CMPD Releases Video Of Fatal Shooting Of Keith Lamont Scott

a reply to: Spider879

So you're saying there is not enough evidence to justify what happened to Keith, but so ready to accuse planting a gun when that statement has no proof? There were probably mistakes made on both side, but where in the video did a police officer get in Keith's vehicle and put a holster on his ankle? Who where's an ankle holster with no gun?

I have just watched the video, and to be honest I now have doubts as to the veracity of what the police are saying. The following two pictures are from the video. The first one shows no gun on the floor, and the timing of the picture is 1:41; the 2nd picture timed at 1:46 shows the gun on the floor. Where did it come from?

Obviously, it was put there by a cop, as the deceased did not put it there. It is quite clear in both the video and the first image capture that there is no gun, yet one appears within a few seconds, and is clearly seen in the second image. The gun has been handled by a cop and discarded by the deceased's feet by a cop. Why was the gun not bagged and tagged as evidence, instead of being handled by a cop who then discards it on the floor next to the deceased.

As things stand, the video presents a problematic issue for the cops.

I can't see SNIP in either of these videos. I don't know how anybody is drawing any conclusions from them personally. I am going to try watching a few more times. What a waste of money if this is the best body cams can do. Too bad there weren't surveillance video cameras in that area of the apartments.

a reply to: elysiumfire

If the gun was on his body, protocol is to put it out of arms reach.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Spider879

So you're saying there is not enough evidence to justify what happened to Keith, but so ready to accuse planting a gun when that statement has no proof? There were probably mistakes made on both side, but where in the video did a police officer get in Keith's vehicle and put a holster on his ankle? Who where's an ankle holster with no gun?

I am saying I am skeptical, it's not like this don't happen often, but what ever I believe , given the conflicting accounts by cops and civilians, civilians usually take the lost no matter what actually happened.

And from what I 've been reading Charlotte Cops are among the worst at corruption and cover-ups.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Its hardly a negotiation, ...they are not terrorists they are pissed off people that are demanding answers.....

If they have footage to exonerate the cops ffs they should release it immediately.....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ruining businesses, setting fires, beating up bystanders should not force a city to derail and possibly jeopardize an investigation. It should force is to make more arrests for defacing private property. Investigations take time, and throwing evidence to the media in three days is to much to ask.

a reply to: Spider879

That didn't answer the question of the ankle holster.

CriticalStinker

If the gun was on his body, protocol is to put it out of arms reach.

Seriously. You actually have the temerity to think that I would not know this? Protocol is to make the gun safe, not to toss it aside on the floor. Even so, the fact that a gun appears does not make it as belonging to the deceased. This now makes it an issue standing on the veracity of the statement by the cops, which is now currently only hearsay, unless body cam footage becomes public and clearly shows he had a gun in his hand.

a reply to: elysiumfire

So the police entered his vehicle and put an ankle holster on him? Before he got out?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Spider879

That didn't answer the question of the ankle holster.

Maybe the gun was his, maybe not but witnesses saw a book he stepped over falling from his lap , hands apparently raised , see vid I posted on pg 1..if that's his gun then ooh goodie he had a gun case closed, easy plant if they made a terrible mistake.

The ankle proves to me he had a gun. I see no reason why the cops would be yelling "Drop the gun" if he didn't. The cops can tell the difference between a book and a gun. He should not have been shot, however, seeing as he was walking backwards and seemed to be obeying.

And why aren't these witnesses speaking out? The chief said the first presser that some saw the gun. I don't see why they aren't verifiying the Police statements. They either changed their story and went with the swelling emotions or they don't exist and no civilians saw any gun.

a reply to: EchoesInTime

There was alot of vehicles obstructing view. Citizens (if smart) were pretty far away considering guns were drawn. The video is hard to identify objects much less from a further distance.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I believe that is a black latex glove in the second picture.

It was discussed in another thread.

originally posted by: Spider879

I am not trusting the cops on this sorry, too many examples of police attempt at cover up in cases like this, plus folks who knew this man is a creature of habit who always carried a book waiting for his son which makes sense read a book to kill time, carrying a gun in his lap makes absolutely no freaking sense if all he is doing is waiting for his kid, and he wasn't the intended target in the first place, they chanced up on him, but I guess many are now digging through his records to see if he had criminal pass or social media pg to look for compromising pics of gang signs or drug use.

I may add two separate eye witness said the shooter cop was not the black cop, so now we have that to contend with klik vid.
Couldn't find a raw vid without commentary.

Pretty muddy!

I just watched this video, that shows the shooting pretty well. Scott doesn't look the least bit threatening, but the white guy with the red shirt sure looks jumpy, and it almost looks like he did the shooting, but I can't really tell. The way Scott collapses, it looks to me like the bullets came from his direction, or maybe the other guy that comes running in. But, the black guy is on the other side, from the direction in which Scott crumbles to the ground.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
The ankle proves to me he had a gun. I see no reason why the cops would be yelling "Drop the gun" if he didn't. The cops can tell the difference between a book and a gun. He should not have been shot, however, seeing as he was walking backwards and seemed to be obeying.

And why aren't these witnesses speaking out? The chief said the first presser that some saw the gun. I don't see why they aren't verifiying the Police statements. They either changed their story and went with the swelling emotions or they don't exist and no civilians saw any gun.

I've seen vids of cops beating the hell out of civilians while yelling stop resisting, drop the gun?? maybe they spotted on his ankle and yes eye withness are coming fwd but not backing up the cop's version.

Reposted from pg 1
At-least two eye witlessness account one lady gave her name up voluntarily so sure of what she saw.
Btw is that state and town a right to carry state or conceal carry??

a reply to: windword

Why don't we see gun recoil from the officer in the red shirt?

a reply to: Spider879

Even if it's concealed or open carry, possession of a firearm with drugs is a felony.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think maybe I do, either that or he's sharply pulling back just as the other officer shoots. He sure is jumping around a lot!

But anyone can clearly see that Keith Scott was not threatening.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

But not a death sentence by cop