The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

[T.G.G. Moogly]

He refused to drop the gun even after repeated (11-12 times or so) commands to do so. That sure sounds justified to me. I do not think any grand jury indicts them. Do you?

The argument is that the cop felt threatened and shot him. That means that if the guy felt threatened by the cops he could legally shoot them too.

Criminals are threatened by police. That does not give them the right to shoot police. So the argument does not work both ways because of monopoly on legitimate use of physical force.

I'd love to be on that jury.

What would your justification for indictment be?

Note that the family has insisted (and still do) that Scott had no gun. So since he had a gun that collapses their whole version of events.

Your bias is noted.

The guy had a gun. So what? What was their reason for telling him to drop his gun? Are all cops afraid of people with guns? Can a cop tell anyone with a gun that they need to disarm or they will be killed? If that is your argument it hangs on the premise that cops are special people and can therefore go about telling people for any or no reason to give up their weapons. What exactly did this guy do while he was sitting in his car that prompted the police to want him disarmed? How was his behavior "criminal?"

Like I said, you don't want me on that jury.

 

[Arctish]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all month.

Not even within orders of magnitude as stupid as the version that said that he was reading in his car, minding his business, when a group of police officers took time during the service of an unrelated warrant and spontaneously decided to murder him for no apparent reason.

That is stupider.

Since no one said it until you did just now, after the police produced their version of events, it doesn't invalidate my statement. However, you've clearly outdone the cops, so now your version of events is the stupidest thing I've heard this month.

Congratulations!

 

[RavenSky]

The physical evidence is the presence of Scott's DNA and fingerprints on the gun they retrieved and also that he had an ankle holster. The video is not clear one way of another, but the physical evidence is pretty definitive. Unless you want to allege a conspiracy involving the entire department.

We have ON VIDEO in another case a cop throwing down a gun to justify killing a black man. Video evidence in this case does not show a gun in the victim's hand, nor acting threatening in any way. Without definitive evidence of the victim having a gun and pointing a gun at cops or acting threatening in any way, this is not a "good shoot" (as you like to call them)

P.S.: I will no longer discuss the issue of picking up the kid. I still think it's weird but apparently many people are weird about that.

Given that you don't have kids nor hold opinions on much of anything that I can respect, I don't care what you find "weird". When you have a child, and have to head straight to the doctor with him immediately after school, then we will see how "weird" you think it is. Until then, heaven forbid you admit you were wrong on an point, no matter how minor.

 

[RavenSky]

The black thing on his right ankle surely looks like a holster to me. Was that planted too?

I will agree that the thing on his ankle does look like a gun holster, and if so that would support the claim that he also had a gun - but in that photo he is not pointing a gun at cops and doesn't even look like he has it in his hands. He doesn't appear to be doing anything threatening at all.

What I find interesting is that you aren't spinning speculations as to why Keith Scott might show his gun to two suspicious characters eyeballing him while he is waiting at the bus stop for his kid. You've already speculated that there must be gangs in the neighborhood. Maybe, if the plainclothes cops are telling the truth on that point, Keith Scott showed his gun to the suspicious guys who could be gang members and pulled up next to him at the bus stop to warn them not to start trouble with him.

See, I can speculate, too!

The point remains that there is nothing in either of the videos that show Keith Scott being a threat to police or anyone else. As long as the NRA insists that white men are allowed to carry their guns anywhere and everywhere, then the same applies to black men. And while I really think this "open/concealed carry" shit is horrible for the safety of police, as long as police are able to verify and/or disarm white men without killing them then police should be able to do the same with black men.

 

[Rhea]

How come the head of the wearer of the bodycam is obscuring the view?

It's cleverly positioned so that whenever he is actually shooting his gun, his head will obscure it.

STUPID training...
or deliberate.

 

[Rhea]

After seeing the police version of the cams, including the unfathomable error of mounting a camera where the cop’s head will obscure it if he fires his gun, I’m beginning to see a scenario emerge:


Cops are staking out a spot.
Lamont pulls up, knowing his son is about to get off the bus and waits in his car. Doesn’t see the others, or maybe does, rolls a joint. He may have a gun in an ankle holster (this may be illegal, but is not a death penalty case, nor, while it’s in the holster, a threat.)
Lamont continues to sit in his car. Perhaps he looks at his gun, as stupid gun nuts are known to do. Perhaps, he does not. We don’t know.
He starts to get out, sees the people, gets back in. Perhaps he puts his gun back in it’s holster, perhaps it’s been there all along.
He gets back in his car.
Man comes up and starts banging on the windows, holding a gun on him.
Lamont gets out, starts backing away, gun still in the holster on his ankle. (you can see his right hand in the video. There’s nothing in it.)
Cops are screeching, “put down the gun! Put down the gun!” But the gun is not in his hand, it’s in the holster. How can he comply without “reaching for a gun”!?! What to do? He backs up slowly to try to show no sudden moves, no move toward the gun…

And dies.

The cops go to him. One cop says to the other over the body, “you on?” pause while the other perhaps nods? And then says, “oh, no.”
At this time, perhaps they see the gun is still in its holster. They take it out, and say, “see, he had a gun, it has his finger prints on it!!!!1!!!”

But you know, that gun never threatened them.

 

[iolo]

As we all know, he was 'black', which is a capital crime in itself, and if he had a bang-bang to show he supported the NRA, that was a reason to make it immediate execution. The Politzei have the constitutional right to do as they please always, right? It is one very sick country!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Tom Joad we need you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JR3FmvVAw

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some other observations from the high-quality photo:

• in the back, there is a race car. The driver is a muppet with a large circle for a head with a mohawk;
• in front of Scott, there are tentacles of the ancient god Cthulhu surrounding his truck;
• there is a random vertical black segmented line behind Scott's right shoe;
• Scott is trying to hide an anti-tank weapon or bazooka behind himself but it's only half-hidden.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

After seeing the police version of the cams, including the unfathomable error of mounting a camera where the cop’s head will obscure it if he fires his gun, I’m beginning to see a scenario emerge:


Cops are staking out a spot.
Lamont pulls up, knowing his son is about to get off the bus and waits in his car. Doesn’t see the others, or maybe does, rolls a joint. He may have a gun in an ankle holster (this may be illegal, but is not a death penalty case, nor, while it’s in the holster, a threat.)
Lamont continues to sit in his car. Perhaps he looks at his gun, as stupid gun nuts are known to do. Perhaps, he does not. We don’t know.
He starts to get out, sees the people, gets back in. Perhaps he puts his gun back in it’s holster, perhaps it’s been there all along.
He gets back in his car.
Man comes up and starts banging on the windows, holding a gun on him.
Lamont gets out, starts backing away, gun still in the holster on his ankle. (you can see his right hand in the video. There’s nothing in it.)
Cops are screeching, “put down the gun! Put down the gun!” But the gun is not in his hand, it’s in the holster. How can he comply without “reaching for a gun”!?! What to do? He backs up slowly to try to show no sudden moves, no move toward the gun…

And dies.

The cops go to him. One cop says to the other over the body, “you on?” pause while the other perhaps nods? And then says, “oh, no.”
At this time, perhaps they see the gun is still in its holster. They take it out, and say, “see, he had a gun, it has his finger prints on it!!!!1!!!”

But you know, that gun never threatened them.

Don't also forget this is a guy with traumatic brain injury. According to the police, two of their own originally pulled up in plain clothes and were watching him. What sorts of thoughts of danger did he have at that? Then, those two quickly exited and came back with police vests on, telling him to get out of the car. I imagine that someone who is brain injured might be confused as to whether they're actually police or not. The wife was in the background encouraging him to get out of the car and explaining to the police that Scott had traumatic brain injury, hoping they'd know what to do with someone who can't process things normally. We've all seen how going off-script works when they deal with deaf people...

 

[iolo]

People will always yack on about the detail of every individual murder. The American police kill about a thousand a year, and most blacks they choose to. Why discuss the detail? - take the bang-bangs from the racist bullies.

 

[fast]

We have ON VIDEO in another case a cop throwing down a gun to justify killing a black man.

There's always been something about this kind of wording that bothers me as misleading. It hangs on the word, "to." It's subtle, but the closely related facts deceptively make it sound like what you're saying is definitively accurate when it may not in fact be true at all.

First, there is a difference between what we do and why we do what we do--the 'what' vs 'why' issue. Let's say he threw a gun. That's what he did. Why did he throw the gun? Let's say he threw the gun to justify killing someone. Notice the use of the word, "to", signaling an answer to a "why" question.

Second, there are more facts. The guy is black. Is that fact germain to the why question or incidental to it? What he did may result in shoddy justification for killing a black man, but what I quoted you as saying has to do with the 'why' question. If his sole purpose was to cover his butt regardless of race or gender, then I would submit that what you said is not true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How come the head of the wearer of the bodycam is obscuring the view?

It's cleverly positioned so that whenever he is actually shooting his gun, his head will obscure it.

STUPID training...
or deliberate.

I think the camera is worn by someone behind the head that keeps blocking the view.

 

[Derec]

I imagine that someone who is brain injured might be confused as to whether they're actually police or not.

I think it is highly likely he was confused. The thing is, somebody that brain damaged should not have had a gun, even if he was not prohibited from having one due to a felony conviction. Hell, I do not think he should have been allowed to be in control of a two ton piece of machinery (i.e. his SUV). Would he have been confused by a routine traffic stop? Or simply by heavy traffic?

The wife was in the background encouraging him to get out of the car and explaining to the police that Scott had traumatic brain injury, hoping they'd know what to do with someone who can't process things normally.

She was also yelling that he was not armed which turned out to be a lie.

We've all seen how going off-script works when they deal with deaf people...

You mean Daniel Harris? The guy who chose to lead them on a 100 mph chase?

 

[Derec]

I will agree that the thing on his ankle does look like a gun holster, and if so that would support the claim that he also had a gun - but in that photo he is not pointing a gun at cops and doesn't even look like he has it in his hands. He doesn't appear to be doing anything threatening at all.

That photo is not clear enough to see whether he is holding a gun. It also does not show the instant he was shot. We know he was warned multiple times to drop the gun.
The mere fact that he was armed proves the family narrative that he was reading the book false. It is the lie that spawned the Charlotte riots.

What I find interesting is that you aren't spinning speculations as to why Keith Scott might show his gun to two suspicious characters eyeballing him while he is waiting at the bus stop for his kid. You've already speculated that there must be gangs in the neighborhood. Maybe, if the plainclothes cops are telling the truth on that point, Keith Scott showed his gun to the suspicious guys who could be gang members and pulled up next to him at the bus stop to warn them not to start trouble with him.

You mean like how he unloaded his gun 11 times into that guy in Texas because Scott thought the guy was following him?
Not unlikely. He does seem to have an aggressive streak, given his history.

The point remains that there is nothing in either of the videos that show Keith Scott being a threat to police or anyone else.

Refusing to drop the gun when repeatedly ordered to is a threat in and of itself.

As long as the NRA insists that white men are allowed to carry their guns anywhere and everywhere, then the same applies to black men.

Does NRA insist that people have the right to disobey police commands to drop the gun?
Does NRA insist that violent felons have the right to own and carry guns?

And while I really think this "open/concealed carry" shit is horrible for the safety of police, as long as police are able to verify and/or disarm white men without killing them then police should be able to do the same with black men.

Note that Scott shot somebody in Texas. He was just as black then. He was disarmed and arrested in that instance without getting shot. Stop making it all about race!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

After seeing the police version of the cams, including the unfathomable error of mounting a camera where the cop’s head will obscure it if he fires his gun, I’m beginning to see a scenario emerge:


Cops are staking out a spot.
Lamont pulls up, knowing his son is about to get off the bus and waits in his car. Doesn’t see the others, or maybe does, rolls a joint. He may have a gun in an ankle holster (this may be illegal, but is not a death penalty case, nor, while it’s in the holster, a threat.)
Lamont continues to sit in his car. Perhaps he looks at his gun, as stupid gun nuts are known to do. Perhaps, he does not. We don’t know.
He starts to get out, sees the people, gets back in. Perhaps he puts his gun back in it’s holster, perhaps it’s been there all along.
He gets back in his car.
Man comes up and starts banging on the windows, holding a gun on him.
Lamont gets out, starts backing away, gun still in the holster on his ankle. (you can see his right hand in the video. There’s nothing in it.)
Cops are screeching, “put down the gun! Put down the gun!” But the gun is not in his hand, it’s in the holster. How can he comply without “reaching for a gun”!?! What to do? He backs up slowly to try to show no sudden moves, no move toward the gun…

And dies.

The cops go to him. One cop says to the other over the body, “you on?” pause while the other perhaps nods? And then says, “oh, no.”
At this time, perhaps they see the gun is still in its holster. They take it out, and say, “see, he had a gun, it has his finger prints on it!!!!1!!!”

But you know, that gun never threatened them.

Very plausible scenario.

So why did the cops feel the need to disarm and then shoot this guy if he did not give up his weapon? That's the question. Training - more accurately, poor training? This guy should absolutely positively not be dead, and there's no other reason than that the cops unnecessarily killed him for having a gun. The cops clearly initiated a confrontation and then killed him. Maybe they were just aggressively standing their ground.

 

[Derec]

We have ON VIDEO in another case a cop throwing down a gun to justify killing a black man.

All cops are guilty by association because a cop in a different state tried to plant a gun?

Video evidence in this case does not show a gun in the victim's hand, nor acting threatening in any way.

The video is not clear one way or another. But there is clear physical evidence.

Without definitive evidence of the victim having a gun and pointing a gun at cops or acting threatening in any way, this is not a "good shoot" (as you like to call them)

I think we have definitive evidence of him having a gun. That alone proves the family story a lie.

Given that you don't have kids nor hold opinions on much of anything that I can respect, I don't care what you find "weird". When you have a child, and have to head straight to the doctor with him immediately after school, then we will see how "weird" you think it is. Until then, heaven forbid you admit you were wrong on an point, no matter how minor.

The kid did not have a doctor's appointment. And if I have to drive a kid to an appointment and time is of an issue, I would pick him up at the school.

- - - Updated - - -

However, you've clearly outdone the cops, so now your version of events is the stupidest thing I've heard this month.
Congratulations!

I can't take credit. That is the family version of events. "Dying for reading" scenario was concocted and promulgated by them.

 

[Derec]

Your bias is noted.

Yours too.

The guy had a gun. So what?

1. He was repeatedly ordered to drop it. He didn't.
2. He was a violent felon and was not allowed to have a gun in the first place.
3. The family made a huge deal out of their claim that he was "reading a book" and "didn't have a gun". That is what sparked the riots and it has now been proven a lie.

What was their reason for telling him to drop his gun?

I would say that is SOP when there is somebody with a gun in their hands.

Are all cops afraid of people with guns?

Yes, and for a good reason.

Can a cop tell anyone with a gun that they need to disarm or they will be killed?

Yes.

If that is your argument it hangs on the premise that cops are special people and can therefore go about telling people for any or no reason to give up their weapons.

Since police are empowered to enforce laws, yes in that regard they are "special people" that can give people lawful orders.

What exactly did this guy do while he was sitting in his car that prompted the police to want him disarmed? How was his behavior "criminal?"

Apparently him rolling a joint was what they noticed first. Then they noticed the gun.

Like I said, you don't want me on that jury.

I do not think anybody does.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it is highly likely he was confused. The thing is, somebody that brain damaged should not have had a gun, even if he was not prohibited from having one due to a felony conviction.

Assuming he had a gun (and I am not convinced yet), he could have had it to protect himself and his family like other citizens do. For example, according to police when two strange men were watching him and approached the vehicle, he showed them the gun--it was a statement: "I'm standing my ground. don't fuck with me"--not I'm going to kill you for nothing. If it was a "I'm going to kill you for nothing" statement, then he'd shoot them right then and there. Assuming it actually went down the way police say.

Hell, I do not think he should have been allowed to be in control of a two ton piece of machinery (i.e. his SUV).

There are different areas of the brain with different functions. His affected area during his motorcycle accident may not have disabled him driving a vehicle but may have made verbal communication or processing more difficult. We don't know. But what we do know is that his wife was pleading with the police to make exceptions to their normal procedures based on his disabilities which they did not seem to do to the most reasonable extent needed to ensure Scott would be alive. It's possible that they did give him more flexibility than they otherwise would since they told him to drop a gun multiple times while not shooting (and again that could be because they knew he did not have murderous intent based on his own actions). If they had additionally listened to the wife about the brain injury, then they could have accomodated that more.

The wife was in the background encouraging him to get out of the car and explaining to the police that Scott had traumatic brain injury, hoping they'd know what to do with someone who can't process things normally.

She was also yelling that he was not armed which turned out to be a lie.

We do not know that for sure. Even if she was mistaken, it doesn't invalidate that Scott showed he was not murderous and it does not invalidate that he had traumatic brain injury that the wife stated to police.

We've all seen how going off-script works when they deal with deaf people...

You mean Daniel Harris? The guy who chose to lead them on a 100 mph chase?

I didn't read that whole thread and I was speaking in general. For example, there were two incidents from a long time ago, one where a deaf guy was in a bathroom. Needless violence resulted because they assumed the person in the bathroom could here their demands.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nitrile is blue, isn't it??

Available in many colors. http://www.galeton.com/mcr-nitrishield-trade-color-fusion-4-mil-nitrile-gloves/12086-product/?gclid=CM6YnMP8qs8CFRCNaQod7isFaA

https://www.gloveamerica.com/store/viewprod.php?id=3&gclid=CK_wnv38qs8CFQiqaQodAvwEoQ