Where Did Keith Lamont Scott Get His Gun?

originally posted by: intrptr
What gun?

Do you prefer that we call it "the fully loaded 'book' with a cocked hammer?"

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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

Show where he had a gun in any of the released footage. Otherwise change your thread title to, Where did the 'alleged' gun come from, instead of, where did he get "the gun".

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: intrptr
What gun?

Do you prefer that we call it "the fully loaded 'book' with a cocked hammer?"

I don't see "a book" either.

a reply to: intrptr

There doesn't need to be a gun captured on shaky-ass, unclear video footage for it to exist. And to be fair, everything is 'alleged' until a trial happens or the investigation into the incident (if a trial can't happen) is complete. That's a given--I shouldn't have to spoon feed you or anyone else in such a way. Maybe I should quit assuming that we're all intelligent adults on ATS and can figure that stuff out for ourselves? (of course, when they have a gun in evidence with the suspect's prints and DNA, and a guy apparently claiming to have sold him the stolen gun that is in evidence, there's only so much dancing around these points that is necessary to satisfy me at the moment...whether it satisfies you is irrelevant to me)

If you want me to change the title, take it up with ATS and their T&Cs that dictate that we must title the post with the title of the story on which the post is based, but again, stop with these ridiculous little petty concerns about my post and how it's written.

a reply to: intrptr

No one does--and now I'm seeing what you're implication is, and it's ridiculous concerning the evidence that we have. Your standard of "proof" from such terrible video is laughable at this point. Again, just because you can't see it on video doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

The tangible item that was taken into evidence and for which we have Scott's prints, DNA, and seemingly a history of ownership (and theft) of the weapon tells me that you're just wanting there to be a conspiracy more than you're willing to objectively look at the evidence so far.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

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

What gun?

The one that WAS in his ankle holster, which IS clearly seen in the video, that the police saw in his hand and told him to drop 11 times. Unless it is your opinion that he just wore that ankle holster for the cool factor that is......

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There doesn't need to be a gun captured on shaky-ass, unclear video footage for it to exist.

Lol, yes there does. If it was 'so obvious' he had it where is all the footage of him holding one while they repeatedly told him to drop it?

Non existent. If they had that, it would have been released.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't you know that none of that is evidence of the actual firearm, VC? Didn't you know that the standard of proof is only if you can clearly see it on a video?

How can we be so foolish to, at this point, believe that the gun that actually exists and is in custody of the police was really at the scene? It just HAS to be a conspiracy against the book-reading, peaceful black men in our nation.

/sarc

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The one that WAS in his ankle holster, which IS clearly seen in the video, that the police saw in his hand and told him to drop 11 times. Unless it is your opinion that he just wore that ankle holster for the cool factor that is......

Again, no gun in hand.

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...

I didn't see the actual bullets strike Mr. Scott in the video, therefore he wasn't really shot...

You guys are the ones going on he threatened the officers, had a gun, but can't show that anywhere.

Down with forensics, up with accusations.

intrptr out

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't you know that none of that is evidence of the actual firearm, VC? Didn't you know that the standard of proof is only if you can clearly see it on a video?

How can we be so foolish to, at this point, believe that the gun that actually exists and is in custody of the police was really at the scene? It just HAS to be a conspiracy against the book-reading, peaceful black men in our nation.

/sarc

What gets me is the amount of work that would have to go into a conspiracy of the proportion being talked about is insane. It would had to have been pre-meditated and then perfectly covered up all to kill this one particular guy....so with that conspiracy in mind....what did Keith Lamont Scott know???????

Dun dun duuuuuuun!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There doesn't need to be a gun captured on shaky-ass, unclear video footage for it to exist.

Lol, yes there does. If it was 'so obvious' he had it where is all the footage of him holding one while they repeatedly told him to drop it?

Non existent. If they had that, it would have been released.

You do realize that we don't yet have 360 degree surround view cameras covering every last perspective possible don't you? Just because something isn't filmed or you can't see it in a video is not evidence of something not occurring. We have to look at the video we have, the totality of all the evidence both present and past and come to a logical conclusion as to what actually occurred.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah my bad

a reply to: Edumakated

You do realize that we don't yet have 360 degree surround view cameras covering every last perspective possible don't you? Just because something isn't filmed or you can't see it in a video is not evidence of something not occurring.

Yah, but... the pressure for the PD to release their 'proof' he had a gun resulted in the release of only two video perspectives, neither of which prove he had anything in his hands at the time he was shot.

If their lives were in such obvious imminent danger that their were forced to open fire to save themselves from a gun brandishing bad guy, wheres the obvious imminent danger proof?

Here-say is not proof.

a reply to: intrptr

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Im no crooked LEO sympathizer, in fact the very opposite.

But it took nothing for people to start protesting rioting.
These are the inquiries which should have been made immediately. If he did have a gun, was it legal for him to have it, was he in any way posing a threat to those officers or the public, which he wasnt... was there even a firearm, or why would this be the element with the most ambiguities, the very element which may be justification for the death.

. If there is still ambiguity as to whether or not he had a gun at this point, this thread is obviously just bait, and assuming there was a gun on his person at the time of shooting, which the OP openly assumed, thus asking where he got it from; being a felon and the legality surrounding his possessing one.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Ifn it was, it was and ifn it wunt, it wunt?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Seriously?! I live in the Metro Detroit area....give me 10 minutes and a 5 minute drive...and I can get one...serial # ground off and all...$25-50 average...*

PS I am a good guy, legal daily carry, licensed carrier and 1st Responder....but I was just trying to tell you how easy it is....no questions asked.

I live in a nice West Side suburban neighborhood....and can go 2 doors down and ask the neighbor's son with the tether on his ankle...and dont even have to put my shoes on.

They, like drugs...are everywhere.

originally posted by: intrptr
Here-say is not proof.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, either. You are using a bona fide logical fallacy ("argument from ignorance," or "appeal to ignorance"), and that's what we're trying to get across to you. If you still prefer to continue this argument, that's up to you, but just realize that you are arguing on a foundation of logical fallacy, and that's a pretty shaky place from which to launch an argument.

As I look below this comment to which I'm responding, I see that I'm not the only one who realizes this truth in your argument.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Random firearms are everywhere. If you're really telling me that this exact model is everywhere on the black market, I'm going to have to challenge that, but what do I know, because I, too, am one of the good guys, and I prefer the Smith & Wesson M&P line anyhow.

(please note that my claims came from the story, not my experience or imagination, so if it's wrong, don't...shoot?...the messenger)