Why did Keith Scotts family lie about the gun?

[Lee-Lee]

It's pretty clear now the whole "he had a book" story is bullshit, especially given that we see him wearing an ankle holster it's clear that the conspiracy theories of a planted gun are nonsense.

It also explains her repeated yelling to him "don't do it" if she knew he had a gun and didn't want him to pull it out or use it. It would be far more likely than not that a spouse knows if the spouse carried a gun, especially give what she yelled to him this looks to be the case.

Yet they invented the book story and very publicly pushed it and stuck to it. Even when protests turned violent, when priest was destroyed, when a man was killed at protests based in large part on their false story.

Why did they stick with the story they almost certainly knew to be false in the face of all that was happening?

People who lie about police misconduct are just as bad as police who lie about how an event went down. But for some reason they just get a pass and it's OK to lie about the police.

---I edited my last paragraph to make my stance more clear, since people seem more worried about that than how they all got played for fools by a lie that caused violent protests than got people injured and even killed.

[CBGLuthier]

1. People who lie are as bad as people who kill?

First, oh wise one, how the fuck do you know they lied?

[Lee-Lee]

2. They kept insisting there was no gun- yet there is one

And video shows him wearing an ankle holster.

And doesn't show this mythical book he was supposed to be holding.

[doc03]

8. We have the BLM protesting about bad police shootings. Cases like this

where we have victims pushing false accusations on social media doesn't help their cause.
Stuff like that discredits the BLM movement in many people's minds. I think some of the
commentators in the media went off halfcocked too and inflamed the situation.
Maybe people should wait and get the facts before they start burning down a city in protest.

[TheDebbieDee]

26. But if people don't BURN DOWN THE CITY in protest...

The police and other city officials put them on IGNORE! It's only when someone's property is threatened that these authority figures feel the need to do a proper investigation into these murders....

[Igel]

53. Match up such "protests" with actual data.

It's easy to make the claim.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiq8urEk6vPAhVr74MKHd3CCF0QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjcj.org%2Fnews%2F8113&psig=AFQjCNGhZ6AyWVxRdZR1Jkbu5pYPfgXmIg&ust=1474914684192852


There's a discrepancy there, to be sure, but it's real question as to whether the claim hat the only reason for the decline in killings is violent protests is supportable. The largest decline seems to be after the violent protests declined.

[DustyJoe]

50. so true

If the man had been shooting at the cops and they killed him the resulting riot & looting etc would still have happened IMO.

[uppityperson]

27. I didn't see a gun, it's still unclear. And an ankle booster is not a gun

[B2G]

28. What is an "ankle booster"? nt

[uppityperson]

30. It's an autocorrect typo which should read "holster". At one point my machine autocorrected every

instance of good into gold.

[Lee-Lee]

31. Yes because people were very uncomfortable holsters for no reason

Keep grasping at straws...

[uppityperson]

32. An ankle holster is not a gun. He may have a gun somewhere, but a holster is not a gun.

[Egnever]

75. True but it pretty much defies belief that he was just wearing one for fun.

and it also defies belief that the gun that was found matches it perfectly but was not his.

[brush]

85. It's an open carry state. Or is that just for whites?

[Egnever]

112. What does that have to do with my post?

[brush]

116. Everything.

The cops were on an entirely call but they just happened to encounter a guy sitting in his car waiting to pick up his kid but take the time to kill him.

He was minding his own business, didn't do anything to anybody or the cops before they escalated a situation from zero to 100 mph instead of deescalating it.

That zero yo 100 mph escalation seems to happen to black guy only.

Why is that? They manage to contain white guys armed all the time without killing them.

Hell, the terrorist in NYC that they just caught had a shootout with them and they didn't kill him.

We all know if that had been a black guy they would have made a sieve out of him with their bullets.

[Egnever]

117. My post only addressed the believability of having an ankle holster and no gun

had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you posted in either of your replies.

[brush]

125. And you believe that has nothing to do with the escalation of the situation?

[Egnever]

128. Again I said nothing about any of that

continue that conversation with someone who did.

My views are pretty clear in this thread, where I was talking about it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8185880

[uponit7771]

157. Absolutely not seeing he had his hand down and was backing away from the LEO he saw pointing

... gun.

Also, the how did the LEO know what was being rolled wasn't a cigarette ?!!?

[uponit7771]

156. +1

[Elmergantry]

162. it wasnt a gun holster

It was a book holster.

[brush]

84. Are you purposely forgeting that NC is an open carry state? Or is that just for whites?

[tonyt53]

91. The problem with that scenario is, HE isn't supposed to have a gun. Color didn't matter.

[brush]

111. The problem with your scenario is that the cops didn't know that

They were on a call for something else, just like the Tulsa killing — on a call for something else but take time to kill a black guy they encounter on the way.

[uponit7771]

158. +1, nor did they know he was rolling a joint vs a cigarette. He was rolling a joint is a bulllshit

... ass'd excuse that can EASILY be disputed in court because any LEO can't tell the difference from looking in a window.

[Lee-Lee]

96. I have already explained it in several posts

But open carry doesn't mean that law enforcement doesn't still have the right to question a person and determine intent. The totality of the circumstance determines legality, and open carry can be a crime in some circumstances- In NC the charge is "armed at the terror of the public".

When I was a deputy a person walking down the side of the road in an orange vest with a shotgun in hunting season wouldn't get a second look. The same person at 11:45pm walking down the dirt road in a trailer park who ducks behind a car when he sees me carrying the same shotgun is going to get checked out by me.

Totality of the circumstances.

[brush]

114. Totality of the circumstances. Right. A black guy sitting in his car waiting to pick up his kid . .

and the cops on an entirely different call, just happen to encounter him and take time to kill him.

We all get that totality of circumstance.

[Lee-Lee]

169. He pulled up next to a police car and started rolling a joint with a gun visible waiting for his kid

Yes, totality of the circumstances.

Waiting for his kid rolling a joint carrying an illegal gun that as a felon he couldn't legally posses.

[uponit7771]

159. Acordding to the LEO there was no questioning, he saw a gun and attempted to break the window with

... a Baton

[Lee-Lee]

165. According to the report he saw guns and drugs together

That goes past any for of legal open carry, no need for questioning to determine intent at that point.

[uponit7771]

172. The LEO had no evidence that what Scott had was drugs vs tabacco and in court the LEO would be

... torn apart with his perspective of what he thinks tabaco vs MJ is.

[Lee-Lee]

178. Seeing someone rolling something to smoke and a gun together is enough reasonable suspicion in NC.

More than enough.

[uponit7771]

179. This is false on its face, Scott could've been rolling a cigarette... its a reason to maybe question

... what is he doing not try and break his window with a baton

[treestar]

198. why, what is the relationship?

The drugs alone might be cause to stop if they arguably can tell that it is or might be drugs. But the gun is his apparent right to have, regardless of what else he is doing.

[treestar]

197. just having the gun in the car

with him should not be enough in an open carry state. The apparent joint is not really affected by a gun. People who smoke pot even illegally are not known for shooting cops over it. They should not have been in fear of their lives over a citizen apparently exercising his second amendment rights. The joint could have been probable cause if they could smell it or see it well enough. To arrest him for possession of marijuana.

[EX500rider]

118. An ankle holster is not open carry but concealed carry....requires a permit.

[brush]

122. He was sitting in his car waiting to pick up his kid, not doing anything to anybody

The cops on another call encounter a black guy in his car and somehow he ends up dead after a zero to 100 mph escalation in force by the cops.

That just seems to happen to black guys a lot.

No way in the world that guy should have ended up dead. Same in Tulsa, another zero to 100 mph escalation where a black guy doing nothing ends up dead.

Why can't cop apologists see that? Deescalation does not make one less of a cop, it makes you a better cop.

[EX500rider]

130. Well they arrest a million people every month..30,000 people every day..

.....so overall they seem to keep it professional by like a million to 1. Do things go wrong sometimes? yes...however it is a good idea to follow police commands when they are pointing guns at you.

[uponit7771]

174. +1, the copologist are out in force right now and they give the CPD the benefit of the doubt that

... the LEO "KNEW" it was MJ he was rolling vs a cigarette.

That LEO will be torn apart in court on his account on whats the difference between MJ and tabacco

[uponit7771]

173. Then how did the LEO see the holster seeing he was sitting in his SUV!? Again, the LEOs account is

... bullshit on its face even if 100% of what he said is believed.

The LEO had no idea that it was MJ vs tabacco

[Egnever]

119. Then all he had to do was drop the gun

The cops screamed 12 times just on the video from the wife to drop the gun.

Open carry doesn't = ignore cops.

[brush]

124. Do you know they were on an entirely different call?

The guy was in his car waiting to pick up his kid and minding his own business, not hurting anyone.

The cops interrupt their intended call for some reason when they see him. Why?

Must be a case of sitting in a car while black.

Zero to 100 mph escalation of the situation instead of deescalation.

When are cops going to learn that with black men? They do it with white guys with guns all the time. Hell, the terrorist in the NYC bombings was taken alive after having a shoot out with cops.

If he had been black their bullet holes would have made a sieve out of the guys body.

[Egnever]

131. I know more about this than I ever wanted to know.

Clearly more than you.

They stopped him because he was rolling then smoking a blunt while he had a gun in his lap.

Scott was in possession of marijuana, but the police officers ignored the illegal drugs. It was only when police discovered that Scott was in possession of illegal weapons that they decided to confront him. Officer Vinson, the policeman that fired the fatal shots, “observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up,” according to a police statement released Saturday. “Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns," the statement added.


I agree with you the escalation of the incident was ridiculous but also really easy to stop. Drop the gun.

[brush]

133. On another call in their cars but just happened to notice what was going on in his car? O-k-a-a-a-y.

[Egnever]

135. They walked right by him

He was smoking a blunt do you think they couldn't smell it? Hell you can smell a blunt from nearly a block away if the wind is right.

[brush]

136. Check this link out.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/it-doesnt-jive-ex-lapd-sergeant-slams-charlotte-polices-story-about-killing-keith-scott/

[Egnever]

138. That is exactly the kind of dumb interview that made me look so closely at this

The video is not conclusive with regard to what the officers’ statements are,” Dorsey said. She said that she did not observe any “furtive movements” on Scott’s part, nor any evidence of criminal activity serious enough to warrant the officers leaving their previous post, donning police vests and moving in for an arrest.

The Video doesn't show any of what she is talking about there. None of the videos do, I have looked at all of them frame by frame. She is making that up off the top of her head.

I don’t smoke marijuana and I don’t roll joints, but I do know that all that activity happens in your lap. So I’m not sure how these officers were able from their position seated in their car to see Mr. Scott rolling a joint and then conclude that’s criminal activity occurring that’s so egregious and outrageous that they need to leave their post and deal with that.”

Which is it they were in their car or they left their posts? And again she can't see any of that in any of the videos. I hope she got paid well for that bunch of nonsense she spewed.

[FrodosPet]

137. A good cop should remain oblivious to the world around them?

Their job is to be nosy assholes. When done right, it helps protect people. When not, it is an act of oppression.

Let's think about it: They were going to let the man smoke a blunt and drive stoned with a kid!!!

Somehow, Mr Scott really made the situation impossible to ignore. I know, it would be a lot less embarrassing and a lot more helpful to the legitimate cause of eliminating police oppression and murder of everyone - especially of African Americans, that this is the murder of an unarmed man. But with the evidence available, desperately pushing the narrative that this is a calculated act and not likely another sad suicide by cop is not helpful.

Save the rage for the next legitimate case. Alas, we won't have to wait long.

[Egnever]

139. Someone made the point I think in this thread

That this pushed the Tulsa shooting out of the news. If anything was a perfect example of what people are talking about that one was.

[Egnever]

143. I was wrong

They didn't walk by him he parked next to them.

[uponit7771]

161. Yes, according to the Chief the LEO got out of his car and looked into Scott's window and now

... we're supposed to believe he KNEW he was rolling a joint vs a cigarette, saw a gun and then attempted to break Scott's window with a baton.

Which I call bullshit if there really was a gun

I don't see a gun in Scott's hand... I'm not giving the CPD the benefit of the doubt

[treestar]

199. I can agree with that

He could be alive to sue them for wrongful acts regarding his civil rights.

[brush]

80. And you know they know he had a gun?

But what does that matter if they knew or didn't know?

He was killed by out of control cops who don't seem to know how, or want to deescalate situations instead of inflaming them.

The man didn't point a gun at them. NC is an open carry state — that is for white people it seems.

[Egnever]

126. I don't think the open carry thing works.

it is a decent point that folks should not be bothered just because they have a gun in an open carry state. However open carry doesn't mean do whatever you want while brandishing a gun. Mr. scott was rolling a blunt and brandishing a gun if the police story is to be believed.

Nor does it mean if the cops tell you to drop it you hold onto it.

[jack_krass]

58. People ARE dead and injured

The protester who was shot by another protester. The guy who was beaten almost to death by the mob.

[NightWatcher]

3. So the cops get to be judge, jury, and executioner? And you're cool with that?

[Lee-Lee]

14. Obviously that's not even an honest assessment

Lethal force used in response to lethal force or a threat of it is a far, far cry from cops being "judge, jury and executioner".

This kind of intentional misrepresentation and inflammatory rhetoric does just as much damage as the intentional lies about how events went down, and are why honest intelligent discussion on the issue is often impossible.

[NightWatcher]

18. We know little about this incident but you've already decided that his family lied.

Don't accuse me of making improper assessments. You've already decided it was justified too.

[Lee-Lee]

19. We will see as more comes out

But I've already been right about all the conspiracy theories about the planted gun being bullshit.

[Rex]

34. +1

So obvious.

[jack_krass]

59. Yes when a suspect pulls a gun out of a holster and doesn't follow orders.

The cops have a choice of playing "executioner", or "executed". Most choose the former.

[alarimer]

71. I am not okay with it myself.

White men with guns parade unmolested. Black men with guns (or even not with guns) get shot and (often) killed.

This is some kind of fucked up and I can't see how those jack booted police thugs get a pass here. Although they will, legally.

Odd that the only police officers charges are usually not white men, either. Funny that.

[Democat]

4. If they were lying, it's wrong and could inflame tensions leading to more violence

But your last line doesn't make sense.

Lying about police misconduct is not equal to murdering someone.

[MadDAsHell]

5. Why did people initially claim Michael Brown had his hands up and was shot in the back?

Why do witnesses to violent crimes refuse to cooperate with police to find and prosecute perpetrators? You would think it'd be to their community's benefit to put murderers behind bars, but time and time again, all over the country, eyewitnesses refuse to cooperate, or flat out lie in their testimony.

I think it's frustration. I think people are upset about legitimate police abuses and are willing to say or do anything for a little revenge.

It's wrong, but I see why it's happening, because legitimate police abuses have been swept under the rugs for a long time.

[Lee-Lee]

10. And that just makes it even harder to clean things up

How do you weed out the real bad cops when so many allegations are false?

There was a study done by the DOJ wen dash cams were just coming into use and most people were not aware of them. They looked at the effect of video footage on resolving complaints and found that 95% of complaints were unsubstantiated. Even more telling they found that around 50% of people who filed complaints of misconduct withdrew thier complaint as soon as they became aware there was video footage.

You can't fix anything if people keep putting so much garbage out that you can't tell what's a real issue and what is either made up or blown way out of proportion.

[rgbecker]

95. I know you have a link for all these statistics....

Could you share it with the rest of us?

[Lee-Lee]

99. Here you go

http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACPIn-CarCameraReport.pdf

Start at page 12 for the meat and potatoes if you don't want to read all the methodology.

[lame54]

17. Thier lie led to a bigger truth...

The DOJ uncovered a systematic financial shakedown of the black community in Ferguson

[MadDAsHell]

21. Yep, and only had to falsely accuse one person of shooting another in the back

So it was probably worth it.

[lame54]

70. The growing growing growing...

Mistrust of the people of Ferguson who are systematically having the screws tightened on them everyday by the police led to that lie

Sometimes things go full circle

[brush]

87. In the back or the top of his head, the cop still shot an unarmed man

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

That seems to be ok with you.

[uponit7771]

164. +1

[MichMan]

54. People are still repeating "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"

The "Hands Up Don't Shoot" narrative from the Michael Brown shooting was shown to not have occurred from multiple eyewitnesses.

Yet you had protesters all over the country & dozens of NFL and NBA players saying it constantly. Once something like that becomes widespread, it will be repeated for years regardless as it takes on a life of it's own.

[pintobean]

60. DU still has the avatar

[Skittles]

74. excellent post

[Mamajami]

105. Was that video of two white guys saying he had his hands up a fake? (Michael Brown)

I don't have a link for it but I remember seeing it right after the incident.

I, too, am puzzled as to why Scott's wife appeared to be lying about the gun. Did she not know he had it with him?

There is a video making the rounds of a white woman stating the Mr. Scott came everyday to pick up his son and would sit reading as he waited. I confess it is a FB post so take it for what that's worth.

All of this is just so sad. But there is not doubt about the fact that cops shoot unarmed blacks for little or no reason. Yet a white resisting arrest may be tasered but rarely are they shot and killed. And white teens get away with far, far more than black teens or even black adults.

[metroins]

160. Whites get shot and killed by police

You can look up the statistic, it's been posted a million times.

Then you'll quote that blacks get shot more per capita, then I'll say there's more blacks in poverty than whites and people in poverty encounter police more often.

This conversation is circular.

The easiest fact is: most of the time, any person shot by the police is typically not following orders and making threatening movements.

If people want change, they should elect officials who want change.

[uponit7771]

166. +1, that was the vid for me... the utterance of the two guys who were looking at it

[FBaggins]

6. I regret my jury vote

I didn't make it to the last line.

You should self-delete

[Marr]

7. Scenarios like this have played out several times now, and they've turned BLM into a joke.

Korryn Gaines was another. When people hop on board these claims without evidence, and the police turn out to have acted reasonably, they look stupid and permanently undermine their cause.

[doc03]

9. +1

[Lee-Lee]

11. It certainly harms the credibility of activists who back that story

The harm from all that came out based on this will affect thing in Charlotte for a long time. The community leaders who jumped on this without waiting have lost a lot of credibility with the rest of the city and with the PD. The PD will be a lot less likely to take their voices and concerns as serious now.

It's a huge mess they created by going with this story and pushing it so hard.

[uponit7771]

168. The rest of America knows blacks get treated different and some people will excuse anything

... to make themselves feel comfortable including saying the perp had a gun when there's no photo evidence of it at all.

[uponit7771]

167. They've illuminated racist, BLM isn't the joke ... people who excuse disproportionate killings are

[B2G]

12. This might have ended differently if she hadn't been there.

I can't help but think her repeatedly screaming "Don't do it Keith" only served to dramatically escalate the situation.

It certainly gave the impression he was ready, willing and able to do just that.

[Lee-Lee]

13. It certainly didn't help

When the police are giving someone commands that they need to follow someone else screaming at them doesn't help. If that person has an impaired mental capacity, such as a TBI and just took a sedative as she claimed, that's even worse to have so much input into the brain.

[hexola]

86. Agree - This is my strongest feeling on the whole incident...

She created a heightened sense of a impending threat...not helpful.

[lame54]

15. What proof do you have they lied...

Maybe they were lied to

[FBaggins]

20. Is that even plausible?

The guy has multiple felony counts of crimes with a deadly weapon (including firing at people) and has this obviously-well-used holster strapped to his ankle... and you think it's plausible that his wife doesn't know that he has a gun?

[Lee-Lee]

22. Some people will contort ideas any way to avoid the obvious answer

When it's not what they want to be true.

The fact that they even made up details like the book in his hand shows they knew what they were doing. They spoke with certainty about the book, and where do we see any book?....

[lame54]

69. A deceptive husband?...

Who has ever heard of such a thing

[uponit7771]

170. +1, There's no photo evidence of Scott with a gun in his hand

[FBaggins]

208. There's also no evidence of his hands being empty

There is, however, ample evidence of a holster on his ankle... and scores of "Aha! THAT's where they planted the gun" conspiracy theories have turned out to be illusions.

[uponit7771]

209. Innocent until indidcated guilty, there's no photo proof Scott had a gun in his hands

[FBaggins]

210. What you mean is "innocent until indicated guilty...

... unless you're a cop". Right?

There doesn't need to be photo proof of a gun when there's an actual gun... and his prints/DNA... and photo proof of a holster... and decades of evidence that he carries and uses a gun in the commission of crimes.

Alternative theories have long-since left the realm of the plausible. I still don't think that the police should have shot him... but holding on to the fantasy that he wasn't armed is, at this point, irrational.

[BootinUp]

16. What makes you so sure they knew he wore one on his ankle?

[Yo_Mama]

42. There is no bleeping way the family didn't know he had that gun.

That's why the poor woman was shouting at him "Keith, don't do it."

[BootinUp]

45. Of course there is a bleepin way. You are interpreting things through a filter, called your

brain just like everyone else is. Don't make absolute judgements based on faulty human perceptions.

[Yo_Mama]

49. How? It's not new. It's not concealed.

I mean it's not one of these slimline things that are meant to be concealed under clothing. His wife would of course know in that case, but the rest of the family might not.

The story is that this guy was waiting for his son to come home from the school. The son would see that.

Unless your theory is that he bought it that morning, the family knew he had a gun. That theory I don't believe.

And yes, I absolutely believe that the woman knew her husband and that's why she was calling to him "Keith, don't do it" as the cop was hollering "Drop the gun".

This is a tragic event, but not quite the tragedy the family led us to believe. I understand their feelings; I give no credence to their statements. At all.

[uponit7771]

175. Well, this LEO had x ray vision so they can of course see the gun through the window and Scott's leg

... /sarcasm

[FBaggins]

211. That isn't the story they told - they didn't need x-ray vision.

They say that they were parked waiting for their warrant suspect when he pulled in next to them. He later began smoking (supposedly pot) but they didn't do anything. He exited the car with the gun and then got back in (so no x-ray vision was necessary). It was then that they decided to arrest him. They drove away to armor up and then returned.

[uponit7771]

218. THey never said he smoked put, the LEO saw him rolle a blunt which rolling a cigarette isn't illegal

[citood]

23. Condensed version

Making up the book caused enough outrage to wipe the Tulsa shooting out of the news cycle.

[Egnever]

120. I hadn't thought of that

That is a shame. That was a perfect example of what is going on far too often.

[Uponthegears]

24. While you are busy accusing

this black woman of lying, answer this:

Why did she "lie" to the cops at the scene

Let's hear it

Are black people so hateful of our "righteous" law enforcement officers that they go out in groups with one of them instigating an armed confrontation so that the other can film it while shouting "he's unarmed" just to make cops look bad?

Are black people trying to get the cops to let down their guard so the cops will get killed?

You seriously need to think about what you are saying because I don't think I need to explain what it looks like.

[philosslayer]

25. Wow you are on the wrong site

Clearly. Your knee jerk defense of the police is pretty repulsive

[KittyWampus]

41. Many, MANY DU'ers said same to you in two of your OP's the other day.

[Codeine]

56. You are literally the very last person

qualified to claim people are on the "wrong site".

[romanic]

72. For real.

[NaturalHigh]

195. Between advocating Islamification and riots...

I would say it is you who are on the wrong site.

[uppityperson]

29. You ignore the fact that she may have been yelling "don't do it" at all those cops

Why assume she was yelling that at Keith?

[Lee-Lee]

36. Ummm, she yelled his name each time before saying "don't do it"

Did you even watch the video? It's very clear audio Of her saying "Keith" each time before she says "don't do it" or something close to "don't do it".

Twist what is clearly there to try and say she was talking to the cops is a dishonest as her book story. I suggest watching the video again.

[uppityperson]

37. Yes, I did watch and listen. Since all you do is insult people who disagree with you, I'm done with

you.

[Rex]

33. Why did the cops?

[Avalux]

35. Because there are liars in al walks of life, whatever the reasons. n/t

[ileus]

38. People love to buy into lies if it fits an agenda.

Maybe they continued the lie....I'm drawing a blank, can't find a good defense other than just hating LEO's.

[Yo_Mama]

39. Because they were distraught over seeing their father/husband shot down?

I have come around to the idea that this was almost certainly a justified shooting after watching the videos, pics and other analysis posted. I think the poor guy committed suicide by cop because he couldn't face going back to prison.

I read the one video as the cop shooting as the guy started to turn toward the police officer holding a gun on him by the cruiser, who was at the time frantically shouting "Drop the gun".

But still tears came to my eyes as I watched it. It is excruciating to see a human being's life ended like this. I cannot imagine the agony I would feel if this were a family member.

And the tragedy here is that Scott wasn't trying to kill anyone. He made a series of bad decisions, but he wasn't trying to hurt anyone when this started - he was just sitting there. I utterly sympathize with the family, but I also suspect that the police acted within the law.

I think Scott simply couldn't face being caught with a weapon which would have forced him back to prison.

[Lee-Lee]

43. Your suicide by cop theory is very plausible

He had a long criminal history with extensive time in prison, and as shown by his carrying a gun illegally didn't straighten his act out.

He may have been caught doing something minor just by bad luck and escalated that way out of hand because he didn't want to go back to jail.

That doesn't excuse the lies from the family one bit- especially when those lies led to more bloodshed and look like they will end up harming the credibility of local activists and BLM who jumped in quickly and took them as credible.

[Yo_Mama]

44. They'll never concede that he even had a gun.

Look at the reaction here.

Mind you, I don't trust police and I know they frequently do unnecessary harm, but in this instance, I don't see the police behavior as being out of line - given what I see.

[kwassa]

82. This is totally absurd speculation and reveals nothing but prejudice.

This theory of yours and Yo Mama has absolutely no evidence behind it, you are pre-judging, and are therefore prejudiced.

That you are so willing to engage in complete speculation, and are a law-enforcement officer, is pretty scary.

[Ace Rothstein]

40. He had a book in his hand is the new he had a sandwich in his hand.

[Rex]

46. Why did the Chief of Police say Scott did not raise a gun or fire at the cops?

Why won't the PD release the video footage? Why are they waiting it out for a law to go into effect so they never have to release footage?

But yeah...what you said...

[Egnever]

67. Holy shit man you have been informed at least once by me and another time by another

That video was released yesterday. Yet you keep repeating this nonsense.

Why do you keep posting something that is not true?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-video/

[Rex]

68. Why do you?

[mrmpa]

47. How about trying this.........

[Lil Missy]

48. I don't think she lied. I think she really thought he did not have a gun.

[The_Casual_Observer]

51. Does anyone know why they were bothering the guy in the first place?

What did he supposedly do to be surrounded by cops?

[jmg257]

52. I read a narrative...the cops were waiting to enact a warrant....ah found a version..

Police said two officers in street clothes were conducting surveillance of the parking lot, seeking to serve a warrant on someone else. They were parked near Mr. Scott and saw that he had marijuana. They didn’t do anything about that until they saw he also had a gun, the chief said.

“They look in the car, they see the marijuana, they don’t act. They see the gun and they do,” Chief Putney said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlotte-police-chief-will-release-video-footage-in-shooting-of-keith-scott-1474750876

[uponit7771]

155. The LEO said he was rolling a joint in his car which he had NO IDEA what it was then the LEO.....

... said he saw a gun and began to try to break Scott's window with a Baton

[Archae]

55. I saw this same thing in Milwaukee's Sherman Park.

Black is running from police, he points a stolen gun (see that? a GUN,) at a cop.

A BLACK cop.

Black cop shoots guy with gun, killing him.

Perp's family does the "he was such a good man/father/etc," even though the perp has a long record of violent crimes.

Mobs (not protestors!) collect, and burn down several businesses and homes, belonging to other blacks, and Sikhs.

[Skittles]

77. oh haven't you heard the latest meme?

black cops are racist too, because they are influenced by their white peers and......history

I kid you not

when someone readily blames someone else, they relieve themselves of ANY responsiblity

[Citrus]

57. Whoa...

It wasn't the family who talked about him having a book. It was a person who lives near the bus stop where he waited daily to pick up his child. The neighbor said he sat in his car reading almost every day while he waited for the bus. She said he was reading that day and that she saw the book fall to the ground when he got out of the car.

Your own version, Lee-Lee, has the family inventing the story, which isn't true. I saw the interview with the bus-stop-neighbor, and have seen no reference to her being a family member. If she is, indeed, a family member, please point me to a credible source for verification. Meanwhile, there's no reason for the family not to believe the bus-stop-neighbor, particularly if they know it was customary for him to read while waiting for the bus.

Furthermore, there's no evidence that he actually had a gun. But let's say he did. Unless he was aiming it at the cops, he could and should have been restrained using non-lethal methods. But even if he'd been aiming at cops, it takes little time and research to find many instances of cops dealing with white people quite differently from the way they treat black people. How about backing off and having some damn patience? I bet his wife could've defused the situation if given the chance.

I heard his wife trying to tell the cops that he had a TBI. That stands for Traumatic Brain Injury, which could mean that he was having difficulty processing the events and responding. This reminds me of the video of the cops tasering and pepper-spraying a man who was in the midst of a stroke. Poor guy was black, of course.

There are too many trigger-happy cops who are cops for all the wrong reasons. They're in it for the perceived power, not to help their communities. Too many cops are too eager to use last-resort techniques first. I watched the video of the cops pepper-spraying the teenager who wouldn't pull her feet into the (police) car. It's absurd on its face that several cops don't know the techniques for getting someone entirely into the back of a car without violence, tasers or pepper-spray. So instead of using sensible law enforcement tactics, they pepper sprayed a teenager. How sad that some grown-up cops couldn't get a 15yo girl into the back of a car. (And yes, there are actual ways to do it, even with large adults.)

Even if that girl were the worst kid on the planet, I can well imagine that as a black person, she was terrified by those cops. I don't know any black people who aren't scared. Even black celebrities and lawmakers have publicly talked about how frightened they are and how they have to talk to their own children about being black in America. And y'know what?...that says it all.

Lastly, it's simply not true that people who lie about police misconduct "get a pass". Where are you coming up with these ridiculous notions?

[Lee-Lee]

61. There are many references to him having a book by the family

Is Huffington post a gods enough source to start with?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57e44d21e4b0e80b1ba13097

[Citrus]

123. Eesh...

You apparently didn't read what I actually wrote. Moreover, your link proves my point.

[JTFrog]

184. Just like honey badger,

thin blue line don't give a shit.

[Nictuku]

62. ^^^^ Well Put Citrus

[Warpy]

64. Thank you for being sensible.

We're dealing with an overuse of force by an ignorant bunch of police who know nothing of health issues that could affect how quickly people respond to them. Add the racism that makes them overestimate the size, strength and threat posed by POC and it's a toxic stew.

Then give them military grade equipment and not expect them to act like an occupying army. Nothing could go wrong there.

I'm sick of seeing people killed by twitchy cops when I know how easily many of those situations could have been defused.

Oh, and that teenage girl? She acted like she was on something in addition to being terrified. However, their treatment of her was unconscionable. I think there will be a lawsuit and she just might get her way through college paid for.

[Rex]

65. Perfect reply.

[uppityperson]

76. ++++

[salin]

81. +++

well stated point.

[TeeYiYi]

113. Thank you.

TYY

[uponit7771]

152. THIS !!!!

[etherealtruth]

63. Why did the police escalate the situation?

Why did the police chief state "there is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand,"?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-video/index.html


Why does law enforcement do nothing to repair a recurring cycle of violence in the US. According to one research group, over 100 unarmed black people were killed by the police in 2015 and a string riots have occurred following similar shootings in 2016.
But what can be done to resolve this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36799554

Why did the police shoot Philandro Castille when he informed them he legally was carrying gun?


My guess (referring to your initial question) that we have such poor quality of policing in the US that if a black man has a gun .... even legally, the police have a significant potential of escalating the situation and killing the person.

Why do you suppose there is such mistrust of law enforcement in the black and hispanic community?

[Are_grits_groceries]

66. Why do the police lie about shootings?

They do all sorts of things under the guise of law and power. Yet you seem quite upset about these lies by families.
You state they are intentional. Maybe. Under stress people see all sorts of things. Eyewitness testimony from ANYBODY has proven to be unreliable.
I wish people would tell the truth and that includes the police.
AND you want to even begin to talk about people getting a pass if they lie? Please. If anybody has gotten a pass to shoot almost whenever the hell they want, it's the police.

In my view, if the people with the power refuse to hold their own accountable, why expect anybody else to? They basically set the rules but everybody else gets tagged but them.

And no it's not ok that anybody got killed in protests or otherwise. When any protest starts, especially under the cover of night, there are those who will take advantage of it to wreak havoc.

[Skittles]

73. wouldn't it be nice if people actually waited for the facts

WHAT A CONCEPT

[MichMan]

78. Wait for the facts ?

Here on DU ?

[Skittles]

79. they embarrass themselves greatly

idiots

[MichMan]

83. People are in such a hurry to respond to what they want to believe

Where I get frustrated is when a link is posted for the full story, and people start posting based on the headline and their pre conceived mindset without even reading the background to what they are commenting about. See it time and time again.

[Skittles]

92. yup

lack of critical thinking skills, and there are SOOOO many of them

[X_Digger]

88. P'shaaw. What's important is being first to SHOUT OUT LOUD!

Cause then you'll be remembered as "the one who led the charge". +11elevnty-billion internet points!

If it happens to not go the right way? Then a convenient lapse in memory occurs. We shall never speak of this again. Amen.

People believe what they want to believe- we're snap-judgement-making-apes-sans-fur. Once an idea gets entrenched in our heads, it's damned hard to dislodge, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The fact that you recognize that such a thing happens and attempt to not pre-judge or snap-judge a situation? Makes you smarter than the average bear, Skittles.

[Agschmid]

89. Yup.

[kwassa]

93. Whose facts? The prosecutor, biased towards the cops?

Wonder why police very rarely get charged? The prosecutors control the grand jury process.

[Skittles]

94. yes, we cannot believe our lying eyes

[kwassa]

98. Do you have a point? I should kick your ass ...

Schedule an ass-kicking for Skittles. I'll hire Skittles to do it.

There are few facts, at this point, but video stills DO show nothing in his left hand or right hand. He may well have a gun in a holster on his ankle. Does this justify a shooting? I don't think so.

Can cops police themselves? Not likely.

[Skittles]

101. both sides seem to have an agenda

and come up with whatever suits the agenda

[Egnever]

115. Where are the stills with nothing in his right hand?

I haven't seen those yet. Can you link them I would like to see them as I would not want to leave that out in my other post if true.

[kwassa]

127. I got it from you, actually.

His right hand is relaxed against his leg, holding nothing. If he was gripping anything, his hand would be curled up around it.

[Egnever]

134. I don't think that is clear enough to determine.

There is also a dark shadow there that makes it impossible in my opinion to tell one way or the other. The gun in question is rather small. Someone posted a picture of that model in the palm of someones hand. The left hand on the other hand was unmistakably empty.

I actually looked at that for a while back and forth and back and forth to see if I could capture a clear shot of that frame. I wish it were clearer it would end all debate on this instantly one way or another. That was the best I could get and it is not good at all unfortunately.

I think the combination of the ankle holster and the gun being kicked back by the red cop is pretty compelling. I am wide open to it not being the case that he had a gun but everything I see makes me think he did and I have not seen anything to make me believe he did not. The time between that cop in red bending down over him and him kicking the gun back was very short and the cop had his own gun in one hand which would make planting one pretty difficult in the space of time he had. I really am quite convinced that the object he kicked back was a gun, the gun they are claiming he had, planted or not.

Regardless I don't think this shooting was necessary gun or no gun, but I think it is important we are as clear as we can be on what happened.

[Lee-Lee]

145. You can't actually tell from that shot. It's a small gun

You can see his pinky isn't curled but the rest of the fingers you can't tell. That gun has a very small grip that likely didn't go down to his pinky, making that plausible.

The gun in question is a very, very small gun. I am a short woman and I can carry one totally down in my pocket in most pants without it being obvious. Don't look at the pictures looking for a full size pistol like the cops have, but rather a gun that in his hand would have looked almost comically small.

[img][/img]

Here is how small that gun is. Given that the color is close to his skin tone with the poor video quality you can't say there is or isn't one in the hand.

Crappy video quality makes it inpossoble to tell.

More telling is how his pants are pulled up over the holster and bunched there- very telling of someone who just drew a pistol out of an ankle holster while wearing pants that were not suited for one and were too tight around the ankle. Pants done just bunch up that much.

[Ace Rothstein]

97. I've been told people who wait for facts are cop apologists.

[Skittles]

102. yup

if you don't think all cops are evil pieces of shit, you're an apologist

[kwassa]

110. They often are.

[Skittles]

228. BUT NOT ALWAYS

[uponit7771]

186. You mean the when the Chief leaks evidence that fits their narrative? tia

[Skittles]

229. as did the family?

it is human nature to attempt to reduce liability....it's up to the grand jury / court of law to sort it out

do they ever get it wrong? Absolutely, with Zimmerman being a prime example

but it's better than listening to people who may be racist or people who think a cop's only purpose is hunting down poc - they all sound RIDICULOUS

[cleveramerican]

90. it would be believed

thats why
and the liars were right
there were loads of people nearby ready to lash out
all it took was a spark

[Matrosov]

100. Because they understand law enforcement?

Cops will find any reason to gun down a black man. Admitting right off the bat that Keith was armed would just fit the LEO narrative. He had it coming, and all that... Shit, Crutcher got blasted just because the cop thought he was reaching for something.

[Travis_0004]

103. And how that that help

The truth will come out and lying only makes him look worse.

[still_one]

104. I don't know, but I also don't know why it took so long to release the police video

That was just stupid, and probably contributed to some of the violent protests

Why does NC have a concealed carry law?

Did Scott point a weapon at police?

If not, were there better ways to incapacitate him then killing him?

[Lee-Lee]

106. It was released fairly quick all things considered.

Investigation is the first priority, and you want to get good statements from every witness before they see tape that may influence their memories. You are not going to get instant gratification of your curiosity placed at a higher priority than doing the investigation.

Not sure why you are asking about NC's CCH law, as it doesn't have anything to do with this case. As a person convicted of multiple violent felonies he wasn't legally allowed to buy or own a gun, much less get a CCW.

The footage is all unclear as to if he started to point the gun or not. But that doesn't matter as a person with a gun refusing to follow commands to drop it is still a threat- studies have a shown a person holding a gun down can raise and fire it faster on average than a cop with the gun already aimed at him can see the action, judge to shoot and pull the trigger. So even not complying and not dropping the gun is a threat. There is only one reason you don't drop a gun when police have guns aimed at you ordering you to do so- because you plan to use it. At that point, given what we know about reaction times, even the slightest move up with the gun should be seen as a threat because the average time to go from down at the side to up and firing is under four tenths of a second.

Were there other ways to incapacitate him? Given how quick and fast it went down, not likely. He was moving, and effectively using a taser against a moving person is difficult and when that person can be shooting at you in under a second a failed taser deployment can make things worse. Pepper spray is a no-no against a person with a gun. A bean bag round may have worked, but they didn't have the time in this case to go get a less-lethal shotgun out of a trunk and hope it worked.

[kwassa]

109. Nothing in the videos so far shows anything in either hand.

Nothing at all.

[still_one]

129. First of all the only reason they finally realease it was because of pressure from local

businesses and leaders.

Releasing the video does not taint any investigation, it is what happened, and in this case it would have actually cleared up the situation sooner. What situation, whether the police planted the weapon on him, and it showed clearly, they did not.

The open carry law has nothing to do with this incident, but why I mention it is because I believe open carry laws are insane, especially since they are allowed in bars and restaurants in NC.

[Lee-Lee]

144. Releasing video too so can harm an investigation

It's long proven that he more information an eyewitness to an event is given about an event the more their "memory" will shift to fit what that later were told or saw from what their true recollection was. Read the DOJ report on Ferguson and see how many eyewitnesses changed stories between first time they have a statement and second time based on what they heard on the street or in the media, or how many fabricated things they never saw (and it was impossible for them to see given where they were located) based on what they thought they "should have" seen.

I have seen no indication that they would have never released the video without pressure. Can you point me in the direction where the Mayor or Chief of Police said that?

I'm wondering now if you are just confused about the laws in NC. First you mentioned concealed carry, but in your reply you mention open carry. There was a big thing about concealed carry laws changing to allow carry on places that served alcohol as long as the person is not drinking, but open carry has been legal in NC for well over 80+ years now without issue and is nothing new in this state.

But don't worry about the concealed carry on restaurants either. The anti gun people were screaming about how dangerous it would be, how every bar and restaurant would be like a Wild West saloon and all that nonsense. The law passed 2 years ago and guess what- just like every other state every other time where they make the same panicked Chicken Little type screams that the sky is falling and there will be blood in the streets of the law changes none of it came true. 2 years into allowing licensed CCH holders to carry into Applebee's when they have a meal it's not the Wild West and there hasn't been one incident.

[sarisataka]

107. I wonder when attitudes changed

about guns. Some quotes from the past year or so as seen on DU:

When You See Open Carry, Call 911

A visible gun is a reason for concern.
It should withstand any false alarm allegation.

Most responsible police will treat a visible gun as a threat.
Nothing more is needed to take down and arrest a suspect.

I don't agree with your premise that displaying a firearm is protected.
It is a threat which should be dealt with as such.
Harshly and with extreme prejudice.

race was not an issue either. When a white man attacked a legally armed, elderly black man at a Walmart it was stated the attacker-

should have broken his damn arms. We have a right to protect ourselves from these ammosexuals

[X_Digger]

108. Foul on the play. You can't use their own words against them. Tain't fair, McGee! n/t

[curlyred]

121. Would a white man have been shot in the same situation?

That is the only question here.
I think not.

[TCJ70]

132. White folks are killed by police at twice the rate of black folks...

...so feel free to think not, but that doesn't make it so.

[Egnever]

140. That is a very tricky number

I would actually call that a gross mischaracterization of the numbers.

Yes more whites are killed by cops than black but there are also 7 times as many whites in the country. That said when you look at crime rates by race then the numbers for police shootings match up pretty well. Of course that is still tricky because blacks are over represented when compared to whites in the amount of crime per capita. Which is still tricky because is that caused by higher police presence in black neighborhoods leading to more arrests and/or are whites not being prosecuted as much?

Very tricky number and I think clear as mud.

[TCJ70]

150. It's not really a tricky number...

...there isn't any deception to it. Snopes reports that of people killed by police, 23% were black and 40% were white. Roughly twice as many.

I also have a problem with comparing these percentages to the population as a whole as not every person will have an encounter with police...it doesn't make sense to say "this demographic group only makes up this percent of the population" if not every person of that group runs into police.

Since we don't have numbers that are too accurate on total police interactions, I wonder what percentage of white people stopped by police versus number of black people stopped by police end up dead? This, to me, is the more accurate comparison since it reduces the sample size from the entire population to only people who have run-ins with the police.

[Lee-Lee]

163. Interesting study on the matter

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

It finds that cops are more likely to use non-lethal physical force in similar situations against black suspects than white, but actually less likely to shoot them.

It speaks to an interesting dynamic for sure. There can be several reasons to account for the data both ways, and people have challenged the study. I can say from my time doing that job that in my area black people, in general, were more likely to behave in ways that resulted in the call escalated to use of force than white people or Hispanics in similar situations, who tended to be more compliant with commands and instructions. That may be due to a distrust, it may be some other cultural thing, I don't know but it was a trend I observed and even the black officers in the department would readily tell you was there. This studies results finding higher rates of non-lethal force may be as an account of a similar tend, I don't know. For example on shoplifting calls a black suspect was generally for more likely to run or fight the store employees or an officer when confronted vs a white or Hispanic suspect- with the Hispanics generally the least likely to act in ways that escalated the call. Noting the trend made me work even harder to make sure I didn't subconsciously treat anyone different going into a call and try to watch myself for subconscious bias that came from a resulting of noting that trend, and that subconscious bias from experience could also account for that differential, once again I don't know.

FWIW the author is not a pro-cop researcher by any means and even admits to his own bias going in.

[Mike Nelson]

141. Normal reaction...

...family members want to protect. Really, what grieving family member is going to say, "Oh, yeah, he had a gun." You deny or say nothing. Family will not accept something like this could have happened. Remember, he died - so you have a lot of grief and desire to honor his life. Later on, there could be a lot of money involved. It may seem crass, now, but they could get settlement depending on what happened, exactly. Suddenly, Lawyers would appear and advise the family on what to say.

[DeltaLitProf]

142. Every word of this could be true . . .

. . . and the decision to shoot the man five times in the torso would still be wrong.

[uponit7771]

171. +1, and there's no photo evidence of Scott with a gun in his hand

[baldguy]

146. I see the "blame the victim" narrative is in full swing.

[pnwmom]

147. When I watched the tape instead of just reading the transcript, it seemed clear

that she was saying "don't you do it" to the police officer, not Keith. She was alternating shouting out to her husband and the officers.

[uponit7771]

154. +1

[Vinca]

148. How do you know the gun and holster were his?

Can you see the holster on his ankle in the wife's video? If you can plant a gun, you can plant a holster.

[Lee-Lee]

149. The holster is plainly visible on his right ankle in the body cam video

Did the cops sneak up ans slip it on his leg without him noticing while he sat in his car or something?

[Vinca]

213. Thanks for the information. That said, since it's an open carry state, so what?

The legislature needs to amend the law so black people realize it's only white people who are allowed to carry guns around. The man wasn't threatening anyone. His wife was there and screaming at cops not to shoot him because he had a brain injury (although she should have explicitly said brain injury when she was yelling to the police rather than "TBI&quot . It doesn't seem to matter if a person is brain injured or deaf or completely cooperative with police. If they're black they get shot anyway. I'll have to look at the body cam video. Unless the holster is evident as they approach and before any cop has blocked the view, it's still suspect.

[Lee-Lee]

214. It was the combination of drugs and the gun

They saw him evidently rolling what appeared to be a joint seated in the vehicle after he parked next to them and the cops made a decision to ignore that as a minor violation. Later they observed him with the gun and it was the combination of drugs+gun that led them to intervene.

[Vinca]

215. If everyone rolling a joint who happened to have a gun was executed, the population would

fall rather dramatically. I used to be a cop so I have some perspective on the use of deadly force and I've been seeing a whole lot of shoot first ask questions later. I blame it on the militarization of police departments. Cops are in a "we're at war" mindset and forget their salaries are being paid by the very people they're slaughtering willy-nilly. Look at the other poor guy last week with the car broken down in the road. If a person is so afraid of black people they act as if every one of them is a murderer, they have no business being a cop.

[Lee-Lee]

219. I was a deputy as well, if you were a cop you know very well

The reason he died is his choice to carry a gun illegally, exit the vehicle with his illegal gun when the police ordered him out instead of leaving it in the vehicle, and further refusing to drop the gun when ordered.

Plenty of people get arrested every day with joints or illegal guns. You know that. It was his actions that drove the situation to the end it came to.

[kwassa]

225. No, this is simply your opinion of the reason.

Flawed, too.

The cops didn't know the gun was illegal, so that is irrelevant in his being shot by cops.

We don't, at this point, have proof that he was holding the gun in his hand. The cops say so. It doesn't appear in the videos so far. You choose to believe the cops, but others here don't.

[Vinca]

226. I know I don't believe the cops.

[FBaggins]

217. The holster is plainly evident.

We can dance around the rest of this all day, but it still comes down to whether he had a gun in his hands when he got out of the car. It's clear that he's being told to drop it.

No, it still didn't go down the way that it should have, but if you were an officer then you know that you're putting your life at immediate risk (regardless of race) if you keep a gun in your hands while they're telling you to drop it. ANY movement could be misinterpreted as a threat and get you shot.

You can't say "the man wasn't threatening anyone" if he's walking around with a gun in his hand.

[uponit7771]

153. There's STILL no photo evidence of a gun in Scott's hand, the OP and everyone who

... is saying there was a gun in Scott's hand is giving the CPD the benefit of the doubt

[Lee-Lee]

176. The holster is on his leg, the gun was recovered, it is covered in his DNA and fingerprints

Are we demanding some sort of ridiculous new standard that we must now have photojournalist quality footage before any use of force is allowed?

The cops said they saw a gun. They confronted him. The footage clearly shows an ankle holster on his right ankle, exactly like the one now in evidence. They gun was recovered at the scene.

It all adds up. To believe the gun was planted would require the police to somehow get the ankle holster on him before he was shot. To say it was still in the holster would require the cops to have somehow seen it on his ankle while he was seated in his car instead of him having it out as they stated.

There is no other plausible explanation for the totality of the circumstances. He must have had the gun out of the holster for the cops to look down from their SUV and see it. It clearly was his given that he was wearing the matching holster on his ankle.

Nothing the CMPD has said was inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The family, on the other hand, have been shown to have lied about the basic facts, like the presence of the gun.

Keep grasping at straws trying to not accept what is becoming more and more obvious, You are just damaging your own credibility as it becomes clear that this is not the case of injustice it was billed as initially by the family and activists.

[uponit7771]

177. All still no evidence of a gun IN HIS HAND AT THE TIME THEY SHOT HIM. Even when looking at the scene

... 100% positive to the LEOs the cop who discovered the scene is going to be ripped apart about his account of what Scott was doing to even engage him.

There's no way the LEO knew the difference between regular tabacoo and weed... there was no reason to engage him in the first place

[Lee-Lee]

180. They were not just yelling for him to drop the gun for the fun of it

Unless your theory is some wild ass one like they all decided to find this guy carrying an illegal gun, get him to not comply with demands and not even put his hands up with lots of guns aimed at him, yell at him to drop the gun and then shoot him for no reason then quickly in a few seconds get the gun out of its holster and all get a quick story together that he was holding it.

And of course get the black cop to do the shooting just so it doesn't look racist.

And hope he doesn't react like a normal person with cops aiming guns at him and put his hands up but instead keeps his arm down by his side like a person with a gun in hand often does. Because if he didn't do that the evil plot above all falls apart.

Its a small gun, and the footage isn't high enough quality to see it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Totality of the circumstances speaks to only one logical explanation- that it was there.

Dude had a gun and didn't comply with orders to drop it. That is becoming obvious and is the only plausible explanation for all the evidence we have seen. He was a many time convicted felon with an illegal gun who obviously had not changed his ways as shown by his choice to illegally get and carry a gun. People who jumped on this case as if it was one of injustice before learning facts are being shown as fools now, and many are starting to grasp at straws to try and cling to their position instead of admitted maybe they jumped the gun, to the point of defending a convicted violent felon illegally carrying a gun in a forum where even law abiding gun ownership is usually vilified.

[uponit7771]

182. Yes there is, there has been many orange wallet shootings... ham Sandwhichs etc

I'm not giving the CPD the benefit of the doubt seeing their needless clamming up and the bad relationship they have with the CLT community

[Lee-Lee]

188. So explain to me how it goes down in your world

How does it happen that they see his gun, he refuses to comply, he refuses to raise his hand, there is a gun right at the scene, he is wearing the matching ankle holster in the body cam video and his pants leg is pulled up over the holster like it would be when someone raised the cuff up to draw the firearm. And he doesn't raise his hands to show they are empty when multiple officers have guns aimed at him telling him to drop his gun.

Explain to me a plausible, rational explanation where he is just an innocent victim and the police got it all wrong that explains all that away.

[kwassa]

191. It is possible that they spotted in the ankle holster ....

thought he had a gun in his hand, when it may have still been in the holster. He was walking backwards slowly when he was shot, hands at his side.

[Lee-Lee]

194. So why doesn't he raise his hands to show they are empty when confronted?

How and when do they get the gun out of the holster in mere seconds when they supposedly thought it was in his hands, especially since the holster can be seen between his leg and the ground in the pictures. You mean in a mere 6-8 seconds they realized the screwed up, figured out the gun was in the holster, hatched a plan to do a setup, managed to get it out of the holster while the holster was between his leg and the pavement and not easy to access, and planted it all in mere seconds and none of that was caught on video?

That's what your theory would have go down. In mere seconds.

Your grasping awfully, awfully hard at those straws.

[kwassa]

196. He has a traumatic brain injury ...

his reactions are not entirely normal or quick.

They may have stripped it out of the holster after he hit the ground. I think it would be much easier to do than the scenario you are attempting to create.

We also don't know what is on the rest of the videos because the police won't release them. I still believe the right hand was empty, looking at that still shot. None of the fingers are visibly flexed at all.

[hack89]

227. What is the evidence of that? nt

[uponit7771]

183. This is false on its face, she said he had no weapon...there's been no evidence of a GUN IN HIS HAND

... at the time of him being shot.

She didn't say there was no gun at all she said he didn't have a weapon

PERIOD

[uponit7771]

187. Strawman, there's no photo evidence of a weapon IN HIS HAND. The wife is right and the LEOs

... MIGHT be right that he COULD have a weapon in his possession but NOT in his hand.

The OP is bullshit on its face

[Lee-Lee]

189. She never said "in his hand"

You are really grasping at straws.

And the family and thier attorney stuck to the "unarmed man shot" story for days when it turns out he was a felon illegally carrying a weapon.

[uponit7771]

190. She doesn't have to to be correct, I have a wallet... I don't have one in my hand at the time I'm

... typing this post.

Given the context she's right and they COULD be right also

Bullshit ass'd OP

[Marr]

192. I don't think there's any level of proof that they'll accept.

At this point, you could show them a high res video of Scott holding up his gun and saying, 'I'm going to give it to 'em', and the faithful here would insist it was a box of candy he was planning to give to his family.

They don't seem to be arguing with any degree of integrity at this point-- just refusing to acknowledge error and digging in further.

[uponit7771]

151. +++++THERE'S NO PHOTO EVIDENCE OF SCOTT WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND ++++++++++

[Marr]

193. You look absurd at this point. Just stop.

I realize you won't accept anything short of a high res image of Scott lovingly cradling the gun against his face and encouraging you, uponit7771, personally, to believe it's not a Photoshop trick, but this...



...is photo evidence that he had a gun. There's an empty ankle holster for a small weapon, and his hands are in the position to be holding it. The quality of the image isn't high enough to make out the actual gun, but to any reasonable human being, that is photo evidence that he was holding a gun.

[treestar]

200. you can't see a gun but a reasonable person assumes there is one?

[exboyfil]

201. Here is a frame by frame analysis

done by another DU member. An object that appears to be a gun (and is treated by the cop in red as a gun) shows up within seconds of the shooting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8185880

[uponit7771]

204. Irrelevant, even in that analysis THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF A GUN IN HIS HAND

[FBaggins]

212. There isn't any evidence that the police planted a gun

Yet there is a gun, and it has Scott's fingerprints and DNA on it.

It couldn't have been still in the ankle holster because it appears on the ground before they could remove it from there.

[uponit7771]

216. We agree then, onus still on the LEOs because if it wasn't in his hand he posed no threat... given

... both of our positions being true

[FBaggins]

220. We can certainly agree that IF the gun wasn't in his hand, then he posed them no threat.

But there isn't any evidence that there was no gun in his hand and (despite the lack of clear video proof) there's still lots of evidence that there WAS a gun in his hand.

[uponit7771]

221. There's no photo evidence of a gun that has been shown, I need DIRECT photo evidence not conjecture

... it could've been in his hand, Onus still on LEOs but less of it due to the fact the guy wasn't hurting anyone in his car rolling a cigarette and could've been legally owning a gun.

The LEO there put this guy and his mates in danger needlessly...

From the start of it, EVEN LOOKING AT THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY, I don't think LEOs who NEEDLESSLY escalate a situation should be exhonorated from murder.

It's like swinging ones arms wildly in a crowded walkway... illegal? No... culpable if someone gets hurt? yeap

[uponit7771]

203. +1, meaning a person giving the CPD the UNEARNED benefit of the doubt ...

[jmg257]

206. Why do you think the CPD should not get the benefit of the doubt..i.e. anything specific?

Anyway, either 'you' take the word of the numerous cops involved, along with the evidence of the holster
on Scott's leg, the existence of the gun at the scene, and the incident/situation as it went down, or 'you' take the stance that since YOU did not see a gun in his hand, he was not holding a gun.


Interesting call.

[uponit7771]

202. Ad homs are an indicator of a weak position. THERE'S NO PHOTO EVIDENCE OF A GUN IN HIS HAND

[Whiskeytide]

205. Maybe you're right, but...

... there is also no definitive photo evidence that his hands were empty.

What evidence do we have?

He owned a gun.

He had what appears to be an empty ankle holster on his ankle.

His pants leg was pulled up over the holster as he exited the vehicle.

At least one cop was shouting "drop the gun" repeatedly.

When he was shot, he fell. One cop stood and backed up to stand in a particular place - looking down as he did so. This happened within seconds. It seems clear he was positioning himself to stand over the weapon. That's pretty standard procedure it a situation like this.

A photograph/still shows the gun on the ground in approximately the spot where this cop positioned himself to stand.

The gun apparently fits the holster.

So what conclusion do we draw from all this?

1. He had a gun in his hand when he was shot. Or...

2. It was a carefully executed plant job that occurred almost simultaneously with the shooting, that all of the cops were in on it - to the point that they falsely yelled "drop the gun" before the shooting, and it was therefore a premeditated execution.

I'm not saying the latter is an impossible scenario, but it's just much less likely given the totality of the circumstances. Could the cop have dropped a plant gun? Sure. Could the cops have yelled "drop the gun" as a pretext to a set up? Sure. But all of that requires a great deal of speculation and preconceived bias against the cops.

The conduct of the police would have been exactly the same if the gun were clearly visible in the video. I.e. Their actions were consistent with him having a gun in his hand. The fact that they might also be consistent with a coverup is to be expected (that is the goal of a coverup, after all) - but not necessarily believed unless you're willing to ignore known facts.

[GOLGO 13]

207. He got the LEO attention by waiving the gun & rolling a joint in public.

[uponit7771]

223. There's no video or photo evidence of him waving anything and the LEO didn't know it was a joint vs

... a cigarrete.

This shooting was bad from the start

[Blue_Tires]

222. What the fuck does it matter? N.C. is open carry

and unless he pointed it at someone, I fail to see the reason why he had to die.

[wildeyed]

224. Witnesses at the scene said it was a book.

The family said he was not known to carry a gun. Even in the video, it is not clear what, if anything he is holding. Understandable that witnesses had varying stories too.

After the shooting, people were angry, confused and needed answers. The problems began when the police chief refused to release the video to remove that discrepancy. If he had been transparent from the beginning, much heartache could have been avoided.

Having seen the part of the videos he has released, I understand why he wanted to hush it up. Whatever the details, his officers instigated the confrontation and then escalated it. Bad job, and now a man is dead.

Disgusting that you are blaming the family of a dead man for the incompetence of the police.

[Crabby Appleton]

230. Update - Keith Scott was carrying stolen gun

CHARLOTTE (WTVD) -- The gun that Keith Scott had on him during the deadly shooting was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, police said.

The breaking and entering suspect told ATF Agents that he sold the gun to Scott.

The suspect is in custody.

Scott's wife filed a domestic violence protective order on him in 2015 saying he hit his child, kicked her and threatened to kill them with his gun, ABC affiliate WSOC reported Monday evening.

http://abc11.com/news/man-shot-by-charlotte-police-was-sold-stolen-gun-authorities-say/1527591/

Also see :





http://www.twcnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2016/09/26/court-records-details-keith-scott-s-criminal-history.html

[Lee-Lee]

231. Scott was a killer who was a danger to Law Enforcement because he carried a gun illegally

No, not my words, his wife's own words less than a year ago, sworn under oath when she took out a restraining order against him. So if you clicked on this post expecting to rage at me for that title maybe your anger and rage should be directed to the person who said it under oath.

http://www.twcnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2016/09/26/court-records-details-keith-scott-s-criminal-history.html

Copies of the document can be found online to see it in her own handwriting. She swore to the magistrate and signed under penalty of perjury he punched her daughter in the head with his fist, that he threatened her with a gun, that he was a "killer" to use his own word who was a danger to her and her children, and that he was a danger to law enforcement because he carried a gun.

Law enforcement attempted to serve the order in him and get the gun away, but he fled to SC and when they sent the papers to SC he fled to Florida. His wife later voluntarily withdrew the order and unfortunately nobody followed up on the fact that she claimed he was illegally in possession of a handgun, and she evidently was ok with it after that.

Yet when the family made all their statements about how he was a peacful man who didn't have a gun and was just there to be a good father and get his daughter suddenly the fact that he was beating his daughter and pointing and illegally owned gun at his wife just months ago somehow left thier memory? The fact that she testified under oath he carried a gun and was a danger to police must have just slipped their mind.... Right?

Oh, and the gun he had? Reported stolen. The burglary suspect is in custody and reportedly has already admitted to selling him the stolen gun.

As more and more facts come out that fill in the blanks all in one direction..... Nothing has come out yet to fit the families version of events, while all the physical evidence so far has supported the police version. And it's becoming more and more clear that the family has been far less honest and "transparnt" than the CMPD, and that thier dishonesty and lack of transparency caused a false version of events to circulate resulting in much violence and bloodshed and even another life lost.

The video supports the police version, the only the people who want a find a reason to grasp at a straw can cite is the video isn't high enough quality to discern a tiny gun that is close to the same color as his flesh tone in his hand because they suddenly expect IMAX quality footage from body cams.

I think I will go back and post the details of his gun being found to have been stolen and the burglary suspect WHO HAS ADMITTED selling if to him being arrested on every "throw down" gun conspiracy post just so folks can see how foolish they were.

[Citrus]

232. So full of yourself

Just because people disagree with you and try to see other sides of an issue, or even wait for further evidence, does not mean they are foolish. What is foolish, however, is crowing about yourself, strutting around like the cock of the walk. Transparent attempts at superiority only make fools attractive in the mirror.