Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Charlotte Police release videos and photos: Say Keith Lamont Scott had a gun

Charlotte Police release videos and photos: Say Keith Lamont Scott had a gun

So much for him pointing a book.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sources-video-of-deadly-encounter-between-cmpd-officer-keith-scott-to-be-released-saturday/449819987

The Charlotte Police have released body and dashboard cam videos. While the video does not show enough of what happened to show a gun in hand, police say that Keith Lamont Scott had a gun when police shot him, and the video shows police yelling to “drop the gun” as he turned towards them and was shot.

While the video in itself does not resolve the legal issue of whether the shooting was lawful, it completely contradicts the initial narrative that Scott was holding or pointing a book.

WSOC-TV reports on the scenario presented by the police upon the release of the evidence:

Two plain clothes officers were sitting inside of their unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs when a white SUV pulled in and parked beside them.

The officers saw the driver, later identified as Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.”

Officers did not consider Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson saw Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Scott being in possession of the gun.

Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers left the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers.

Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.

A uniformed officer in a marked patrol vehicle arrived to assist the officers. The uniformed officer used his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Scott.

Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers, and fired his issued service weapon, striking Scott….

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Here is the police chiefs press conference announcing the release of the video:

Heres a composite video from CNN:

Here are the individual videos released by the police:

Keith Lamont Scott Ankle Holster

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sources-video-of-deadly-encounter-between-cmpd-officer-keith-scott-to-be-released-saturday/449819987

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms notes that the video appears to show that Scott had an ankle holster:

Keith Lamont Scott body cam ankle holster

(Note:Title and opening text clarified after publication)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I was expecting that the first question from the press would be: ‘Chief Pitney, you mentioned “Facts”, “Fact finding” and “Objective investigation” multiple times. Can you tell us what are those…?’

In Obama’s post-racial America, facts will matter no more than they did with “hands up, don’t shoot.”

    MattMusson in reply to Max17. | September 25, 2016 at 8:59 am

    TODAY’s Leftest Narrative – “Yes, he did have a gun. But, since he was walking away from the Officer he did not pose an imminent threat.”

    I think they realize criminal charges are no longer a possibility. But, they still see big dollars and publicity in a a Civil Trial.

      So far the CMPD seems to be taking a no-nonsense attitude with the “protesters” and their media enablers. If you check their Twitter feed they are actually going after the rioters, publicly shaming them and bringing charges. The Chief of police is showing real backbone with the press, very professional and respectful but at the same time being very firm that police procedures go first and none of the pandering and foolishness we saw in Baltimore after the Freddie Gray riots. I hope the city show some backbone as well and if the family wants to bring a civil suit just tell them “see you in court”.

I’m a bit disappointed that the chief caved to the pressure and released the videos. It will do nothing to sway the idiots who believe this felon was a saint.

    clintack in reply to Just Al. | September 25, 2016 at 8:33 am

    No, but it will let the rest of us feel confident that this one was probably a good shoot — unlike, maybe, the one in Tulsa. I was with those thinking, yesterday, that it was a bad sign that we hadn’t yet seen the video. I’m comforted by this release.

    And while it might not reach the most-fired-up rioters, it will leech their distant support. That has an effect over time.

    Facts never sway the left from its narratives.

it completely contradicts the initial narrative that Scott was unarmed and pointing a book.

And this gross police failure has been glaringly apparent since the Ferguson unpleasantness. Why does it take officialdom so bloody long to present any useful evidence? OF COURSE “the narrative” will be set by somebody else if you make no effort to set it yourself. C’mon, this is freshman-level Stupid 101.

Now back in the days when a big can of film had to be retrieved and developed before you’d even know if you had any useful visual evidence, delays were unavoidable. But there’s not much excuse nowadays, when video is cheap, fast, and—most importantly—unavoidable.

A person prone to seeing conspiracies under every bed might suspect that police everywhere are trying to encourage riots by delaying useful evidence (why, so they can request bigger budgets next year? Beats me) or, even more sinister, that evidence takes time to fabricate. I’m not that suspicious myself, but it’s getting harder to stay that way when this keeps happening … time … after time … after time …

    snopercod in reply to tom swift. | September 25, 2016 at 8:37 am

    The law in NC just changed last July; Body cam video is no longer “public record”. I’m sure that explains the delay.

    G.S. 132‑1.4 is amended by adding a new subsection to read (emphasis mine):

    “(g1) A person seeking an order under subsection (a) of this section to inspect, examine, or obtain a copy of audio, video, or audio and video recordings captured by a law enforcement officer’s body‑worn camera or in‑car camera must state the date and approximate time of the incident or encounter captured by the body‑worn camera or in‑car camera or otherwise identify the incident or encounter with reasonable particularity. Notwithstanding any other provision of State law regulating or prohibiting access to employee personnel records, a law enforcement agency may release recordings captured by a law enforcement officer’s body‑worn camera or in‑car camera without the consent of the law enforcement officer whose actions, visual or audible, are captured on the recordings. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as (i) requiring a law enforcement agency to allow inspection, examination, or release of audio, video, or audio and video recordings captured by a law enforcement officer’s body‑worn camera or in‑car camera or (ii) superseding federal law that authorizes or prohibits access to recordings subject to this subsection.”

    There’s always the possibility that Loretta Lynch demanded the release.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to tom swift. | September 25, 2016 at 10:59 am

    And this gross police failure has been glaringly apparent since the Ferguson unpleasantness.

    At least in Ferguson they had the brains to convene a Grand Jury and give ALL the facts to the jurors, rather than use selected ones to ensure an indictment of the officer.

    Yes, it took months to produce trial and verdict, but it helped to begin rolling back the media poison against him.

    Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | September 25, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    The same happened in the case of Little Saint Mohammed al-Dura. Immediately after the shooting the IDF apologised profusely, and it was more than a month before the first doubts by forensic experts were reported, and more than two months before the IDF officially disclaimed responsibility. By that time the damage was done; the whole world “knew” that the Jews had killed him, and few heard of or beleived the truth.

    Had the police only released the proof that Michael Brown’s DNA and blood was INSIDE Officer Wilson’s vehicle, it would have cut the rioting down maybe a day or so . . .

@JustAl – You have a problem with a public servant releasing video of other public servants doing their job? Or would you prefer an elitist organization not answerable to its benefactors and defacto employers and the truth remain hidden and malleable?

    clintack in reply to MrSatyre. | September 25, 2016 at 9:39 am

    There are a number of reasons to delay release.

    One is — if there’s a legal trial, you want to be able to confront lying witnesses with evidence that contradicts their statements, rather than giving them all your evidence to use in crafting their lies.

    Similarly, in the court of public opinion — there’s some advantage in letting the BLM folks beclown themselves with the “it was a book” narrative before releasing the tape. Otherwise, as MattMusson points out above, they’d be chanting that he was walking away, and therefore not an imminent threat.

    And then there are all of the legal and bureaucratic obstacles.

Humphrey's Executor | September 25, 2016 at 8:33 am

Isn’t it striking — in this redneck racist society of ours– how many top law enforcement officials are black.

    …and several of them are head-and-shoulders better than many white chiefs of police.

    Kinda giving the lie to that whole “Blacks don’t want the truth” racist meme we’ve seen here.

    Want to really make heads explode?

    Take all of these police-shoot-black-guy incidents and look at the statistics on black police officers, black police chiefs, black congressmen, and black mayors.

    These #BLM “incidents” overwhelmingly occur in places with far more black representation in the power structures than elsewhere.

It does not matter what the police release.
This “protest” is happening for one reason to inflame black voters.

The suspect had a weapon and refused to follow police commands.
A black officer shot a black suspect who was a threat!
A lawful shoot.

Why does BLM treat every police shooting? Just to inflame!

Formerly known as Skeptic | September 25, 2016 at 9:36 am

The clearly visible holster strapped to his ankle ought to put to bed the claims of a “drop piece” already circulating. Oh, who am I kidding, it will only convince those willing to consider the evidence and they’re not the problem.

A lot of people don’t understand the difference between “open carry” and “brandishing.” They’re still making a big deal of this, having dropped the “it was just a book!” narrative and moving to the “oh, so only WHITE people are allowed to open carry without getting executed!”

There is no pleasing Soros’s paid rioters.

Black police officer, black federal attorney general, black POTUS, and the US government and white people are oppressive. What is it going to take to relieve the oppression?

I’ve been enjoying using the hash tag #bookliesmatter myself

    Char Char Binks in reply to The Livewire. | September 25, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    50 years after Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists during the US national anthem in protest at the Mexico City Olympics, African Americans are still black, so no wonder they’re still angry.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 25, 2016 at 11:40 am

I don’t want to discuss if it was a justifiable shooting.

I’d like to discuss how it started. The police think Keith is rolling a joint. They decide serving the warrant on an unrelated case takes priority. So they don’t pursue Keith for rolling the joint. This makes sense to me.

Then one of he undercover officers sees Keith hold a gun up in the air. Why did he do that? If I’m him, I notice two people I do not know are police watch me roll a joint and continue to loiter around in my presence. They know I’ve got weed and if I have weed maybe they think I’ve got money, too. Is this a high crime area? Are these guys planning to steal my weed or rob me?

So, the question I have is, was it reasonable for him to feel threatened? If so, and assuming he lawfully possessed the gun (which apparently he did not, but let’s assume he was in lawful possession), would it have been reasonable for him to show the people he felt threatened by that he was armed? Not point the gun at them. Or threaten them with it. But merely hold it up in the air to show them he is armed to try to deter a potential robbery.

Sounds like a question for Andrew Branca.

Of course, everything changes after the police identify themselves as police, and uniformed police arrive in marked cars. He was a fool not to follow their instructions and drop the gun when ordered to do so. But I’m more interested in the events leading up to that.

    I don’t do drugs, but I expect that pot is not that expensive and I do not see it as an indicator that you have a lot of money. Nor do I see it as

    I do see that the whole thing would be silly if it were not so tragic. All this trouble over pot.

    I also have to wonder if he was illegally using pot because it helps with his TBI. That would explain the wife’s medication remarks.

    The thing is though he should never have has a gun. Not with his past and certainly nott while using pot.

    The rest was allowing your expectations to take you where you are going. He and his wife expected trouble with police so they caused trouble with police.

    Great observations. Those of us who don’t have to walk Scott’s shoes have a difficult time understanding his situation.

    Mr. Scott is caught in Catch 22 situation; with a weapon, he will be prosecuted by the police, without a weapon, he will be prosecuted by his neighbors.

    Events in his past have long precluded Mr. Scott from enjoying the benefits of living in America. His frustration at being caught by the police while attempting to warn off those he thought might be a threat to him, led to his bad choices.

      Milwaukee in reply to MSO. | September 25, 2016 at 2:05 pm

      He does have some responsibility here. Don’t live where you must fear your neighbors be being a neighbor who isn’t feared. How much responsibility does he have for the events of his past and how he responded to them?

      “Mr. Scott is caught in Catch 22 situation; with a weapon, he will be prosecuted by the police, without a weapon, he will be prosecuted by his neighbors.”
      True.

        Mr. Scott is entirely responsible for his own death. He was raised in a culture where early death/imprisonment is almost an ordained outcome.

        A culture that does not hold personal responsibility as its basis can only be tragic. As out nation turns ever more to our government for our morality, ethics and livelihood, we will see more and more of these sick and confused outcomes. outcomes

All the dead negro had to do was obey police commands. I do…..you do, so why not the black man?

I think the idea of “racism” is quite lost on some commenters here

    scooterjay in reply to scooterjay. | September 25, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    let me rephrase that…….if asked by a LEO I would comply with his request. I don’t do things that would get me in that position, but I guess that is just my “white privilege”

      Geologist in reply to scooterjay. | September 29, 2016 at 7:41 pm

      I was recently pulled over by a cop. Not for “driving while white” but because I was driving a car that was similar to a car that had been involved in a hit and run in the same general vicinity. As we slowed to a stop, and before the cops approached I got my drivers license, CCW, registration and insurance certificate. When the cops approached my hands were on the steering wheel at 10 and 2, with all of my documents in my left hand. I handed over my drivers license, CCW, etc. I disclosed that I had a pistol concealed in an inside-the-waistband holster in the 8:00 position, and asked what the cop wanted me to do. He told me to leave my hands on the steering wheel. I obeyed all commands. After determining that my car did not have the damage that they were looking for from the hit and run, the cops told me that I was free to go, and I wished them a safe tour.

      Obey, treat the cops with respect, and be safe!

      I have often wondered if some black men feel that treating someone with respect is being subservient, and that being rude and combative is somehow showing one’s power and superiority. Because it seems to me that too many young black men simply refuse to accord others any respect whatsoever, as if doing so would cost them too much self-respect. Whereas I was taught that to treat others with respect is to demonstrate your own respect for yourself. So I have no problem showing respect to cops, to the cashier at Mickie D’s, or to the guy who wants to squeegie my windshield.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend