males could be Proud Americans again if only that would all come true. Whatever happened to the good old days when people knew their place, anyway - e.g., in the kitchen, working in the fields, showing respect to their superiors? Uppitiness is rampant these days, and it's time to let people know who's boss again.
What an inspiring vision for about 15% of the American population.
In perfect trumpian fashion, you insinuate and offer bits of information that lead to the only conclusion possible - i.e., that what America needs is a good "cleansing" of the dregs of our society. We need to deny entry to some, ship out a few million already here, and "eliminate" those who don't qualify for the other "solutions." Am I right, or am I right?
Wow! I guess all of us straight white males could be Proud Americans again if only that would all come true. Whatever happened to the good old days when people knew their place, anyway - e.g., in the kitchen, working in the fields, showing respect to their superiors? Uppitiness is rampant these days, and it's time to let people know who's boss again.
What an inspiring vision for about 15% of the American population.
This should be a prominently displayed NYT Pick...
another "narrative"!
the IT that is being withheld is also known as evidence and, in a system that had the public trust ITS management according to law would be appreciated just as the spinning that makes for "narratives" is at the root of mistrust...when the attorney general, rightly upholds the right of citizens to protesters but fails to call out the "others" as rioters, criminal looters who, btw, have an erosive effect on protest that also creates mistrust and so, more grain for the rumor mill.
in this regard, it may be that the the failure of "full transparency and disclosure" comes from the reluctance of authority to tell it like it is, the failure, for example of the president to call the ISIS threat what it is, what is says it is, a state, however perverse its version of islam is, that has, in the name of that per-version, declared war on the usa," has created a distracting debate on "the narrative" that has moved the entire matter into the rumor mill, obscuring focus on what should be a war effort.
it's the same for the protests, the looters are both distracting and corrupting, they need to be identified and deliberately separated in the rhetoric of redress from those who are expressing their constitutional right if for no other reason than to protect the credibility of dissent,...using the threat of riot to influence policy or change may be "narrative" but it rather clouds than illuminates any issue and denatures the rule and obstructs the refinement of law.
the IT that is being withheld is also known as evidence and, in a system that had the public trust ITS management according to law would be appreciated just as the spinning that makes for "narratives" is at the root of mistrust...when the attorney general, rightly upholds the right of citizens to protesters but fails to call out the "others" as rioters, criminal looters who, btw, have an erosive effect on protest that also creates mistrust and so, more grain for the rumor mill.
in this regard, it may be that the the failure of "full transparency and disclosure" comes from the reluctance of authority to tell it like it is, the failure, for example of the president to call the ISIS threat what it is, what is says it is, a state, however perverse its version of islam is, that has, in the name of that per-version, declared war on the usa," has created a distracting debate on "the narrative" that has moved the entire matter into the rumor mill, obscuring focus on what should be a war effort.
it's the same for the protests, the looters are both distracting and corrupting, they need to be identified and deliberately separated in the rhetoric of redress from those who are expressing their constitutional right if for no other reason than to protect the credibility of dissent,...using the threat of riot to influence policy or change may be "narrative" but it rather clouds than illuminates any issue and denatures the rule and obstructs the refinement of law.
2
The ambiguity of the video can be left to the public, or to a jury. There is no viable reason to keep it under wraps.
6
If they aren't releasing the video, they probably have something to hide.
Release the video now.
Release the video now.
12
The video should never be in the hands of the police. There is too little trust or confidence left by citizens to continue allowing police officers to investigate themselves. Independent civilian oversight is long overdue. You will never regain even the appearance of justice until this step is taken.
7
Showing up to protest is not nearly as important as showing up to vote, yet when the initial outrage fades, those who suffer most from racially biased/socioeconomically biased policing fail to show up for elections.
This should be the major focus of the black lives matter movement.
Those elected local officials who have the power to hire and fire police need to be held to account. A petition to recall the mayor and city council member who do not demand immediate release of the video City officials should already be circulating.
This should be the major focus of the black lives matter movement.
Those elected local officials who have the power to hire and fire police need to be held to account. A petition to recall the mayor and city council member who do not demand immediate release of the video City officials should already be circulating.
5
The NC Legislature got is backwards when they passed the law allowing police to withhold video unless ordered to release it by a court.. Police should be required to release video of officer-citizen interactions UNLESS ordered by a court to withhold it. If the police think releasing a video would damage a criminal case they need to show it to a judge and explain why these public records made with publicly funded cameras worn by public servants should be withheld from the public.
14
Our legislature is, quite regrettably, getting most things backward these days.
Additionally, there seems to be a concerted effort by the socially conservative, rural-based, and ALEC-beholden Republican majority to eviscerate North Carolina's major urban areas of their ability to make local decisions in the best interest of the people who elected them, and to whom they are directly accountable.
North Carolina has become an experiment for Art Pope, ALEC, and the Koch brothers' R&D teams. Sad days in The Old North State. Charles Kuralt would be weeping.
Additionally, there seems to be a concerted effort by the socially conservative, rural-based, and ALEC-beholden Republican majority to eviscerate North Carolina's major urban areas of their ability to make local decisions in the best interest of the people who elected them, and to whom they are directly accountable.
North Carolina has become an experiment for Art Pope, ALEC, and the Koch brothers' R&D teams. Sad days in The Old North State. Charles Kuralt would be weeping.
There might, might be a case for withholding the video if the public authorities in Charlotte and North Carolina were simply saying "Sorry, folks, investigation pending..."
But, of course, they're not. Most of them are publicly commenting, speculating and spinning what they think happened or didn't.
The Police Chief first said "Yup, the man had a gun." Now, "Well, on second thought, it's not conclusive but I believe the officers involved."
Release the video because you've got no possible cause now to keep it out of the public domain.
But, of course, they're not. Most of them are publicly commenting, speculating and spinning what they think happened or didn't.
The Police Chief first said "Yup, the man had a gun." Now, "Well, on second thought, it's not conclusive but I believe the officers involved."
Release the video because you've got no possible cause now to keep it out of the public domain.
16
The video should be released after the investigation is concluded.
Remember, these are the same editors that said we must wait to judge Muslim men who detonate bombs that injure dozens. The same standard of waiting to accumulate information must apply.
After all, we are a country with a black President and black Attorney General, so when a black Police Officer defends himself against a criminal, we cannot blindly cry "racism" and then commit violence!
Remember, these are the same editors that said we must wait to judge Muslim men who detonate bombs that injure dozens. The same standard of waiting to accumulate information must apply.
After all, we are a country with a black President and black Attorney General, so when a black Police Officer defends himself against a criminal, we cannot blindly cry "racism" and then commit violence!
7
th investigation will take exactly as long as people need to forget th incident
th video needs to be released NOW
what are you afrauid of ?
what are th cops afraid of ?
reality ?
truth?
7
Yes we can, because it's systematic. Color of oppressor matters none. Blacks owned and hunted runaway slaves.
We should have a police force that would use fatal force only as the last resort. In law, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. You cannot reverse a dead innocent person, or even a guilty one. We have militarized the police. We train them like soldiers and arm them likewise. They need to talk to the people they serve. "Hey brother, do you need some help? What happened?" Yes, that may mean a some dead police. But how many dead innocent people should that be worth. In the balance is a civil society.
8
Releasing the video would do nothing to erase the conflict between Black and White. Like those in Ferguson, Missouri, who testified that they saw Michael Brown giving up to the police officer, while others, including the Grand Jury, heard the testimony and saw the video, and concluded that the officer was about to be beaten or killed by this 6 foot 4 inch, 300 pound unarmed teen. But it would be interesting to hear the for and against by the video viewers.
3
Yes, those convinced that the police are murderers would see an innocent man regardless of what he was doing.
1
I completely agree with the Editorial Board.
Release the video !
Since the video was recorded with a camera paid for by taxpayer money, the video is part of the public record and should be provided to the public if need be under a FOIA request.
Now that the family has viewed the video and has advocated for releasing it there is no reason to continue withholding it except a desire to avoid “full transparency and disclosure.”
This in turn fuels public distrust at a time when there isn't much trust to begin with, given the many shootings of black men. The difference in reactions to the deadly shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte have highlighted the critical role of video evidence in resolving controversial cases and potentially preventing civil unrest.
The most serious unrest over killings by officers has come in cases where no official video footage existed, where authorities declined to release the footage, or where amateur recordings challenged the official version of events.
At the same time it is worth reminding people that it was a black cop working under a black police chief that killed a black man.
We are well served not to look at this case purely through a racial lens, but rather focus on the procedures involving traffic stops etc, the recruiting & training of police officers, the multiple socio-economic factors that foster crime and gun violence, and stressing the fact that we are all humans,in this together rather than dividing people further among racial lines.
Release the video !
Since the video was recorded with a camera paid for by taxpayer money, the video is part of the public record and should be provided to the public if need be under a FOIA request.
Now that the family has viewed the video and has advocated for releasing it there is no reason to continue withholding it except a desire to avoid “full transparency and disclosure.”
This in turn fuels public distrust at a time when there isn't much trust to begin with, given the many shootings of black men. The difference in reactions to the deadly shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte have highlighted the critical role of video evidence in resolving controversial cases and potentially preventing civil unrest.
The most serious unrest over killings by officers has come in cases where no official video footage existed, where authorities declined to release the footage, or where amateur recordings challenged the official version of events.
At the same time it is worth reminding people that it was a black cop working under a black police chief that killed a black man.
We are well served not to look at this case purely through a racial lens, but rather focus on the procedures involving traffic stops etc, the recruiting & training of police officers, the multiple socio-economic factors that foster crime and gun violence, and stressing the fact that we are all humans,in this together rather than dividing people further among racial lines.
15
Very well said, and absolutely correct.
1
The Charlotte situation is only going to get worse. The N.C. legislature just passed HB 972 that severely restricts the public in accessing any police dash or body cam video. You have to get a judge to agree to release the video. As the editorial states this law takes affect Oct. 1st.
I would bet good money that the Charlotte Police, aided and abetted by Gov. McCory, will stonewall right up till then (7 days) and claim that the law now forbids them from ever releasing the evidence.
One would hope for a court challenge before then. But in N.C. you never know. The right wingers are fighting tenaciously to keep their state backward and bigoted.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/north-carolina-body-camera-l...
I would bet good money that the Charlotte Police, aided and abetted by Gov. McCory, will stonewall right up till then (7 days) and claim that the law now forbids them from ever releasing the evidence.
One would hope for a court challenge before then. But in N.C. you never know. The right wingers are fighting tenaciously to keep their state backward and bigoted.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/north-carolina-body-camera-l...
16
The payout to families for an unjust killing has consistently been in the range of $5.5-6M. Under these circumstances, shootings are immediately portrayed as unjust with strong public reaction whether in the streets or the newspapers. If there is enough ambiguity to keep hope alive for a civil suit, the outrage will persist, but cities have to protect themselves with whatever advantages they have, including harboring video that supports their interpretation so it can't be excluded later.
Every single one of these families are entitled to all recourse available under the law and the Constitution. And every one of them would no doubt rather have their loved one back instead of a check in hand, no matter the dollar amount.
The stupidity of some "community leaders" who are supposed to be educated and knowledgeable never ceases to amaze.
3
Our elected representatives and their appointees are charged with acting on behalf of the people, not in place of them. Distrust is justified when leaders and law enforcement officials either protect themselves to the detriment of the public or to take upon themselves a role to which the public is entitled. It is not up to the politicians and police in Charlotte or any other jurisdiction to determine whether one of their own has acted judiciously -- it is up to the people they serve and to whom they are answerable.
The events in Charlotte are riding the crest of ongoing horrors. Videotapes of policemen planting guns on unarmed victims, plotting to frame innocent people, and killing unarmed and compliant or helpless citizens have rightfully enraged all reasonable people. "Trust me" is no longer a defensible request to a suspicious community, and the Mayor of Charlotte should release the video footage immediately.
The events in Charlotte are riding the crest of ongoing horrors. Videotapes of policemen planting guns on unarmed victims, plotting to frame innocent people, and killing unarmed and compliant or helpless citizens have rightfully enraged all reasonable people. "Trust me" is no longer a defensible request to a suspicious community, and the Mayor of Charlotte should release the video footage immediately.
11
Sure there may be some issues in North Carolina but, at the end of the day, isn't the only important thing to make sure people use the right bathroom? And you can't say they are not focussed on that.
5
I have to say the situation in Charlotte isn't funny. But as a North Carolinian enduring years of literally ridiculous rule by these Republicans, your comment made me laugh for a moment. Thanks for the dark humor.
1
Come on, NYTimes. You know that a video is just one piece of evidence, from a given angle of view. Remember the police apprehending the guy with the hammer in Manhattan, and the different perceptions from different angles. You also know that this situation is now highly charged.
The mob in the street is not a court of law, nor are they experts. Especially with all the emotion and commotion, let's have a little time for review and investigation. The video evidence will be presented along with all the other evidence.
The mob in the street is not a court of law, nor are they experts. Especially with all the emotion and commotion, let's have a little time for review and investigation. The video evidence will be presented along with all the other evidence.
3
Unavoidably in situations like this there are gray areas, places in which a decision can go either way. The actions of Charlotte officials suggest this could fall into that gray area. Here's the problem, though, fatal shootings in that gray area should be the exception, not the standard. Too often, police seem to be just waiting to enter that gray zone so they can open fire on a black man at a traffic stop or elsewhere.
I was a police officer for 32 years. I had lots of equipment, including a gun and a vest. I was also equipped with the knowledge that my fellow citizens were also armed and harbored legitimate grievances. Inequality and injustice are obvious for everyone to see - to deny this is to deny the existence of a social compact. There is a lot of tension out there and the cops didn't create it. It was created by the people who continue to benefit from inequality and by the politicians who represent them. The police chief in Charlotte is being disingenuous with the video, and will hurt his community. The governor of NC has long been dishonest about his state's treatment of minorities. The media and observers (us) are dishonest about the causes of violence: injustice. We want the police to fairly and equitably enforce the law while the law of the land has no respect for equality and fairness. The more justice and equality in a nation, the less violence there will be. Not complicated - and not wanted by those who profit from the current arrangement.
206
Well Said!
And so very true. America needs to attend to it's fractious society which it has never felt able or willing to put on a fair and equal footing between all its citizens for the Greater Good and in Common Cause.
Creating Alienation, Injustice ,Inequality and the Racial/Social divisions they begat profits no one except perhaps by those who use it to distract and keep off balance the attention of the Majority on what is really going on and who is encouraging it to continue.
And so very true. America needs to attend to it's fractious society which it has never felt able or willing to put on a fair and equal footing between all its citizens for the Greater Good and in Common Cause.
Creating Alienation, Injustice ,Inequality and the Racial/Social divisions they begat profits no one except perhaps by those who use it to distract and keep off balance the attention of the Majority on what is really going on and who is encouraging it to continue.
1
Hold on there pardna, "There's a lot of tension out there and the cops didn't create it." ? Let's all agree, that killing, (okay, murdering), an unarmed human being will create "tension." The cops created ALL the tension. If police didn't shoot anyone, guess what? No tension!
This thing with the cops is not about fear or intimidation, law and order or respect, it's about the gun itself. Once it's pulled out, and aimed, it takes virtually no effort at all to kill someone. Under the same circumstance a three year old could easily do the same thing.
Here's the solution, and it's an easy one. The gun is never upholstered unless it's going to be used. (If the perp has a weapon or gun himself). All other times it should not be pulled out. The problem is that pulling the gun out is used by the police to intimidate a person into submission.
The gun should be used for one thing, killing someone, period. If the perp is not complying with demands or instructions the cop should get on the radio and call in more police. If the person is agitated and little crazy, high on drugs, pulling the gun can just make a person angry and insubordinate, the exact opposite of what the desired effect is. It's simply too easy to use for it's intended purpose, which is to efficiently kill someone.
This thing with the cops is not about fear or intimidation, law and order or respect, it's about the gun itself. Once it's pulled out, and aimed, it takes virtually no effort at all to kill someone. Under the same circumstance a three year old could easily do the same thing.
Here's the solution, and it's an easy one. The gun is never upholstered unless it's going to be used. (If the perp has a weapon or gun himself). All other times it should not be pulled out. The problem is that pulling the gun out is used by the police to intimidate a person into submission.
The gun should be used for one thing, killing someone, period. If the perp is not complying with demands or instructions the cop should get on the radio and call in more police. If the person is agitated and little crazy, high on drugs, pulling the gun can just make a person angry and insubordinate, the exact opposite of what the desired effect is. It's simply too easy to use for it's intended purpose, which is to efficiently kill someone.
"Inequality and injustice are obvious for everyone to see - to deny this is to deny the existence of a social compact. There is a lot of tension out there and the cops didn't create it. It was created by the people who continue to benefit from inequality and by the politicians who represent them."
Jim, any chance we can get you on the ballot by November 8?
Jim, any chance we can get you on the ballot by November 8?
Transparency, honesty, and trust are very important issues in police-community relations. However, I think the problems in American policing go beyond the behavior of some officers. We have not come to terms with the implications of the 2nd Amendment and what freedoms and rights we give up when we insist on an absolute right to bear arms. European police kill 1/100th the number of citizens in the course of their duties (British, French, German police). They don't have to face the number of guns that American police do. They make arrests without much violence.
Because American police face so many guns, the protocols for when to shoot to kill protect the police, not the citizenry. So 1000 Americans die at the hands of the police each year. Most of them endangered the police officers and brandished weapons. Some have been unarmed, both white and black. I have no doubt that the Tulsa police officer believed she was in danger. My bet is that it will be found that she followed police protocols. The problem is that the police protocols are premised on the likelihood that any police stop could involve a citizen with a gun, either legally owned or illegal. So far, we have decided that our fellow citizen's lives are less important than an absolute right to bear arms with no conditions on that right. Add in unconscious bias which exaggerates the dangerousness of black men, and you have a very bad situation.
Because American police face so many guns, the protocols for when to shoot to kill protect the police, not the citizenry. So 1000 Americans die at the hands of the police each year. Most of them endangered the police officers and brandished weapons. Some have been unarmed, both white and black. I have no doubt that the Tulsa police officer believed she was in danger. My bet is that it will be found that she followed police protocols. The problem is that the police protocols are premised on the likelihood that any police stop could involve a citizen with a gun, either legally owned or illegal. So far, we have decided that our fellow citizen's lives are less important than an absolute right to bear arms with no conditions on that right. Add in unconscious bias which exaggerates the dangerousness of black men, and you have a very bad situation.
1
Who owns the police video? Who owns the city's buildings, land, equipment? And who owns any public property? Is it the public representatives and agents of the people or the people they serve? Charlotte's citizens ought to recall the mayor, replace her with a resident responsive to their ownership rights over public property, and fire the police chief unless they release the police video of the shooting!
7
Yes, and the sooner the better, so no foul play is displayed.
4
Mob rule is what this "writer " wants the police to bow down to. You have no right to see that tyoe of video. Then again, here we are Obama's America, the bloodlust is ripe and ravenous!
5
Bloodlust? Who's doing the shooting here? Not the victims! And not Obama.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that in this age of video, it's pretty self evident that secrecy breeds mistrust.
Just the other day there were like 50 comments saying that the police planted the gun and it was all a cover up. It felt like reading a conspiracy theory. I mean, the commenters presumably haven't watched the video, and only a video showing that guy brandishing a gun is going to make them believe that every police shooting is not a racist taking the oppprtunity to kill a black man.
Just the other day there were like 50 comments saying that the police planted the gun and it was all a cover up. It felt like reading a conspiracy theory. I mean, the commenters presumably haven't watched the video, and only a video showing that guy brandishing a gun is going to make them believe that every police shooting is not a racist taking the oppprtunity to kill a black man.
2
If the video exonerated the cops, the city would release it in a heartbeat.
29
The community is outraged by the death of a black man by yet another black man. Clean up your own communities, rather than destroy them, and then come back to the police.
4
Why? What's one have to do with the other?
To say that the black community can have no complaint with police violence against black individuals until there is no civilian violence in black neighborhoods is ridiculous -- the two are completely independent and unrelated.
To say that the black community can have no complaint with police violence against black individuals until there is no civilian violence in black neighborhoods is ridiculous -- the two are completely independent and unrelated.
2
Of course the videos should be released. Why were the cameras installed in the first place? To help us discern that which is true. The truth, it appears, is on those tapes and the cops don't want you to know it.
I think it was Justice Cardozo who said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
And, in accordance with Cardozo's advice, it is high time for Trump to release his tax returns and for Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches, she made to Goldman Sachs, for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I think it was Justice Cardozo who said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
And, in accordance with Cardozo's advice, it is high time for Trump to release his tax returns and for Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches, she made to Goldman Sachs, for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
6
If peacefully kneeling in protest is deemed "unpatriotic", what do we call the killing of an unarmed citizen? What do we call the spilling of his blood?
There is only one party "disrespecting the flag" here, and it needs to release the police video.
There is only one party "disrespecting the flag" here, and it needs to release the police video.
16
not releasing the Charlotte police video seems to stem from the same excuse Trump junior offers for why his father wont release his tax returns: the video and tax returns show something that the Charoltte police and the Trumps don;t want us all to see,
Trump junior and the Charlolte police commander have both said this explicitly.
Are we really such a broken society that we all cannot stand up to this nonsense and demand public disclosure immediately? Are we so weak? Are we so dumb, witless, and unable to band together to act effectively?
How can the Mayor of Charlotte stand behind her police force when the Chief openly admits the video does not show a gun and then gives that as a reason for not releasing the video? Did the Chief say "believe me" after uttering that nonsense?
How can any elected republican support trump if Trump will not release his tax return, especially those like Speaker Ryan who have said he should release the returns. Of course he should, Mr Ryan, so what will you do now that the Trumps openly say they wont release the returns because they are hiding something?
Save us, someone. Please.
Trump junior and the Charlolte police commander have both said this explicitly.
Are we really such a broken society that we all cannot stand up to this nonsense and demand public disclosure immediately? Are we so weak? Are we so dumb, witless, and unable to band together to act effectively?
How can the Mayor of Charlotte stand behind her police force when the Chief openly admits the video does not show a gun and then gives that as a reason for not releasing the video? Did the Chief say "believe me" after uttering that nonsense?
How can any elected republican support trump if Trump will not release his tax return, especially those like Speaker Ryan who have said he should release the returns. Of course he should, Mr Ryan, so what will you do now that the Trumps openly say they wont release the returns because they are hiding something?
Save us, someone. Please.
10
I see no valid reason at all not to release the video. If someone had caught the incident on a cell phone or store camera, it would be out there now, and that would only be helping the investigation along, clarifying what happened for all involved, and either calming things down (if the suspect was brandishing a weapon) or making it clear that the officer who shot the suspect was wrong. The police always say "There was a gun," but guns have IDs and purchases are generally traceable. Did this person even own a gun? If there was a gun on the scene, was it his? If not, why would a guy having nothing to do with this police action just start brandishing an untraceable gun before cops?
9
How can the police not release the video? Isn't that video public property? Isn't the whole idea behind these recordings for the sake of transparency and accountability?
Day by day it feels as if the police are no longer public servants, but a private agency answerable to themselves. Since 9/11 the public is expected to put officers on pedestals, turning them into fetish idols of worship. It's time to take it down a notch, bring down the blue wall.
Policing is a tough job, but when they act like they're not accountable to the people, when they don't disclose evidence, they immediately lose the trust of the public.
Day by day it feels as if the police are no longer public servants, but a private agency answerable to themselves. Since 9/11 the public is expected to put officers on pedestals, turning them into fetish idols of worship. It's time to take it down a notch, bring down the blue wall.
Policing is a tough job, but when they act like they're not accountable to the people, when they don't disclose evidence, they immediately lose the trust of the public.
116
It is not public property. It is a piece of evidence in a legal process that is actively being investigated.
That should be public property, so let's have some transparency.
2
In not releasing the video, Chief Putney has made clear that he intends to protect his officers, instead of the community he has sworn to protect. His shifting narrative underscores this point. He'll say and do anything to interpret the past in order to escape reality.
Putney's leadership failures are emblematic of the lessons not learned in the twenty-five years since the Rodney King beating took place in Los Angeles, its ill effects now repeated in Charlotte as a result of his missteps. Putney fails to recognize that stalling is not a tactic - it is a bomb. Retributive justice, whether it is handed down by a court, a jury, or a mob, is swift and severe, and that is the consequence of his leadership failure as a result of siding against the community, rather than with it.
Chief Putney's actions reveal him to be a man who is lost -- he clearly cannot find his way between his zeal to guard his own livelihood and the community he is sworn to protect. A real leader, by this point, would have put the broader interests of the community ahead of himself and his men. In not releasing the video, he has shown exactly where his sympathies lie -- and it is not with the people of Charlotte.
With so much damage done to his own credibility and the relationship between the law enforcement community and the people of Charlotte, it is time for Putney to resign. It is obvious that the only interests he serves are his own. It is time for Charlotte to have a chance with someone new.
Putney's leadership failures are emblematic of the lessons not learned in the twenty-five years since the Rodney King beating took place in Los Angeles, its ill effects now repeated in Charlotte as a result of his missteps. Putney fails to recognize that stalling is not a tactic - it is a bomb. Retributive justice, whether it is handed down by a court, a jury, or a mob, is swift and severe, and that is the consequence of his leadership failure as a result of siding against the community, rather than with it.
Chief Putney's actions reveal him to be a man who is lost -- he clearly cannot find his way between his zeal to guard his own livelihood and the community he is sworn to protect. A real leader, by this point, would have put the broader interests of the community ahead of himself and his men. In not releasing the video, he has shown exactly where his sympathies lie -- and it is not with the people of Charlotte.
With so much damage done to his own credibility and the relationship between the law enforcement community and the people of Charlotte, it is time for Putney to resign. It is obvious that the only interests he serves are his own. It is time for Charlotte to have a chance with someone new.
82
It's pretty clear that police chief Putney's job is about to take the same course as those of the chiefs in Chicago, Ferguson and Baltimire.
1
Real simple.
Either the legislature repeals the law that allows cops to withhold videos of officer-involved shootings or folks start going elsewhere for vacations, conventions, etc. I was considering a motorcycle ride to North Carolina, but the state's stance on gay-transgender rights gave me pause. This seals it.
Until North Carolina forces cops to operate with transparency, we should all vote with our feet and stay away.
Either the legislature repeals the law that allows cops to withhold videos of officer-involved shootings or folks start going elsewhere for vacations, conventions, etc. I was considering a motorcycle ride to North Carolina, but the state's stance on gay-transgender rights gave me pause. This seals it.
Until North Carolina forces cops to operate with transparency, we should all vote with our feet and stay away.
6
Here in North Carolina the legislature has made releasing police videos more difficult. I say, let everyone see for themselves.
1
Such videos obtained at odd angles can distort the entire narrative and should never be regarded as dispositive.
3
It is why experts are brought in to interpret evidence. And why police understand that the videos will be used in public kangaroo courts.
The most ridiculous part, of course, is that release of this video is inevitable--and smart money says that it happens sooner rather than later--and so the police chief is accomplishing nothing except dissolving whatever community trust might be left in his department.
The chief's stance is sufficient for the mayor, or whomever his boss is, to demand his resignation--there's just no excuse. And that just might send a powerful message to cops everywhere.
The chief's stance is sufficient for the mayor, or whomever his boss is, to demand his resignation--there's just no excuse. And that just might send a powerful message to cops everywhere.
3
It's time for the US Justice Department to take control of the murder investigation of Keith Scott and bring some. "transparency" to the unfortunate foot-dragging by the Charlotte and North Carolina authorities. Governor Pat McCrory has been a virulent modern day segregationist who had already defied the federal government with respect to their anti-transgender bathroom bill. The public has the right to know, especially in contrast to Tulsa and many other prior similar cases. The stonewalling only adds to a feeling distrust and suspicion, and that justice is being denied.
2
Sorry. Not Officer Scott. Mr. Scott was the victim.
Didn't Police Chief Kerr Putney say Thursday that his department was turning over the investigation to the F.B.I. in a day or two, so he would defer the decision to share the video(s) with the public to the F.B.I.?
Last year Officer Kerrick, a white man, was let off by the prosecutor due to a mistrial for a similar situation. The prosecutor likes to keep on good terms with the police. However, since Officer Scott is Black, his future may not end as well, or not?
Last year Officer Kerrick, a white man, was let off by the prosecutor due to a mistrial for a similar situation. The prosecutor likes to keep on good terms with the police. However, since Officer Scott is Black, his future may not end as well, or not?
Quick - find the very best video editing and digital graphics studios in Charlotte. Ask for their incoming phone records to see they were called by anyone in the Charlotte Police Department. When they can no longer hide it, they may choose to distort or manipulate it.
1
Capitalism at work. The NY Times wants the video released to generate more disingenuous Charles Blow op eds, more sanctimonious editorials, more inflammatory headlines. In short, more readership, more money. It used to be the paper of record. Now you can only find some level of objectivity from the BBC. It's a shame our new social media culture's rewarding of the most audacious has turned this venerable institution into just another tabloid. Monolithic, ossified thinking of an editorial board who struggles to comprehend that they do not in fact have a monopoly on the truth.
4
It is likely that there will be a criminal investigation of the officer here and that a grand jury will be convened to conduct the investigation. Because the video was generated by the police, its disclosure would arguably constitute the disclosure of grand jury evidence, which is prohibited under the law. Jeopardizing the government's case against the officer would be foolhardy, incompetent, and would be viewed as a purposeful sabotaging of the government's criminal case. The only reasonable course of action here is to abide by the rules of grand jury secrecy so that any potential criminal case can go forward under the law.
16
Exactly - and don't surrender to the mob; or the NYTimes.
1
You are mistaken on several counts. Evidensce is not secret in a Grand Jury - it is only that persons present during the Grand Jury sessions cannot divulge any proceedings. The Chief of Police of Charlotte will not be a member of the Grand Jury so he is under no secrecy requirements concerning the video.
Also, until a Grand Jury is convened and is presented with the video it is not "Grand Jury evidence". Until that time it is merely information. And in this case it is public information since it was made by publicly funded cameras worn by publicly employees in a public setting. There is no right to privacy on the part of the officers or the local government.
In any event, evidence in a trial cannot be kept secret by law. If the prosecutors have it, they have to give it to the defense. And they have to eventually make it public. So the decision is not to whether the video should be released, only to when it will be released. And the sooner the better.
Also, until a Grand Jury is convened and is presented with the video it is not "Grand Jury evidence". Until that time it is merely information. And in this case it is public information since it was made by publicly funded cameras worn by publicly employees in a public setting. There is no right to privacy on the part of the officers or the local government.
In any event, evidence in a trial cannot be kept secret by law. If the prosecutors have it, they have to give it to the defense. And they have to eventually make it public. So the decision is not to whether the video should be released, only to when it will be released. And the sooner the better.
2
Until said grand jury is empaneled, the video is just that, a video, with no special qualifications or properties. It might be used by the grand jury, if convened. It more likely will somehow disappear or get "mistakenly"erased. The family has seen it, we're told, and I'll bet they've been told not to discuss it under penalty of something or another.
There certainly are valid arguments for viewing any video in context, but from the waffling and stonewalling I've seen and heard concerning this one so far, I've formed a working hypothesis that the authorities are hiding something. If in fact the deceased was armed but got killed because of officers breaking from procedure and department policy, it could still be murder or manslaughter. Maybe he was reaching high in the air thru a closed window for his weapon, like the guy in Tulsa?
There certainly are valid arguments for viewing any video in context, but from the waffling and stonewalling I've seen and heard concerning this one so far, I've formed a working hypothesis that the authorities are hiding something. If in fact the deceased was armed but got killed because of officers breaking from procedure and department policy, it could still be murder or manslaughter. Maybe he was reaching high in the air thru a closed window for his weapon, like the guy in Tulsa?
1
You really have to believe that if the video showed Mr. Scott clearly brandishing a firearm then the video would have been instantly made public. That's what they don't seem to understand in Charlotte and elsewhere. Their reluctance looks like guilt. It just doesn't matter anymore if the video tells a story that can be interpreted different ways.
153
You are supported by opinion. Whereas, research and hard evidence prove time and again (99% of the time) that police videos support the law enforcement officer's actions, not the civilian's - who is almost always male and with a violent criminal history.
Indeed, the latter is what precipitated this Charlotte shooting: Scott was a 25-year violent convicted criminal with a history of illegal gun possession. When the investigation is complete, it is more likely than not that the dash cam hews toward law enforcement's version of events. One thing that is clearly undisputed is that Scott refused to simply stand still, as instructed.
Indeed, the latter is what precipitated this Charlotte shooting: Scott was a 25-year violent convicted criminal with a history of illegal gun possession. When the investigation is complete, it is more likely than not that the dash cam hews toward law enforcement's version of events. One thing that is clearly undisputed is that Scott refused to simply stand still, as instructed.
You have to believe that many jurisdictions are not sure of all the legal implications of releasing video. For instance, images of bystanders included in the video that have nothing to do with the situation. At what point does the video constitute an invasion of their privacy or a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy even while in public. With that in mind police departments are trying to land on a policy and implement it consistently as they have in North Carolina.
Not at all. Evidence is never released in cases like this. It has to be protected as does the victim, victims family, officers and witnesses.
There is no compelling reason not to release the tape.. Just do it.
1
I'd love to see someone make a movie where the US has the proportion of blacks to whites reversed, where most of the cops and people in power are black, where the white people have to continuously look over their shoulders for cops, where black men can legally and confidently carry weapons in full view wherever they like, where white dads have to have the 'talk' with their sons, and where somehow white men are shot and killed in confrontations even when they have their hands in the air. Maybe even living through a little bit of that for two hours in a dark theater with a well-written script and quality acting could give whites some idea of the African-American experience in this country before they knee-jerk react to black males as being 'dangerous'.
6
I wonder how, as a country, we would respond, if everyone was grey.
When I read "keeping the public in the dark heightens tension and undermines trust" all I can think is that not only should they release the video of this shooting, but all politicians (and perhaps political candidates too!) should have to wear body cams and have their meetings recorded. Why not? Never has the public felt less trusting of elected officials and their back room deals--and we are the employers of said public officials. Companies can record all their employees activities, and meetings and have access to their emails and time spent on computers--so why not We The People? If police wearing cameras increases transparency, think of what it could do for Washington DC.
We the people should be watching our elected officials--not, as Snowden showed us, the other way around.
We the people should be watching our elected officials--not, as Snowden showed us, the other way around.
3
Pay attention to their language" "brandishing" a gun already reveals a judgement, and we have to consider how this judgment factor into the decisions officers make to use force, and justify its use.
2
I have started to wonder about how much the media benefits from these tragedies. Videos definitely get more clicks. And more clicks make more money. Does the video's release really help in public relations, or does it just fulfill our own morbid curiosities? I haven't seen any good statistical work done on it yet, but either way, it's good business.
1
The police chief, with his shifting statements, does not impress me as a man of probity. Could it be that his shifty and ambiguous language, together with non-release of the tapes, be explained by the gun, supposedly found near by, is a throw-down weapon, supplied by police on the scene? Might he tapes plus other available information help contribute to this hypothesis?
3
Nothing else makes any sense! Stop the Killings!
The top police admins across America MUST Issue a Standing Order, "No use of Deadly Force EXCEPT in EXTREME Threats to Life!" Shoot to maim, use tasers or just hit the dirt to avoid being shot. President Carter called for it in Syria, blacks are calling for it in the US. Video cameras are every where, nobody get killed, nothing to record, no trouble get started. Simple as that.
Please top Law Enforcement, issue the order. I know that many will say they are already doing this but the facts of people dying says that is not true. RELEASE THE VIDEO(S).
The top police admins across America MUST Issue a Standing Order, "No use of Deadly Force EXCEPT in EXTREME Threats to Life!" Shoot to maim, use tasers or just hit the dirt to avoid being shot. President Carter called for it in Syria, blacks are calling for it in the US. Video cameras are every where, nobody get killed, nothing to record, no trouble get started. Simple as that.
Please top Law Enforcement, issue the order. I know that many will say they are already doing this but the facts of people dying says that is not true. RELEASE THE VIDEO(S).
2
In most states it is perfectly legal to carry a gun and the police are not allowed to force a person to show that he has a permit to carry a gun even when a permit is required in that state. Yet the police claim that they have the right to shoot a black man if they believe he might have a gun?
2
I was frankly surprised at how open the Tulsa PD was. The chief said the video was troubling and, in short order, charges have been filed. Not that the officer will be found guilty, but it's more than happens in most of these cases.
On the other hand, there is North Carolina. A state I've known mostly for progressive advances in education, and basketball, They have gone the other way. Now they are known for a bathroom law, boycotts, limiting voting rights on a racial basis, and now a law that may be used to hide the sins of law enforcement. It's not a good look. It fits right in with Trump's authoritarian view of government.
I just heard on tv that there is a view that releasing video will make cops too timid to do their job. If they feel watched, apparently they won't be willing to do their duty. Now I can understand not wanting to be taped constantly, but in crucial interactions with the public, we gotta have transparency.
Here in Albuquerque cops wear lapel cameras. One officer who had a history of refusing to record interactions with the public, shot and killed a young woman that had stolen a car. During the encounter he said she had pointed a gun at him- he had no choice. There were no witnesses and he had "forgotten" to turn on his camera. He was fired, but is fighting to get his job back. Maybe a video would have supported his story, maybe not. The public has a right to know.
On the other hand, there is North Carolina. A state I've known mostly for progressive advances in education, and basketball, They have gone the other way. Now they are known for a bathroom law, boycotts, limiting voting rights on a racial basis, and now a law that may be used to hide the sins of law enforcement. It's not a good look. It fits right in with Trump's authoritarian view of government.
I just heard on tv that there is a view that releasing video will make cops too timid to do their job. If they feel watched, apparently they won't be willing to do their duty. Now I can understand not wanting to be taped constantly, but in crucial interactions with the public, we gotta have transparency.
Here in Albuquerque cops wear lapel cameras. One officer who had a history of refusing to record interactions with the public, shot and killed a young woman that had stolen a car. During the encounter he said she had pointed a gun at him- he had no choice. There were no witnesses and he had "forgotten" to turn on his camera. He was fired, but is fighting to get his job back. Maybe a video would have supported his story, maybe not. The public has a right to know.
129
I am a North Carolinian and am ashamed and embarrassed at the reputation of a previously progressive state. The take-over of the legislature by the GoP in the last election has destroyed a century of advancements in the state lead by a constantly Democratic legislature.s and governors.
Outside money, agendas cooked up by ALEC as boilerplate and passed into law verbatim by the new Republican legislators, and the back-dealing and condescension of Republican governor McCrory has done more damage to this state and its citizens than we deserve. They have destroyed not only NC's reputation, but business, revenue, jobs, and the public education system.
Luckily, most citizens of NC have realized they were hoodwinked by ALEC, the GOP, and the Koch brothers. Governor McCrory is losing in his race to re-election, as is rRy Moore the conservative Speaker of the NC House. Art Pope, probably the single person most responsible for thie disaster that NC has become is also set to lose his job as the NC Budget Director when McCrory loses the election.
The people of NC have learned our lesson and the people that are forcing these regressive laws, repressing voter rights, and who are overseeing the destruction of public education in NC will be soon gone.
Outside money, agendas cooked up by ALEC as boilerplate and passed into law verbatim by the new Republican legislators, and the back-dealing and condescension of Republican governor McCrory has done more damage to this state and its citizens than we deserve. They have destroyed not only NC's reputation, but business, revenue, jobs, and the public education system.
Luckily, most citizens of NC have realized they were hoodwinked by ALEC, the GOP, and the Koch brothers. Governor McCrory is losing in his race to re-election, as is rRy Moore the conservative Speaker of the NC House. Art Pope, probably the single person most responsible for thie disaster that NC has become is also set to lose his job as the NC Budget Director when McCrory loses the election.
The people of NC have learned our lesson and the people that are forcing these regressive laws, repressing voter rights, and who are overseeing the destruction of public education in NC will be soon gone.
3
Terrible governance
North Carolina's state government has significantly harmed the state this year
The bathroom law, discrimination, voting rights and now this. What are they thinking?
Release the video immediately. If it shows the cops were in the clear then this violent protest would end.
What worries me is that the police may have overstated or lied in their original description of the video. The police originally stated that the video cleared the police. If the video actually makes the police look bad then....
Sigh
North Carolina's state government has significantly harmed the state this year
The bathroom law, discrimination, voting rights and now this. What are they thinking?
Release the video immediately. If it shows the cops were in the clear then this violent protest would end.
What worries me is that the police may have overstated or lied in their original description of the video. The police originally stated that the video cleared the police. If the video actually makes the police look bad then....
Sigh
2
Here's a question I have no one seems to be addressing. If the police were actually in the process of trying to arrest another man wanted on a warrant before they encountered Mr Scott, why were their body cams turned off? To my mind, that in itself should be illegal.
2
What is really happening in all these cases is that people (almost always of color) are being summarily executed without trial. Most often they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Sometimes they are guilty of low-level infractions, which would never merit the death penalty, even in states which still have the death penalty.
This is an intolerable situation. How is it that a whole group of armed police officers are "in fear of their lives" confronting a single suspect who may be armed but very likely is not. Being unable to subdue their victim without lethal force in such a situation is gross incompetence bordering on cowardice.
We heard Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate, speak on this subject recently. He said that he has been stopped by police while driving but he has never been ordered to get out of his car and he knows that even if he ultimately receives a ticket he will not be harassed or provoked to the point where he ends up in handcuffs and is in danger of being shot. Why? Very simply because he is white.
This is an intolerable situation. How is it that a whole group of armed police officers are "in fear of their lives" confronting a single suspect who may be armed but very likely is not. Being unable to subdue their victim without lethal force in such a situation is gross incompetence bordering on cowardice.
We heard Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate, speak on this subject recently. He said that he has been stopped by police while driving but he has never been ordered to get out of his car and he knows that even if he ultimately receives a ticket he will not be harassed or provoked to the point where he ends up in handcuffs and is in danger of being shot. Why? Very simply because he is white.
147
Judy... don't profile. The media likes a certain narrative and selectively reports. Gary Johnson should know better since he is from NM. Check out this video of White man in Alb. being shot by cops. (hint, you won't find front page coverage of this in the NYT).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI
Don't make the mistake of thinking that this only happens to blacks. Don't make the mistake of thinking it can't happen to you (if you are not black). The killings of blacks by police are getting most of the press these days, but it happens to everyone.
Look, my heart goes out to families who have lost a loved one in an unjust and unnecessary shooting. Any such case is deplorable, and any unjustified homicide should be pursued to the full extent of the law. However, the narrative that you are pushing and the blanket statements you've made simply have no facts to back them up.
Let's do some estimates based on recent data.
Fact: # of arrests made in 2012: about 12 million (source FBI).
Fact: # of people shot and killed by police in 2015: about 1146 (source The Guardian).
Assuming the arrests number is typical—it doesn't change wildly year to year—we can say roughly 0.01% or roughly 1/10000 arrests may end up with a suspect being killed by police. This is probably an overestimate since there were more police killings in 2015 compared with recent years.
Fact: 75% of those killed in 2015 were armed (source The Guardian).
Fact: 50% killed were white.
Fact: 27% were black.
These data tell us nothing about the specifics of any case, but do you really wish us to imagine that "all these cases", all 1146, are simply unjust executions? (Because nobody ever shoots back at cops and police never shoot to save lives?) That they "almost always" happen to people of color? (27% is a strange definition of almost always.) That suspects are "very likely" not armed? (25% is very likely?) That whole groups of armed police are grossly incompetent and cowards, even though 99.99% of the time they don't shoot and kill a suspect?
Let's do some estimates based on recent data.
Fact: # of arrests made in 2012: about 12 million (source FBI).
Fact: # of people shot and killed by police in 2015: about 1146 (source The Guardian).
Assuming the arrests number is typical—it doesn't change wildly year to year—we can say roughly 0.01% or roughly 1/10000 arrests may end up with a suspect being killed by police. This is probably an overestimate since there were more police killings in 2015 compared with recent years.
Fact: 75% of those killed in 2015 were armed (source The Guardian).
Fact: 50% killed were white.
Fact: 27% were black.
These data tell us nothing about the specifics of any case, but do you really wish us to imagine that "all these cases", all 1146, are simply unjust executions? (Because nobody ever shoots back at cops and police never shoot to save lives?) That they "almost always" happen to people of color? (27% is a strange definition of almost always.) That suspects are "very likely" not armed? (25% is very likely?) That whole groups of armed police are grossly incompetent and cowards, even though 99.99% of the time they don't shoot and kill a suspect?
I watched the press conference and the PD chief said he would not release video because the family had not seen it. But now the family has seen it and they want it released. The PD is going to lose this battle so better to do it sooner rather than later (as Chicago learned).
1
So much harder to justify killing an unarmed civilian without body cameras.
Oh thank goodness we have them.
Oh wait. Apparently we can only see them from THIS police chief is when the man being shot is actually behaving in a threatening manner.
Killer cops.
They don't go to jail.
Unless the cops themselves happen to be non-white or female.
Oh, like I'm wrong.
Oh thank goodness we have them.
Oh wait. Apparently we can only see them from THIS police chief is when the man being shot is actually behaving in a threatening manner.
Killer cops.
They don't go to jail.
Unless the cops themselves happen to be non-white or female.
Oh, like I'm wrong.
Please make sure Chief Putney and Mayor Roberts see this editorial. Tweet it to them, email it, fax it, send it by courier, anything darn it. And make sure Governor McCrory sees it too. Better yet, send a mass email to the entire NC legislature. Let NC's government know that the entire world is watching them.
2
It just seems to me that the video ultimately belongs to the people of Charlotte. Shine a light.
1
In order to restore trust, any police department needs to release all videos available of any shooting or brutality incident, just so the community knows that there is transparency in the legal process, and that is no chance of a cover up.
Faith in the Criminal Justice System will be achieved if that is always done.
Faith in the Criminal Justice System will be achieved if that is always done.
1
Your article is internally inconsistent and must be clarified. Your next to last paragraph says that the new law on Oct. 1 "allows" police to withhold video footage. The last paragraph says that the Charlotte Police Department is "free" to release the video until Oct. 1. Which statement is correct?
Trust has been lost. Transparency and justice can rebuild it. Any delays suggest a cover-up - and so risk the civil order. Those who argue that the protesters are responsible for the violence must consider what could have been done to diffuse tensions, and why it was not.
3
Often, a city government will defensively circle the wagons upon the advice of its attorneys. The general rule is, "When in doubt, say nothing."
So it was really brave of Chicago Mayor Emanuel to release all the videos of police shootings in his city, an example that should have been held up in this story.
So it was really brave of Chicago Mayor Emanuel to release all the videos of police shootings in his city, an example that should have been held up in this story.
18
The release of the videos in Chicago was not bravery. It was court-ordered.
Since when is evidence in investigations released to the public after a few days? The family accuses the police of planting evidence, as they are clear he did not have a gun, yet there was a gun found on the scene and supposedly one in his hand in video. I can only assume the prosecutors office will review the videos, police testimony, and decide how they wish to proceed. If the police are lying, then they should be charged and prosecuted for manslaughter and tampering with evidence. If the family is lying, then the city should bring a lawsuit against them for partial responsibility of the damage done in the city of Charlotte because of false statements.
In Tulsa, it was clear to the prosecutor on how to proceed against the police officer involved and did so.
In Tulsa, it was clear to the prosecutor on how to proceed against the police officer involved and did so.
18
But the incestuous relationship of police and prosecutors has shown for two hundred years that allowing the "authorities" do decide if the police get prosecuted does not work. For too long cops have had a license to kill with impunity. Only full and complete disclosure of the circumstances of a killing to the public can insure that justice is done.
In Tulsa, the video was immediately released.
1
Your dream of making the US into a fascist police-state? Police gathering and presenting the evidence on possible wrongdoings ot its own unsupervised and intransparently and unwanted witnesses made to shut up with the risk of being charged millions?
I really believe the Times editorial staff should stop telling local governments what to do.
They have the right not release it.
I believe they shouldn't when the video is inclusive as it seems to be in this case.
I believe people will see what they believe happened and will use it as a justification to riot.
Videos as far as I have seen never tell you the story from point of view of the cop.
There are times the cop doesn't know definitively at the time if the suspect has a gun for example.
When we watch the video we know the answer before we see it.
We are therefore judging the cop with information the cop didn't have.
The police department will investigate what happened.
They will see the video and hear the testimony and ask questions that is needed to judge the video.
The public can not do that and is the reason releasing the video serves no real purpose.
They have the right not release it.
I believe they shouldn't when the video is inclusive as it seems to be in this case.
I believe people will see what they believe happened and will use it as a justification to riot.
Videos as far as I have seen never tell you the story from point of view of the cop.
There are times the cop doesn't know definitively at the time if the suspect has a gun for example.
When we watch the video we know the answer before we see it.
We are therefore judging the cop with information the cop didn't have.
The police department will investigate what happened.
They will see the video and hear the testimony and ask questions that is needed to judge the video.
The public can not do that and is the reason releasing the video serves no real purpose.
21
This strikes me as an odd comment. When I meet people on the street I don't know if they have weapons, and still I feel no urge to have one myself and point it at the others.
In a sivilized nation, the police officers don't shoot at people just because they don't know if they have weapons. When the police mistakenly believe that people have arms, it is interesting to see just how little basis there was for that belief.
Perhaps the guys who shot Tamir Rice withih two seconds of arrival, ar just too nervous to serve as police.
In a sivilized nation, the police officers don't shoot at people just because they don't know if they have weapons. When the police mistakenly believe that people have arms, it is interesting to see just how little basis there was for that belief.
Perhaps the guys who shot Tamir Rice withih two seconds of arrival, ar just too nervous to serve as police.
7
Ridiculous on all counts.
If the video doesn't show conclusively what happened then people can make their own judgments when they see it - but not having a video makes people come to their own conclusions with even less information.
So you are saying that if a cop doesn't know if I have a gun or not then he is perfectly free to shoot me dead?
And do you really think the police seeing the video and asking questions and hearing officer's testimony IN PRIVATE AND IN SECRET and announcing the verdict with no input from the citizens is a good idea?
And I have news for you - the "public", also known as citizens, have been making these decisions in juries since the birth of the nation.
If the video doesn't show conclusively what happened then people can make their own judgments when they see it - but not having a video makes people come to their own conclusions with even less information.
So you are saying that if a cop doesn't know if I have a gun or not then he is perfectly free to shoot me dead?
And do you really think the police seeing the video and asking questions and hearing officer's testimony IN PRIVATE AND IN SECRET and announcing the verdict with no input from the citizens is a good idea?
And I have news for you - the "public", also known as citizens, have been making these decisions in juries since the birth of the nation.
8
You make a good point about Monday-morning quarterbacking. It's often easy to see the 'truth' when we can play an event back in slow motion. Other times a video doesn't catch the perfect angle so it's inconclusive...yet folks today expect a perfect video of every event.
Despite these drawbacks, I still contend timely release of any and all video is a key part of maintaining trust. If it turns out to be inconclusive, we can all see and decide that as a group rather than making our individual assumptions...
Despite these drawbacks, I still contend timely release of any and all video is a key part of maintaining trust. If it turns out to be inconclusive, we can all see and decide that as a group rather than making our individual assumptions...
3
The effect of the stupid, dangerous "carry laws" engendered fear in all of society. Police have always had a problem with ready, easy use of firearms. Now with the terrifying idea that anyone anywhere might be "packing" society is further endangered. The right wing state governments (right wing because of gerrymandering) have helped bring this nightmare on us all. I just returned from 3 months in Europe. They are horrified and aghast at the idea that citizens, anywhere, anytime can carry guns in the USA. We are like a 3rd world country in this regard.
3
There are many shocking and disturbing facets about Charlotte but one is that the police chief should realize he is only increasing the possibility of more violence, more boycotting, and more financial spending by trying to protect the officer who shot Mr. Crutcher. How dumb can one be!
I'm sure the DOJ will interfere more and more if this police chief keeps up his entitled and stupid coverups.
I'm sure the DOJ will interfere more and more if this police chief keeps up his entitled and stupid coverups.
3
There are 7.2 billion humans on this planet. We all have problems but, at least in the first world, only the USA seems able to create such intransigent and unnecessary problems for itself.
Yeah, I know, exceptionally difficult problems for an exceptional people. Blah, blah.
If you weren't so exceptional then you could take a leaf out of our book here in Oz. My wife and I can still own guns. But since Port Arthur, under our state laws, we have be currently licenced, to register our guns and secure them properly. And we can't strut down the street with them on display.
Yeah, I know, exceptionally difficult problems for an exceptional people. Blah, blah.
If you weren't so exceptional then you could take a leaf out of our book here in Oz. My wife and I can still own guns. But since Port Arthur, under our state laws, we have be currently licenced, to register our guns and secure them properly. And we can't strut down the street with them on display.
2
Everything looks better in the sunshine. What are you hiding, Charlotte?
1
Why is the NYT encouraging the corruption of due process. They can release the evidence AFTER the investigation is complete. To do so before the completion of any investigation would compromise the integrity of that investigation. Even the police are entitled, and guaranteed by law, due process. Appeasement to mob rule and anarchy is no way to settle the situation.
nyt
nyt
1
How in the world does releasing the video in any way interfere with the police investigation?
It should be released for the greater good. But it does cause a problem if and when there should be a trial. And it is most likely not going to resolve the question of how and why, but it will show that the police department isn't hiding evidence of a crime from the public. The rancor and distrust remain, perhaps with a microgram less of suspicion.
We need constant effort to bring police and populace together, not because there is ever going to be complete mutual respect and acceptance, but because without constantly hashing out the frictions, we face societal breakdowns.
We need constant effort to bring police and populace together, not because there is ever going to be complete mutual respect and acceptance, but because without constantly hashing out the frictions, we face societal breakdowns.
At a time when the police-public relations at many places in America appear to have been strained rather ruptured beyond repair, and there is discernible trust deficit between the two sides, it is essential to restore the lost trust by refurbishing the police image in society through better transparency and accountability in its conduct. For, not only would it help improve policing but also ensure better civic cooperation in the maintenance of order and law enforcement which is crucial to achieve social peace and harmony. With such advantages to its side it's prudent and pragmatic on the part of the Charlotte police to release the video of the police shooting of the Black teenager.
6
It would serve the people of Southern-Confederate States- which were in treasonous rebellion against the US and which killed tens of thousands of Union soldiers in an absurd effort to keep the institution of slavery going ,even at the cost of starvation and death of a large portion of it's poorer residents, those who did the actual fighting-(slave owners were legally exempt from fighting or service in the army. Wealthy and with "pull" in the state houses, which were centers of authority until the end of the war. Slave owners depended on the poor of their states to carry the burden of war while they enjoyed or abused it's fruits.
Today, the former center of authority among the slaveocracy has moved to center among police departments-often well desegregated, the new mentality and perception of these organizations is that they are above and beyond the responsibility of ordinary mortals and do not need to follow laws they demand "civilians " follow. Police have thus invented a new type of crime"Civilian on civilian". This is to separate it from civilian crimes against police or uniformed state authority". Police and other uniformed workers with powerful unions are held to have special rights and privileges which ordinary members of society-like us voters and regular folk, who are now subjects of the police-a new force of Knights, among us. As in Roman times before the Dark Ages, the jobs of the police- knights may be made heritable-(as they almost are, now, in NYC).
Today, the former center of authority among the slaveocracy has moved to center among police departments-often well desegregated, the new mentality and perception of these organizations is that they are above and beyond the responsibility of ordinary mortals and do not need to follow laws they demand "civilians " follow. Police have thus invented a new type of crime"Civilian on civilian". This is to separate it from civilian crimes against police or uniformed state authority". Police and other uniformed workers with powerful unions are held to have special rights and privileges which ordinary members of society-like us voters and regular folk, who are now subjects of the police-a new force of Knights, among us. As in Roman times before the Dark Ages, the jobs of the police- knights may be made heritable-(as they almost are, now, in NYC).
1
Organized sports and big business leaving the state, cops killing black guys with their arms up in surrender. Yesiree, GOP leadership is really moving the state forward and showing the world what southern hospitality is all about.
169
Hey, but it's a military-friendly state, or so say the billboards along I-95. Not friendly to many others, apparently. When I drive to Florida in the future I'll gas up and eat in SC or VA and never make a stop in NC again nor spend a nickel there unless the car breaks down.
3
And make sure you are white if your car does break down. More than one stranded black motorist has been mistaken for a "bad guy" and blown away.
1
"By contrast, the Police Department in Charlotte, N.C., has responded in exactly the wrong way to a police officer’s killing on Tuesday of another black man, Keith Scott. "
Actually, the cop who shot Keith Scott is also black. This is missing from your reporting and your editorial.
The NYT made an editorial decision a decade ago to no longer describe the race of perpetrators, so that readers are treated to ludicrous descriptions of perps as "6' tall, thin, mid-thirties" but we are not old enough to know the race of the perp, because it might offend.
However, when it comes to "black lives matter," a cause the Times supports, every cop shooting now has the race of all involved. Like magic, the Times ' concern of "offending" dissipates for the sake of fanning the flames. And many times, the cops are black, as in Baltimore, as is the judge, the DA, etc.
So how about the Times cease describing the Oklahoma female cop as "white." After all, the race of the cop in irrelevant, unless in this editorial you also point out that the Charlotte police chief, who refuses to release the video, is also black.
But our President hands out civic medals to the likes of Al Sharpton, the racial hustler who once taunted NYC with a phony racial assault, and who should be in jail.
And oh yeah, Al Sharpton is black. But our President is actually white, that is if you describe just his Mom.
So how about being consistent in your reporting and help turn down the racial flame.
Actually, the cop who shot Keith Scott is also black. This is missing from your reporting and your editorial.
The NYT made an editorial decision a decade ago to no longer describe the race of perpetrators, so that readers are treated to ludicrous descriptions of perps as "6' tall, thin, mid-thirties" but we are not old enough to know the race of the perp, because it might offend.
However, when it comes to "black lives matter," a cause the Times supports, every cop shooting now has the race of all involved. Like magic, the Times ' concern of "offending" dissipates for the sake of fanning the flames. And many times, the cops are black, as in Baltimore, as is the judge, the DA, etc.
So how about the Times cease describing the Oklahoma female cop as "white." After all, the race of the cop in irrelevant, unless in this editorial you also point out that the Charlotte police chief, who refuses to release the video, is also black.
But our President hands out civic medals to the likes of Al Sharpton, the racial hustler who once taunted NYC with a phony racial assault, and who should be in jail.
And oh yeah, Al Sharpton is black. But our President is actually white, that is if you describe just his Mom.
So how about being consistent in your reporting and help turn down the racial flame.
37
What difference does it make what race the Police Murderer is? He killed an unarmed man when he could have -- and should have -- de-escalated the situation instead.
8
What difference does it make if the shooter was black?
1
The media has become a big orgy of money and ratings. We (the people) are as good as the men and women whom inform us, too bad that those whom "inform" these days are...
I'm just going to toss this out there. Most police departments recruit from the military where soldiers are taught to kill. Maybe this isn't such a great idea. Maybe we should recruit police from the civilian community where they are taught to resolve issues before using force. Instead of aggressively advancing, maybe they should learn to back off. Of course, this does not apply to a violent situation. But casual stops should not result in death.
176
Actually you are only partially correct as evidenced by trying Blackwater operatives for killing Iraqi Civilians. In police action (I policed in Gaza as part of IDF in 1976) you really do not want to come out with guns blazing killing enemy civilians. In this case these are your fellow citizen civilians so the murderous tendency owes itself to the "Total Force" approach in training with built up contempt to civilians and the thin blue line nonsense the cops are indoctrinated into. Add to that powerful unions and the "Tail Wagging the Dog" attitude that discourages exposing bad cops and the "Military Training" is immaterial.
1
The police have become an occupying army and this is why.
3
That is a very good idea. I would apply to be a cop, but I'm a Transgender woman who works in medical marijuana in Colorado. I don't think any police department would hire me, even though I went to MIT and grew up in Colorado.
2
Charlotte, NC, my hometown. You are better than this! Release the video and make transparent the process of evaluating the ramifications of this tragedy. Learn the lessons from other communities who have failed to trust their citizens and felt the consequences.
40
Charlotte Police Department, you have only one move. Release the video. This is not going away. And people will imagine the video shows things that are even worse than they actually are if you keep hiding it.
64
It has long been my understanding that anything that is produced by a government agency is public property. The taxpayers paid for its production. Therefore, with rare exceptions (such as secret documents related to national security), the government must release any documents or anything else it produces (including videos) upon the request of the public.
121
You grossly oversimplify: What you claim has apparently long been your misunderstanding.
Not so. The video is potential evidence in a criminal trial and so is subject to withholding from public view as it can result in prejudging and precluding a fair trial for the defendant. The constitutional prerogative for "Justice" and the rights of the accused takes gross precedence over a public's prurient interest in wanting to know all the "facts" before a trial has even commenced. Not even close.
My heart breaks for the African American community, again.
All over television I am seeing images of rioting and violent protest in Charlotte. It's wrong, of course. We are constantly reminded that the Black community is welcome to protest peacefully and with civility - surely that will get their message across.
Oh, wait...they tried that. Starting last month, Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players took to their knee during the playing of the National Anthem as a peaceful but powerful moment of solidarity with the Black community. The reaction for the right wing - including a painfully tone-deaf column by David Brooks right here in The Times last week - has been to castigate this silent act. They call it unpatriotic. Divisive. Race-baiting. As if the piles of dead black bodies at the hands of over-zealous police officers means less than the options of an NFL pre-game show. Think about that - the kneeling upsets people more than the deaths. The Black community simply cannot win.
I don't in any way condone the rioting, but I'm certainly starting to understand it better. God knows that if whites were subjected to a fraction of the injury and the insult that the Black community has, we would have burned this country to the ground by now.
All over television I am seeing images of rioting and violent protest in Charlotte. It's wrong, of course. We are constantly reminded that the Black community is welcome to protest peacefully and with civility - surely that will get their message across.
Oh, wait...they tried that. Starting last month, Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players took to their knee during the playing of the National Anthem as a peaceful but powerful moment of solidarity with the Black community. The reaction for the right wing - including a painfully tone-deaf column by David Brooks right here in The Times last week - has been to castigate this silent act. They call it unpatriotic. Divisive. Race-baiting. As if the piles of dead black bodies at the hands of over-zealous police officers means less than the options of an NFL pre-game show. Think about that - the kneeling upsets people more than the deaths. The Black community simply cannot win.
I don't in any way condone the rioting, but I'm certainly starting to understand it better. God knows that if whites were subjected to a fraction of the injury and the insult that the Black community has, we would have burned this country to the ground by now.
456
Indeed, if Donald Trump loses the election, we may yet get a taste of just how white protesters might react to their Golden Boy's loss, which is obviously so much worse than black victims of questionable police violence losing their lives.
1
I do not condone nor do I understand the rioting as an effective means of protest. It does seem to assist in successful looting and in getting innocents killed and injured. I disagree with your assessment of what God knows.
2
Wonderfully put. Thank you.
Having seen the much replayed helicopter video of the incident I can only say that it puzzles me.
I wondered why the officers were clustered behind the left rear corner of the vehicle, a position that effectively cut their line of sight to the vehicle's driver side door and window. There was ample space across the road, to their left, which could have placed one of them in a position behind Mr. Crutcher that would provided a line of sight to the car door and helped to determine whether or not he was about to do something violent.
Were they seeking shelter? If so, they may have been throwing away critical point of view in assessing the situation as well as a tactical advantage in addition to creating a target cluster if Mr. Crutcher had intended violence, which does not seem apparent from the shifting point of view of this video. Without other visual confirmation too much is left to the imagination.
The lack of clarity only serves to heighten mistrust and escalate the potential for more violence, endangering innocent lives that police departments are pledged to protect in addition to their own. This is no service to the community or the nation.
The video should be released before further damage is done. The sooner, the better.
I wondered why the officers were clustered behind the left rear corner of the vehicle, a position that effectively cut their line of sight to the vehicle's driver side door and window. There was ample space across the road, to their left, which could have placed one of them in a position behind Mr. Crutcher that would provided a line of sight to the car door and helped to determine whether or not he was about to do something violent.
Were they seeking shelter? If so, they may have been throwing away critical point of view in assessing the situation as well as a tactical advantage in addition to creating a target cluster if Mr. Crutcher had intended violence, which does not seem apparent from the shifting point of view of this video. Without other visual confirmation too much is left to the imagination.
The lack of clarity only serves to heighten mistrust and escalate the potential for more violence, endangering innocent lives that police departments are pledged to protect in addition to their own. This is no service to the community or the nation.
The video should be released before further damage is done. The sooner, the better.
23
@Cab New York - I am no longer writing comments but seek comments that say something I want said, something that for example should have been noted by reporters from the beginning. Your comment is the first such I have found. Let us hear someone put this question to the police in Tulsa. Guess they are told, make yourself a target so someone with a rapid fire weapon can take all of you down unless you kill him.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US Se
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US Se
3
Agreed. No question. I'm getting sick of the word transparency, but it certainly applies here.
14
US Congress should pass legislation requiring all police departments nationwide to both record and make public ALL police encounters - 24/7
16
I'd prefer they make the police force one-third to one-half African-American women. That will improve the status of African-American women, reform the police force, and improve police-community relations.
We know that if the video showed the victim brandishing a weapon in a threatening way that it would have been released. So, we understand why its not being released. Justice is not being served.
70
I think it would be nice to hear EITHER presidential candidate's thoughts on the importance of openness and transparency in government. I defy either of them to lecture anybody else about how hiding information from the public and dodging hard questions erodes trust in government institutions. This is an excellent opportunity from any of them to highlight the many examples of their openness and accessibility that has helped alleviate controversy and suspicion. Surely their respective reputations as champions of government transparency will provide such a powerful example to law enforcement that they will abandon their secrecy and commit themselves to winning back the trust of minority communities!
So Mr. Trump... Secretary Clinton... which of you would like to lead off?
So Mr. Trump... Secretary Clinton... which of you would like to lead off?
6
Why bother with due process at all?
So much easier to have a trial-by-media with the NYTs the judge, jury, and executioner.
So much easier to have a trial-by-media with the NYTs the judge, jury, and executioner.
6
Executioner? By a newspaper? One difference between NYT and the CPD is the reporters don't have guns, handcuffs, jails and judges on their side. Only some digital ink and curiosity. Example: Anthony Weiner is embarrassed and out of office, but he isn't dead.
7
Or a trial by impromptu police firing squad like what happened Tuesday. Due process indeed.
7
That's a remarkably ironic comment, since the police actually did act as judge, jury and executioner in the case of Keith Scott.
5
There is a good argument for not releasing the videos until all key witnesses have been interviewed, so that the witness testimony will not be compromised by what they see in the videos.
But after those interviews, which should be compete in a day or two after the incident, there is no reason I can think of for not releasing the videos.
But after those interviews, which should be compete in a day or two after the incident, there is no reason I can think of for not releasing the videos.
21
Good point.
Yes, I agree release the video. Let all of see the truth. When it ultimately comes down to it, the truth is in the eyes of the beholder.
12
If the video showed clearly that the victim was pointing a gun at the police officers, you can bet that the video would have been released post haste.
The Democratic mayor, you said, "seems largely at sea and distressingly out of touch." Apparently she just came ashore and declared a curfew for the city starting at midnight. Nothing about the video, though the family saw the video on Thursday and urged its immediate release.
The mayor and the police chief are irresponsible and are putting that city in peril by their inaction. They should be booted out of there post haste.
The Democratic mayor, you said, "seems largely at sea and distressingly out of touch." Apparently she just came ashore and declared a curfew for the city starting at midnight. Nothing about the video, though the family saw the video on Thursday and urged its immediate release.
The mayor and the police chief are irresponsible and are putting that city in peril by their inaction. They should be booted out of there post haste.
48
There needs to be federal/state oversight in any police shooting- fatal or otherwise. No friendly prosecutor/DA. No biased local police chief.
Independent investigators who can bring criminal charges are a necessary first step to show the police/community that individual officers will be held accountable and must conform to the rule of law.
Independent investigators who can bring criminal charges are a necessary first step to show the police/community that individual officers will be held accountable and must conform to the rule of law.
38
I agree that federal standards need to be imposed on how these situations are handled. Leaving it to individual police departments doesn't always work as in this case of Charlotte. It leaves too much to individual judgement which may be motivated by fear of the truth getting out if the police look like they've acted improperly.
2
i guess in Tulsa it's okay to kill people you get paid leave and everything. This is a strange world we live in folks.
10
Not exactly, KL, not this time in Tulsa as it turned out. Even so this is a strange world.
2
Enough is enough. We militarized the police force to our peril. Thanks to the "War on Drugs" and its assault on Constitutional rights, they have been operating with impunity. No longer are they neighborhood beat cops watching out, but are instead enforcers of some random rule of law. We reap as we sow.
Enough.
Enough.
103
It is so transparent what the Charlotte police are not being transparent about. There will always be excuses. As for public trust, I doubt they really care about it. But when they need it, they will be angry they don't have it.
23
"it showed the young man moving away from the officers when one of them executed him."
This is good. We're finally going to talk about these things using frank, adult language that best describes the situation. They didn't "shoot" they "executed."
This is good. We're finally going to talk about these things using frank, adult language that best describes the situation. They didn't "shoot" they "executed."
185
I agree and disagree Thomas. The word "executed" implies that Keith Scott was a criminal. We execute criminals. He was an innocent man. He was not executed. If we are going to use frank language, let's tell it like it is - he was murdered.
1
They didn't "shoot" him. They shot him 16 times.
1
Political leaders often argue about the need for transparency and accountability, especially where tax dollars are at work. Well, videos of violent police encounters fall under this rallying cry. Police are on the public dime and should be fully transparent and accountable, including through recordings.
This is not a small talking point either - the police wield the power of life or death.
This is not a small talking point either - the police wield the power of life or death.
76
There is a State of Emergency in Charlotte, NC and the more that comes out with tensions so high, the trickier it's going to be to keep people under control once the video is released. We all know that everyone will see it differently and it will just add fuel to the fire.
We have the tool now, the cams, and this video will come out probably in less than a week. Has anyone read about the young officer who shot the man? We do not need to be impatient and make the problem bigger. From all I have read about this shooting, it does not parallel the one in Tulsa. It will come out but in the meantime, ranting about it will just make things worse. We need to be calm.
We have the tool now, the cams, and this video will come out probably in less than a week. Has anyone read about the young officer who shot the man? We do not need to be impatient and make the problem bigger. From all I have read about this shooting, it does not parallel the one in Tulsa. It will come out but in the meantime, ranting about it will just make things worse. We need to be calm.
2
That police are afraid of accountability reveals that we aren't much better off than many 3rd world countries in that regard.
I can't think of a single developed nation that let's it's police engage in wanton murder with zero accountability.
The worst part about it, the basket of deplorables that always go on a screed about government overreach, Obama/Hillary martial law, you name it. Are ever so jubilant whenever a black man is killed by an officer and no one is held accountable. They celebrate extrajudicial executions, and have a man named Donald J. Trump to stroke their fragile egos.
I can't think of a single developed nation that let's it's police engage in wanton murder with zero accountability.
The worst part about it, the basket of deplorables that always go on a screed about government overreach, Obama/Hillary martial law, you name it. Are ever so jubilant whenever a black man is killed by an officer and no one is held accountable. They celebrate extrajudicial executions, and have a man named Donald J. Trump to stroke their fragile egos.
44
In the UK, police shot and killed a man last month. It was the first police killing this year.
1
It's gonna come out sooner or later anyway, during litigation. Might as delay it so it doesn't cause more turmoil and potentially injuries in violent protests
5
And didn't that work well in Chicago!
2
Why do you think there are violent protests now? Because there's an assumption that the video shows that this was a police murder and because the police are stonewalling. Might as well release it - the damage has been done already.
5
There's no good reason to withhold the video. It belongs to the People of Charlotte. Just release it.
75
Nah - evidence.
1
A civilian who caused the death of another human being under vaguely similar circumstances would have been, at the very least, arrested, charged with manslaughter of one degree or another and, perhaps, released, upon the posting of a financially substantial bond. When an officer of the law pulls the trigger, the result is, not to put too fine a point on it, a paid vacation.
81
Police officers are civilians. Only active duty military people are non-civilians.
1
And that's by design. Arresting a cop every time one is engaged in a shooting would destroy law enforcement. That's why law officers are by law given special agency. They are entrusted with protecting the public; while you are not. And so they are allowed to shoot; and rightfully so; you are not and open to greater questioning.
Technically, Chris, you may be correct, but those in law enforcement frequently refer to those not in that line of work as civilians.
Charlotte, NC, my hometown. You're better than this! Release the video and make transparent your process of considering the ramifications of this tragedy. Learn from all the other U.S. cities that have tried to cover up and felt the consequences.
169
It's neither folly nor stonewalling. It is part of a police investigation. And the media should stop trying to prey on these very few tragic incidents. It is the headlines, all barked up, that drum up the violence and destruction in the aftermath of the initial tragedy. Perhaps the media could focus/report on the police threshold for use of deadly force in an impartial way and educate readers instead of whipping them up into a law-breaking mob.
50
I get the feeling you're not a black man.
7
Kimbo, perhaps the media will stop reporting on our deadly and racist police tactics when there are no more such incidents.
Until then, I say thank you and keep up the good work NYTs!
Until then, I say thank you and keep up the good work NYTs!
12
Kimbo, have you failed to read the responses of others here? It is the lack of critical understanding that has made the violence necessary to "Stop The Police Killings of Blacks!" You and all white America need to spend one day in the fearful shoes of every black person and then you would have a vision of the trouble we face.
While this is dividing the nation at a critical time, it is still a life or death issue in black America. We have to stand at the time of the killings, tomorrow may not come if we don't.
While this is dividing the nation at a critical time, it is still a life or death issue in black America. We have to stand at the time of the killings, tomorrow may not come if we don't.
10
This is beginning to feel like the 60's when the cops were at war with the black community. It was awful back then. Has it always been like this and only since the advent of video are we finding out about it?
Back then, there weren't as many guns on the streets. Open carry and concealed carry was unheard of. Now in most states, anyone can pack pistol without restrictions. You think that maybe the cops are on edge because of the proliferation of guns on the street? Possibly?
See, the problem with guns is that they deliver lethal force instantaneously. There is no way to moderate the rate that the force is delivered. Shooting anyone anywhere in the body can lead to death from blood loss even if the trauma doesn't kill you. This causes the police to react with a hair trigger. Can't blame them for that.
We can blame them for having such fear of black males. It's as if all black males are viewed super villains that can rip a person apart at will. They really can't you know.
This fear of the black male killing monster is real and pervasive. Better shoot first. Don't take any chances.
How do train away this kind of fear? How do you keep cool when there are guns everywhere? How do you have a civilized society when everyone is armed to the teeth and the cops shoot anything that moves?
Stop being so confrontational. Stand down. Calm down. Stop helping so much. Shooting people doesn't help.
Back then, there weren't as many guns on the streets. Open carry and concealed carry was unheard of. Now in most states, anyone can pack pistol without restrictions. You think that maybe the cops are on edge because of the proliferation of guns on the street? Possibly?
See, the problem with guns is that they deliver lethal force instantaneously. There is no way to moderate the rate that the force is delivered. Shooting anyone anywhere in the body can lead to death from blood loss even if the trauma doesn't kill you. This causes the police to react with a hair trigger. Can't blame them for that.
We can blame them for having such fear of black males. It's as if all black males are viewed super villains that can rip a person apart at will. They really can't you know.
This fear of the black male killing monster is real and pervasive. Better shoot first. Don't take any chances.
How do train away this kind of fear? How do you keep cool when there are guns everywhere? How do you have a civilized society when everyone is armed to the teeth and the cops shoot anything that moves?
Stop being so confrontational. Stand down. Calm down. Stop helping so much. Shooting people doesn't help.
96
"How do train away this kind of fear? How do you keep cool when there are guns everywhere? How do you have a civilized society when everyone is armed to the teeth and the cops shoot anything that moves?"
Perhaps the NRA should be requested (? required) to provide an answer.
Perhaps the NRA should be requested (? required) to provide an answer.
5
The killing of black Americans by police goes back along ways. The black community has always been aware of this and are wary of police at all levels and in all localities. It is the advent of digital cameras that has changed the dynamic. Now we can prove it in court.
3
DId you bother to note that the Charlotte cop was himself black? Does your fear theory still fit? Possible, I guess, if you are willing to say that Blacks and Whites are equally afraid of Blacks.
Have to support the editors on this one 100%. The Charlotte cops assert that the video supports the police position but resist releasing it. Even those who support them can’t help but conclude that it DOESN’T support their version of events. From someone who remembers Richard Nixon VERY well, it’s the cover-up that kills you, not an act that you can condemn and try to put behind you.
There have been so MANY deaths of unarmed blacks at the hands of police. While honest cops around the country are reacting to all the resulting opprobrium by backing off normal policing duties that could place them in challenging circumstances, it remains that we MUST change.
There may come a time when we do, at which time the name of every black American who died, unarmed but shot to death by a cop should be placed on a monument in Washington, D.C.
There have been so MANY deaths of unarmed blacks at the hands of police. While honest cops around the country are reacting to all the resulting opprobrium by backing off normal policing duties that could place them in challenging circumstances, it remains that we MUST change.
There may come a time when we do, at which time the name of every black American who died, unarmed but shot to death by a cop should be placed on a monument in Washington, D.C.
150
Thank you, Richard, for not blaming Keith Scott for being black.
13
Come October 1 the N.C. authorities will have cover under the newly enacted law prohibiting the release of these videos. This will save the public from the horror of having to watch as they arrest all those using bathrooms not reserved for their birth gender, and the many, many fraudulent voters trying to steal elections. I suspect it will endure an expanded interpretation by their state supreme court to further cover surveillance cameras at donut shops, behind billboards and in back alleys on third shift. Come next election, I hope and pray Dennis Rodman runs for governor, and wins.
1
Actually it was a BULLET that killed him. Thats why we should get guns out of America.
One has to wonder why police departments and their associates (prosecutors, government officials) so often refuse to release videos. Or, one would have to, it it weren't that so often they show police committing wanton murder without consequences. To anyone who objects to that characterization, how many names must you be reminded of?
183
The same prosecutors who stonewall when wrongly-convicted people are exonerated? Who insist that the case was good and that they did their job? Those prosecutors?
25
Yes, Thomas, and a North Carolina law goes into effect next week that prohibits the release of law enforcement video. Racists love to hide their hate behind "christianity".
3