Police release Keith Scott videos, leaving more questions than answers

a reply to: RomeByFire

Wow why do people always say this person was killed over a joint or over cigarettes...... Cops could care less about WHAT you did for them to be there in the first place. It is HOW you ACT once they try to do their job in apprehending you. So no, he was not killed because he was smoking a joint, he was killed for not listening to commands to drop a gun, or perceived gun.

The thing is, even IF it was a book, making the police think its a gun is no different, why not just drop that book? You rob a store with a toy gun, it is the same charge because the victim did not know if it was real or not. All I am saying is, follow lawful commands, especially when a bunch of weapons are pointed at you.

a reply to: WilburnRoach

As of Oct 1 police will no longer be required to show the public body cams or dash cams video in North Carolina.

Legislating truth out of the investigation, again. Way back when those (including me) were calling for body cams, I said it won't do any good unless the monitoring is done remotely by an independent agency.

The uS government has this tech, helmet cams on special ops forces, on missions, at night, across the globe, by satellite link. Also includes full audio.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

All I am saying is, follow lawful commands, especially when a bunch of weapons are pointed at you.

What if the commands are being used unlawfully to prosecute an unlawful killing by the 'lawful' authorities?

More likely here. Since a), his wife is saying he doesn't have a gun and b), there isn't one evident in his hand to provoke a lethal response.

I'd further add, there is only one cop shouting drop the gun and only one firing. Usually, if a suspect is brandishing a firearm it is a no brainer, they all open up.

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.

that only proves he once held the weapon.
if someone stole a knife of yours to murder someone with, your prints and dna don't make you the murderer.

Maybe his lighter was one of those novelty guns that light blunts......and the cops new it but shot him anyway.........

plausible, and is a theory around the case.

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.

point me somewhere with this is being pushed viably please.

ive yet to see a news source claim foul play or time travel, but a misidentified item or actual gun are the ones in play.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

All I am saying is, follow lawful commands, especially when a bunch of weapons are pointed at you.

What if the commands are being used unlawfully to prosecute an unlawful killing by the 'lawful' authorities?

More likely here. Since a), his wife is saying he doesn't have a gun and b), there isn't one evident in his hand to provoke a lethal response.

I'd further add, there is only one cop shouting drop the gun and only one firing. Usually, if a suspect is brandishing a firearm it is a no brainer, they all open up.

I really could care less what the wife says, as every single time a criminal thug is killed, the parents, girlfriend always claim he never had a gun, or "didn't do anything" when in fact did. If anything unlawful went on during that event than by all means people should be punished. I am also saying that these shootings can be prevented 99% of the time if the perp just followed orders.

originally posted by: windword
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

So you are going to make your own speculations on zero evidence to satisify your own agenda? It is these types of ignorant posts and opinions that undermine any true grievances that the protestes might have.

a reply to: Cypress

I said I was speculating. And, there is evidence that he had a stash, as he rolled and then was smoking a joint. His wife said he didn't have a gun and she said that he just took his medication. North Carolina allows for medical marijuana. It's also an open carry state, so an ankle holster is a good place for a guy to carry his stash, and look tough and cool while doing it! (Don't ask me how I know.)

There is zero video evidence that he had a weapon beyond the word of the cops, who have everything to loose if he didn't.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Cypress

I said I was speculating. And, there is evidence that he had a stash, as he rolled and then was smoking a joint. His wife said he didn't have a gun and she said that he just took his medication. North Carolina allows for medical marijuana. It's also an open carry state, so an ankle holster is a good place for a guy to carry his stash, and look tough and cool while doing it! (Don't ask me how I know.)

There is zero video evidence that he had a weapon beyond the word of the cops, who have everything to loose if he didn't.

So you made your own version of evets to push the narrative how you want it to play out. You manipulate the fact that the video is inconclusive for that narrative and attempting to discredit the police department based on your own bias. As I said, ignorance. I'll withhold judgement until all the evidence from the case is released.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And what if it's proven he did have one?

Here is the problem, video doesn't and won't always catch everything at the scene. We don't live with cameras everywhere at all angles. They can be useful and they can do what we're seeing here, cause more questions than answers.

And when the the public, who has less evidence at hand than anyone involved in the case, gets to see just isolated pieces, and those pieces are disconnected like these are, what happens?

We see what we see. Everyone plays armchair judge, jury and executioner. Then we have riots. There is a breakdown of public trust even if the facts and evidence as a whole, when put together show the story was not what the isolated fragments indicated and people constructed for themselves.

So does having police video out there help or hurt us?

Vigilantism can happen regardless whether information is put out there. It's about building public trust in the police force to reduce vigilantism (or rioting). The way to do that is to release information and give at least the appearance of transparency. Full reelase of all infromation in the investigation is unwarranted. I think even the public knows full release of information could jeapordize peoples lives as well as the investigation.

However, the best way to solve this isn't solely through releeasing some information but--I think--examining nonlethal means to handle uncooperative and even armed suspects. Armed suspects are trickier, but reducing lethal means where it's effective is appropriate. This is at the heart of recent turmoil and distrust. It's what I hope happens.

As example: The Terence Crutcher case. Officer Shelby should not have so easily pulled out her gun instead of her taser the moment she suspected Terence MIGHT have a gun in his pocket. And his behaviour--being noncompliant and deliberately going to his vehicle for god knows what--should not have meant using lethal means is more justifiable. Our police force is losing public trust precisely because guns are pulled more frequently than they should be.

EDIT: Officer Shelby was trained to recognize intoxicated individuals and what drugs might be at the root. So--apparently--she suspected he might be on PCP or something else very early. I wonder how this affected her decisions. It seems cops do not like uncooperative, especially intoxicated individuals. I wonder if this was jsut another excuse for her to pull the gun.

a reply to: Cypress

You manipulate the fact that the video is inconclusive for that narrative and attempting to discredit the police department based on your own bias.

I've done no such thing, and it isn't "inconclusive from the narrative" or the video. We know he had a joint. We know he wore an ankle holster, we know nothing about a gun, other than what the police say.

The police do a fine job of discrediting themselves.

www.bing.com... AR







Do cops ever accidentally shoot someone who they think is armed, but isn't? Yep.

Alabama Teenager Fatally Shot After Police Officer Allegedly Mistook Cellphone For A Gun

SAPD chief: San Antonio police officer thought cellphone was gun before fatally shooting man

Video Emerges of Florida Cop Shooting Unarmed Black Man Holding Cell Phone

Georgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door

So, this is another man shot at the moment he wasn't actually doing anything. In the other case police alledged that the man was reaching through a car window that was in fact, closed.
Now this. So, in the first case the shooting officer is now being charged with 'Manslaughter...is the difference then, that in the first shooting, the police et al were caught in a lie? It beggars belief.

There was a gun and an ankle holster.

Additionally, the cops were there waiting to serve a warrant and Scott rolled up next to them and they sat there watching him for a while.

They saw him roll his joint and decided that it wasn't worth going after him at the time because they had other business. It wasn't until they saw the gun that they decided to act on it. I am assuming they knew his history by then and knew he had no business having a gun in addition to the marijuana, but maybe it was just the marijuana and the man flashing a gun.

They left and came back attired for an arrest. They gave him many loud and clear commands to drop the gun.

There are evidence pictures in the link including the ankle holster which can be clearly seen in the video. And while the video doesn't clear up the whole thing it does prove there was a holster indicating clear evidence for a gun which supports the officers' story that they observed one and the video also completely shoots down the "he points a book at them" story.

But the jury is still out on this one beyond that.

Can't help feeling this is one more needless death due to an escalation of events caused by the idiotic antiquated Cannabis laws parts of this country still have.

These bastards should have been minding their own business instead of getting worried about some guy smoking a joint in his car. They were probably staring right into his car with hostile looks on their faces. You can imagine how things went from there. Possibly he held up the gun in a non threatening way just to say to these guys '# off / stop staring' how was he to know they were undercover cops? They probably just looked like a pair of uptight pricks having a problem with somebody getting stoned.

Shame. Such a sad situation. As I said the pot shouldn't enter into it at all, but it seems to have been used as the catalyst for the cops to instigate the confrontation.

It's the gun is the problem here. Fact is he had one. If you carry one around at all you can expect to get shot and not always necessarily by the police. Fake guns are just the same, in the eyes of the law. Folk who wave fake guns around often end up being shot by real guns. Real or not, loaded or not, this dude shouldn't have had one period. Open carry laws are stupid. That nonsense needs to end.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the ridiculous gun laws in this country. Immediate and complete legalization of Cannabis on a national level also needs to happen. I refuse it to call it 'marijuana' I find that word offensive with very negative connotations among the ignorant and the stupid that have been conditioned like sheep to by default just blindly approve of the ongoing prohibition.

They took photos of the joint after they shot him FFS. That to me is the scariest part of the whole thing. As if it's existence somehow justifies the shooting.

a reply to: angus1745

You didn't look at what I wrote.

They did notice the joint, but they had decided not to go after it because it wasn't worth it.

Had he not brought out the gun, which he was not supposed to have at all given his record, there would have been no problem because they weren't there to go after random dudes with marijuana.

Isn't it common knowledge that if a cop (or anyone else) is pointing his weapon and yelling at you that you need to RAISE YOURS HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD even if you are not doing anything wrong?

Apparently there needs to be a class on how to interact with law enforcement since the majority of people shot are not complying appropriately. Perhaps it should be part of drivers ed.

I am not saying anyone deserved to be shot, but rather they have to hold SOME responsibility for THEIR own actions.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: UKTruth
In the second video it looks to me like the guy did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot.

Agreed, his hands appear empty.

Interesting quirk at 1:18 in the second video, the officer appears to reach to his belt and toss something to the ground. Its a quick movement, but its there.

Looks like he was pulling on his shirt. You can see better than us of course..

Painfully obvious what is being pushed recently.. it's even used as a valid excuse by our resident LEO sympathizers.

Comply or Die.

You wonder if your in a police state. You are. there's no debate about it when the above has become your "normal"

Are you.. ok with that?

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I am also saying that these shootings can be prevented 99% of the time if the perp just followed orders.

Like someone else just said^^^...

...comply or die.

Enjoy your Fascist Police State.

a reply to: ketsuko

And while the video doesn't clear up the whole thing it does prove there was a holster indicating clear evidence for a gun which supports the officers' story that they observed one

The official story he had one, the officers story of a gun, a gun which clearly isn't visible in the video...

Who's telling the tall tales, the cops or the video?

a reply to: windword

Thanks for those videos...