seamusTX wrote:Trying to stay on topic here, search for Erik Scott, Las Vegas, shooting. Only local Las Vegas media and RKBA forums seem to care. Otherwise it is just another police shooting of a "suspect," which happens several times a day in the U.S.
That's depressing, but not surprising. In the national media's mindset, what is the difference between this case and the Amadou Diallo case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With NYPD plainclothes approaching, Diallo reached into his pocket and pulled out an object (turned out to be his wallet) and was obscured by darkness, backlit by an interior hallway light behind him. An NYPD plainclothes officer didn't remember the four rules, and fired off a round when he tripped on a curb because his finger was not properly indexed. The officers were charged but later acquitted. The Diallo family sued for $61 million and settled for $3 million. The media had a field day with this case, countless politicians, activists, singers and other Hollywood types denounced the NYPD.
Scott either did or did not reach for something. There may or may not be video evidence. This shooting occured in broad daylight. Some reports say he had sunglasses in his hands when he fell from the first volley of shots fired by LVPD.
Differences:
black-skinned man in city vs. white-skinned man in suburbs
night time vs. daytime
no video vs. video that may or may not be available
deceased reached for something when cops approached, but did not have a gun vs. deceased may or may not have reached for something, but DID have a gun
Seems to me the media has already convicted Scott - guilty by association with guns. What if Scott had NOT been carrying that day? What if he had an empty holster or just a cell phone or something else that made the Costco employees freak out. What if he was "unarmed" when he was shot? Is Scott's case dismissed by unthinking media because "well he had a gun on him, he probably did something to deserve it"?
If a video proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott DID NOT reach for anything and DID NOT have a gun in his hands at the time he was shot, will this change the media's perception of this story? Will it be too little too late? Or will the media just continue to say - "he had a gun on him, so what if it wasn't in his hands when they shot him"
