CMPD Releases Video Of Fatal Shooting Of Keith Lamont Scott

a reply to: imsoconfused

Per their statement they didn't view the joint as a priority until they saw a gun.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Cases are not proven in a week. Much less to the public.

a reply to: starfoxxx

the guy had a gun come people come on, his shirt on the right side even appears to be stuck up being held in place by a gun holster.

I didn't see it, but are you saying they shot him for wearing a holstered gun?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't it a lawyers job to try and prove their client innocent? I'm just as skeptical of lawyers as I am the government, two lopsided agendas.

Totally agree Critical. Lawyers have an agenda as well. I'm not going to readily side with them either. That being said it comes back to my point. So far we have no evidence Scott even had a gun that day beyond official police statements. The video itself as the Police official admits doesn't prove the statements of the officers either. Scott is, at this stage, innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately there are some members who made their minds up already with nothing more than the police statement. We need to pride ourselves on this website as skeptics. This doesn't mean you automatically have to agree with the rioters in Charlotte.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: starfoxxx

the guy had a gun come people come on, his shirt on the right side even appears to be stuck up being held in place by a gun holster.

I didn't see it, but are you saying they shot him for wearing a holstered gun?

Guy is a felon should not have had a gun on him AT ALL..

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I agree, and unfortunately the videos we've seen so far don't have the best angles. And the shooter did not have a camera as he was undercover that day.

We didn't used to have any video evidence so we are taking steps in the right direction. We may never know the truth in this story, unfortunately.

The MAyor of charlotte is looking to get re elected and cant do it if he is seen supporting the Cops.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: imsoconfused

Per their statement they didn't view the joint as a priority until they saw a gun.

Yeah bs.. lol

a reply to: starfoxxx

Guy is a felon should not have had a gun on him AT ALL..

Did the undercover officers know that at the time? North Carolina is an open carry state, right? If the gun was holstered, as you say, why did they shoot him?

But, I still no evidence of a gun in the first place.

a reply to: imsoconfused

Well it doesn't look good for either party in this situation. But I don't know if we'll ever know if that was BS.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The case is already muddled for we now have two separate eyewitness who said the Black cop did not do the shooting a bald white cop did, was it a gun or was it a book, was the gun planted, anyway you take it there is already room for reasonable doubt if it ever even go to trial, for rest assured police testimony trumps eyewitness only every time. see vid I post one pg back.

a reply to: windword

Sometimes cameras don't catch everything. Video is not necessarily required in all cases.

Also drugs and a gun constitute an arrest.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: starfoxxx

the guy had a gun come people come on, his shirt on the right side even appears to be stuck up being held in place by a gun holster.

I didn't see it, but are you saying they shot him for wearing a holstered gun?

It was an ankle holster they found. And if you watch the dashcam footage you can see that his right pant leg was rolled up.

Even if you can't see the gun, why wouldn't he at least roll his pant leg down before exiting the vehicle if it was holstered?

Imo, he had it in his hand. However, he was backing away and his arms were down when they shot him. I don't like that. Holding a gun at your side and backing away shouldn't have been enough justification for the police to use lethal force.

I don't think the cop that took the shot should be charged, but he shouldn't be allowed back on the force.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The case is already muddled for we now have two separate eyewitness who said the Black cop did not do the shooting a bald white cop did, was it a gun or was it a book, was the gun planted, anyway you take it there is already room for reasonable doubt if it ever even go to trial, for rest assured police testimony trumps eyewitness only every time. see vid I post one pg back.

The case on Michael Brown was hopelessly muddled too.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Cases are not proven in a week. Much less to the public.

Agreed however when you have a city descending in to chaos because the people believe the man was murdered by police one would think IF they had anything conclusive to show that it was a good shoot they would.....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you buckle once, it paves the road for more disorder.

Not that I'm making this connection, but we don't negotiate with terrorists, so why rioters?

I would think at some point the gun wasn't in the holster?They said the joint wasn't even a big deal til they seen the gun but, the holster is around his ankle.They would have never seen it if it was in the holster the whole time?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The case is already muddled for we now have two separate eyewitness who said the Black cop did not do the shooting a bald white cop did, was it a gun or was it a book, was the gun planted, anyway you take it there is already room for reasonable doubt if it ever even go to trial, for rest assured police testimony trumps eyewitness only every time. see vid I post one pg back.

The case on Michael Brown was hopelessly muddled too.

Yes but muddled on purpose to reach a predicted conclusion.

This makes a liar out of the Wife who kept telling police he had no gun.

originally posted by: xuenchen
This makes a liar out of the Wife who kept telling police he had no gun.

Or the cops who planted it.