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

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

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

No idea...again, you are the one claiming he may not have been able to reach up. I am simply pointing out he had to be able to.

What does a 12 year old being able to drive have to do with this. You are claiming his disability limited him from doing the things officers asked of him....I am showing they could not possibly have limited him from doing them.

And I haven't ever met a 12 year old that can't reach up either....but that is beside the point as I am sure there are some that can't.

a reply to: GD21D

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.

I believe he was shot within 4 seconds of existing the vehicle and tottering backwards. Did you watch the video?

Yes, this debate is worth having, because a man was murdered, and some people support his murder based on his past, while refusing to look at the actual facts about the man and what he did on the day he was killed, not 9 years ago, 7 years ago or even 1 year ago.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

No idea...again, you are the one claiming he may not have been able to reach up. I am simply pointing out he had to be able to.

That's usually the case with people who need a cane to walk. It's not hard to understand.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I agree that nothing in his past matters when discussing the actual shooting. There wouldn't be enough time to fully investigate his past and let everyone know about it, and even if that were the case, as was said, he might not have been the same person.

But regardless of all that, he had a gun, didn't drop it when ordered to, and was shot becasue of that. Perhaps if this was England, the bobbies would have tossed a ninja star at his hand and made the gun fall to the floor, or if this was Australia, Scott would have had a can of beer instead of a gun, because nobody in Australia is violent. But this was in a housing development in the inner city of Charlotte NC. A place were most would not venture into at night of close to dark.

It's sad that he's dead, but he alone could have avoided all of this by doing what he was told.

originally posted by: GD21D

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.

Maybe we should shut down all ATS threads of the like.... Or are you suggesting that just shut down the people that disagree with or call out the OP for blaming the victim and his wife for his murder?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No idea...again, you are the one claiming he may not have been able to reach up. I am simply pointing out he had to be able to.

That's usually the case with people who need a cane to walk. It's not hard to understand.

How so? Usually a cane implies a leg/hip injury which is why a cane is used on the side of the injury in order to take the weight off of the leg/hip while walking. Just wondering your supposition as to why he couldn't lift his hands and basing it on the fact he used a cane.

Hell, my 99 year old grandmother used a cane because of a really bad back and hip, but if she was standing in one place she could and did lift her hands over her head numerous times that I saw while she was getting a cup or bowl from her cabinets. The cane was only used to walk.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Usually a cane implies a leg/hip injury

Which would imply a balance issue.

Hell, my 99 year old grandmother used a cane because of a really bad back and hip, but if she was standing in one place she could and did lift her hands over her head

Well, lets put your granny in the same situation, (I mean exactly the same), and see how she does!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Usually a cane implies a leg/hip injury

Which would imply a balance issue.

Hell, my 99 year old grandmother used a cane because of a really bad back and hip, but if she was standing in one place she could and did lift her hands over her head

Well, lets put your granny in the same situation, (I mean exactly the same), and see how she does!

Sure...it could be a balance issue or a pain issue. Either way, it doesn't keep you from dropping a gun and putting your hands up. Anywho...the order was drop the gun...that doesn't require balance.

Sadly my "granny" is already gone so I can't ask that of her at this point. But then again, she never had a propensity for violence and would not have been in the situation in the first place...she actually made GOOD choices in her life.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Either way, these things must be taken into account every time the police shoot and kill a non threatening disabled person.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Look who is speculating now!

For god's sake! The man was in a serious automobile accident a year ago that left him with a brain injury. He walked with a cane, and because of his injury, he couldn't tolerate the sun. It was a daily ritual for him to wait for his son's bus. They drove their SUV from one side of the apartment complex to other side, where the school bus dropped of their son.

Ha! Yes...I am speculating about her because she has been caught in a MAJOR lie. She filed against him last year saying all of these things. I don't think it is a stretch for a woman to plan out the death of an abusive and violent husband and try to get something out of it. I can imagine she went through quite the ordeal with that one.

Insurance fraud maybe or settling out of court for her "loss" right?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Either way, these things must be taken into account every time the police shoot and kill a non threatening disabled person.

Non-threatening disabled person. So a man with a gun in his hand is non threatening? And to use your own argument against you...you continue to say disabled as if the police knew he was disabled somehow...how was this known to the police again?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Look who is speculating now!

For god's sake! The man was in a serious automobile accident a year ago that left him with a brain injury. He walked with a cane, and because of his injury, he couldn't tolerate the sun. It was a daily ritual for him to wait for his son's bus. They drove their SUV from one side of the apartment complex to other side, where the school bus dropped of their son.

Ha! Yes...I am speculating about her because she has been caught in a MAJOR lie. She filed against him last year saying all of these things. I don't think it is a stretch for a woman to plan out the death of an abusive and violent husband and try to get something out of it. I can imagine she went through quite the ordeal with that one.

Insurance fraud maybe or settling out of court for her "loss" right?

I really would not put it past her if the abuse was as bad as she reported. I also wouldn't blame her as I have heard some real horror stories of abuse that could push anyone to do anything to get out of the situation.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I didn't see a gun. I don't believe he had a gun in possesion at the time of the shooting. But he sure wasn't pointing anything at anyone and wasn't threatening anyone. Police should have employed non lethal force first, tasers, etc.

you continue to say disabled as if the police knew he was disabled somehow...

They were informed of his disability by the wife.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Either way, these things must be taken into account every time the police shoot and kill a non threatening disabled person.

wait just a damn minute. If the cops had no way of knowing his violent past, they sure as hell had no way of knowing about his disabilities either. You can't have it both ways sport.

originally posted by: windword


They were informed of his disability by the wife.

Ah, the one that said he didn't own a gun. right.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I didn't see a gun. I don't believe he had a gun in possesion at the time of the shooting. But he sure wasn't pointing anything at anyone and wasn't threatening anyone. Police should have employed non lethal force first, tasers, etc.

you continue to say disabled as if the police knew he was disabled somehow...

They were informed of his disability by the wife.

Do you know that these officers had tasers? Do you regularly have non-threatening conversations with others holding guns?

And how exactly were they informed by his wife again? She said he just took medication and has a TBI....so first, you think they actually could hear her? Second, you think they would take the word of a random lady walking up on the scene? Third...I had to look up what a TBI was when it came out in the recording and I actually read a lot and am pretty well educated and had no idea what that was....but I guess you will speculate all of these cops knew?

a reply to: network dude

If the cops had no way of knowing his violent past, they sure as hell had no way of knowing about his disabilities either.

They ignored his wife's pleas, and I know they heard her because they keep looking in her direction. They had no intention/training of trying to deescalate the situation.

I know just a few weeks ago, the Charlotte police shot and killed a death man that they thought might be armed too. Clearly, the Charlotte police don't know how to deal with people with disabilities, visible or not, physical or mental.

They're just taking the trash out, vigilante style!

a reply to: network dude

She said that he wasn't armed, he doesn't have a gun.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Do you know that these officers had tasers?

Why wouldn't they?

originally posted by: Boadicea
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...

You know...the more I think about this the more it makes me suspicious. Keith was said to have been a creature of habit, so he likely was always at this parking spot waiting for the bus and his kid.

Coincidentally, in this apartment complex, two undercovers happen to be outside of this particular spot waiting to serve an arrest warrant? What are the chances of that? They were close enough to be able to observe him rolling a joint and holding a gun so he had to have been parked at the same unit in the complex that they happened to be parked at.

Sure it could all be wrong place wrong time, but just a lot doesn't seem to add up here.