This might be the last police video from North Carolina you'll ever see


#1

CNN:

This might be the last police video from North Carolina you’ll ever see

Police Department of the fatal encounter between officers and Keith Lamont Scott could be the last such footage that North Carolina authorities share with the public.Scott died on September 20. In the five days since the shooting, protesters have demanded that Charlotte Police release video footage of the incident.
Initially, Police Chief Kerr Putney chose not to immediately release the camera footage, only doing so amid pressure from the public. Release of another video from one of Scott’s family members also added to the calls for police to release their footage.
Putney’s decision may be one of the final times a police chief will relent to public pressure.
That’s because a new law that goes into effect on October 1, exactly one week after the Scott footage was released, is set to block the public from obtaining similar kinds of recordings from body cameras or dashboard cameras.

The whole story?

[LIST]****

[/LIST]

New North Carolina law blocks release of police cam footage 01:31

Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the legislation two months ago, has said the law would balance “public trust” with the rights and safety of police officers.
In an interview this week with CNN, the Republican governor and one-time mayor of Charlotte doubled down his support for the measure.
It’s about “respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer,” he said.
“One viewpoint of a video doesn’t often always tell the whole story,” McCrory said. “The angles can make a difference, and [you’re] not hearing [the sound] often in the video, so that [adds to] the complexity. The video is one piece of evidence. We have to be careful.”

The sudden concern for the Constitutional rights of officers is certainly touching, too bad such concern isn’t extended to the public.
Then again while police refuse to release videos per se they often make free with what the videos supposedly show. This allows them to control the narrative and try to turn the subject of the shooting into a criminal.

From crime scene photos released Scott had a gun, an ankle holster and a blunt. Apparently the conclusion we’re supposed to draw is that gun (even in the holster?) plus pot = deadly threat to cops.

Last, NC is an open carry state. Simply having a gun or even having it in his hand should not be considered suspicious behavior. Apparently the Second Amendment is only for whites.


#2

A lot of absurd conclusions you have drawn here. I do believe that what the officers took issue with was his refusal to drop the gun when lawfully ordered to and the threat they all perceived from it. The shooting appears to be justified in every way.

Its not like the videos wont be seen by those who need to (for example grand juries if officer misconduct is alleged). Any nothing about the entire incident had anything to do with race so your closing line is completely inappropriate. Keep in mind he was shot by a black officer, and even if the officer was white it does not mean it was not justified.


#3

Keith Lamont Scott was a convicted felon with no legal right to carry a weapon.

Seriously though, implying that all racial minorities are felons? Shame on you. :tsktsk:


#4

I was generally in support of police cameras and disclosure thereof until a lawyer friend showed me a video of a drunk driver. Cops put suspected drunk drivers through all sorts of tests. The driver performed extremely well, the only flaw being in his heel-to-toe walk. It was kind of zigzag. But then, watching more of it, I realized the guy was what is sometimes referred to as “crow-toed”, that is, his feet angled outward (as opposed to “pigeon-toed” where they angle inward). In other words, he couldn’t walk straight heel-to-toe drunk or sober. The driver did cross the ouside white line a couple of times on a bridge, but lots of people do that.

But the guy still struck the cop as intoxicated based on what I guess was the combination of all things and the cop’s experience with drunks. When he blew the breathalyzer at the station, he registered .12 on the breathalyzer, well over our state’s “drunk” level. So, the cop’s judgment pretty much seems to have been right and the film’s seeming result was wrong.

I have since been skeptical of videos.


#5

:thumbsup:


#6

The direction we appear to be heading is that police no longer have the presumption of innocence. The worst case will always be assumed.


#7

Open carry never is allowed while in possession of illegal drugs (or at bars, while intoxicated and a few other exceptions, depending on the state.)


#8

Juries will still grant them that presumption. Groups like BLM fail in this area. While I support some of their goals, I think it is undeniable that BLM commits the same sins for which they castigate police and society at large. The miss the similarity between, “Raise your hands, don’t shoot,” and "Wait for the jury, don’t judge."Until they open their own eyes to their prejudice, their contributions to this problem will be tainted.

Oh, and as to the limitation of videos, here are two videos, with just a little difference in perspective. The first appears to be a shooting of a black man in the back. The second is chilling, as it shows how close the officers came to being killed.

!!!View with caution!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=Mv6I-3ETfhM


#9

I wouldn’t make too much out of the law. I believe prior to that the local police could decide to release or not release the video. That meant that they would release it if was favorable to them and would not if it was not. This law doesn’t really change that.

As much as it is good to hold officers accountable you also have to be concerned about the privacy of citizens. With police now routinely making recordings any interaction with them could mean there is a public record. If it is a public record then the public would have a right to view that video. This could be a huge privacy invasion for citizens. It is like how in some states the concealed carry registries were public records. This allowed annoying news agencies to release a database of home address.

Of more concern to me is how they handle discipline records of police officers and all government workers. They treat them as personal employment information. This means the public, supposedly the people in charge, have no meaningful oversight.


#10

But if they have nothing to hide…


#11

Police should release videos for every Facebook lawyer as soon as criminals start releasing videos of thier crimes.


#12

That is an interesting point. I think of most things in light of the Golden Rule. How public would I want my personnel record?

I looked up how video is handled in Texas, by the way. Release is optional for an agency, at least at first. If someone wants a video released, then they have to file a request for release under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually, if the agency does not want to release it, then a hearing will be held and a judge will determine if it is to be released or not.


#13

The demand for immediate release of evidence contributes only to a premature and dangerous ‘trial by media’. Riots are a natural consequence, which benefits only the media, with truth being lost in the shuffle. Who is funding all of this? Who benefits from the sudden and spreading unrest and anarchy? There is a much larger issue here.


#14

Why do you assume that jury members won’t be influenced by media reports of rioting and shootings? Juries are going to be made up of people from the Charlotte community.


#15

Ummm, open carry does NOT mean you can brandish a gun. Where did you ever get such a wrong idea?

Open carry means you can wear a gun in a holster. You can’t draw your weapon and brandish it unless there is sufficient threat.


#16

On the same day that a police officer fatally shot Keith Lamont Scott, 5 other men were killed by police across the United States. All 5 of those men were white. Now granted, not one of those white men could be called a model citizen, but neither could Keith Lamont Scott. Outside of local news sources, the 5 white men killed by police received no national news coverage, yet almost every single news broadcast I see or hear mentions the police shooting in Charlotte. Anyone else see a double standard here ?


#17

I assumed nothing, just like you did not assume that a jury would be influenced. We are both speaking in generally. A “trial by the media” might influence a jury, or it may not. However, the** goal **of any prosecutor, defense attorney or judge is to remove that influence. I guess this is easier in some places, like Texas. Those who have seen a lot of media coverage, or seen the videos, are disqualified from service. A judge may even grant a change of venue if he thinks this will help pick an impartial jury. Tainting the jury pool is one reason why an agency may not release evidence in an on-going investigation. Finally, if the defendant still believes he cannot get a fair trial, he can always request a trial by judge, who is trained on judging only on evidence presented in open court.

It is really kind of shameful and lowbrow when a self-appointed community “leader” holds the justice system hostage with civil unrest and violence. The cry for justice rings false when the mob is subverting justice by their actions.


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.