Ex-Convicts Shot In Tulsa and N.Carolina had long History of Violent Crimes

Terence Crutcher was shot and killed on Sept. 16 in an officer-involved shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Since then, the media have tried to push a false narrative that Crutcher had his hands up when he was shot — but video evidence, as it often does in these cases, disproved the media’s theory.

There’s also more information that the mainstream media conveniently left out.

Crutcher had a hefty criminal record before he was shot. In fact, he had just been released in May after nine years in prison for drug trafficking, He also had a history of resisting arrest. Behold the rap sheet:

1996 Shooting with intent to kill — Dismissed
2001 Petit larceny — Conviction
2004 Driving while suspended — Conviction
2005 Driving while suspended, resisting officer — Conviction
2006 Driving while suspended — Conviction
Driving with open container — Dismissed
2006 Trafficking in illegal drugs — Conviction. (He was also charged in that incident with assault on a police officer and resisting, but that was dismissed.)
2011 Public intoxication (while in prison for drug trafficking) — Conviction
2012 Public intoxication — Conviction
Obstructing an officer — Conviction
2013 DUI — Conviction
Resisting officer — Conviction
Open Container — Conviction
Failure to wear seatbelt — Conviction
Speeding — Conviction

But even all of that was not all.


Take a look at the numerous open warrants for Crutcher. There were 30 warrants active at the time of his death.

They included things like DUI, resisting, drug trafficking and public intoxication.


The media are actively pushing the narrative that Crutcher had his hands up and that the police shot him anyway.

We’ve heard this lie peddled by the media before, in the Michael Brown case, and clearly the obtuse media didn’t learn a thing.
Now, you watch that video and listen to the commentary. Did it look to you like Crutcher was following commands? You can hear an officer say that Crutcher was “still walking” and that he wasn’t “following commands.” Another officer said that he “could be on something.”

As you can see, Crutcher was not shot with his hands up. He was clearly flouting officer orders, and at the time of his shooting he lowered his right hand toward his waistband.

Oh, and by the way, the media have run with the story that Crutcher was unarmed, but didn’t seem too interested in the PCP that was found in his car and that the Tulsa Police Department officer who shot Crutcher, Betty Shelby, was trained to spot PCP abuse, according to Bearing Arms.

In any of these cases, the legal system should be given time to do its job, but the media have decided to run false narratives that fit their agenda without all the facts and, in some cases, despite the facts.

As you can see above, there’s clearly more to the story.

Keith Scott is was also an Ex-Con with a violent criminal past.

Report: Charlotte’s Keith Scott Had History of Violence Including Arrest for Shooting At Police…

Posted on September 22, 2016 by sundance

According to a story in The Christian Times, who they claim verified with The Charlotte Observer, Keith Lamont Scott had a two decades long history of gun violence, including an arrest/conviction for shooting at police officers in Texas.   The New York Times has previously reported on his troubled past but not the 2005 shooting at police incident:

(Via NYT) […] According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011. (link)

The Charlotte Observer also reported on Scott’s extensive criminal career –SEE HERE– and we did independently identify a criminal record in Texas – SEE HERE – which aligns with all of these reports.

(Via Christian Times) Keith Scott had a long police record that included gun violations. Christian Times Newspaper has learned,and it has been confirmed by the Charlotte Observer, that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County, and other charges were dismissed: including felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, assault on a female, and communicating threats.  Scott was also charged with assault with intent to kill in 1995.  

The most shocking find in Scott’s record, however, is what occurred in Bexar County, Texas in 2005.  In March of that year, Scott was sentenced to 15 months in state prison for evading arrest, and in July, he was consecutively sentenced to seven years on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Sources are now coming forward and alleging that those two separate convictions are in fact related, and they both have to do with a confrontation between Scott and Bexar County Police in early 2005.

One source, who asked CTN to refrain from using her name to protect her identity, told reporters that Scott fired a handgun at San Antonio police officers when they attempted to detain him in February 2005 after noticing that he was driving erratically.  (Scott had a history of drunk driving, according to court records).

Allegedly, as the officers approached Scott’s black Ford sedan, he fired two rounds from the driver’s seat and then sped away.  Neither of the officers was hit, and they proceeded to give chase and detain Scott several blocks away.

While Scott did leave the gun in his passenger’s seat when he attempted to run on-foot, he did, according to our source, assault one officer by punching him in the face.

Scott was released from Texas state prison in 2011. 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.  (more)

An initial sentence of 15 months (March 2005) that gained an additional sentence of 7 more years (July 2005), that took until 2011 to complete, definitely aligns with a much more serious set of charges.

A long history of gun violence – HERE and HERE – including shooting at police?

If accurate, those reports when combined with the eye witness who took pictures of the handgun dropped by Keith Scott when shot by police officers (see above and below), the account of the Charlotte police department appears to be validated..

.

Why Does The Left Hate Israel?

Respectable opinion knows which side wears the black hats in this conflict.
What is it about Israel that arouses so much anger? Is it because it’s a theocratic state, committed to destroying its neighbour, which uses civilians as human shields, tortures and kills its political opponents, persecutes homosexuals, and holds freedom of speech and the rule of law in contempt?

No, hang on, that’s Hamas. No matter how appallingly they treat their own people and how many innocents they blow up, shoot or kidnap, nothing can damage their image in the left's eye.
 Israel can’t even protect its own people without drawing criticism. Israel is like the older brother who is expected to know better. His younger siblings can run riot, because they’re held to different standards, but big bro should sit there quietly, no matter how many times he takes a kicking.

Not that the media does much reporting on the kicking Israel receives. It would much rather lament the significantly higher Palestinian losses, as if they automatically put Israel in the wrong and let Hamas off the hook for striking the first blow. Israel, it seems, should show restraint that no one would realistically expect of Hamas if it possessed the same military might. The relativists who see no moral difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime have no problem expecting the two sides to behave differently.

One thing’s for sure, if it was just another flyblown Islamic hellhole, Israel would get a much easier ride on the world stage. More blood is typically shed each year in Somalia, Pakistan and Nigeria than in Gaza, but outrage at those horrors pales beside the indignation Israel’s actions provoke. Heads are buried, standards doubled and blind eyes turned to provide an excuse for bashing the country everybody loves to hate.

So is this just about anti-Semitism? It is certainly rife in the Arab world, and long-standing critics of Israel probably pick up a little Jew-hatred along the way. But I don’t think it’s at the heart of Western, liberal antipathy. If anti-Semitism were to blame, it would be directed at Israel wherever it was in the world. Yet it’s hard to imagine it having as much trouble with its neighbours, or attracting as much hatred, if it were a European state. The chances are it would be another Switzerland, and would arouse the same amount of ill-feeling.

The fact is that when it comes to Israel, nobody seems to be interested in the truth. No one cares that it gave up the lands it seized during the Yom Kippur War, in the hope of securing peace. Nor that it gifted the Palestinians 3,000 greenhouses, opened border crossings and encouraged trade. Nor that the Gazans responded by destroying the greenhouses and electing a government committed to eradicating the Jews, which has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, and digs tunnels under Israeli territory from which to launch surprise attacks.

No one cares that Israel gives Gazans advance warning of raids, while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Nor that Hamas places its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals and private homes, to maximise the chance of civilian casualties. Nor that Israel arrested those guilty of murdering a Palestinian youth, and offered reparations to the victim’s family, while Hamas did nothing to capture or punish the killers of three Israeli teenagers. Nor that no Israeli soldiers are actually based in Gaza, despite talk of an ‘occupying force’ by Hamas apologists

No one takes these facts into account because they are unhelpful to the narrative propagated by the pro-Palestinian Left – namely, that this is a battle between a strong, macho oppressor and a weak, downtrodden underdog, which leftists can feel virtuous about supporting.

Israel is a distillation of everything leftists hate about Western nations: capitalist, conservative and fiercely patriotic. It is a projection of their own prejudices about the supposed injustices of societies that cherish the ‘wrong’ values and the ‘wrong’ people. They don’t share the Palestinians’ spiritual beliefs, but they share a common enemy. Indeed, if Israel was removed from the equation, its critics would have little good to say about Gaza or Hamas. Theirs is a marriage of convenience.

The Left’s use of the Israeli-Arab situation as a platform for moral preening, and as a metaphor for its own hang-ups, blinds it to the evils of Hamas and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems oblivious to the ideological conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and Western progressives, because it persists in regarding the former as pet victims of the latter. It may discover the hard way that it is giving comfort to an enemy that makes no distinction between liberal hand-wringers and any other infidels.                  

By Russell Taylor

The Left Hate Israel Because It Is Everything They Despise: Capitalist, Conservative and Patriotic

"If you are an Israel Hater you are an Antisemite" MLK JR.

Alan Dershowitz OWNS the Anti-Jews in this debate covering  BDS

Trump: Everything is Negotiable

  


Several months ago, Donald Trump took a new position on a highly contentious issue and then completely walked it back.

Women, he said, should face "some form of punishment" for getting an abortion if the procedure were outlawed.
Several hours of bipartisan outrage later, Trump did an about-face, releasing a statement in which he said those who perform abortions, and not the women who undergo them, should be punished.
But Trump's flip-flop was just one of many.. 

Here are 10 examples:

1. Nuclear proliferation

"Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation," Trump told the New York Times last week.
But Trump also said that he would like to see South Korea and Japan obtain nuclear weapons, which would fly in the face of non-proliferation efforts that have been American policy for decades.
"We're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself," Trump said during a CNN town hall this week. "It's going to happen anyway."
Trump added, "I don't want more nuclear weapons."

2. The Iraq War
Donald Trump in 2002: I support Iraq invasion

Donald Trump in 2002: I support Iraq invasion 01:32
Trump steadfastly insisted throughout his campaign that he -- unlike most of his Republican counterparts -- opposed the Iraq War before it began.
"I said, 'Don't hit Iraq' because you're going to totally destabilize the Middle East," Trump said during his June 16, 2015 speech announcing his candidacy for president. "I'm the one that made all of the right predictions about Iraq."
And throughout his campaign, Trump expressed some version of that claim at nearly every campaign rally and in every interview he was asked about the issue, arguing he should get "points for vision."
But his claim was debunked in February when BuzzFeed News dug up a September 2002 interview -- weeks before Congress voted to authorize military force in Iraq -- in which Trump said he was in favor of invading Iraq.
"Yeah, I guess so," Trump said after Howard Stern asked him if he favored invading Iraq. "You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly."
And two days after the war began, Trump said on Fox Business Network that the invasion "looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint."
Trump was asked by Anderson Cooper bout the contradictory statements during a CNN town hall in February.
"I mean, I could have said that," he said. "Nobody asked me—I wasn't a politician. It was probably the first time anybody asked me that question."

3. Afghanistan War
Trump also flipped his position on the war in Afghanistan, labeling the war a "terrible mistake," in a CNN interview in October.
Trump subsequently claimed that he was talking about Iraq, and not Afghanistan -- which the U.S. invaded in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But a review of the interview transcript shows that CNN anchor Chris Cuomo made it clear he was talking about Afghanistan, mentioning the country by name twice in his question to Trump.
"We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place," Trump said of Afghanistan during the October 6 interview.
And Trump himself then compared Afghanistan to the situation in Iraq.
"It's a mess. And at this point, you probably have to, because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave. Just as I said that Iraq was going to collapse after we leave," Trump said.

4. Abortion
Trump's response earlier on punishments for abortion isn't the first time Trump has changed his tune on the issue.
But his total shift on this issue -- going from "pro-choice" to "pro-life" -- is one Trump openly acknowledges.
"I'm pro-life, and I was originally pro-choice," Trump said Tuesday in a CNN town hall. "I have evolved."
That's because in a 1999 interview and in his 2000 book as he was considering a run for president then, Trump said he was "very pro-choice."
In that 1999 interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said he would even support women's rights to "partial-birth" or late-term abortion.
Trump now wants to ban all abortions, except in the case of incest, rape or if the life or health of the mother is at risk.

5. Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Trump has sought to walk a fine line on the issue, on one hand promising his presidency would be a boon for Israel while also trying to position himself as a master negotiator who could draw the two sides of the conflict to a peace settlement.
But Trump shocked the political world when he proclaimed that he would try to be "neutral" in the conflict .
"I want to be very neutral and see if I can get both sides together," Trump said in a December interview with the Associated Press.
He reignited that backlash in February when he said he wants to "be sort of a neutral guy" in negotiating a deal.
But Trump's neutrality claims were nowhere to be found in a speech earlier this month during the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual gathering, where he sought to place himself squarely and unequivocally in the pro-Israel camp.
"When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one," Trump said.

6. Torture

Donald Trump declared in February that "torture works" and that he would "bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
In subsequent rallies, Trump argued that ISIS's brutal and barbarous tactics merited a more forceful response from the U.S. that would include torturing suspected terrorists.
As experts argued that military officials would disobey even a commander-in-chief's unlawful order -- as Trump's torture decision would be -- Trump bristled.
"Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them," Trump said during a March 3 GOP debate.
The next day, Trump walked back his comments.
"I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities," Trump said in a statement that also acknowledged that the U.S. "is bound by laws and treaties."
The day after that, Trump again changed his answer again.
"We're going to stay within the laws. But you know what we're going to do? We're going to have those laws broadened because we're playing with two sets of rules: their rules and our rules," Trump said pointing to ISIS's tactics.

7. Immigration

Donald Trump drew millions to his campaign with his bold and uncompromising pledges to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and deport all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
But faced with a report that he told the New York Times editorial board in an off-the-record meeting that his immigration views are in fact more flexible than he has let on, Trump appeared to confirm those suspicions.
"Everything is negotiable," Trump said in late February on Fox News when asked about the report.
Trump then went on to say that he would be willing to negotiate on the height of the wall and suggested his policy to deport all undocumented immigrants could also be flexible.
Pressed by CNN the next day during a news conference as to whether deporting all undocumented immigrants was negotiable, Trump again offered a response that left the door open to changes to his policy down the line.
"At this moment, the answer is absolutely not," he replied.

8. Gun control

Donald Trump's position on the campaign trail has been clear and unequivocal. "I'm a very strong Second Amendment person," he has said repeatedly.
Trump has argued in favor of eliminating gun-free zones in schools and on military bases and argued that looser gun laws in France could have diminished the number of casualties during the Paris terrorist attacks.
But while he's argued during his running for president that he wouldn't support any further restrictions to gun access, that hasn't always been Trump's position.
Trump previously argued in favor of banning assault weapons and supported "a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," a position he articulated in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve."

9. Muslim ban

Trump continues to supports his contentious proposal to temporarily ban non-American Muslims from entering the U.S. until we "figure out what the hell is going on" -- with terrorism, that is.
But the pool of people who would be banned has shrunk since Trump made the broad-based proposal that could keep as many as 1.6 billion people from entering the U.S.
Trump first described his proposal in December as a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Pressed the day of the announcement for whether the policy would apply to all Muslims, Trump's campaign manager simply replied "everyone."
Later that evening, Trump said his policy would not apply to Muslims already living in the United States.
Since then he has also expanded his exceptions to include foreign leaders, government officials and business executives.

10. Hillary Clinton
Trump: Clinton doesn't have the stamina to be President
Gearing up for an increasingly likely general election battle against Clinton, Trump frequently slams the Democratic presidential front-runner on the trail, including referring to her as "the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States."
Trump had previously and repeatedly heaped praise on Clinton, including in a March 2012 interview as Clinton entered the last year of her tenure as secretary of state.
Trump called Clinton "a terrific woman" in the March 2012 Fox News interview and said that "she really works hard and I think she does a good job."

Thanks to cnn for this article.