I actually agree with this woman from the NAACP. Wow.

This is where I agree with the NAACP. Yeah, you will rarely if ever hear me admitting that, since it almost never happens. But, just because the person shot to death by the police possessed a firearm does not mean that he is guilty nor was doing anything wrong. IF and that is a big IF, Keith Scott was peacefully carrying his firearm, then the police should not be firing upon him. IF Scott was in fact brandishing his weapon in a dangerous way and potentially being injurious to others in his handling of the weapon, then he should have been seen as a danger and handled with lethal force. I understand the police perspective. I worked with, for, and around them for years. I also understand the ground rules for being a responsible citizen and weapons carrier. If this was police abuse or misconduct, then it needs to be dealt with. It has NOTHING to do with race. If the man with a gun was white, Asian, or ______ (insert racial description here), then I would feel the same way. The narrative of whether Scott had a gun versus a book (that was hokum) is irrelevant since it was demonstrably proven that he was indeed armed. Now whether he was acting appropriately while carrying is one thing, and whether or not the police handled the situation correctly or not is another entirely. One faux pas by the NAACP leader in the video clip is that it would only matter if Scott had a permit for his weapon if he was carrying it concealed, and the police would not shoot you for carrying what they cannot see. You do get shot if you are carrying a weapon in such a manner as to pose a reasonable threat.  You have to watch the video clip in order to see with what I agree.