It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police release Keith Scott videos, leaving more questions than answers

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: ketsuko

Even if he had one, it wasn't in his hand, and NC is a open carry state.

I see why the sheriff said he wasn't gonna release the video


It doesn't matter if NC is an open carry state for him. With his record, it was illegal for him to have a gun. Period.
In any case wether or not it is legal to carry is not a question. If ten cops with weapon drawn and aimed at "YOU" dropping the gun and then proving it was legal to have is the thing to do!




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: ketsuko

Even if he had one, it wasn't in his hand, and NC is a open carry state.

I see why the sheriff said he wasn't gonna release the video


It doesn't matter if NC is an open carry state for him. With his record, it was illegal for him to have a gun. Period.


How would the officers, who were sitting in a parked car waiting to serve an arrest warrant, when Mr Scott pulled up and parked next to them in his SUV, to wait for his son's school bus, as he did everyday, know that? The officers claimed that they witnessed Scott rolling a joint. I doubt they could see that, but I bet they did see him light it up. Was a lighter the weapon that he raised, perhaps while winking at the undercover officers parked next to him? I speculate......



Even if they somehow learned that Mr Scott had a record, it was illegal for them to summarily execute him, the way they did! We don't live in a police state, yet.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: ketsuko

did you see him do anything to threat or showed aggression toward the cops? was he menacing other bystanders, or was a danger to himself?

what warrants or give the OK for police to kill someone in your opinion i wonder?
is non compliance a shoot to kill? do you think they teach that at the academy, kill if non compliant, or do you think they teach them to employ other tactics?
but each time, non compliance is the excuse used to kill someone, yet its not what is taught legally.


So if I have a gun and you don't know whether or not I intend to use it on you, you should just sit by and wait to see how it plays out. If I have ill intentions you will be the one in a body bag. So yes non compliance is a good cause to use deadly force. IMHO



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
You don't have to point your gun at police to be a threat. Let's remember guys this isn't the old west.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

According to the statement in my above post, yes they had every reason to confront the guy who was brandishing his gun next to undercover officer's. This bit of information has been ignored by media and furthers the race baiting agenda.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Read the WEARTV link in my first post, remove all doubt of your speculation. The guy was playing with his gun so the undercover officers could see him doing so not once but twice, refusing to read my post and follow the source article and read it just shows you don't wanna know the truth but instead you wanna ramp up the race baiting!

Whats more relevant here?

The guy was rolling and smoking a blunt and the undercover's were gonna leave him alone it wasn't important. Then he brandishes a gun while doing other illegal activity not once but twice and then fails to comply with lawful orders. Or continue the race baiting while ignoring the facts? If you read the article multiple witness confirm the cops orders to drop the weapon.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Floridagoat because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Floridagoat because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Floridagoat

First of all, you've speculated that he was playing with a gun, when the report said that he raised a gun. I'll keep my speculation, that he raised a lighter to light that blunt, and probably made the unfortunate mistake of making eye contact with the cops in the next car.

I can hear it now, "That looks like a gun to me, how about you?" "Yep, I see a gun too!" "Let's rock!"

All said and done, the police story stinks to high heaven. Keith Scott was executed in cold blood



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61




So if I have a gun and you don't know whether or not I intend to use it on you, you should just sit by and wait to see how it plays out.


That's risk that all citizens have to deal with everyday, in country that has a Second Amendment. More so for citizens in states that allow for open carry.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Excuse me, I didn't speculate anything, I quoted the article where the undercover cops state he was brandishing his gun in plain view of said officer's. You obviously refuse to read the relevant information that would deter you from arguing pure ignorance!
edit on 25-9-2016 by Floridagoat because: club finger typo correction



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Floridagoat

You're website is not more conclusive than any of the dozens of others, or all the videos that I've analyzed, watching over and over, sometimes in slow motion, with headphones, listening to those knuckleheads running around betraying their panic! Your argument isn't any more definitive that any of the other posters like yourself in the many other threads, lauding police actions as if they can do no wrong!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
My point was that if I am brandishing a gun and you do not know my intentions(possibly to shoot you) you would not just want to be forced to run away(giving me a clear shot). I do NOT agree with police brutality but holding on to a weapon after being told to drop it by gun wielding officers shows that I have ill intentions. Other wise why would I feel the need to keep the weapon. . a reply to: windword



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

Mr Scott was not "brandishing" a weapon at the time he was executed. He had his hands at his side and was backing up in tentative and a retreating sort of way. The officers knew that he had a brain injury and that he was stoned. He appeared to be docile and confused, not threatening.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
The question we should also be asking is even if he had a gun that is visible, do police have justification to do what they did? Remember he was not the person they were looking for and NC is a open carry state. Even if it turns out he was a felon, the end results does not justify the means, becuase the police did not know that going in to this.


Law abiding citizens who legally ccw do not act like this man did. Also, the joint? Cops know a legal ccw will not sit there and smoke a J in front of them. The guy doesn't have to point the gun for it to be justified. Just the fact of having the gun and not listening to commands is enough to put fear into most people. Then we have the guy's history, and then we have a picture of the ankle holster on his leg.

Don't forget... "Don't you do it!"

Another bottom line is why can't any of these thugs listen to commands? Seems like a suicide by cop maybe.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

He had a weapon, it was tested, it has his prints and DNA on it. it's not optional to omit this part of the story.
Being dishonest in hopes that you will somehow "WILL" the facts to change is idiotic.

Maybe his lighter was one of those novelty guns that light blunts......and the cops new it but shot him anyway.........and then, when the whole housing complex was hovering around watching, the white cop that really shot him threw down a scrap weapon, and was able to "freeze time" in order to get his prints and DNA on the weapon, then make the black cop's weapon switch clips with his, so the illusion would be that the black cop shot him. OH, then they started time back flowing again.

See, it's just a stupid whey I type it.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: brutus61

Mr Scott was not "brandishing" a weapon at the time he was executed. He had his hands at his side and was backing up in tentative and a retreating sort of way. The officers knew that he had a brain injury and that he was stoned. He appeared to be docile and confused, not threatening.



And knowing that he was stoned and had a brain injury and had a weapon, you still can't even start to believe that he may have had that weapon in his hand, as it appears?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't believe he had a weapon in his hand. But it doesn't matter, even if he did. He was "impaired"...slow to react, confused and his arms were limp at his side. He was walking backwards in retreat.

He wasn't a threat. Lethal force wasn't called for.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Nothing that man did warranted the death penalty by execution.

Sometimes it's hard for me to remotely care about cops that are murdered in cold blood. They've been getting away with doing it to us for decades.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




He had a weapon, it was tested, it has his prints and DNA on it. it's not optional to omit this part of the story.


It's part of the police "story" but there is no evidence of the gun in the videos. It's easy to plant weapons, It's been done thousands of times, and the video clearly shows an opportunity to have done just that.

Given the way those knuckleheads were running around, yelling "Handcuffs!" "Handcuffs!" "Handcuffs!" "Handcuffs!" And then the Red Shirt guy asks, "Are you on?...."I don't know?" Long pause..........

"Someone go get my "equipment bag"" "Where is it?" "In the back of my truck." "Okay"..."And get some gloves, so that we can put pressure on the wound!"

After throwing gloves around for awhile, the gun magically appears at Red Shirt guy's feet!

They never did render aide to Scott. They left him face down, gurgling and groaning, on the pavement. Nobody turned him over and rendered first aide until the paramedics arrived, and they started to intubate him. Plenty of time to wipe a weapon with Scott's fingerprints and blood.

By the way, witnesses said the police blocked the entire area so nobody could see anything. Cops are dumb, when it comes to covering their arsses.





edit on 25-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: joemoe
The question we should also be asking is even if he had a gun that is visible, do police have justification to do what they did? Remember he was not the person they were looking for and NC is a open carry state. Even if it turns out he was a felon, the end results does not justify the means, becuase the police did not know that going in to this.


Law abiding citizens who legally ccw do not act like this man did. Also, the joint? Cops know a legal ccw will not sit there and smoke a J in front of them. The guy doesn't have to point the gun for it to be justified. Just the fact of having the gun and not listening to commands is enough to put fear into most people. Then we have the guy's history, and then we have a picture of the ankle holster on his leg.

Don't forget... "Don't you do it!"

Another bottom line is why can't any of these thugs listen to commands? Seems like a suicide by cop maybe.


So smoking a joint (which is legal in many states) and brandishing a firearm (which is a Consitutional amednment) warrant the death penalty? Oh wait - it's because the officers were in FEAR that justified it, right?

These cops need to find new jobs, they are THE largest SJW PC demograph I've seen. They signed up for a job and incessantly whine and complain about it and straight-up murder American citizens "cuz dey dun scurred meh and hurt ma feeling," and face no repercussions for their actions.

Some people just love the way their new military-police state works.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
All I know that if officer's are yelling at me to drop a gun, even if I don't have one...the first thing I would do is instantly raise my hands above my head so they all can see they are empty! Why is that so difficult to do?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join