Police release Keith Scott videos, leaving more questions than answers

The first video, shot from an officer's body camera, does not appear to show the moment of the shooting. It also has no sound until the aftermath of the incident, when Scott is seen lying face-down after being shot. The second, filmed from a dashboard camera, depicts Scott walking slowly backwards from his car when shots are fired.

In the second video shows Keith Scott getting out of his car and I can't tell if he has something in his hand or not, it also appears to me at the time of the shooting Mr Scott doesn't appear to be point a weapon at anybody, although it's hard to say as he is right at the edge of the frame at the time.


mashable.com
abc.com.au

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

Yah, still inconclusive, still no 'smoking gun'.

Didn't stop the police chief from using his 'platform' to assert that, though, did it.

He can see better than us of course, one second before he was shot, 'threatening police with a firearm'.

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.

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.

It's not conclusive but I believe after seeing this that it is an unlawful police killing.

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

Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the legislation two months ago, has said the law would balance "public trust" with the rights and safety of police officers.

In an interview this week with CNN, the Republican governor and one-time mayor of Charlotte doubled down his support for the measure.

It's about "respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer," he said.

cnn

The police said the videos showed a gun, they clearly do not!

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?

Police also released images Saturday of the gun and ankle holster they say were in Scott's possession, and provided further details of the event's timeline.

I Have watched a few times and I can't see a gun, the only thing I have noticed is he seems to be wearing something black around his right ankle. possibly the ankle holster?

a reply to: ketsuko

Even if he had one, it wasn't in his hand, and NC is a open carry state.

I see why the sheriff said he wasn't gonna release the video

The question we should also be asking is even if he had a gun that is visible, do police have justification to do what they did? Remember he was not the person they were looking for and NC is a open carry state. Even if it turns out he was a felon, the end results does not justify the means, becuase the police did not know that going in to this.

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: ketsuko

Even if he had one, it wasn't in his hand, and NC is a open carry state.

I see why the sheriff said he wasn't gonna release the video

It doesn't matter if NC is an open carry state for him. With his record, it was illegal for him to have a gun. Period.

originally posted by: joemoe
The question we should also be asking is even if he had a gun that is visible, do police have justification to do what they did? Remember he was not the person they were looking for and NC is a open carry state. Even if it turns out he was a felon, the end results does not justify the means, becuase the police did not know that going in to this.

If the police were there to serve a warrant, they are already there expecting they could be in for a difficult time. Then they see an armed man who may or may not be their man, and he does not comply.

Things escalate.

The key is non-compliance in all these cases.

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that non complaince can be an issues. I also see that training can also be a issue. There are many examples of law enforcement officers in multiple jurisdictions who did not know or understand their state's or local open carry laws. Until we have more evidence I cannot say one way or the other if this shooting is justified. The videos released are not clear cut either way.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that non complaince can be an issues. I also see that training can also be a issue. However, there are example of law enforcement officers in multiple jurisdictions who did not know or understand thier state's or local open carry laws. Until we have more eveidence I cannot say one way or the other if this shooting is justified. The videos released are not clear cut either way.

And that is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

We don't know. We simply all think we know.

Thing is that when it comes to these cases that make national news, they are never the ones that are cut and dried. They are only the ones that are controversial and then the narrative paints them as cut and dried police simply shooting the innocent black man walking for ... reasons, usually racially motivated ones.

That doesn't mean the reasons here were good, but it also doesn't mean the cops simply felt like shooting a black man, either. But that's what they'd all like us to believe and too many keep falling for it, every. single. time.

And I am getting tired of it because I'm tired of BLM, I'm tired of the racial crap, and I'm tired of watching cities get torched when the later facts don't support the supposed justification.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree MSM will turn everything into a RACE issue until a story comes out that do not support their agenda. Look at how the recent Washington Mall shooter was reported as hispanic before any evidence was even in (God forbid if he is of middle eastern decent). Now we know.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree MSM will turn everything into a RACE issue until a story comes out that do not support their agenda. Look at how the recent Washington Mall shooter was reported as hispanic before any evidence was even in (God forbid if he is of middle eastern decent). Now we know.

And they won't pay attention to a clear incident of wrong-doing either. There was an incident where a cop clearly and obviously shot a black man in the back in cold blood. That cop was quickly arrested and put away. It was a bad thing plain as day. I believe that was in South Carolina? It didn't take place too long ago.

Media barely touched that story. It was all the evidence of the system working and justice that needs to be seen.

But it's an example of how they ignore the clear stories and gin up the controversies.

a reply to: ketsuko

did you see him do anything to threat or showed aggression toward the cops? was he menacing other bystanders, or was a danger to himself?

what warrants or give the OK for police to kill someone in your opinion i wonder?
is non compliance a shoot to kill? do you think they teach that at the academy, kill if non compliant, or do you think they teach them to employ other tactics?
but each time, non compliance is the excuse used to kill someone, yet its not what is taught legally.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that non complaince can be an issues. I also see that training can also be a issue. However, there are example of law enforcement officers in multiple jurisdictions who did not know or understand thier state's or local open carry laws. Until we have more eveidence I cannot say one way or the other if this shooting is justified. The videos released are not clear cut either way.

And that is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

We don't know. We simply all think we know.

Thing is that when it comes to these cases that make national news, they are never the ones that are cut and dried. They are only the ones that are controversial and then the narrative paints them as cut and dried police simply shooting the innocent black man walking for ... reasons, usually racially motivated ones.

That doesn't mean the reasons here were good, but it also doesn't mean the cops simply felt like shooting a black man, either. But that's what they'd all like us to believe and too many keep falling for it, every. single. time.

And I am getting tired of it because I'm tired of BLM, I'm tired of the racial crap, and I'm tired of watching cities get torched when the later facts don't support the supposed justification.

Well thats what happens when you ignore problems in your city. You get problems that rear there head.

It time to stop blaming the cops in a way. They are hired and given the job methodology.

However there is no way a humane society should be ok even with an unarmed theif being shot in the back running away from cops.

Warrant roundups for non violent crime is a hug violence escalator.

Its not a simple black people need to comply better. They have plenty of reason to not trust the government who never did anything to help black culture assimilate into America. Instead johnson was and the racists at the time wanted to slow the growth of black wealth. War on poverty. Welfare. Ghettos, being caught expirementing on blacks with siphulus, being caught laundering drug money, being caught bringing drugs into cities.

One of the most institutional racist things still alive today is the fact that inncocent people are gunned down in places like Chicago sometimes daily, and the federal amd state government hasnt made it an emergency. Gangs dont grow into powerful organizations without help. Politicians and the police are often right there helping.

Police need much better aptitude testing and training. You shouldn t be able to be out of shape and a 450 lb dude shouldnt be able to scare you enough to shoot him for no reason. If your not physically fit, and mentally quick you shouldnt be a cop. Otherwise we will keep getting cops shooting autistic kids with fire trucks.

Regardless of the cops heightened emotions during a warrant round up, it doesnt justify a methodology from the dept that allows stuff like this to happen. The riots are also a sign the mayors have been avoiding dealing with issues in the city. Thug spawning points are usually political and social failures.

a reply to: KungfuStu

weartv.com...

"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 of them.
The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.” Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up."

Well isn't that cute, rolling weed and playing with your gun being a bad ass in front of undercover officer's. Which lead to this...

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

So we see that the victim was actually being very ignorant and got himself in this situation by playing with his gun in plain view of officer's. Then this occurred...

"Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed 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 Mr. 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. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands."

This is the very facts of the case the media fails to report that would instantly clear up the entire situation. Then this occurred...

"A uniformed officer in a marked patrol vehicle arrived to assist the officers. The uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Mr. Scott.
Mr. 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 Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene."

That clears it all up and explains exactly why the family attorney had "no comment" you can't possibly still believe the guy was just gunned down by evil cops reading those quotes and the rest of the article. I finally registered after lurking since this website was a little known thing way way back in the day. It's so sinister looking watching all these articles be blown up by speculation, disinformation, and emotions that don't have anything to do with the articles except distract from discussion.

a reply to: luthier

Part of that problem is of its own making. I've discussed this in plenty of other places. Nothing will fix the poor black community until it wants to fix itself. Until then, anything done is just going to be wasted.

The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Everyone knows there is a problem except the people who have it. They're still in denial about it and busy blaming everyone and everything else for something that is at least partially of their own making. Until they realize they have to fix themselves as much as we help them do it, then there won't be any real change.

For example, you can make jobs available, but unless the people you make the jobs available to have basic job skills like punctuality and the ability to take direction from authority and work (things we all learn partially at school, btw). Society can do the first thing, but only the individual can decide to make the personal attitude changes that enable to second set to occur.

So any answer has to happen both in the people themselves who have to realize that change is as much on them as it is one society.