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

So this is an interesting new development. His own wife said he was a threat to her and her kids, beat them and threatened to kill them with a 9mm handgun that he illegally possessed.....well then. Anyone else have anything to say about his character? I mean your own wife, the one that has been hyping riots and seems to be trying to get her 15 seconds of fame from her video says he is a killer and filed a police report on him.

This actually has me wondering if this was a setup by her from the beginning.

So the story is that they were in the car, she had to get out to go back to the house for something and then the cops show up and shoot him because someone reported a man with a warrant there.

I wonder what the chances are that SHE reported it, knowing that he had his illegal gun and was violent, knowing the police would confront him and it was likely he would pull the gun on them, knowing that he would be shot/killed, and it was all a ploy to get rid of him because he was a violent offender and had attacked her and the kids before?

Channel 9 also obtained a domestic violence protective order that Scott's wife took out on him last year.

The order, filed in Gaston County, said that Scott hit his child in the head with his fist, kicked his wife and threatened to kill them with his gun.

It also claimed that Scott told his family that "he's a killer and they should know that."

It went on to say that Scott has a 9 millimeter handgun, that he did not have a permit for it and that he is a convicted felon.

The order was dismissed a month later when Scott's wife said he was no longer a threat to the family.

Source

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well, if he really did beat them and threaten them with a 9, then it would seem a rather well thought out and executed (pun intended) plan.

You go Girl..!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

tsk, tsk

Going against the narrative with facts and documents means you're . . .

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Interesting if true, considering the fallout and the fact the the riots in Charlotte even got a shout out by Hillary during the debate last night.

More "the truth doesn't matter, only the narrative does," if I've ever seen it.

See... Every single case just about.. Once a little time goes by, reality sets in. Glad this perp can no longer threaten anyone else.

How interesting would this case get if it ended up that SHE was put on trial for orchestrating a murder of her husband in this manner. I wonder what the community would do then.

I, for one, will be looking into how the initial call was made and from whom. I have read the stories that they were looking for someone else that had a warrant but haven't really heard much about it and that seems to have disappeared from all of the stories on this.

So there was apparently a warrant being issued there, but nothing more has been said about this warrant or whom they were serving it on. Could she have called in a false report that someone who had a warrant was living in that complex, knowing that they were about to pull up there to serve or were waiting to serve a warrant? Is it possible she concocted the entire thing?

Either way, her court case against him is VERY damning of the case she is trying to make that he was harmless....I mean it kills that argument dead in the water.

Count down till the SJWs come in the thread claiming his background is irrelevant. If anything it shows the wife is a liar and knew he carried a weapon. Remember in the video she is screaming to the cops that he didn't have a gun?

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. He had a gun. He was behaving in a threatening manner. He got shot. It really is that simple. Everything in this guys background points to him being a threat to police. He already served time for shooting at police before. His own wife has claimed he was violent. Why would we all of a sudden now believe he was some choir boy and the cops shot him for no reason.

Oh yeah, it was confirmed the gun was stolen too. The police have the burglary suspect in custody who admitted to selling Mr. Scott the firearm.

If you change the name, the story reads lke a dating guide written by Zimmerman.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh boy! Here it comes, like clockwork! The predictable police apologists creating a public perception that the cold blooded murder of Keith Scott was justified and a needed cleansing.

Nobody ever claimed that Mr. Scott was an angel, and it isn't Mr Scott's behavior that's on trial here. It's the police'.

I wonder how many police officers on that scene have had domestic violence issues in their own households, reported or not? I wonder if all the officers on that scene were drug tested, how many of them would not come up clean?

Again, this isn't about Mr Scott, it's about the police, their actions and their inaction.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Count down till the SJWs come in the thread claiming his background is irrelevant. If anything it shows the wife is a liar and knew he carried a weapon. Remember in the video she is screaming to the cops that he didn't have a gun?

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. He had a gun. He was behaving in a threatening manner. He got shot. It really is that simple. Everything in this guys background points to him being a threat to police. He already served time for shooting at police before. His own wife has claimed he was violent. Why would we all of a sudden now believe he was some choir boy and the cops shot him for no reason.

Sad that these cases of "taking out the trash" end up being politicized in the wrong manner. Like another poster said above....even Hillary spoke on this in the debate last night...I wonder if she is eating her words right now. The fact this is the guy and the lying wife that the riots were over in NC, the riots where someone else died too.....now that is just sad.

a reply to: Edumakated

Not to get off-topic, but the push to negate backgrounds stems from the rise in ISIS-related attacks here and abroad.

imho

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh boy! Here it comes, like clockwork! The predictable police apologists creating a public perception that the cold blooded murder of Keith Scott was justified and a needed cleansing.

Nobody ever claimed that Mr. Scott was an angel, and it isn't Mr Scott's behavior that's on trial here. It's the police'.

I wonder how many police officers on that scene have had domestic violence issues in their own households, reported or not? I wonder if all the officers on that scene were drug tested, how many of them would not come up clean?

Again, this isn't about Mr Scott, it's about the police, their actions and their inaction.

Not sure about the police records on themselves, but I am sure on Keith's and his wife's lies. She incited these riots and even claimed he didn't have a gun.

No this is NOT about police action....this is about a violent person who claimed to even be a killer to his own family after beating them actually getting what was coming to him.

How you can still attempt to defend your position is beyond me.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh boy! Here it comes, like clockwork! The predictable police apologists creating a public perception that the cold blooded murder of Keith Scott was justified and a needed cleansing.

Nobody ever claimed that Mr. Scott was an angel, and it isn't Mr Scott's behavior that's on trial here. It's the police'.

I wonder how many police officers on that scene have had domestic violence issues in their own households, reported or not? I wonder if all the officers on that scene were drug tested, how many of them would not come up clean?

Again, this isn't about Mr Scott, it's about the police, their actions and their inaction.

Are you denying that Mr. Scotts actions didn't have an effect on how police responded to him? If we are conducting an investigation and the police are saying Mr. Scott was a threat, don't you think Mr. Scotts HISTORY of being violent is relevant to the situation at hand?

To be fair, I also want to know the history of the police involved. However, it is becoming clearer and clearer that in all likelihood the police account is correct.

a reply to: windword

and it isn't Mr Scott's behavior that's on trial here. It's the police

No... Mr. Scott's behavior is why he is no longer here.. Mr. Scott's behavior is why the Police are in the position they are now in.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

What the victim did a year ago has no bearing on whether or not the police were justified in the shooting that occurred last week.

You're justifying the cold blooded murder of a man who was of no threat to the officers, by drudging up things from his past, that I have no doubt that at least one officer on that scene has also been guilty of. In fact "Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence"

Police Family Violence Fact Sheet

What you're forgetting, is that we all saw the video of the police gunning down a seemingly unarmed man, who was not acting in a threatening manner. The police didn't follow protocol, and it's because of their actions that the people were moved to riot.

The ensuing riots, ignorant as they were, do not justified the cold blooded murder that occurred hours before.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

This actually has me wondering if this was a setup by her from the beginning.

LadyGreenEyes and I were speculating much the same thing recently in another thread. And not just in this case, but in others. It's easy enough to call in a report of "shots fired" or that someone is "brandishing" a gun, get the cops responding worked up for a gunfight, and let circumstances play themselves out...

So the story is that they were in the car, she had to get out to go back to the house for something and then the cops show up and shoot him because someone reported a man with a gun there.

I haven't heard that before and I can't find anything about it. Just that the cops were there for other reasons and they happened upon him. Do you recall where you heard/read that? Can you point me in the right direction?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

What the victim did a year ago has no bearing on whether or not the police were justified in the shooting that occurred last week.

You're justifying the cold blooded murder of a man who was of no threat to the officers, by drudging up things from his past, that I have no doubt that at least one officer on that scene has also been guilty of. In fact "Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence"

Police Family Violence Fact Sheet

What you're forgetting, is that we all saw the video of the police gunning down a seemingly unarmed man, who was not acting in a threatening manner. The police didn't follow protocol, and it's because of their actions that the people were moved to riot.

The ensuing riots, ignorant as they were, do not justified the cold blooded murder that occurred hours before.

You can have no doubt all you want....show me the proof. I showed you mine and now you are using what you say has no bearing to try to make the same point I am? How does that make sense.

Anywho...yes he was armed. Your argument of him carrying an ankle holster to hide his weed in the other thread was ridiculous. He had a gun...he was told to drop it NUMEROUS times. His wife reported, last year, that he illegally owned a 9mm handgun that he threatened them with. He did not comply with orders to drop his weapon and got shot.

But yeah...let's defend the wife and child beating, self professed killer guy who has no respect for laws and proved it for a couple decades.....

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This actually has me wondering if this was a setup by her from the beginning.

LadyGreenEyes and I were speculating much the same thing recently in another thread. And not just in this case, but in others. It's easy enough to call in a report of "shots fired" or that someone is "brandishing" a gun, get the cops responding worked up for a gunfight, and let circumstances play themselves out...

So the story is that they were in the car, she had to get out to go back to the house for something and then the cops show up and shoot him because someone reported a man with a gun there.

I haven't heard that before and I can't find anything about it. Just that the cops were there for other reasons and they happened upon him. Do you recall where you heard/read that? Can you point me in the right direction?

Sure thing:

In the video, which begins before shots are fired, Rakeyia Scott — who had gone inside to to get a cellphone charger while Keith sat in the car awaiting his son's school bus — approaches the area where several vehicles, including a police car, are clustered.

USATODAY SOURCE

a reply to: Edumakated

Are you denying that Mr. Scotts actions didn't have an effect on how police responded to him?

Can you point to any evidence that show that Mr Scott was acting belligerently and/or threatening to these officers' or the public's safety, at any time during this incident?

If we are conducting an investigation and the police are saying Mr. Scott was a threat, don't you think Mr. Scotts HISTORY of being violent is relevant to the situation at hand?

No. The only thing we should be looking at is Mr. Scott's behavior at the time of his murder. We all saw it. Keith Scott had his hands limp at his side, and appeared docile and confused. He was awkwardly backing up in retreat of the officer that was point his weapon, when he was shot.



We as a society don't look favorable on vigilante cops, on duty or off.