CMPD Releases Video Of Fatal Shooting Of Keith Lamont Scott

a reply to: oddnutz

I didn't see a holster n his leg or a gun in his hand. I have seen the pictures of the two after the fact, but that doesn't mean they were even his.


I am not claiming it was a plant, but I am not dismissing it either.

Don't people very get tired from all of the mental gymnastics, trying to make criminals look like innocent victims? Let's review the FACTS, shall we?

1. He had a gun. There was an ankle holster, the gun had his prints and DNA on it, and you can see something dark in his hand, that certainly looks, to me, like a pistol. Smaller gun, big guy, so not a lot showing, but it's there. Better quality video than what we can see online, I'd bet it's more clear. Plus, his wife KNEW he had a gun, which is why she said, "Keith, don't do it!"

2. He was a felon, not legally allowed to own or possess a gun.

3. He was told to drop the gun, and did not do so.

4. He's already exited the car once, with said gun, and got back in, which is how they knew he had it.

5. The way he was backing out oddly, it looks like he wanted to conceal the gun from them, so he could get off a shot. He was being told to drop the gun, about twelve times, and yet had his hands down, not up.

6. The police do not have to wait till someone points the gun right at them before shooting. Cops that do so often die as as result. This was near a school, as well, and homes, meaning other people were also in danger.

7. His past record and actions show that he was willing to pull a gun on police. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon before. Past actions are a good indicator of future behavior. Whether the police knew this or not, and they likely did, this means his own actions were not likely to be sensible or lawful.

8. The claimed witness was lying. She didn't even describe the correct motions for Scott, or the physical descriptions for involved police, or the timing of the arrival of the one cop.

With all of this, how can anyone claim this wasn't a just shooting? You were lied to, just as in the past, in case after case after case. Wise up, already. Many of us can see the facts. Why can't all of you?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Hung jury then?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on ALL accounts of your above post.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Don't people very get tired from all of the mental gymnastics, trying to make criminal cops look like innocent victims?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Here are the FACTS I know.

I didn't see him with a gun.

I didn't see him with a holster.

I didn't see him act threatening.


I did see him get shot.



I grew up in Charlotte and have seen the police plant evidence before. I don't know if that happened this time.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

C'mon now thats rubbish....the facts ! what facts ?....the only facts we have is this man was shot and killed by police ...absolutely everything else is speculation..... the police cannot be trusted at their word so lets not try and pretend they can....

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Here are the FACTS I know.

I didn't see him with a gun.

I didn't see him with a holster.

I didn't see him act threatening.


I did see him get shot.



I grew up in Charlotte and have seen the police plant evidence before. I don't know if that happened this time.

Can I recommend a good eye doctor?

a reply to: Edumakated

I didn't see any of those things either, except the ankle holster, which isn't conclusive evidence that he was armed. He could have used that ankle holster to carry his stash and lighter, as many people do. We know he had stash, we don't know he had a weapon.

What appears at 1.43 on the floor next to the black officers left foot that the officer in red is looking at, doesnt seem to be there until then?

And if he had just taken his meds and couldnt co-operate with police should he of been driving, especially if he was picking up his kid? Did the wife travel with him in the car or did she just appear with phone in hand? which would suggest they dont live far away, but he drove there?

If he was shot in the car or next to the car why is his body quite far from the car? Dragged? Carried?

Lastly, his wife said he didnt have a gun, but what was she saying "dont do it" for?

I am jumping to conclusions from a video, but i think the officer in red had an itchy trigger finger and is guilty of over-reaction and therefore murder.

a reply to: windword

Why would someone wear a holster with no gun?

a reply to: windword

Wait are they saying the guy in red didn't shoot him?.
BTW I have watched the videos about 6 times I can't see any gun.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ankle holsters are perfect for carrying around your stash, rolling papers/pipe and a lighter. People do it all the time! Don't ask me how I know.....

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

ETA:The blond lady say's it's the guy in red that shot him. The other lady says it's a bald guy. Perhaps the driver of the squad car?

Honestly, I don't know who shot him. Watch this video, between around 45-60 seconds. The guy in red sure is jumpy. Can't tell if it's recoil or panic!

a reply to: windword

Haha Touche, while I don't think that's why he had it, that may be a possibility.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

That's all I'm saying.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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 see a flaw with your assumtion. the Gun being black was in the first image IN THE MAN IN REDS SHADOW. Then when the person shooting it changes posistion the shadow isnt covering the gun anymore. It was there the entire time.

a reply to: yuppa

I have to disagree with you on that, looking at the position of the cops white trainer and the red cops shadow i think they are the same in both pics and the gun is a plant.

All I can think right now is where can I live where rolling joint in front of a cop is no big deal(other than CO and WA). I've seen cops go ham on college students for drinking underage(not driving). Waiting for his kid while rolling a joint?
Such a weird incident.

I'll wait for the courts.

Ok, so I'm not experienced in these types of situations, nor do I have any opinions of them. But I found this video yesterday, figured I'd just leave this here for you guys to decide for yourselves what to make of this situation.

youtu.be...

I hope the video works, if not I'll ask for help.

You know I love it how some members here are so quick to believe official police statements, despite the fact:

1. To date no further evidence has been provided beyond the police statements,
2. The video doesn't help the official police statement,
3. This is a website devoted to government and authority skeptecism,

But posters are here are insistent a gun was found! With Scotts DNA! Because police said so!

I wonder.