Charlotte Shooting Video: Footage Shows Fatal Encounter Between Police, Keith Lamont Scott

These are a few screen shots as he exits the SUV from the shoulder cam. His hands are down but it's hard to tell if he has a gun in his right hand because it's down by his waist. The third pic with the red circle is the only one that could show a gun, but there's pixelation. The last pic shows he has nothing in his left hand.
Having his hands down and not being able to see completely what's in his hand would be threatening to the officers.





I'm not supporting him being shot and killed. I don't think officers need to unload their gun(s) on someone. But, with the unknown and adrenaline flowing I can see that happening.
If you have nothing to hide, let that be known.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

She was telling the police "Don't do it!", not her husband. She continually addressed the cops, urging them 'not to "Do it!"

She told them twice that he wasn't armed, and according to witnesses, she was in the truck with Keith, and exited to go get something from the house. So, she would have known if he was armed.

I don't believe he had a weapon on him.

But, even if he did, he wasn't brandishing it. The police were never in danger. The man was executed in cold blood.

Yeah, she said he didn't have a gun, while they were shouting that he needed to drop a gun. Narrative for her video? That's the impression I got. Yes, she would know, but he did have what looks like a holster on his ankle, and a gun was seen on the ground, after he was shot. Why would they just randomly go up to a car, demand someone drop an imaginary gun, and shoot? They wouldn't, not in the current political climate! Claiming that they would is simply not logical.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

They were shouting for him to "Drop the gun!" well before he existed the car. Are we sure he had a gun in the car? I'm not! How do we know, if he had a gun in the car, that he didn't drop it in car before he exited the car, like the officers ordered him to do? His hands appear to empty, but nevertheless, they are hanging limp at his side and are not threatening anyone.

I don't think that there ever was a gun. I think his wife was telling the truth all along. There (never) was no gun.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

They were shouting for him to "Drop the gun!" well before he existed the car. Are we sure he had a gun in the car? I'm not! How do we know, if he had a gun in the car, that he didn't drop it in car before he exited the car, like the officers ordered him to do? His hands appear to empty, but nevertheless, they are hanging limp at his side and are not threatening anyone.

I don't think that there ever was a gun. I think his wife was telling the truth all along. There (never) was no gun.

He got out with the gun, got back in, then got out again. Hence, they knew he had a gun. Hence the interest in him in the first place. No, his hands don't look empty; he's clearly holding something. She didn't even claim they planted a gun, and she was making video at the time. If they tosed a gun, do you really think she' have somehow missed that? Really?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He got out with the gun, got back in, then got out again. Hence, they knew he had a gun.

As far as I know him getting in and out of the car isn't part of the record. He could have, and they could have seen his ankle holster, but according to the record, the cops said they saw him brandish a weapon from within his SUV, through the tinted windows. That is why I said that, in my opinion, they may have seen him light up his joint, as they said, and the lighter he used may have resembled a small gun. Perhaps he didn't put the lighter down and was waving his hands around to music, or waving at the undercover officers with his lighter loaded hand, who were staring at him in shock as he lit up his marijuana joint.

They should have just told him to "put the joint out, there are children are all around in this public area". That would have been reasonable.

a reply to: windword

Why can't you accept that this guy had a gun, and was shot because he was a threat? Because his wife said otherwise? He was a felon; she wasn't going to admit, on video, that he had a gun.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Why can't you accept that this guy had a gun, and was shot because he was a threat?

The video evidence shows otherwise. His hands were limp at his side. He was in a catastrophic motorcycle accident and had severe brain damage, his pelvis was split in half as well as suffering two broken hips, just 10 months earlier. He was a threat to no one!