I think video shows the gun was not planted

[Egnever]

Or at least was not credibly planted.

Initially when I saw the video like many here I thought it was. Then I saw a facebook post someone posted here that slowed it down and claimed you could see it being thrown down. However the video was edited to just the end of the video and it looked like what they were claiming was a gun being thrown was something soft. So I went back to the original video to see if I could see it better and in the course of watching it I saw the gun.

I have now watched it many times and I am sure now that either this man had a gun, or the cops are insanely fast, or what appears right after the shooting is something besides a gun. None of the video is clear enough for me to say in my head it is definitely a gun but I think at this point I am going to have to give the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I do not think for a second this man should have been shot. I see no reason to force the situation the way these officers did. Too often police use excessive force before trying to de escalate the situation. Far too often through outright racism or just mean spiritedness they kill or injure far too many people. I don't think there is any question we need a complete overhaul of police training and procedures as well as accountability.

That said I think you can see pretty clearly when the gun appears, and you can see the officer in the red shirt kicks it away from Mr. Scott.

The video I have looked most at at this point is this one.

Watching that video at the 1:08 mark as she is walking up it is not very clear but you can not see the gun. Mr Scott is visible but the gun is not. I took a screenshot of it but you can stop and start the video yourself and see all of what I am posting here.



Then he is shot and the camera pans away for a few seconds and when it comes back the cop in red is standing over Mr. Scott at about 1:18. in between 1:18 and 1:19 you can see the cop in red kick the gun back away from Mr. Scott.



Just a frame after his foot appears to kick back the gun is there.



It gets clearer as she moves forward and at 1:22-23 it is pretty clear.



After that you can see the officer back up to stand over the gun and he looks down at it as he does so. From there you mostly can not see the gun as his foot obscures it until about the 2:13 mark. Then he shifts his foot some and you can see it poking out from behind his left foot again.

I still don't think this man should have been shot but I do find the video to be pretty compelling that he did indeed have a gun. The time between him being shot and the gun being kicked back is just too short in my opinion to credibly believe the cops planted it. That is not to say it doesn't ever happen I just don't think there is much question it is not what happened in this case.

I am sure I am going to take heat for this but I am going to post it anyway. I am not posting it to justify this mans death in any way. I don't think it is at all clear deadly force was necessary from this video (quite the opposite actually) even though I do now find it credible he had a gun.

[jmg257]

1. Thanks...I see/saw the same thing (though did not see red guy foot the gun

Back at 1st. Do see the object on the ground as soon as the view swings around.

[Egnever]

2. I really think it is very clear once you see it

[Cicada]

3. A freeper said gun has DNA blood and prints of victim

If that is true then the blood seems to prove Vic had it when shot

[uponit7771]

40. Since the victim and the weapon were in CPD possession that's not definative proof unless the CPD

... is given the benefit of the doubt.

I don't give them that seeing the reaction by the citizens of the CLT

[B2G]

4. Esxcellent post.

No hysteria, very logical.

Thank you.

[heaven05]

5. what about the video

by wife that shows no gun at the back of car? Did you go frame by frame on that one? Surely you did.

[Egnever]

6. that is the video by the wife

so yes I did.



Is there another video I am unaware of?

[B2G]

7. That's the video he's referring to.

It's the only video out there.

And I can clearly see what he's referring to. The cop in the red shirt is standing over it. The "gun" in the photo that was released by a bystander isn't a gun at all. It's a latex glove.

[Egnever]

25. I thought it was a glove too

Now I think it is a veiw of the bottom of the gun looking at where you would insert the magazine. It appears as if there is no magazine in the gun. The page below has a photo you can blow up.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-release-photo-keith-lamont-scott-shows-gun-nearby-article-1.2803052

[B2G]

28. Look at the size of the 'gun' in relation to his feet. nt

[Egnever]

30. Yea it is odd looking to be sure

I think that is just a byproduct of the angle it was taken though.

[jmg257]

31. Looks like a "glock-like" plastic-framed gun to me...definitely from the bottom,

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 04:54 AM - Edit history (1)

with or without a mag - tough shadow or open grip?

Greyish front is a bit weird, but otherwise...


Edit: gun shown to be a Colt Mustang semi by new pics.

[Egnever]

32. Yup that is what it looks like to me as well

When you see the blown up version you can clearly see where the magazine would be. The grey might just be the way the sun is hitting it?

Also where it is positioned looks pretty close to where you see it land in the full video just from a different angle.

[jmg257]

33. Yep - many mags have extensions, so could just be the shadow from the extension..small matter though

Yeah to me its pretty clear the thing they moved was Scott from where he 1st fell. In this image which so many question, in this image which some say is where the gun "appears" "because its not in the video at his feet", it sure seems it has been there all the time and Scott as they work on him is now further from the SUVs and closer to the gun.

Cheers!

[Egnever]

36. At this point I am somewhat bothered that the police could not see this

A lot of officers were put in danger by this story of a plant not to mention all the innocent people potentially caught up in riots over this(including any people rioting over it)

Maybe they had not seen this video when they made their statements but it is a pretty common thread in all the news stories that there was no gun in the video.

If what CNN is reporting is true and they have Mr. Scotts fingerprints and blood on the gun then I think that pretty much erases any doubt I had that that is the gun you see the officer kick back.

[kristopher]

81. And maybe they are manufacturing evidence as required.

The system is as corrupt as it is possible for it to become. Your analysis starts with the presumption that you are able to trust the information being released (piecemeal) by the good ol' boy network running state and local government. That is a foolhardy presumption for anyone interested in the truth.

Why would you even begin to believe the stagecraft that is obvious with such a partial release of those tapes?

[doc03]

78. The pistol I saw on TV looked like a metal short barrel 1911 .45 cal.

[jmg257]

80. Thanks...I see that pic in another thread...a Colt, maybe a Mustang .380. Nt

[heaven05]

45. from TRAYVON

Last edited Sat Sep 24, 2016, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

to NOW. Just very tired of seeing and reading of these state authorized murder/executions of brown people laying and bleeding out in the streets, sometimes for hours on end or deemed suicidal if found hung in a jail cell. Lord knows, and I AM NOT a religious person, I do PRAY that HRC wins. Because if that other has so many supporters that he gets to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, these types of executions, which the protests and disturbances show has not been allowed to become "normalized" yet, will become epidemic

But if the trumpenfuhrer does, this type of activity will be encouraged and if that is what white people desire there will be a quick slide into chaos in which no doubt many will die and unsubmissive brown people will be forced into hiding. The new fuhrer will not get the submission he desires. I don't have any friends that are going to "bow down" the the new fuhrer or his trumpshirts that will be roaming the streets providing the world with a spectacle that will no doubt bring post-1933 Germany into sharp relief and give the modern perspective its clarity as to how fascism is normalized.

The many here who strive to explain away these murders are entitled to see and rationalize what they please. I will not even debate these executions. America's deep, stinking, infected and rather large underbelly of racial hate and bigotry has shown itself in the last 7+ years and has even got a name now and he's a serious candidate for POTUS. The writing is on the wall and plain to see to any critical thinker.

[Egnever]

51. I am not trying to explain anything away

This was a murder just like all the others in my opinion. They did not have to turn this into a life or death situation. He was contained in the car they could have taken all the time they wanted to talk him down.

I think it is pretty clear he had the gun though.

[kristopher]

82. You are engaging in the standard practice of convicting the victim.

You exhibit all the objective credulity of your typical diehard football fan.

[Solomon]

12. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What the fuck! Are you serious?

I think you are. I'm not even going to tell you enjoy your stay. Get the fuck out of here and take your racist shit where it belongs.

[uponit7771]

9. +++ FALSE ++++ The face book vid no doubt shows the gun was planted

PLEASE KEEP FOCUS ONLY ... ONLY ... ONLY on the left leg of the LEO in the red shirt

https://www.facebook.com/QTMZ.BUNNI/posts/10202170932431942

[Albertoo]

10. We disagree, then

[jmg257]

11. Canyou link to that video? I've only seen the CNN one by the wife. Thanks!! nt

[uponit7771]

13. Here... please keep focus ONLY... ONLY on the left leg of the LEO in red

https://www.facebook.com/QTMZ.BUNNI/posts/10202170932431942

[jmg257]

20. By the guy in red's left foot is the "gun" in the opening still frame - clearly it by his heel.

The black officer throws down the gloves.

This is the 2nd pair of 2 he will drop - the red guy has already picked up the 1st and is now standing over the gun. The narrators are trying to say the gloves is a gun or 2 - obviously not and they are surely wrong.

Do we agree on that?

SO when the red guy moves his foot as the officer throws the gloves, you can now see the gun that has been there already.
SO where is the gun planted? By whom?

What am I missing?

[uponit7771]

39. No, I didn't listen to the narrarator I looked at the object next to the foot of the LEO in red...

... looks like some are saying the LEO in red had already either kicked the gun back or stepped back and covered the gun.

I would like a time stamp on that or something

[jmg257]

46. Ah got ya - see other post - just got back to this. nt

[Egnever]

17. The one he links is an edited version of the wifes video

The gun was already there before that edit.

[uponit7771]

21. Link to proof it was edited? I don't mind retracting and posting a correction... tia

[Egnever]

24. The full video is in the op

The portion you are claiming as definitive proof happens at the end at about 2:14

[jmg257]

23. Agreed. Still not seeing a plant. nt

[Egnever]

14. False?

How can it be false it is there for all to see.

You clearly don't want to believe it but that does not make it false. You can see it in the screenshots and for yourself by stopping the video at the times I mention.

Pick any version of the full video you want it is there in every one of them if you look.

[uponit7771]

16. Yes it is, I can see the left leg of the LEO in red and the gun "appear"... I'm not caring about wha

... people think.

Focus ONLY on the left leg of the LEO in red

https://www.facebook.com/QTMZ.BUNNI/posts/10202170932431942

[Egnever]

22. Did you even look at the screenshots and compare them to the times in the video?

That facebook is edited after the gun was already clearly visible on the ground you can see the officer kick it back and then back up to stand over it and even look down at it as he does so.

The facebook video is the same video just cut down to just the portion where they drop the gloves on the ground.

[uponit7771]

34. Could you point out the time stamp in any other vid where the LEO in red kicks anything...

... I didn't see that at all in the version MSNBC showed

Thx in advance

[Egnever]

41. Pick me a full version of it and I will find it for you

I am now starting to get pissed off at the media the more I look at these clips.

http://www.msnbc.com/kate-snow/watch/breaking-down-the-charlotte-shooting-video-772030531731

That is on MSNB a "breakdown" of the video...Sorry I am really angry right now after watching this.

At 2:49 in this MSNBC fiasco they froze the video right before where the officer kicks the gun back and then jump ahead to where he has already backed up to stand over it. All the while claiming they looked very closely at it.

I am now of the opinion the media is inciting riots and I am fucking pissed about it.

[uponit7771]

43. OK, saw the analysis and the vids uncut... still going with a throw down for one simple reason

... the LEO in the red kicks a gun away.

I'm NOT giving them the BOTD that the gun was NOT... NOT planted BEFORE the kick.

I understand some are going to give the CPD the benefit but I'm not for two OBJECTIVE... OBJECTIVE rational reasons

1. The citizens of a large city like CLT don't blow up like this because they have little else to do... it's usually because of a history of oppression

2. The NEEDLESS clamming up of CPD EXCEPT ... EXCEPT for anything that supports their narrative, they've been pretty open with that information.

Also

3. One or two of the eye witness's say Scott had a book

The CPD is being shady as it is, they've OBJECTIVELY... OBJECTIVELY not earned the BOTD on this shooting imho

[Egnever]

49. I wouldn't argue Shady with you for a minute

Nor do I think the fact that he has a gun in any way justifies his shooting.

I don't buy for a second there was enough time for that cop to run from the side of the truck were we last see him to standing over Mr. Scott and get out a gun get Mr Scotts blood and finger prints on it and kick it back in the 8 seconds were we cant see them.

I just don't think it is physically possible to pull off.

[uponit7771]

74. True but there were already LEOs standing over him before he got there.

[jmg257]

26. Agree - you can see he MOVES his foot and you can see the gun - it has been there since

the video 1st showed it BEHIND the red guy near the rear of the white truck (as shown in the OP).

In the un-snipped video, you can also see the red guy step back over the gun after he gets the 1st pair of gloves off the ground.

Thanks to the OP - you can also see the red guy foot the gun early on back away from Scott.

[uponit7771]

38. Could you point out the time stamp on this? tia

[jmg257]

42. Yes - if you play the OP video full screen and pause it around 1:21, you can adv/rev by second.

There are a few frames per second.

AT 1:21, the officer foots the gun back (still frame in OP).

AT 1:23, the gun is seen behind the guy in red.

At 1:24, he is stepping back to stand over the gun.

At 1:27 he is now standing over the gun.

At 2:10, red guys leans in for 1st pair of gloves, then backs up over gun again.

At 2:12, the black officer drops more gloves, but the red guy is already standing over the gun.

[uponit7771]

44. See post 41

[jmg257]

47. Understood. Though now I get a better understanding over why they don't just "release the video"

Even "video experts" in media seem to focus on stuff which others see in 1 or 2 viewings is not there, or not what they claim.

[FBaggins]

50. The image from around 1.22 in the OP makes it pretty clear

There's already an object there on the ground well before the point in the video where your facebook clip shows it by the officer's feet.

We don't know that that's a gun, but based on where it is in relation to the shadow of the pickup truck, whatever it is - is in the same spot that the officer's feet are at where you've imagined seeing a "drop".

[B2G]

18. So that means they dropped the gun, and then

put it back in his hands to get his blood and fingerprints on it.

Additionally, they took out the clip and possibly the bullets to get his fingerprints on those as well.

Where do you see that happening in the video?

[uponit7771]

19. No

[B2G]

29. Then how did his fingerprints get on the plant? nt

[uponit7771]

37. Cause they had possession of the victim and the weapon? I see you're implicitly giving them the BOTD

... I'm not.

I need proof at this point, when cities like clt blow up like this it's most likely because of oppression of some kind and not becauase people don't have shit else to do.

Also

Scott HAVING a gun doesn't = kill him, so even when there's solid proof there wasn't a throw down used (cause there has been in the past) AND solid proof that Scott had a gun I'd like to see why he posed a threat to the LEOs seeing possessing a gun in NC in the open is not illegal.

The police chief has already stated that the gun was never pointed at any of the LEOs AND... AND the lawyers for the wife said Scott was stepping backwards which hasn't been disputed by the CPD.

Looks like a bad shooting all together

[madokie]

15. When his wife keeps telling him, Keith don't do it

several times makes me wonder what 'do it' she was referring too

[deathrind]

27. This.

[uponit7771]

35. It could NOT have been pointing the gun at the LEO's seeing the Chief said that's not what happened.

... he said the video doesn't show the victim pointing the gun at anyone

[Egnever]

52. I dont think it matters

The cops made that a life or death situation gun or not. I have little doubt he had a gun at this point but that is no excuse to shoot this man.

[etherealtruth]

48. the wife appeared to be having a "converstion" with the police and Keith simultaneously

... alternating between the police and Keith ... I interpret "don't do it" as an admonition to the police

[madokie]

57. It was 'Keith don't do it'

best I remember

Watch it again and you tell me what you think then ok

I've watched it several times at different settings and came away the same.

[Hoyt]

53. Am I correct this all happened because an innocent black guy was sitting in a car with something

that police called a gun, in an open carry state? In other words, assuming for a moment he had a gun, should he have been surrounded by police, yelled at like a dog, and shot?

If he had been a white guy with a gun and Trump hat, police would have walked up and asked him what kind of guns does he prefer.

[Egnever]

54. Absolutely not

The police completely mishandled this and still are mishandling it in my opinion. Mr. Scott in now way should have been shot. It is in my opinion inexcusable.

However the media narrative that apparently has been playing claiming the cops may have planted a gun is highly irresponsible. It serves only to inflame further an already bad situation.

You can see it for yourself I posted screenshots and the original video and the time marks for each screen shot so you can view it yourself.

The idea the media with all of their video equipment can't see what is pretty damn clear I find lacking and possibly even intentionally negligent.

That does not in any way mean I think he should have been shot.

[Hoyt]

55. But the whole "he had a gun" just excuses his shooting in too many peoples' minds. I don't care

whether he had a gun, he was killed for no good reason.

[Egnever]

56. I am in partial agreement with you

I do not for a second believe that there is any lack of evidence that cops are out of control in this country.

And I see where people will use the fact that he had a gun as an excuse to explain away this completely unnecessary in my opinion shooting.

The idea that some folks will use it as an excuse pains me. That said spinning this as an instance where the cops planted a gun when it almost certainly not the case only inflames the situation. If you can tell me how it helps I am willing to listen.

From my perspective this narrative sparked a riot that has destroyed property and put many in danger including the rioters themselves.

Now the argument can certainly be made and I am completely open to it that riots are necessary to end these travesties once and for all. There may have been riots regardless gun or not and I really can not for a second blame folks that think they are necessary either way.

I do wonder if this will create a backlash when inevitably someone in the media actually takes the time to look a little deeper at that video and the truth comes out. This looks like a golden opportunity for lets say Trump to take advantage of a riot inflamed by a media narrative that turns out to be misleading at best and outright inflammatory at worst.

I think if we have any hope of doing something about the current state of the police force all sides need to start being honest instead of trying to vye for position.

[BootinUp]

77. I don't see people advocating violent riots or destruction of property, protests yes. nt

[Yo_Mama]

60. If he had a gun, he was committing a crime by having it, without a doubt.

That's what so confounds me about all this.

First, a brain injury patient subject to seizures shouldn't have a gun for obvious reasons.

Second, this man was a felon and couldn't legally have a gun. But if he did have a gun, and they caught him with it, he was going back to prison.

I suspect he did have a gun, because nothing else explains this video. And I suspect the brain injury may have confused his reactions to a very stressful situation.

I don't know whether the neighborhood is so bad that the guy waits for his kid with a gun for protection or whether he was selling drugs or he was scared of criminals or whatever. But I think he did have a gun, when the commotion started (having nothing to do with him) he stepped out with the gun and then ducked back down inside his car when he realized it was police and not criminals, and then the whole sad story took place.

I suppose that the forensics will settle the gun possession issue. Some of this will probably never be settled.

[uponit7771]

70. +1!! This is what's There's no one arguing whether or not he posed a threat FROM THE START !!!

[Yo_Mama]

58. That was my impression too - that he did have a gun.

Having the gun doesn't necessarily mean the shooting was justified, of course.

Also, his wife is telling him not to do something.

There needs to be a complete investigation, and the state Bureau of Investigations is handling it, but I don't think this video shows what people are saying it shows. If anything, I think it supports the cops' stories.

[uponit7771]

71. I mostly agree but say he did have a gun, it doesn't support the CPD's story FROM THE START...

... they said he posed a threat sitting in his car with his gun and rolling a blunt.

There was no way for the CPD to know he was rolling a blunt or a just plain tobacco and NC is an open carry state so him having a gun in his own car isn't a reason to react they way the did from the start.

I'm placing the onus on them cause they should not have fucked with the guy from the beginning, he posed no threat to them and wasn't doing anything that warranted their reaction

[librechik]

59. there is something on the ground, but unclear what it is.

I couldn't swear it was a gun from the video. I heard he was holding some kind of device for communication or reading.

[Egnever]

63. Agreed you can not tell for sure it is a gun

however when combined with the police testimony and the other pics of it on the ground. I don't think there is much question what you see appear there is the gun in question.

[standingtall]

61. Sorry cannot tell if there is a gun on the ground

Next to the guy in red. Yes there is an object on the ground,but you cannot positively identify it as a gun. If you can I would say your eyes must be better than anyone in the world.

[Egnever]

62. Nope can't positively identify it as a gun from that video alone

However when taken in context of all the other photos and videos it becomes pretty clear that is what that object is that suddenly appears after the red cop leans down over him.

My only point in this thread is that the narrative that it was planted is clearly false. It does not in any way make that shooting justified in my opinion in fact now that the body cam footage is released I think there is even more evidence it was not.

The bar is pretty low for officer shootings. They only need to feel threatened. This will be found to be a justified shooting. He did have a gun and while I don't think you can make the case he was moving in a threatening manner that is not the standard police are held to.

[tblue37]

64. Body cam and dash cam videos of the Scott shooting in NC. It was a BAD shoot!

Body cam: look at the 28 second mark. There is no gun anywhere near Scott.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charlotte-police-release-video-of-shooting-that-left-black-man-dead/ar-BBwAkWp?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Dash cam: look at the first 15 seconds. From the 11 second to the 15 second mark, he is backing away, with his hands hanging down by his sides. He doesn't lift his hands or arms, nor does he point anything at anyone before the shots are fired.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004669386/police-footage-of-charlotte-shooting.html?smid=pl-share

I bet that the videos they have not released yet are even more damning!

[Egnever]

67. I agree it was unecessary

but it will be ruled justified because he had the gun and refused to drop it.

A piss poor justification but cops only need to prove they felt threatened.

[uponit7771]

72. Hmmmmm, the shooting might be justified but what about the CPD needlessly escalating

... the situation were someone could get shot.

He was sitting in his own car minding his business doing nothing illegal that warranted a gun pointed at him.

This is similar to the Trayvon Martin situation IMHO; someone needlessly CREATING a situation where there could be violence should be at fault.

A person swinging their arms in public, even if no one is hit, is creating a situation were there could be violence for instance

what's your take

thx in advance

[Schema Thing]

65. What on earth makes you think, if that is the gun, that red shirt didn't remove it from his ankle?

[Egnever]

66. The body cam footage actually.

A poster above caught it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charlotte-police-release-video-of-shooting-that-left-black-man-dead/ar-BBwAkWp#image=1

At the 27 second mark you can see it on the ground near the shadow from the truck.

[yodermon]

68. From the body cam footage: where's the gun?

:large

from about :30

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103995546.html

[Egnever]

69. in that angle it is in the shadow of the truck

at 27 secs you can see it here

[uponit7771]

73. hmmmm,.. looking at both pics that object is white... it's not glare of the sun....

... I'm not thinking that's a gun at all now.

I thought it was the glare of the sun that showed it white but its in two different frames that the object is white and not the sunlight hitting it.

Also, in this pic the LEO in red is running towards Scott still where there's a thread where the LEO is on Scott and push's something away from him

Both can't be true imho

[yodermon]

75. No way is that a gun. IMO. n/t

[Lil Missy]

76. He had a gun. n/t

[doc03]

79. Seems awfully suspicious they have other videos but only release these, could it be

the other ones don't support their story? Why not release them all?