Where Did Keith Lamont Scott Get His Gun?

Well, in reading some threads about the Scott shooting in Charlotte, N.C., it is readily apparent that it's relatively important to discuss individual points of the incident. A big point of contention seems to the Colt Mustang II .380 pistol that was found at the scene.

It's obvious in the few videos of the incident that officers were telling Mr. Scott to 'drop the gun' multiple times throughout the encounter, and it wasn't until he decided to exit his vehicle, apparently with the firearm in his hand, did the officers decide to fire on Mr. Scott, killing him.

But where did he get the gun? He was a violent felon, so obviously he could not just walk into the neighborhood gun store and legally purchase one--let alone one that is relatively expensive and out of production. I found this article on BearingArms.com that discusses this very question, and is updated at the end of the article with the fact that it turns out that the gun is, in fact, stolen:

According to Rakeyia Scott, the wife of Keith Lamont Scott, he suffered from a traumatic brain injury, did not own a gun, and was reading a book in his SUV when approached by police.

The “book” turned out to be a Colt Mustang II, a relatively rare and no longer made “mousegun” manufactured for a relatively brief period in Colt’s long history, and which commands a premium on the used handgun market.

...

Of course, Keith Lamont Scott could not purchase his firearm retail, or lawfully possess one by any means.

Keith Lamont Scott was a violent ex-con with a long criminal history with weapons.

So if he couldn’t legally acquire the Colt Mustang Plus II and well-worn ankle holster that he was clearly seen wearing in CMPD body camera video right before he was shot, where did he get them?

There are only two possible explanations.

The first possible explanation is that Scott obtained the weapon via a “straw purchase” carried out by a family member or friend. This is unlikely due to several reasons, the primary reason being cost.

...

This leads us to the probability that Scott’s gun was obtained on the criminal black market, and more than likely through theft.

...

It’s bizarre that the media isn’t pressing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police to reveal information about the firearm in Scott’s possession, including and ATF tracing information that may indicate the origins of the pistol into the retail market, and whether it was ever reported stolen.

Like I said, it is now known that the gun was stolen, so at least this question is answered. So, we have a stolen gun in the possession of a violent felon that has his prints and DNA on the weapon itself and he was wearing the ankle holster at the time of the encounter (seen on the video), yet there are still some out there that are claiming that this weapon was a plant, or that it's some conspiracy that the gun was actually a book, and that the LEOs swapped them out to protect some grand conspiracy to randomly kill black men for no reason.

The Court of Public Opinion is really letting everyone down in these instances, so I implore you all to research the evidence for yourselves, and if there isn't enough evidence to make an intelligent conclusion, don't make one yet. Keep waiting, be intelligent about it, and quit feeding the ignorant divide in this country based on premature, speculative (and, IMO, manufactured) reactions to incidents like this.

So, what we know is that we have a man who was told eleven times to drop a firearm over the span of many seconds, if not minutes, and who apparently refused to do so and, instead, made the decision to get out of his vehicle with (apparently) a firearm in his hand while LEOs have firearms pointed at him. I'm uncertain how very many people expect such a situation to end differently.

And a bunch of people rioted over this before much of this was known.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This might shed some light.....haven't checked veracity of it. controversialtimes.com...

It was not his only gun according to his wife.

Last uear she filed a written complaint stating he had a 9mm handgun and he threatened to kill her with it. She also stated he was a felon amd not allowed to have the gun and also he punched their 8 year son old in the head several times.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which video is it again that shows the gun in his hand?

I watched the footage taken by his wife and the two videos released by police. Have there been any more released since? It is quite unclear whether he had anything in his hands.

I also noted you left out his wife repeatedly yelling he didn't have a gun...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But where did he get the gun?

Not only was it stolen, but the person suspected of stealing it has already claimed to police that he sold it on to Scott.

I feel dirty quoting the Daily Mail but it was the first link to come up in google. There should be some more reputable sources if you want to look.

Link to DM article.

The gun was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, according to the police.

A breaking and entering suspect told agents at the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives that he had sold the gun to Scott, ABC 11 reported Monday. He is now in custody.

a reply to: intrptr

Would that be the same wife who filed a written complaint stating he had a gun and said he "he was a killer" 11 months ago?

The same liar who said he was holding a book when he was shot?

The same woman who recorded herself yelling "keith, don't you do it!" Right before he was shot?

She is a completely discredited liar.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which video is it again that shows the gun in his hand?

There isn't one, that's why I made sure to note that the video showed that he was wearing the ankle holster, not that he was holding the gun. In fact, I made sure to note the word "apparently" when I discussed him getting out of the truck with the gun in his hand...actually, I said that twice, just to make sure that there would be no assumptions that I was certain that he had the gun in his hand. A lot of good that apparently did.


It's important to read what I actually write instead of reading what you think that I'm writing, otherwise discussion is pointless.

I also noted you left out his wife repeatedly yelling he didn't have a gun...

That's because I didn't discuss anything that was said by bystanders, and the only reason that I noted that the LEOs were telling him multiple times to drop the firearm was so that, since we don't have visual evidence currently out there showing the gun in his hand, that this at least supports this claim.

Whether or not someone on the sidelines is yelling anything is really inconsequential when, at the end of the incident, there is a loaded and cocked handgun within relative arm's length of Mr. Scott. So, either he had the firearm that police patiently told him to drop, or they planted it on him and it's the grand conspiracy to which I made reference in the OP--that is, if you put any weight in his wife's comments during the incident.

So, which is it? Which lends itself to be the most logical conclusion with the evidence that we currently have?

Obviously they could trace the serial if it wasn't scratched off. Have they done this? If it was purchased by someone for him they could be prosecuted.

Edit - I see this has already been answered. I didnt read all the posts. Sorry

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which video is it again that shows the gun in his hand?

I watched the footage taken by his wife and the two videos released by police. Have there been any more released since? It is quite unclear whether he had anything in his hands.

I also noted you left out his wife repeatedly yelling he didn't have a gun...

Sure...he just had an empty holster and from her video when she started yelling he didn't have a gun he was inside his car, but yeah...I'll roll with her story....I mean I carry empty ankle holsters to look cool all the time.

You also hear the multiple officers on the scene yelling for him to drop the gun.

So do we believe the wife that lied about a convicted felon who has beaten kids and shot people before not having guns as proven in the restraining order she filed or the police of which no bad record has been found yet?

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: intrptr

Would that be the same wife who filed a written complaint stating he had a gun and said he "he was a killer" 11 months ago?

The same liar who said he was holding a book when he was shot?

The same woman who recorded herself yelling "keith, don't you do it!" Right before he was shot?

She is a completely discredited liar.

We can't be bothered by facts...please do not post anymore.

a reply to: MiloTheMarauder

Like I said and is noted in the linked story, it was a stolen gun. As to the serial number, if you look at the police evidence image of the firearm, it appears that the serial number is still in tact about the trigger-guard area. That's probably how they were able to trace it back to having been reported stolen.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

She is a completely discredited liar.

And the video of the gun in his hand?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In the wife's video, I couldn't help but notice the area where the gun was first shown was empty only a few seconds before the gun appeared.

I know she was moving around a lot, which makes it hard to concentrate on one specific area, but one moment the ground was bare and the next moment we can see a gun. Then it seemed to be moved over next to an officer's foot.

Like I said, the wife moves her phone around a lot, which may make it hard for some to keep track.

I am not taking sides in this one as I don't have enough information to make a firm decision. I just wanted to point out something which I had seen.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Yeah--I think that someone in another post may have been referencing that the police coerced this suspect into saying that he sold it to Scott.

The apologists for the criminals in our society are out of control when standing in the presence of logic and deductive reasoning.

(but to point out, the whole point of my OP was to note that it was a stolen gun, but thanks for the addition of how it got into his hands, assuming the DM is correct).

a reply to: tinymind

I'll go back and take a look at it, but the timing of it appearing is what will end up mattering, obviously.

ETA: Watched it again...at about the 1:45 mark, it seems that the second officer from the right drops the object down to the ground, but of course it's off-camera...then that object seems to disappear. Then at the 1:55 mark, we see the same LEO toss two things down to the ground, which remain there until the 2:09 point when that same officer bends down, picks them up, and the video then ends.


I'll be honest, they don't seem like heavy, solid metal objects, any of them. I don't know what they might be, but they don't seem like some planted firearm. Maybe that isn't even the area where the firearm was found. I'll have to go back and look into where the firearm was in location to the body.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In fact, I made sure to note the word "apparently" when I discussed him getting out of the truck with the gun in his hand...actually, I said that twice, just to make sure that there would be no assumptions that I was certain that he had the gun in his hand. A lot of good that apparently did.

"Apparently" nothing. In your OP, you referred to "the gun" several times:

Like I said, it is now known that the gun was stolen, so at least this question is answered. So, we have a stolen gun in the possession of a violent felon that has his prints and DNA on the weapon itself and he was wearing the ankle holster at the time of the encounter (seen on the video), yet there are still some out there that are claiming that this weapon was a plant, or that it's some conspiracy that the gun was actually a book...

Let's say, that it was a book, but it works with anything. IF a someone has a gun or a group of people have multiple guns pointed at you. Wouldn't you drop everything in your hands and show the person(s) with the gun(s) that your hands are empty and that you are not a threat and should not be shot

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: SlapMonkey

In the wife's video, I couldn't help but notice the area where the gun was first shown was empty only a few seconds before the gun appeared.

I know she was moving around a lot, which makes it hard to concentrate on one specific area, but one moment the ground was bare and the next moment we can see a gun. Then it seemed to be moved over next to an officer's foot.

Like I said, the wife moves her phone around a lot, which may make it hard for some to keep track.

I am not taking sides in this one as I don't have enough information to make a firm decision. I just wanted to point out something which I had seen.

Hi tinymind. In her video at 1:30 an officer reaches to accept a pair of gloves from another officer off screen right, then drops one as he tries to put on the other, then he picks up the one from the ground and then throws them both back down right at 1:45:Its this first glove on the ground at his feet everyone is using as evidence of a gun.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You also hear the multiple officers on the scene yelling for him to drop the gun.

What gun?

a reply to: intrptr

If this is the game that you're going to play, then please stop now.

The "apparently" was in accordance with the assertion that the gun was in his hand when he exited the vehicle. Either accept that this is how it's written and that this is how I meant it, or don't, but move on. Too many of these threads are getting derailed by pointless bickering.

As a side note, "in his possession" could mean in his truck, in the holster, in his pocket...anything like that. Again, please stop with the unnecessary derailments.