The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

[dismal]

People who knew him say it would have been unusual for him not to be reading as he waited for his kid's school bus to arrive. I'll take the neighbors' word for it. At the very least, it was perfectly reasonable for his wife to believe he had been reading a book when the cops started freaking out about him holding something in his hands.

Am I really the only one who is puzzled as to why anyone thinks "Sitting in car with a pistol in hand, brandishing pistol at passing police officers" is even a believable claim for a man who was waiting for his son to come home from school?

I'm just not understanding the logic here:
On the one hand, the possibility that the police simply misunderstood his presence (not knowing why he was there) and mistook the object he was carrying for a weapon and escalated the confrontation unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the possibility that he was sitting in his car with the weapon in his hand, got out of the car with the weapon, then back INTO the car with the weapon, and then pointed the weapon AT the police, all for reasons unknown, all while waiting for his son to get dropped off.

I mean, even if we were to concede that he HAD a weapon, no part of the police narrative even BEGINS to make sense.

The video shows he had an ankle holster.

It also apparently shows the police telling him to "drop the gun" 10 times.

But I guess this all could be explained by him having a gun shaped book that he carried in an ankle holster.

Now, of course they also (claim they, I know to the true believers) found a gun at the scene.

Quite an elaborate production. The police put a lot of effort into this charade.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Am I really the only one who is puzzled as to why anyone thinks "Sitting in car with a pistol in hand, brandishing pistol at passing police officers" is even a believable claim for a man who was waiting for his son to come home from school?

I'm just not understanding the logic here:
On the one hand, the possibility that the police simply misunderstood his presence (not knowing why he was there) and mistook the object he was carrying for a weapon and escalated the confrontation unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the possibility that he was sitting in his car with the weapon in his hand, got out of the car with the weapon, then back INTO the car with the weapon, and then pointed the weapon AT the police, all for reasons unknown, all while waiting for his son to get dropped off.

I mean, even if we were to concede that he HAD a weapon, no part of the police narrative even BEGINS to make sense.

The video shows he had an ankle holster.

Not seeing an ankle holster in any of these videos. Or a gun for that matter.

It also apparently shows the police telling him to "drop the gun" 10 times.

Begging the interesting question "How do I drop a gun that I am not holding?"

But I guess this all could be explained by him having a gun shaped book that he carried in an ankle holster.

Or by the cops not knowing what the fuck they were doing. One of the videos shows one of the officers banging his fist on the back of Lamont's car just before he gets out; it's THIS officer who Lamont is backing away from in the dashcam video.

I don't know if that's standard police procedure: "Run up to passenger side of suspect window and punch the back window several times to get his attention."

Quite an elaborate production. The police put a lot of effort into this charade.

That's not even hyperbole. Five different officers in three police cars and one of whom goes to retrieve some "equipment" from the back of his truck... they DID put a lot of effort into this production. Still unclear is what "equipment" that actually was since the officer who goes to the back of the SUV comes back seemingly empty handed and doesn't do anything else while Lamont's wife is filming.

So it's not a question of whether or not this is an elaborate occurrence where a lot of different things happened at once. It's a question of whether or not they're lying about what happened and why.

 

[dismal]

The video shows he had an ankle holster.

Not seeing an ankle holster in any of these videos. Or a gun for that matter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not seeing an ankle holster in any of these videos. Or a gun for that matter.

View attachment 8235

She's got two.

Except when white people wear them, they're called "socks."

 

[dismal]

View attachment 8235

She's got two.

Except when white people wear them, they're called "socks."

Yes, of course, many people strap socks to the outside of their legs.



And again one must admire the police for coming up with an ankle holster at the scene that looks exactly like the sock in question:

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'll never understand your logic, dismal. Cops see a man with a gun, initiate a confrontation, and when he doesn't disarm himself they kill him.

Seems so very wrong to me.

 

[dismal]

I'll never understand your logic, dismal. Cops see a man with a gun, initiate a confrontation, and when he doesn't disarm himself they kill him.

Seems so very wrong to me.

My comments in this thread have only been that the video shows he had an ankle holster and that the cops told him "drop the gun" 10 times. This isn't so much "logic" as a statement of facts.

Though I did acknowledge other possible explanations of the apparent facts, like that maybe he had a gun shaped book he carried in an ankle holster that may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg.

And that the cops were really quite prepared to set up this whole charade if that were the case.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'll never understand your logic, dismal. Cops see a man with a gun, initiate a confrontation, and when he doesn't disarm himself they kill him.

Seems so very wrong to me.

My comments in this thread have only been that the video shows he had an ankle holster and that the cops told him "drop the gun" 10 times. This isn't so much "logic" as a statement of facts.

Though I did acknowledge other possible explanations of the apparent facts, like that maybe he had a gun shaped book he carried in an ankle holster that may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg.

And that the cops were really quite prepared to set up this whole charade if that were the case.

Not sure you're being cutesy or what but I hope you understand and can appreciate my perspective.

 

[RavenSky]

may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg..

Just curious... where do you wear your socks if not on the outside of your leg?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg..

Just curious... where do you wear your socks if not on the outside of your leg?

Right. Maybe dismal has some ideas.

No matter how you cut it, this guy should not be dead. Cops aren't death squads. They're supposed to be serving and protecting the public, not living in some wild west fantasy.

I need a few beers.

 

[Malintent]

Whatever the comparable rates are it doesn't make police shootings of no concern.

true. It does seem to makes the claim that the rates indicate racial bias appear false, though.

 

[Rhea]

I'll never understand your logic, dismal. Cops see a man with a gun, initiate a confrontation, and when he doesn't disarm himself they kill him.

Seems so very wrong to me.

My comments in this thread have only been that the video shows he had an ankle holster and that the cops told him "drop the gun" 10 times. This isn't so much "logic" as a statement of facts.
.

Ignorning the more likely possibility that perhaps he had an ankle holster and the gun was in it and therefore not in his hands, and therefore, again, "how do I drop a gun that is not in my hand?" You might try to bend down to get the gun - and get shot dead for that.

 

[coloradoatheist]

My comments in this thread have only been that the video shows he had an ankle holster and that the cops told him "drop the gun" 10 times. This isn't so much "logic" as a statement of facts.
.

Ignorning the more likely possibility that perhaps he had an ankle holster and the gun was in it and therefore not in his hands, and therefore, again, "how do I drop a gun that is not in my hand?" You might try to bend down to get the gun - and get shot dead for that.

Except the gun was not in the holster and a few feet away. Also the video doesn't have him reaching down that far, just backing up.

 

[Rhea]

Ignorning the more likely possibility that perhaps he had an ankle holster and the gun was in it and therefore not in his hands, and therefore, again, "how do I drop a gun that is not in my hand?" You might try to bend down to get the gun - and get shot dead for that.

Except the gun was not in the holster and a few feet away. Also the video doesn't have him reaching down that far, just backing up.

You mean it was there after the police shot him dead and converged on the scene?

And no, he would necessarily reach down. The other option is to think as the cops are screeching at you, "I don't have a gun in my hand! I have nothing to drop! How do I survive this? I'll back up slowly, that'll wor..."

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the gun was not in the holster and a few feet away. Also the video doesn't have him reaching down that far, just backing up.

You mean it was there after the police shot him dead and converged on the scene?

And no, he would necessarily reach down. The other option is to think as the cops are screeching at you, "I don't have a gun in my hand! I have nothing to drop! How do I survive this? I'll back up slowly, that'll wor..."

I was actually looking for where the crime scene photos had the gun in relation to the body, but can't find it right now.

No. Except a more obvious answer to how to survive, place your hands on top of your head as you leave your vehicle.

 

[dismal]

may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg..

Just curious... where do you wear your socks if not on the outside of your leg?

tip: That does not say "worn on the outside of his leg" it says "strapped to the outside of his leg".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

may have actually been a sock he strapped to the outside of his leg..

Just curious... where do you wear your socks if not on the outside of your leg?

The.... inside of your leg?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Just curious... where do you wear your socks if not on the outside of your leg?

The.... inside of your leg?

Do a lot of socks have straps and only go 1/4 around the leg?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The.... inside of your leg?

Do a lot of socks have straps and only go 1/4 around the leg?

Depends on the sock

I could be wrong about this, but it's documented that Keith Lamont suffered from a disability, the nature of which has not been described. It is NOT documented that he had a concealed carry license or had ever purchased a firearm (and his wife seemed to think he didn't have one).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping in mind that the original police were not in uniform and in an unmarked car, and admit to watching him closely enough to claim he was rolling a joint... Maybe (speculation here), he saw them watching him and - not knowing they were cops - showed his gun (if he really had one) as a warning not to start shit with him. To be clear, this is purely wild speculation in an attempt to make sense of the conflicting reports; and still not a justification for police shooting at and killing him (or even approaching him for any reason)

That makes sense--but your response does not.

Flashing a weapon because someone is looking at you is not acceptable, the police reacting to it would be appropriate.