Keith Lamont Scott's wife about Keith - "He's a killer and they should know that"

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Just as the majority of blacks and whites and everyone are good, so are the majority of police, if by nothing else than default that the majority of everyone else is good.

I agree. But by the same token that the dead person and all arrestees are drug tested, with any positive results held against them in a court of law, so should LEOs be tested when they take a life. Because like it or not, that is a crime. And if the results are positive, those results can and should be used against them, if for no other reason than because they do cause mental and emotional impairment. Likewise, a violent history against those the officer supposedly loves the most would also be indicative of the officer's temperament and behavior on the job.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ahhh... thank you -- and no problem. Happens to all of us!

I'm still suspicious about the set up though. Especially after hearing that the wife had filed for a restraining order previously. Battered women do strange things. I can see an abused woman feeling that such an action would be justified and perhaps her only way out so to speak.

It would be very interesting if we hear later that there was a call made. Neighbors have said that he was a creature of habit. Someone like that would be easily set up. Especially with mental/emotional/drug issues. I find it rather strange that he would roll up a joint in the vehicle -- not before and just take it with him. Cleaning and rolling while sitting in a vehicle is rather inconvenient to say the least -- not to mention stupid!

originally posted by: windword
Oh boy! Here it comes, like clockwork! The predictable police apologists creating a public perception that the cold blooded murder of Keith Scott was justified and a needed cleansing.

Nobody ever claimed that Mr. Scott was an angel, and it isn't Mr Scott's behavior that's on trial here. It's the police'.

Actually, no one is on trial at this point, unless you're talking about the court of public opinion, with a jury full of nitwit knee-jerkers who prefer to destroy their own town than have a little patience and wait for a decent amount of evidence.

And to be fair, Mr. Scott was being portrayed as a victim in all of this--a poor guy who was doing nothing but reading a book and waiting for his son before cops rolled up and just started throwing lead his way.

Yes, an individual's history matters--I wouldn't think that the LEOs on scene were immediately cognizant of this background, but it still matters nonetheless.


I wonder why he got rid of the 9mm and went with the .380 Colt Mustang...easier to conceal?

I wonder how many police officers on that scene have had domestic violence issues in their own households, reported or not? I wonder if all the officers on that scene were drug tested, how many of them would not come up clean?

LEOs with domestic violence issues...probably a few, but maybe none of them on-scene at the time. That's a speculation that is irrelevant. Hell, all speculation is irrelevant in a case like this.

Drug testing failures, I'd bet some in the department, for sure, but on-scene, who knows. This is just a slightly more relevant speculative question that I really would like an answer to, but we'll never get one. So, again, the speculation is kind of pointless.

Both speculations are an attempt to make the officers look like drugged-up, wife-beating monsters...much like apparently Mr. Scott was (at least at some point relatively recently).

Again, this isn't about Mr Scott, it's about the police, their actions and their inaction.

Actually, it should be about taking the evidence as it comes and discussing it, not naming the bad guys before there is even any reasonable doubt concerning their actions. Obviously, you seem to doubt EVERY LEO's actions, but I'm speaking from a logical standpoint--and a legal one.

Does it even matter to you that the officers told Mr. Scott to drop the gun 11 times, but instead he gets out of the vehicle (presumably with it still in his hand) and ends up shot by police? Maybe this SHOULD be about Mr. Scott's action and inaction, ya know?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

But hey...cops records are in their past too, so why bring them up?

Because the cops brought it up as a justification for his murder. Keith Scott was not the same man that he was a year ago. He had been in a serious accident that left needing a cane to walk. I speculate again, but I doubt he was able to raise his hands over his head and walk backwards. I don't know what the brain injury did to his mind, but he appeared docile, and his wife spoke to him like he was a delicate child, even under the tense of circumstances, she never seemed angry with him. He appeared docile and confused.

And, just in case you bring it up, it was the police that she urged again and again "Don't you shoot him!" "Don't shoot him!' "Don't you do it!" "Don't do it" "He better not be dead, I'll tell you that!"

Ya know...you keep quoting what she said as if that was how she said it and it is pure BS. She says "Keith, Don't do it." She is not telling the cops, she is telling him. She knows he is violent. You just keep leaving the "Keith" part out....it is pretty obvious to ANYONE that actually watches the video how it is said. Just because you repeat it over and over doesn't make it so....

Oh....and he can't raise his hands, walk backward or any of the other mentioned things, but he can drive a car, roll joints and carry a gun....LOL!!!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Just as the majority of blacks and whites and everyone are good, so are the majority of police, if by nothing else than default that the majority of everyone else is good.

I agree. But by the same token that the dead person and all arrestees are drug tested, with any positive results held against them in a court of law, so should LEOs be tested when they take a life. Because like it or not, that is a crime. And if the results are positive, those results can and should be used against them, if for no other reason than because they do cause mental and emotional impairment. Likewise, a violent history against those the officer supposedly loves the most would also be indicative of the officer's temperament and behavior on the job.

I would not disagree with that measure being taken at all.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ahhh... thank you -- and no problem. Happens to all of us!

I'm still suspicious about the set up though. Especially after hearing that the wife had filed for a restraining order previously. Battered women do strange things. I can see an abused woman feeling that such an action would be justified and perhaps her only way out so to speak.

It would be very interesting if we hear later that there was a call made. Neighbors have said that he was a creature of habit. Someone like that would be easily set up. Especially with mental/emotional/drug issues. I find it rather strange that he would roll up a joint in the vehicle -- not before and just take it with him. Cleaning and rolling while sitting in a vehicle is rather inconvenient to say the least -- not to mention stupid!

The strangest part to me is that she claims she was bringing him a cell phone charger....who does that? I guess if he decided to get to the stop really early and hang out and his cell phone was about to die and he called her to bring it over. If I could look into it I would check her and his phone records to see if there was a call between them just before the incident to see if he called, possibly to ask her to bring a charger out.

I would love to find out if there was a call made about someone the police were looking for just prior to this as well.

If he was a creature of habit then she knew he had a gun, knew he would be rolling a joint and smoking hanging out in that exact spot.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
How interesting would this case get if it ended up that SHE was put on trial for orchestrating a murder of her husband in this manner. I wonder what the community would do then.

I, for one, will be looking into how the initial call was made and from whom. I have read the stories that they were looking for someone else that had a warrant but haven't really heard much about it and that seems to have disappeared from all of the stories on this.

So there was apparently a warrant being issued there, but nothing more has been said about this warrant or whom they were serving it on. Could she have called in a false report that someone who had a warrant was living in that complex, knowing that they were about to pull up there to serve or were waiting to serve a warrant? Is it possible she concocted the entire thing?

You talk of politicizing this event, but yet you throw out a theory that's complete conjecture with absolutely no proof. As if this lady is some machiavellian mastermind orchestrating some sinister plot. Is what you're doing any better? Throwing out complete nonsense into the public zeitgeist.

The authorities haven't released information on the arrest warrant they were attempting to conduct? Say it aint so. Ever consider that the operation in question may still be an active investigation? Yeah, what you're saying makes a ton of sense. Let's publicly comment on an active investigation so everyone knows.

Either way, her court case against him is VERY damning of the case she is trying to make that he was harmless....I mean it kills that argument dead in the water.

I agree that the protective order is damning to her current statements. I also don't have much sympathy for criminals who blatantly use drugs while possessing firearms in a public space. Let alone brandishing said firearm right out in the open. You have one of two choices when being confronted by authorities while in possession of a firearm. One, you can fight. Two, you automatically drop the weapon and put your hands up to show you are not a current threat. Anything else may be interpreted as a hostile act.

I can't see much in the dash cam footage so there's no reason to speculate. However, it's clear the deceased did not exit the vehicle with his hands in the air. If authorities push onto your position equipped with flak jackets and weapons drawn it's probably a good idea to follow their orders to a tee. They obviously weren't there to hang out and catch up on old times. Therefor, a large part of the responsibility for Mr Scott's death must fall on Mr Scott himself. As unfortunate as it is.

Point being, speculation does nobody any good, and that's the biggest problem. I see it on all sides. Too many people stirring the pot with very little evidence to back their claims up. All in an attempt to feel justified in their beliefs.

I don't need to feel justified in my beliefs, nor do I need to worry about consistency. In the same manner as Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, Keith Scott did not conduct himself in a manner that would ensure his safety upon exiting the vehicle while being confronted by armed authorities. This is the aspect that kills the argument dead in the water, not what some lady said some time before and right after the event.

EDIT TO ADD: Correction on the previous narrative about a perception of a hostile act. The correct terminology is hostile intent.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, the cops are on trial in the court of public opinion, and everyone is a juror.

Read the rest of the thread before you reply to me again, please.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

On this, we have a difference of opinion, and your opinion of her tone and affect is not "better" or more educated than mine, when it comes to reading voice inflection and social interactions.

Shame on you for deflecting and trying to make the victim's wife complicit in her husbands cold blooded murder!

If the police weren't so scared of being exposed for their wrong doing in this matter, they wouldn't have to manufacture bogus justification and deflection!

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
How interesting would this case get if it ended up that SHE was put on trial for orchestrating a murder of her husband in this manner. I wonder what the community would do then.

I, for one, will be looking into how the initial call was made and from whom. I have read the stories that they were looking for someone else that had a warrant but haven't really heard much about it and that seems to have disappeared from all of the stories on this.

So there was apparently a warrant being issued there, but nothing more has been said about this warrant or whom they were serving it on. Could she have called in a false report that someone who had a warrant was living in that complex, knowing that they were about to pull up there to serve or were waiting to serve a warrant? Is it possible she concocted the entire thing?

You talk of politicizing this event, but yet you throw out a theory that's complete conjecture with absolutely no proof. As if this lady is some machiavellian mastermind orchestrating some sinister plot. Is what you're doing any better? Throwing out complete nonsense into the public zeitgeist.

The authorities haven't released information on the arrest warrant they were attempting to conduct? Say it aint so. Ever consider that the operation in question may still be an active investigation? Yeah, what you're saying makes a ton of sense. Let's publicly comment on an active investigation so everyone knows.

Either way, her court case against him is VERY damning of the case she is trying to make that he was harmless....I mean it kills that argument dead in the water.

I agree that the protective order is damning to her current statements. I also don't have much sympathy for criminals who blatantly use drugs while possessing firearms in a public space. Let alone brandishing said firearm right out in the open. You have one of two choices when being confronted by authorities while in possession of a firearm. One, you can fight. Two, you automatically drop the weapon and put your hands up to show you are not a current threat. Anything else may be interpreted as a hostile act.

I can't see much in the dash cam footage so there's no reason to speculate. However, it's clear the deceased did not exit the vehicle with his hands in the air. If authorities push onto your position equipped with flak jackets and weapons drawn it's probably a good idea to follow their orders to a tee. They obviously weren't there to hang out and catch up on old times. Therefor, a large part of the responsibility for Mr Scott's death must fall on Mr Scott himself. As unfortunate as it is.

Point being, speculation does nobody any good, and that's the biggest problem. I see it on all sides. Too many people stirring the pot with very little evidence to back their claims up. All in an attempt to feel justified in their beliefs.

I don't need to feel justified in my beliefs, nor do I need to worry about consistency. In the same manner as Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, Keith Scott did not conduct himself in a manner that would ensure his safety upon exiting the vehicle while being confronted by armed authorities. This is the aspect that kills the argument dead in the water, not what some lady said some time before and right after the event.

EDIT TO ADD: Correction on the previous narrative about a perception of a hostile act. The correct terminology is hostile intent.

My whole point about her possibly being involved was because of the domestic abuse she was subject to, as well as her kids. He was a violent man. My interaction with those that have brain injuries tells me that they, in heated situations, are MORE prone to violence than not. In this case, he was violent prior to the accident and apparently so after as he continued to carry a weapon illegally. I have worked with battered women's and children's shelters in Atlanta for years and know first hand the plans that some women had to make to get out from under the abuse.

It is not a large stretch to believe this is easily possible. While she may not have known what the exact outcome would be, her intent could have been just to get him arrested and put back in prison and out of her and her children's lives to stop the abuse. From my work with abused folks, the abusers do not tend to stop....ever.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, the cops are on trial in the court of public opinion, and everyone is a juror.

Maybe we can conduct all of our trials this way then. Sure fire way for consistency and truth right there.

The public is full of morons and half wits.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The strangest part to me is that she claims she was bringing him a cell phone charger....who does that?

And why??? I'd bet my car phone charger has never even seen the inside of my house! Why would it? You can't use a car charger in the home so why even take it out of the vehicle? Why would it have been in the house at all?

I guess if he decided to get to the stop really early and hang out and his cell phone was about to die...

Hmmm... I'm a creature of habit too... I put my phone on the charger every night before bed so I don't have to worry about running out of juice.

If I could look into it I would check her and his phone records to see if there was a call between them just before the incident to see if he called, possibly to ask her to bring a charger out.

Or, even better, text messages... but somehow I don't think any phone charger would be mentioned. Have any witnesses/officers confirmed that she actually had the charger?

I would love to find out if there was a call made about someone the police were looking for just prior to this as well.

Perhaps even on another day... if he was in the habit of bringing a gun to pick up his kid, there may have been previous reports about brandishing that gun or something. The officers on scene may even have been aware of such reports.

If he was a creature of habit then she knew he had a gun, knew he would be rolling a joint and smoking hanging out in that exact spot.

As would others in the neighborhood. And we know this guy was violent based on the reports of his wife and his criminal history. It's not a stretch to believe he got violent with one or more folks in the neighborhood.

Speculating here, but someone working with BLM might consider such a person to be... um... expendable for the cause...

a reply to: windword

Again, changing facts to suit your story is idiotic. he had a gun. He was killed because he didn't drop the gun he had. Just because you didn't see a camera angle showing him holding a gun, doesn't mean all the cops were hallucinating when they all screamed "drop the gun".

He owned a gun. Proven fact, not up for discussion.
He was wearing an ankle holster that appeared empty, clearly seen in the video. Again, not up for discussion.
A gun was found on the scene with his prints and DNA on it. Fact, not up for discussion.

Knowing all that, he died as a result of his inability to follow the commands given him. Perhaps he was really stoned, as he just got done burning a blunt. That's his problem, not the cops. He walked backwards without putting his hands up, when a gaggle of angry cops with guns drawn we giving him commands to drop the gun.

You can continue to lie all you like, but all you are doing is further destroying what tiny bit of credibility you may have had left.

a reply to: GD21D

I can't see much in the dash cam footage so there's no reason to speculate. However, it's clear the deceased did not exit the vehicle with his hands in the air.

The man walked with cane, due to the injuries he suffered in an auto accident a year ago. He also suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury. Is it reasonable to assume to know that the man was physically capable of exiting the vehicle with his hands up?

Keith Scott was not the same man that he was a year ago, before his accident.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

On this, we have a difference of opinion, and your opinion of her tone and affect is not "better" or more educated than mine, when it comes to reading voice inflection and social interactions.

Shame on you for deflecting and trying to make the victim's wife complicit in her husbands cold blooded murder!

If the police weren't so scared of being exposed for their wrong doing in this matter, they wouldn't have to manufacture bogus justification and deflection!

They aren't manufacturing anything....the man's past is the man's past. He had a gun, didn't comply and got shot. Again, you harp on only current life events being used, so how current are we talking about? A couple hours? A week?

Not really sure how I would take it if I rolled up on my kids bus stop, got out and was greeted by a dude smelling of weed and carrying a pistol though....how about you? Oh and had a brain injury and was on whatever medication. The fact that this is how he went to his kids bus stop to wait for them is ludicrous.

As far as Keith's wife....well this is a conspiracy site....

Some more interesting info ....

Gun Recovered from Keith Lamont Scott Was Reported Stolen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: GD21D

I can't see much in the dash cam footage so there's no reason to speculate. However, it's clear the deceased did not exit the vehicle with his hands in the air.

The man walked with cane, due to the injuries he suffered in an auto accident a year ago. He also suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury. Is it reasonable to assume to know that the man was physically capable of exiting the vehicle with his hands up?

Keith Scott was not the same man that he was a year ago, before his accident.

Yet oddly, a man that was so incapacitated was able to drive (which takes a lot more dexterity than putting your hands up), and reach a holster strapped to his ankle? He was a bit more capable than you are giving him credit for. I can tell you this much....if he can drive, he can drop a weapon as he has the ability to grip and release a steering wheel, and he can also at least raise his hands to chest level, unless your trying to make me believe he used a joy stick between his legs to steer....

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: GD21D

The man walked with cane, due to the injuries he suffered in an auto accident a year ago. He also suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury. Is it reasonable to assume to know that the man was physically capable of exiting the vehicle with his hands up?

Is it reasonable to assume he wasn't capable?

He couldn't lift his arms with palms out at all? Not even to shoulder level? This debate isn't even worth having. It's called grasping at straws.

grasp-at-straws
verb
To guess randomly at or pursue any apparent option, as due to lack of options or information.

Origin
This idiom refers to a drowning man grabbing any floating object, even a straw, to save himself. It was first used by Thomas More in Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1534).

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Did he have a valid drivers license? I know 12 year olds that can drive.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some more interesting info ....

Gun Recovered from Keith Lamont Scott Was Reported Stolen

Yeah I read about that earlier....here is a nice little tidbit from your link:

According to our news partners at the Charlotte Observer, in 2005, he was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after he shot and injured a man in San Antonio, Texas. He fired more than 10 rounds from a 9-millimeter pistol, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice told the Observer.

So he actually has shot someone before....

The backstory keeps getting better....