USA: Police footage of Charlotte shooting fails to resolve questions

[webfact]

USA: Police footage of Charlotte shooting fails to resolve questions

 

 

CHARLOTTE, NC: -- Police in Charlotte, North Carolina, have released video of the fatal shooting of an African American man after days of pressure from protesters.

 

But the bodycam and dashcam footage of their fatal encounter with Keith Lamont Scott, 43, fails to establish whether he had been holding a gun, as police say, or simply a book as his family have insisted.

 

“There is no definitive evidence in this video as to whether or not there is an object in his hand and, if there is, what that object is,” said the Scott family’s lawyer, Justin Bamberg.

 

In one of the police videos, a dashboard-mounted camera from a squad car showed Scott exiting his vehicle and then backing away from it. Police shout to him to drop a gun, but it is not clear that Scott is holding anything. Four shots then ring out and Scott drops to the ground.

 

A second video, taken with an officer’s body camera, fails to capture the shooting. It briefly shows Scott standing outside his vehicle before he is shot, but it is not clear whether he has something in his hand. The officer then moves and Scott is out of view until he is seen lying on the ground.

 

At least five people who appear to be police officers are seen in the bodycam video. Both videos show Scott moving at a measured pace with his hands at his sides.

 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney acknowledged that the videos themselves were “insufficient” to prove that Scott held a gun but said other evidence completed the picture.

 

“There is no definitive visual evidence that he had a gun in his hand,” Putney said. “But what we do see is compelling evidence that, when you put all the pieces together, supports that.”

 

Police released photos of a marijuana cigarette, an ankle holster they said Scott was wearing, and a handgun, which they said was loaded and had Scott’s fingerprints and DNA.

 

But Scott’s family, which released its own video of the encounter on Friday, said the police footage showed the father of seven was not acting aggressively and that the police shooting made no sense, with no attempt to de-escalate the situation.

 

The family video, shot by Scott’s wife, was also inconclusive on the question of a gun.

 

The two-minute video recorded by Scott’s wife on a mobile phone showed the scene of the shooting, but not the shooting itself. In the video, Mrs. Scott can be heard telling officers that her husband has TBI, a traumatic brain injury.

 

“Don’t shoot him! He has no weapon” she cries as police yell at Scott, “Drop the gun!” Then shots sound.

 

Scott’s brother-in-law, Ray Dotch, has said: “He was an American citizen who deserved better.”

 

Saturday saw a fifth night of protests over Keith Lamont Scott’s killing, by an officer who is himself African American.

 

One sign read “Stop police brutality” and another showed a picture of a bloody handprint with the phrase #AMINEXT, a social media tag about the fear of becoming a victim of police violence.

 

Charlotte has become the latest flashpoint in ongoing tensions over US police shootings of black men, most of them unarmed.

 

For the first time in three nights, police enforced a curfew, saying they would arrest violators. A crowd gathered outside police headquarters dispersed without any violence shortly after midnight.

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-26

[Ulysses G.]

The fact that he had a gun and no book was found at the scene makes this look like yet another bogus Black Lives Matter issue.

[lovelomsak]

Odd no one has mentioned the wife's part in this. Why has she not been charged with willfully endangering policemen by telling them repeatedly that he didnot have a gun when in fact he did. She should be charged. If police had acted on her say there be some dead policemen to account for. But hey in America blacks can kill with impunity so no problem right.

[Mickmouse1]

The guy had a gun in his hand..oh i think the hand that is not holding the book..he was aggressive and charging towards the cops, what do you expect cops to do? Shoot him.in the legs? 

I wonder why the police did not reveal yhe vdo immediately if their account is true and accurate?

Interesting movie if it ends without a conclusion ?

[derator01]

Please stick to the topic and abide by forum rules.  And no trolling.  Please.

 

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
 

Apologies to the members with the appropriate replies.

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, dcutman said:

 

Its got nothing to do with black live matter or any sort of racial cop killing.

Over the last 40 years or so, the U.S. Supreme court has seen fit to scuttle the 4th amendment and give the police the power to summarily execute people at their discretion.

 

 

 

Oh Boy. 

 

What about the fact Scott was armed with a gun?

 

Who gave him the right to summarily execute people?

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

Odd no one has mentioned the wife's part in this. Why has she not been charged with willfully endangering policemen by telling them repeatedly that he didnot have a gun when in fact he did. She should be charged. If police had acted on her say there be some dead policemen to account for. But hey in America blacks can kill with impunity so no problem right.

 

Exactly. 

 

At the very least this woman contributed to the tension at the scene prior to the shooting. 

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, dcutman said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public. Common law allowed officers to use any force necessary to effect a felony arrest but this was narrowed in the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 when the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ^[2]

In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene—and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.^[2]

 

OK. So which part of this do you have a problem with? 

 

Should police not be allowed to carry a firearm in your view? 

 

Should police not be allowed to prtrct themselves?

 

Should policenot be allowed to protect society from being shot?

[Strange]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hundreds-protesters-charlotte-demand-release-keith-lamont-scott/story?id=42330637

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charlotte-police-release-keith-lamont-scott-videos-article-1.2804868

[ClutchClark]

The photos in Strange's post show a pistol in the "cocked" and with the safety OFF position. 

 

It appears Keith Scott was intent on causing someone grievous harm with his Colt .380.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

Winder what was going through Keith Scotts head while sitting in his SUV ?

 

Had already served 5-6 years for a felony firearm conviction and was now going to be busted for felony possession of a firearm AND misdemeanor pot...looking at more prison time. 

 

 

[Strange]

Also, appears to be a Colt Mustang .380 (hard to see) and that is a small handgun. Mr.Scott was a big man, with large hands no doubt and could easily palm the gun. A factor to consider when looking at the videos. Another factor is the visible holster on his leg from the body cam footage:

 

 

Screen shot at about :17

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Strange

[starky]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, appears to be a Colt Mustang .380 (hard to see) and that is a small handgun. Mr.Scott was a big man, with large hands no doubt and could easily palm the gun. A factor to consider when looking at the videos. Another factor is the visible holster on his leg from the body cam footage:

 

 

Screen shot at about :17

 

Interesting screen grab. I would be inclined to say he had the gun holstered, cocked with the safety off. Easy to quarterback it after the game though. It sorta looked to me like he exited the car and was backing away from the officers in a non threatening way.  However in that split second obviously they felt compelled to shoot. Shame he had to die perhaps could have been handled better but far too much speculation after the fact IMO. Completely different to the other shooting for mine that guy was clearly executed.

Edited September 26, 2016 by starky
Additional info

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, starky said:

Interesting screen grab. I would be inclined to say he had the gun holstered, cocked with the safety off. Easy to quarterback it after the game though. It sorta looked to me like he exited the car and was backing away from the officers in a non threatening way.  However in that split second obviously they felt compelled to shoot. Shame he had to die perhaps could have been handled better but far too much speculation after the fact IMO.

 

Not instigating, but why the inclination towards having it holstered? Genuinely curious. 

 

My inclination is the opposite. How did the concealed ankle holster (The whole point of an ankle holster is concealed carry. Don't want anyone to know you have it) go from concealed to clearly visible in the presence of the police? 

 

[ClutchClark]

10 minutes ago, starky said:

Interesting screen grab. I would be inclined to say he had the gun holstered, cocked with the safety off. Easy to quarterback it after the game though. It sorta looked to me like he exited the car and was backing away from the officers in a non threatening way.  However in that split second obviously they felt compelled to shoot. Shame he had to die perhaps could have been handled better but far too much speculation after the fact IMO. Completely different to the other shooting for mine that guy was clearly executed.

 

You certainly define "non-threatening" differently than most.

 

An individual armed with a loaded firearm which is cocked and safety off and out of the holster would be considered "threatening" to anyone with any familiarity with firearms. 

 

There is less than one second needed to raise and fire that pistol at the intended target. 

 

Furthermore, the police ordered him to drop the firearm more than one dozen times. Scott made the personal decision to keep the firearm and the ONLY reason to do that is because he wished to keep the option open to use it. 

 

Scott maintained an active threat to everyone within range of his bullets.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You certainly define "non-threatening" differently than most.

 

An individual armed with a loaded firearm which is cocked and safety off and out of the holster would be considered "threatening" to anyone with any familiarity with firearms. 

 

There is less than one second needed to raise and fire that pistol at the intended target. 

 

Furthermore, the police ordered him to drop the firearm more than one dozen times. Scott made the personal decision to keep the firearm and the ONLY reason to do that is because he wished to keep the option open to use it. 

 

Scott maintained an active threat to everyone within range of his bullets.

" You certainly define "non-threatening" differently than most. "

No, you clearly define "non-threatening" differently than most. " Please speak for yourself. Oh, and we dont know whether he could drop the firearm since we don't know he was holding it.

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" You certainly define "non-threatening" differently than most. "

No, you clearly define "non-threatening" differently than most. " Please speak for yourself. Oh, and we dont know whether he could drop the firearm since we don't know he was holding it.

 

Most individuals who are familiar with a firearm would quickly recognize the "threat".

All Law Enforcement officers recognize the threat.

 

The photo above clearly shows the pistol is out of the holster and Scotts hands are hidden from view. They are not raised which would have removed much of the threat that exists while his hands are hidden from view and can easily contain and conceal a firearm.

 

This is the reason that Law Enforcement says things like "Show me your hands" and "Raise your hands"...because they face these situations every day and recognize the threat that exists. 

 

As I previously stated, a cocked pistol with safety off takes less than one second to raise and fireat a target. Whether you believe it or not makes it no less true.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" You certainly define "non-threatening" differently than most. "

No, you clearly define "non-threatening" differently than most. " Please speak for yourself. Oh, and we dont know whether he could drop the firearm since we don't know he was holding it.

 

The way you define it has nothing to do with how you feel about it. Your feelings do not change the way the law is written, nor the implementation of it. 

 

The fact of the matter is, and everyone keeps harping on about this, is that we might never get a clear and decisive image showing Mr.Scott with a gun in his hand. 

 

Given the clear evidence to date, the picture is forming as to what actually happened. You have to look at ALL the evidence available. 

 

Its not possible to just go "Nope can't see gun; he was murdered" and dismiss everything else. 

 

The situation is a big deal because the familys Facebook release instigated rioting, looting, destruction of property, and violence clearly intending to mislead the public. 

 

There are so many videos that I can not post on here that can clearly provide more insight as to what is going on. 

[thaihome]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Most individuals who are familiar with a firearm would quickly recognize the "threat".

All Law Enforcement officers recognize the threat.

 

The photo above clearly shows the pistol is out of the holster and Scotts hands are hidden from view. They are not raised which would have removed much of the threat that exists while his hands are hidden from view and can easily contain and conceal a firearm.

 

This is the reason that Law Enforcement says things like "Show me your hands" and "Raise your hands"...because they face these situations every day and recognize the threat that exists. 

 

As I previously stated, a cocked pistol with safety off takes less than one second to raise and fireat a target. Whether you believe it or not makes it no less true.

 

He was not a threat to anyone sitting in his car until he was confronted by the police. The police have said they chose to over look him apparently rolling a joint until they saw a gun in his hand. It's a open carry state and they had no basis to question him on his legal right to have the weapon. The issue, and what the protests are about,  is would they have confronted a white guy the same way. I don't claim to know the answer to that, but there is now another dead black guy that lost out in a police instigated confrontation. 

TH 

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

He was not a threat to anyone sitting in his car until he was confronted by the police. The police have said they chose to over look him apparently rolling a joint until they saw a gun in his hand. It's a open carry state and they had no basis to question him on his legal right to have the weapon. The issue, and what the protests are about,  is would they have confronted a white guy the same way. I don't claim to know the answer to that, but there is now another dead black guy that lost out in a police instigated confrontation. 

TH 

 

Some would argue that a person under the influence of drugs and behind the wheel of motor vehicle is a "threat"...that is why laws exist about driving impaired.

 

And any claim that a white man who steps out of a car with a gun, sees police and immediately steps back into the car would not arouse police suspicion is entirely incorrect. That is suspicious behavior regardless of skin color and any good cop is going to follow up on it. 

 

Perhaps the difference you speak of is that a white person would follow police instructions? 

Edited September 26, 2016 by ClutchClark

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Some would argue that a person under the influence of drugs and behind the wheel of motor vehicle is a "threat"...that is why laws exist about driving impaired.

 

You forgot to add ....and in the possession of a hand gun....

[starky]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Not instigating, but why the inclination towards having it holstered? Genuinely curious. 

 

My inclination is the opposite. How did the concealed ankle holster (The whole point of an ankle holster is concealed carry. Don't want anyone to know you have it) go from concealed to clearly visible in the presence of the police? 

 

No problem and I know I am drawing a long bow here but the fact that his pants aren't hitched added to the drug use and his alleged TBI is there any chance he had the holster strapped on the outside of his pants in a non concealed position the whole time. I admit unlikely but not impossible surely.

[derator01]

Please abide by forum rules and show respect to other members.

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

The way you define it has nothing to do with how you feel about it. Your feelings do not change the way the law is written, nor the implementation of it. 

 

The fact of the matter is, and everyone keeps harping on about this, is that we might never get a clear and decisive image showing Mr.Scott with a gun in his hand. 

 

Given the clear evidence to date, the picture is forming as to what actually happened. You have to look at ALL the evidence available. 

 

Its not possible to just go "Nope can't see gun; he was murdered" and dismiss everything else. 

 

The situation is a big deal because the familys Facebook release instigated rioting, looting, destruction of property, and violence clearly intending to mislead the public. 

 

There are so many videos that I can not post on here that can clearly provide more insight as to what is going on. 

There is no clear evidence to date, that is one of the issues.

 

And no, it was not the family's Facebook post that instigated rioting. Many issues here contributed to the protests, the rioting had nothing to do with the protest, a few just used it as an excuse. Unfortunately some people are using it to distract from the real issues at hand here.

 

Oh, and I am not defining anything here. Another poster defined it, and I object to his use of the term 'most', when that is at best seriously in doubt, at worst totally incorrect.

Edited September 26, 2016 by stevenl

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, thaihome said:

He was not a threat to anyone sitting in his car until he was confronted by the police. The police have said they chose to over look him apparently rolling a joint until they saw a gun in his hand. It's a open carry state and they had no basis to question him on his legal right to have the weapon. The issue, and what the protests are about,  is would they have confronted a white guy the same way. I don't claim to know the answer to that, but there is now another dead black guy that lost out in a police instigated confrontation. 

TH 

 

Can you provide a source for this, I want to review it. Genuine request. 

 

Quote

The police have said they chose to over look him apparently rolling a joint until they saw a gun in his hand.

 

Now the thing here is that yes, you can open carry, BUT rolling a joint while having a clearly visible handgun is the cruncher. The laws broken by this action of Mr. Scott could not be over looked. The police have every right to question ANYONE if they are in the process of committing a crime, even one as small as rolling a J. 

Honestly, and this is not an attack, it is the responsibility of the person/citizen to be aware of the laws. You can not interpret them for your own benefit. 

 

The police did not instigate anything. Mr. Scott did by breaking the law. Mr. Scott's actions are what got the police in his business. 

 

The issue of if they would have treated a white person the same way in the exact same circumstances? Sheesh man probably. I have never seen nor heard of a police officer letting someone go for possession of a firearm while in the commission of a crime. 

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, starky said:

No problem and I know I am drawing a long bow here but the fact that his pants aren't hitched added to the drug use and his alleged TBI is there any chance he had the holster strapped on the outside of his pants in a non concealed position the whole time. I admit unlikely but not impossible surely.

 

Scotts COLT is an old firearm that probably cost him $100. It is a poor mans firearm and suggests Scott could not afford better--and possibly could not afford a different holster other than the ankle holster.

 

The primary purpose of any holster is to store a firearm safely and only secondly to conceal from view. Scott may not have been attempting to conceal his firearm. In fact, in a rough neighborhood its common to let others see you are carrying (Besides the whole bravado factor in the hood).  Apparently Scott made little attempt to conceal his firearm since the police spotted it.

[ClutchClark]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There is no clear evidence to date, that is one of the issues.

 

And no, it was not the family's Facebook post that instigated rioting. Many issues here contributed to the protests, the rioting had nothing to do with the protest, a few just used it as an excuse. Unfortunately some people are using it to distract from the real issues at hand here.

 

Oh, and I am not defining anything here. Another poster defined it, and I object to his use of the term 'most', when that is at best seriously in doubt, at worst totally incorrect.

 

That would be me that used "most" and I will modify it now to "most all" people familiar with firearms will recognize the threat of a cocked firearm with safety OFF. 

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Not instigating, but why the inclination towards having it holstered? Genuinely curious. 

 

My inclination is the opposite. How did the concealed ankle holster (The whole point of an ankle holster is concealed carry. Don't want anyone to know you have it) go from concealed to clearly visible in the presence of the police? 

 

Well the photo shows an empty holster on his ankle, I guess somebody forgot to tell him it needed to be concealed huh. I think they waited too long as he had a chance to take one of them down.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There is no clear evidence to date, that is one of the issues.

 

And no, it was not the family's Facebook post that instigated rioting. Many issues here contributed to the protests, the rioting had nothing to do with the protest, a few just used it as an excuse. Unfortunately some people are using it to distract from the real issues at hand here.

 

Oh, and I am not defining anything here. Another poster defined it, and I object to his use of the term 'most', when that is at best seriously in doubt, at worst totally incorrect.

 

Seems like the only kind of evidence that will satisfy you is if you can visibly see the gun in his hand. It might or might not come out in the future. The way the law is written is very clear and Mr. Scott was clearly in violation of numerous laws, not only local, but federal laws as well. 

 

Im not distracted from any issue other than what the law states, and what happened. None of this, and I mean none, would have happened if Mr. Scott was not breaking the law. Its not "Society" not the "Police" but Mr. Scott alone. If Mr. Scott was not visibly committing a crime, none of this would have happened. 

 

[Chicog]

Seems to me that there must be a reason why the police are holding back, what FIVE other bodycam videos?

Which begs the obvious question: Why?

If they are on a sure footing, they can release them all can't they?

What are they hiding?