All of the videos and photos put together make it clear the cops are telling the truth about the gun

[Egnever]

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (2)

Even with him having a gun I think the cops created this situation and there was no reason for it to end the way it did.

I am posting this for some clarity and because I believe making the story about police planting the gun takes away from the real issue that even with the gun he should not have been shot. I think the police use force far too easily and many are injured or killed because of it. It needs to be addressed.

Hopefully I can lay this out as clearly as possible.

First lets start with the best pics pics of the gun.

This one the gun is not that clear but it is visible notice the position back from the feet and to the right. The gun appears to be lying on its side with the mag facing the camera.



These are the evidence photos. These have no context so it is impossible to tie it to the first pic but that is the gun and ankle holster in question. Which appears to be the same type of gun from the first photo ( I am not a gun person so I don't know makes of guns but it is a glock type gun not a revolver and that seems consistent with the first photo)







I have yet to see any video that you can make it out in his hands. That does not mean it isn't there though and based on what we can see I think there is little question he had it.

Now to where the gun is seen.

First the video from the wife which I think shows it's appearance clearest of all.

For clarity here is the whole video

At 22 secs in the video we get our first clear view of where the gun ends up. It is not visible.



At 47 secs we get our second view and a clear pic of the area where the gun will appear.



At 1:07 we get another view and still no gun but Mr Scott is now out of his car.



At this point Mr. Scott is shot. I don't see any threatening behavior in this video at all even though I do believe he has a gun. We lose view of the scene in this video at this point for about 8 seconds. When it comes back into view the cop in red is not visible. He is at this point bending down over the victim.





I am now going to jump to the body cam video because it shows part of this 8 seconds. You can view this video here.

At 17 seconds in this video we get a view of Mr.scott. Again I do not see the gun but if you look at his right leg You can see where his pants are hiked up and make out what could certainly be an ankle holster.



A crop of just the legs



At 20 secs we get a view of Mr. Scott again and you can clearly see there is nothing in his left hand. His right is obscured by the trucks side mirror.



And another crop to show it clearer.



At 24 seconds Mr Scott is on the ground and we can again see the ankle holster.



A couple of frames later at 25 seconds you can see Mr. Scotts right hand appears to be underneath him.



Then what I believe is either the red cop retrieving the gun or securing Mr. Scott's right hand.



A frame later.



After which he stands immediately.

This is where the wifes video picks up again from the point where red cop is bending down.

between 1:18 and 1:19 you can see the red cop standing and reaching forward with his foot and kicking the gun back. Notice still no gun.



Then a frame later we get what I believe is our first view of the gun.



The object that appears at that point remains there from that point forward. And you can see right after he kicks it back between 1:18 - 1:19 he holsters his weapon.



The object gets clearer as she gets closer at 1:22



at 1:25 we see him start to step back to cover the gun.



At 1:26 he has a foot on either side of it and appears to be looking down at it.



After this point his foot mostly obscures the view of the weapon though I think you can see a part of it protruding behind his left foot at times.

At 2:11 he looks at it again.



at 2:15 you can clearly see it sticking out from behind his foot.



and a crop to see it better



Again I post this only to hopefully provide some clarity on this tragic situation. In no way do I think this needed to go down like this nor do I think him having a gun in his hand justifies this shooting.

I do however think the idea the cops are hiding something or that there was no gun and they planted it is inflammatory and based on all the pictures and video we have now is clearly untrue. I am pissed that the media even entertained this idea as they have much better video equipment than is available to me and they should have easily been able to see all of what I posted here. I think their irresponsible coverage of this contributed to people rioting over it and led to more people being injured and property being damaged as well as raising the level of mistrust between the police and citizens.

I am not saying the mistrust is in any way unwarranted I am merely saying that they are inciting riots with coverage that was, in my opinion grossly irresponsible and quite possibly intentionally misleading.

UPDATE

I found another video of this

It is hard to see in this video but again the gun is there between the red officers feet and you can see he has his left foot planted and moves awkwardly at times to keep it next to the gun.

[Dem2]

1. It seems that the Cops are allowed to stress test anybody they want

If that person reacts the wrong way, then they are apparently allowed to murder said person. This is true because he was not the target of the raid. They were loaded for bear and they got what they were juiced up for, a shooting. I hope these cops are men of conscience and they can't sleep at night knowing that they overreacted and murdered an innocent man.

[Egnever]

2. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

There needs to be much higher standards in place for training on de escalation instead of overwhelming force.

[gopiscrap]

82. cops don't care

to them it's just another score that they go back to the station to brag about and reload themselves full of steroids

[jack_krass]

104. I really think you're over complicating things....

If you have a gun in your hand and are not following police instructions, there is a decent chance your going to get shot, whether your white or black. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.

[Dem2]

169. Hmmm

Since you don't know if he had a gun in his hand and you don't know that it's equal chance of getting shot white or black, I will ignore your silly post.

[LonePirate]

3. My interpretation of this is that Open Carry is nothing but a death sentence if you're black.

Keith Scott would still be alive if he were white.

[Egnever]

4. I would not argue with that for a second.

The police response created this deadly situation. There was no need for it to go down like it did in my opinion.

[exboyfil]

6. Thank you for putting this together

[jmg257]

7. The gun is a Mustang .380...single action, which just happens to be cocked

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 05:43 AM - Edit history (1)

And UNlocked. Cant tell if there's a mag in it...i kinda think not.

Certainly a good piece for an ankle holster.

[Jim Beard]

61. It appears to me that there isn't a magazine in it.

[jmg257]

71. Quite sad to get killed - especially over a pistol with one round in it. :(

[Heeeeers Johnny]

74. There's a mag in it

Little protruding tab

[img][/img]

The one found at the scene is angled like a "Z".

Couldn't find any pics of one like that, possibly an aftermarket mag.

[jmg257]

75. Thanks for the close up - now more then ever I think its empty...i.e. I do not see a tab

but see the black-top through the notch.

The other angle in the original gun pic seems to show an empty mag well.

The pic you supplied seems to be a typical flush mag, with a shiny spot at the juncture where it extends forward through the frame.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

79. Looking at it again, I think you're right

The picture on the right is what I was seeing...

[img][/img]

But, it just might be a shadow, contour of the asphalt.

So, if it is unloaded, to me it makes it less likely the cops placed it there.

Seems like if one is going to carry a 'throw down gun' to plant as evidence, it would be loaded.

[jmg257]

80. Ah I see what you were thinking. Your upper arrow is pointing exactly to where the tab should be.

In a narrative by the cops I read this AM, "the gun was loaded" - which means there could have been a round in the chamber.

Small detail over all.

[MrScorpio]

8. The police murdered this man, for no other reason than being black and out in public nt

[Albertoo]

9. Sure, the police routinely murder people just because they like it

Seriously, discussion becomes meaningless when it's sweeping, exaggerated statements

"The police murdered this man, for no other reason than being black"

Do you seriously think the police go about murdering people when they feel like it???

[MrScorpio]

12. Yes, I do.

Because the rules for use of force are extremely leaning their favor. They don't actually have to BE in any sort of danger in order to kill anyone... They're simply allowed to do so because they FEEL that they are, regardless of the actual circumstances. Add that to the fact that the police are generally more scared of black people and are more biased against us than they are of whites, of course that explains why they're killing us at a higher proportional rate than whites.

American law enforcement is woefully undertrained, paranoid and overly entitled. Basically, too many of them behave like cowards at the drop of a hat and kill without hesitation. Also they kill people with the fullest expectation that citizens, the state and the media will find way to justify those murders. Blame the victim, that usually happens a lot.

AS a matter of fact, I believe that the police are more dangerous than terrorists in this country, especially for anyone in black and brown skin. All of us should take notice of this, since ordinary Americans are way more likely to be killed by the police than they are by any terrorist, regardless of skin color.

Although all law enforcement officers are not bad, of course, collectively, it's much better to not have any interaction with any of them all... Considering how so many ordinary situations are escalated into levels of lethality, simply by the added proximity of ANY police officer.

[Albertoo]

14. If you REALLY believe that, you should flee and ask for political asylum (I would)

Based on this sentence of yours:

AS a matter of fact, I believe that the police are more dangerous than terrorists in this country,

I wouldn't stay in a country if I seriously believed its police force was more dangerous than terrorists.

[MrScorpio]

16. Well, of course most white people in this country have a more favorable opinion of the police.

They retain that opinion at their own peril.

Instead of cutting and running, brave and dedicated black people are in the streets drawing attention to the fact that the police are generally out of control in this country. The white majority would benefit from heeding their voices.

[Albertoo]

17. My answer was made regardless of skin color

If I personally lived in a country where I seriously believed the police force to be more dangerous than terrorists, I would emigrate in the blinking of an eye.

[MrScorpio]

18. Considering the impracticality of that logic, I'll give it the regard that it's actually do.

We all live in a police state now. The fact that so many people are blind to this situation is quite disheartening.

[Albertoo]

24. Then, you're not being serious

IF you really believed the police was more dangerous than terrorists,

you wouldn't be staying where you are.

[MrScorpio]

29. The threat from terrorism is relatively low in this country...

The police, on the other hand are killing people indiscriminately every single day.

In spite of this, it makes no since for anyone to give up their citizenship, given the fact that so few of us actually have the means to immigrate elsewhere. The more practical solution is to draw attention to the problem at hand and change the situation collectively.

But if too many people like you refuse to see that we have the problem, then the fault lies there, which allows it to persist.

[Orrex]

38. How many innocent people have terrorists killed in the US in 2016?

How many innocent people have cops killed in the US in 2016?

[Albertoo]

41. San Bernardino, Orlando, New Jersey: nearly 100?

[Orrex]

42. And?

[Albertoo]

43. I was just answering your question

[Orrex]

63. You answered half of the question.

How many innocent people did cops kill during that same period?

[Albertoo]

65. Probably far less than terrorists

[Orrex]

69. Probably?

In reply #24 you wrote:

Then, you're not being serious

IF you really believed the police was more dangerous than terrorists, you wouldn't be staying where you are.

But you don't actually know how dangerous the police are, and from your tone in this thread it appears that you're making a serious effort to avoid finding out. And, when pressed for details, you don't actually have any.

You're displaying a remarkable unwillingness to reconsider your position--why is that?

[Albertoo]

70. The terms of the question should be proof to you you're on the wrong track

A terrorist is intent on killing someone. terrorist to intent to kill ratio = 100%

Unless you can demonstrate to me that 100% of the US police officers are hellbent on killing at least one person over the course of their career, this conversation is pretty pointless.

[Orrex]

73. That's 100% garbage.

Based on the number of actual kills in 2016 (which you're still refusing to acknowledge), the statistical likelihood of being killed by a cop is substantially greater than the chance of being killed by a terrorist. Still a small number, perhaps, but a real and legitimate concern for African Americans who find themselves on the receiving end of unwarranted and overly-aggressive police attention far more often than you do, and certainly far more often than they encounter terrorists.

Further, by your silly pseudo-reasoning, if I accidentally kill 50,000 people, I'm better than a terrorist who intends to kill one person and actually kills that person.

[Albertoo]

77. You appear to have difficulties with ratios

A terrorist wants to kill people. As I said, terrorist/intent to kill ratio = 100%

I also repeat you would have to prove to me the same ratio about police officers,
i.e. that they all intend to kill at least one person over the course of their careers
(which last longe than that of a terrorist, further reducing your police dangerosity ratio)

Now, given the fact there are one million law enforcement officials and maybe a few dozen terrorists in the US at any given point of time, the police might eventually end up killing more than terrorists nationwide.

It still would make the police infinitely less dangerous to you as an individual than a terrorist. UNLESS you want to add in the comparison mix deaths resulting from jaywalking which probably kill more than the police and terrorists combined.

In view of which your initial statement could have been: jaywalking and police officers are more dangerous than terrorists. Which should be enough to show you why you were on a weird path of reasoning.

[Orrex]

81. That's 100% garbage

You're giving greater priority to an imaginary distinction than to real-world executions. Do you think that the innocent man lying dead on the ground can take comfort in the fact that the cop who killed him for no damn reason didn't intend to kill him for no damn reason?


Tell you what: why don't you post in DU's African American group to tell them how silly and baseless their concerns are? I'm sure that they'll appreciate your whitesplaining and will thank you for it.

[Albertoo]

83. Yes, families of dead people grieve them, no matter what

So if you're going to condemn any human activity that entails some unintended deaths, go ahead.

You are probably going to blame surgery, building construction, commercial airlines, etc.
In that light, yes, surgeons, policemen, airplane pilots, construction workers, all monsters.

Since the deaths might be higher among African Americans or Hispanics in construction, let's also call building construction or farming racist activities.

All this intellectualism is far removed from the productive work of Democrats should provide.

[Orrex]

84. You spend a lot of time telling people what they think.

And you fill your posts with bullshit false equivalencies.

By your silly pseudo-reasoning, we can ignore deaths due to heroin overdose because they're less common than deaths due to car accidents.


Did you whitesplain your bullshit position in DU's African American group, by the way? How did they like your wisdom? How did they like hearing you tell them cops killing black people are a lesser concern than airline crashes?

[Albertoo]

113. My family is not white, so your white angle falls flat

[Orrex]

121. I apologize for my hasty conclusion.

In my defense, your tone-deaf manner of preaching on this subject is most commonly seen among whites, so it was a reasonable assumption in terms of the ratios you so admire.

Anyway, did you share your wisdom in DU's African American group? How did they like your rationalizations and dismissals?

[Albertoo]

129. I understand grievances even if their expression can be overemphasized

I believe Democrats should focus on giving everyone a fair chance, most notably by access to education. That probably implies reducing the household income disparity index which has gone through the roof since 1985.

Racial politics tend to be a distraction from that central goal.

[Orrex]

134. That's perfect--that's exactly what you should tell them.

Racial politics tend to be a distraction from that central goal.

That's poetry. When you're working to GOTV, you should lead with that sentiment verbatim. And then follow up with this:

I understand grievances even if their expression can be overemphasized

With such deft electioneering, there's no way we can fail to win in November.

[Albertoo]

147. You visibly do not understand why Trump is way higher than he should be

Normally, there should be no way a lying clown like him should even be near Hillary.

He's floating because he's telling people they're hurting financially, which is true.

He's offering wrong solutions, but at least he's addressing the key issue (+security)

If you think micro managing special interest grievances is audible, "deft electioneering",

I don't. It's about forging a clear path in uncertain times, fat cats taxes included.

[Orrex]

148. Your dismissal of this topic is disgusting in the extreme

I've humored you up until now because I was at least half-convinced that you were trolling, because no serious person living in this century could actually believe the nonsense you're posting.

How do you think the electorate would respond if Clinton trivialized concerns about the summary execution of black men as "micro managing special interest grievances?"

Also, you're pulling the standard bullshit propaganda tactic: "Trump is winning because you are too focused on {insert particular subject here}." It's a transparent and weak effort to deflect the conversation toward a topic that you want to discuss, rather than listening to the very real concerns of very real people who'll be casting very real votes in the very near future.

[awoke_in_2003]

151. Your family is not white

what about you?

[heaven05]

89. you are productive?

okay

[Albertoo]

120. Certainly more than people here who conjure up bogeymen

Want to test the 'productivity' of the offensive initial statement I contested?

Go and suggest any elected Democrat to tell voters that -to quote Mr Scorpio- policemen are more dangerous than terrorists, and see how it goes.

Political 'discussion' that can only be had away from voters is totally unproductive.

[heaven05]

88. distraction diversion coupled

with a wilful social blindness leads to all your answers being a sad commentary on those who have a vested interest in using their social privilege to try to drive home a bullshit point.

[Orrex]

136. And that, gentle readers, is the essence of the subthread.

[Albertoo]

182. Sanctimonious word soup

[drray23]

180. I wish this was true.

http://www.killedbypolice.net has the current list.

Its backed up with references of articles in newspapers.

[pintobean]

66. How do you determine who is innocent?

If the cop gets convicted?

[Orrex]

72. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, no?

Unless the person constitutes a real threat (i.e., not "he looks like a bad dude" or "he reached for his waistband&quot , then the person is innocent until proven guilty.

In any case, short of stopping an actual, immediate threat, there is no reason for cops to perform summary executions in the street, regardless of the dead person's criminal history or "thuggish" Facebook photos or the like.

[pintobean]

90. I guess the threat is to be determined by investigation

Like a grand jury and the DOJ investigating, and finding whether a threat existed, or not.

[Orrex]

144. Gotcha. Shoot first and investigate later.

On balance, which do you suppose is more common:

1. Post hoc investigation of a questionable killing determines that the cop didn't actually face a threat so that he should be punished for using deadly force

or

2. Post hoc investigation defers to the trigger-pulling cop's judgment, resulting in minimal or no disciplinary action

And right now we're talking about incidents captured on video. How often do you think an objective, credible investigation goes against the cop when no account of the event exists except his own story?

[heaven05]

91. in america now

brown skin means guilty until proven innocent IF the situation gets that far.

[True Dough]

159. You cite three incidents

Involving what, four perpetrators? And there have been another dozen mass killings like those ones in the U.S. over the past several years. And yet you create threads and post in numerous other threads constantly about the terrorism threat in America.

You drink the Trump Kool-Aid? Because it sure seems you like your hyperbole. The threat of terrorism is real but you tend to overstate it vastly.

[brush]

53. That's easy to do if you have the resources to do that. Easy to brag about it too.

Most people are not in that position so get real.

[Albertoo]

55. Untrue. See the European migrants who fled to the US

Many fled social or religious persecution.

[brush]

59. Are you serious with that? Hah!

Some comparison between early 20th century, mostly destitute Europeans leaving their countries to African-Americans who helped build this country but still face police oppression.

What bullshit. We have too much invested here to cut and run. We ain't going nowhere. We are going to force change in racist policing just as we forced with the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s.

Google those movements. Sound as if you have no idea of them or our resolve. It's called thinking in movement terms not some shot-gap-flee response.

[Albertoo]

67. You are evading the initial premise

IF someone -whatever the shade of their skin- really believed the police force of their country, as Mr Scorpio asserted- is worse than terrorists, XIX, XXth or XXIst century, it makes very good sense to leave and relocate.

Unless that statement was, as was my initial statement about it, just hyperbole.

[brush]

179. What idiotic bullshit. We aren't going anywhere. You may believe in cutting and running. We don't.

As if an entire race of people have the resources to cut and run. Even those of us who do are not going to do that. We're going to force police reform here, as I said before, the same as we forced civil rights changes in the 50s and 60s which you seem sadly lacking in knowledge of.

No one is evading your premise. It's ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.

[Albertoo]

184. Self preservation is not cutting and running.

IF the US police, as claimed in this thread, really ws worse than terrorists, given that the police has the legal monopoly on the use of force in a country, it would make perfect sense to leave a country ruled by inequity.

[TexasProgresive]

19. Are you suggesting that MrScorpio should be a coward and leave the nation of his birth?

And where do you think he should immigrate?

If it were possible and African Americans fled this country because of police violence that would be doing what the white supremacists want. We have to learn how to live together in peace and that includes the police.

[Albertoo]

25. Safeguarding one's own life is not being a coward

IF Mr Scorpio's statement was true, IF I was him and really, really believed that the police are more dangerous than terrorists as he stated, I would emigrate in the blinking of an eye.

And I wouldn't look back.

[uponit7771]

33. I agree, but its better to fight for proper legislation here than run somewhere else...

... that's what the basket dwellers want

[Albertoo]

45. That would be fighting a losing battle

IF the police really were more dangerous than terrorists as claimed by Mr Scorpio.

When one claims something, they should follow up their claims with proof and deed.


I personally find it offensive to call the police more dangerous than terrorists.

And making such outrageous claims on a Democratic website can only help Trump.

I suggest it should stop.

[uponit7771]

46. The impunity UNPROFESSIONAL cops get is more dangerous than terrorism and has more direct effect on

... communities like mine.

Those are facts that aren't in dispute, black lives matter more than feelings.

WE ALL should be fighting for a standardized accountability among those who serve us

[Albertoo]

48. I fear we're not going to agree on much. eom.

[uponit7771]

51. Facts matter, I pray we agree on that

[Albertoo]

54. Yes, assuming facts are assessed in perspective

[uponit7771]

60. in a neutral perspective of course, it a mostly white one no... not at all

[Cal Carpenter]

87. What seems clear to me

on this thread (all of your posts, not just on this subthread, I just picked this one to reply to) is that, for you, these are hypothetical premises that can be debated in some philosophical way through use of hyperbole or other tricks of language.

What you seem to be missing is that for MrScorpio and other people of color, black men in particular, you are talking about real life conditions. They don't have the luxury of discussing a premise, a concept, an idea. They are dealing with the real fear of their lives in the hands (and guns) of the police. This is not hypothetical, nor is it hyperbole.

You may not see this difference, but as an outsider to the discussion (well, until now anyway) I see this: you are speaking in theory and others are speaking about reality. You seem to see this in the opposite way. You apparently can't fathom or at least consider the idea that what Mr Scorpio is saying about the police state is true or even arguable, or if you do, that the suggestion that he and others like him would be better off fleeing the country is not a logical or appropriate solution. You might as well be saying 'go back to Africa if you think it is so bad here'. I doubt you mean it this way, but that's how it reads... I would respectfully suggest stepping back and thinking about the implications of what you are saying in the context of people's real lives. And thinking about the history of this country. And maybe reconsidering your arguments. Because for black men and many other PoC, it makes perfect sense to feel more threatened personally by cops than by terrorists.

To MrScorpio, please know I am not trying to speak for you here, so feel free to call me out if I have taken a wrong step...

[lame54]

22. Seriously? - you gave him the love it or leave it speech?

[Albertoo]

26. No. I gave him a "live the consequences of your beliefs" speech

Let me ask you: do you share his belief that the police are worse than terrorists?

[lame54]

76. I know what I read...

And statistically he may be right

[Albertoo]

78. Statistically, he's obviously wrong

The probability that a police officer will kill someone on a given year is certainly vastly inferior to the probability of someone defining themselves as a terrorist killing someone.

[GeorgeGist]

126. Statistically 793 people have been killed by police ...

so far ths year in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/us

[Albertoo]

130. That's too much, but far less than home accidents

[awoke_in_2003]

154. What the hell

Does home accidents have to do with it? You argue that cops do not kill more people than terrorists in the US, someone tells you how many people cops have killed this year, and you fire back with "but far less than home accidents". Wow

[Festivito]

23. That is a seriously stupid post. It assumes money, job, and destination for starters.

Also, assuming that the level of terrorism, which is low compared to say drunk drivers, would cause a person to leave the country because it must be deemed more dangerous than or less dangerous than what could be an eight times more dangerous interaction of police misconduct is unreasonable and deserves ridicule as well.

For someone who does have the money, does have the job that can move and has found a destination less perilous to say that another person must have those things is elitism at its worst.

The post should be deleted.

[Albertoo]

27. I love the level of tolerance you display

You appear to believe that a figure of speech is grounds for deleting posts.

Democracy in action..

I would have assumed my way of putting things was a way to highlight that Scorpio's contention that "the police are worse than terrorists" was seriously flawed.

Fact check: when faced with a terrorist, your chances of something bad happening are extremely high. Is it the case with US police officers? The question invites the answer.

Like I said in my initial answer to Scorpio, hyperbole is not an interesting basis for discussion.

Unless you wish to call police officers "pigs", in which case the discussion will be short lived.

[Festivito]

166. No tolerance for the stupid post I called a stupid post.

Too many errors in the rest for response.

[Albertoo]

183. Mirror, mirror on the wall: what you disagree with, you call stupid

I was not impressed by your posts.

[Festivito]

185. Posts come with reasons for disagreement, with reasons for it being stupid.

Impressions are not as important as are reasoned responses.

[Albertoo]

186. Let me know when you'll start giving reasoned responses.

[Marr]

68. You're under the impression that Syrian refugees are upper middle class yuppies, huh?

[uponit7771]

32. I can technically do such as an AA in America because of the police, I can go to Germany

... you raise a good point

[heaven05]

85. you have no real threat

BECAUSE you are in a catagory where you are relatively safe. You're just arguing for arguments sake and that's that. Not worth anymore of my time.

[DLevine]

15. Spot on, MrScorpio. nt

[heaven05]

86. true

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. No, but people of color are given less time to respond & the orders are more rapid fire & demanding.

Also, the mindset of police when they are going to and arriving on the scene tends to be influenced badly by stereotypes and prejudices.

So the net result is that white people are more likely to end up negotiated out of a tense situation and allowed to climb down while people of color face cops who are edgier and more hair-trigger and more demanding. People (white, black, green, any color) are not going to think their best in a tense situation and the amount of time given to respond to orders and the nature of those orders is crucial to the different outcomes that so often happen.

[Albertoo]

28. If we're back to discussing probabilities, I'm on board

I just reacted to a sweeping statement which was deeply offensive to the average member of the police force of this country.

[uponit7771]

34. Facts aren't offensive to people seeking truth, the poster didn't have to be nats ass precise

[Albertoo]

110. The statement that the police is more dangerous than terrorists is NOT seeking truth

[heaven05]

92. what about the post

describing a young man of color being pulled over 3 times in one day because he has darker skin than you? answer that with something pithy.

[Albertoo]

111. Two wrongs make a right?

[heaven05]

135. the last refuge

of those.......geez

[uponit7771]

31. No, because they can get away with it when they have built in impunity

[Albertoo]

49. What impunity? With a court case for each incident?

[uponit7771]

50. This is false on its face, there's no court case with each incident... where are you getting your

... information from?

[philosslayer]

122. I do as well

[Marr]

64. You thought Korryn Gaines was a 'murdered' innocent, too, so...

...yeah.

[Waldorf]

137. No, they shot this man because he was holding a gun and refused to drop it. Not only did he not

drop it as ordered but kept in motion.

[Lil Missy]

10. Agree he had a gun and the Police did not plant one. AND!! The Police were too quick to shoot him.

AND!! IF they felt it necessary to shoot him, why shoot to kill? Why not shoot him in the leg or arm??

[jmg257]

11. They are not trained to. Nt

[KewlKat]

13. Thank you for all this work. I can only hope that the "media" has done this but doubt it.

Perhaps you can send Joy Reid all of this. She has a 2 hour show today.

[Egnever]

189. I sent it to several media contacts

I am quite pissed they pushed the narrative there was no gun. It was grossly incompetent if not negligent IMHO.

[Festivito]

21. It would seem he had the gun in his right hand, quickly moved about ten feet, and fell with gun.

Right side ankle holster: it would make sense he would be right handed.

Ankle exposed can indicate that it was raised in order to retrieve the gun and that the gun was already retrieved.

Being that the gun fell out it would make sense that the gun was already in his right hand when the videos start rather than it still being holstered. Both videos are insufficient to show if there is or is not a gun in hand.

I see only one marked police car showing up and that is after he would have pulled his gun from his ankle.

The question remains: what caused him to be surrounded in a parking lot by his car such that he would be in fear enough to retrieve his weapon?

Did the police announce themselves as police? Why is the sound muted on the police camera?

Was he concerned about being car-jacked?

[citood]

30. My theory

He was waiting for his daughter to get off the bus...but his wife's quick arrival indicates the bus stop was very close to his home. And his daughter seems to be old enough to get home by herself.

So why wait for her? I think for some reason (maybe somebody had threatened him) he was worried about her safety...and for this reason he was not 100 percent sure these guys were really cops.

[Festivito]

158. Plausible. eom

[wildeyed]

35. The police were there to serve a warrant to another person.

If they hadn't been there, everything would be fine. Keith Scott had TBI from a car accident. He was confused and might have been belligerent. But he would not have been either if the police had not instigated.

A young black man I know just got pulled over three times driving from Charlotte to Atlanta for a family funeral. WTF? He is dark-skinned and looks a bit "street", but that is not illegal. I (a white female) have been pulled over that many times in my entire LIFE.

Bigger picture, this is what I mean by "instigating". If I was being constantly pulled over and harassed by police, statistically, I might have a bad day, say something aggressive at some point too. And if I had a brain injury, that probability goes way up.

[uponit7771]

37. +1, their reasoning for engaging Scott in the first place is criminal enough... the gun is a red

... herring seeing the LEO said he had a gun and was rolling somehting

Neither of those are illegal in NC,

The LEOs on the scene needlessly created a situation that they themselves looks like they escalated

Gun or not (I have not seen a gun in Scotts hand and I'm not giving the CPD the benefit of the doubt)

[Uponthegears]

40. Exactly

[Festivito]

157. Did he even know they were police as they approached? eom

[drray23]

57. he has tbi and was confused.

The cops who surrounded his vehicle and started yelling at him were in civilian clothes. They then got backup from uniformed officers.
I can see how he got confused by several men yelling at him holding weapons surrounding his truck. Remember the guy was on meds with a brain injury.

[Lee-Lee]

62. He was also a felon illegally carrying a gun

And he shouldn't have been. And if your mentally incapacitated even more so.

That was a bad decision on his part for many reasons, and I'm pretty sure at this point his wife was aware and didn't do anything to stop him despite being aware of both his criminal past and his mentally incapacitating issues.

[heaven05]

95. here we go

"he was a felon and made bad decisions". Typical ofthe usual suspects, victim blaming while casting the 'THUG' dispersion.

[Rex]

98. That is the LEO mentality that is the main problem.

Funny we see it here on DU too.

[heaven05]

114. all the time

with incidents like this. Happens EVERY TIME every since I've come here since zimmerpig murdered Trayvon Martin. Always, a lot of the usual suspects find some excuse to justify murder of unarmed or non-threatening AA, he looked thuggish, he was a felon, he created the circumstances of his murder, ect, ect.. There is, just like in american society, a lot under the surface here that erupts when some the people here are allowed to "normalize", expound on and reveal their true feelings about executions of AA by law enforcement and by rote all AA in america. No surprise though. I always knew they were here, lurking, like blood thirsty sharks.

[Rex]

118. It is pretty disturbing to watch then validate murder.

And their only reason, the person had a badge on. That is not a rational train of thought.

[XemaSab]

102. It's the job of the police to keep society safe from criminals

Sometimes the police do a good, honest job; sometimes they don't.

A violent felon in possession of a gun is a criminal.

If the "victim" is a violent felon in possession of a gun, then it's the job of the police to come after him.

Sorry, but this case is build on the kind of lies that make people not support Black Lives Matter.

[Rex]

106. He was sitting in his car waiting for his kid to get out of school...the cops were there to serve

a warrant on someone else. But I guess we can pretend the narrative is that he was bad and they were good.

[XemaSab]

112. He was sitting in his car with a gun waiting for his kid to get out of school

I guess you think that violent felons should be allowed to own guns.

[Rex]

115. At what point in this encounter was he violent?

Pretending he was a threat is just sad.

[XemaSab]

116. You ever have someone walk up to you holding a gun?

It's good times.

[Rex]

124. Yes I have, now what does that have to do with the dead guy that was not holding a gun?

He was sitting in his car waiting for his kid...I understand if you cannot fathom such a mundane thing. Even the chief of police said the video does not show him aiming a gun at the cops.

But do go on with your bad self.

[heaven05]

125. oh please

spare me. You've said everything needed to prove my point about "usual suspects" coming out of the woodwork to cast their dispersions, "violent suspect" ect. ect. and you even managed to get your hate of BLM in your response. BRAVO!. Sorry, you're transparent.

[Rex]

131. The magic gun, they all are desperate for it to be his.

Gee...where is the gun? Oh there it is! NOT.

[jmg257]

140. Actually it is in the pic - right near the guy in red's left foot.

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

It has been there for a bit at this point, and will be there still once the crime scene tape goes up

[Rex]

141. So it moves by itself?

Keep digging.

[Egnever]

152. No they moved the body

I get you don't want it to be true because it gives the cops and others an excuse to justify the shooting.

But that gun is there the whole time from the moment it is kicked back by the cop.

[jmg257]

153. No the cop 1st footed it back when cuffing scott. This is later, seems Scott has been moved.

He's about 3 feet closer to the truck on the right then when he went down.

You can possibly hear a cop say "I got gun" when they 1st handcuff him (in the police video) to get the timing.
The gun is visible in the wife's video, along with the red guy's interactions with it.

[Festivito]

156. Feet move when a people move their feet.

You're right though, feet don't move themselves. Once he was shot and downed, the gun would have been kicked away from him. And, once ready for handcuffs the gun no longer needs to be guarder by being near a foot. The feet don't move themselves, the police moved his feet.

[XemaSab]

138. What was he in prison for?

Please share.

[Rex]

139. What was he sitting in his car for?

[Beaverhausen]

142. Did the cops know who he was at the time they ordered him out of the car?

You assume they knew who he was but I'm pretty sure no one has established they knew. All they saw was a black man in a car rolling a blunt and possibly waving what they thought was a gun.

[XemaSab]

143. First he was reading the Koran

Now he's sitting in the car with weed in one hand and a gun in the other.

Waiting for the kids to get off the school bus.

[Beaverhausen]

145. I don't see how any of what you said answers the question

[XemaSab]

146. DU cracks me up

I'm sure Mr. Scott had a perfectly reasonable explanation for packing heat while picking up his kids from school.

[GeorgeGist]

170. White folks do it all the time.

[heaven05]

172. I don't know

it's something that i don't find important at the moment

[Lee-Lee]

173. Do you support felons illegally carrying guns?

Especially those with a violent past that includes domestic violence and assaulting police?

His criminal history is a valid discussion point when discussing this event, as it puts his actions or possible actions in context.

[heaven05]

175. america has two levels of law

one level gives a pass to certain sub groups, the other level kills AA without justification. Your privileged level has shown thoughout this discussion and I am not disposed to deal with your victim blaming and outright BS. I will not be responding to any more of your asinine questions that try to disparage and condemn a person to justifiable death by murder/execution by police and that pertains to AA males that are being killed without due process

[Lee-Lee]

177. Of course you won't respond because you can't deal with the facts

so you try and portray me pointing out facts as privleged or racist and then use that as an excuse to not respond.

Interesting approach. I doubt ignoring everything you find inconvenient will be productive for you. But I guess it is easier.

[kwassa]

181. This is not a valid discussion point because the police didn't know who he was.

They shot a man who, from what we can see so far, had a gun in a holster on his ankle, which is not illegal. From the still frames shown, he had not a gun in either hand.

[awoke_in_2003]

155. If he had TBI

why the hell was his family allowing him to carry a gun?

[Festivito]

162. He wasn't there to start a fight. Confused, scared, and possibly unclear thinking. Sad.

[uponit7771]

36. It is specious to intimate that AT NO POINT could the CPD not plant a weapon seeing there's no proof

... of a weapon in Scott's hand that a person can visually see

It should be stated that the CPD is given the benefit of the doubt in this theory that they wouldn't just plant a weapon

The benefit of the doubt should not be afforded them because

They've shown to

1.) Not have a good relationship with the people of CLT
2.) To be needlessly un forthright about this situation
3.) Have a specific reason to criminalize Scott seeing the justification for the engagement in the first place is 200% bullshit even with giving them the benefit of the doubt.

No....they haven't earned the BOTD in this... no gun in his hand = he had no gun at this point

[Uponthegears]

39. Certainly an interesting and compelling presentation

in support of the proposition that the compilation of videos does not show a gun being planted.

I would say, though, that it is not anywhere near as compelling to support the proposition that the videos show that the gun was not planted.

As you (honestly) acknowledge, the videos do not show that ANY object in the videos is undoubtedly a gun. We are left with phrases like "that could well be an ankle holster," or that "the object the officer is standing next to could well be a gun." Yes, it well might be, but it could also be some other object.

What we SEE in these videos, however, is not the only evidence. We also HEAR what a number of the people present are saying. Let's talk about that.

On one side we hear the cops repeatedly saying words to the effect "Drop the gun." Let's ask ourselves, what a the reasons they would be yelling that? I think of three:
(1) He has a gun
(2) They think he has a gun
(3) They are having an encounter with a citizen who refuses to "follow orders" (and of whom they are automatically scared because of his race and gender) and they are wanting to portray a situation where they can use deadly force if they want.

On the other side, we have the wife (who has ACTUAL knowledge as to whether he was armed) saying words to the effect "Get out the car so they won't break the windows," and "He has a traumatic brain injury," and, most notably, "He isn't armed." Let's focus on the third statement, even though the first two may become relevant later, and ask ourselves, what the reason would be for the wife who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that her husband is armed to tell cops (who her husband could very easily kill if they believed her) that he isn't armed? I can only think of two:
(1) She would rather cops die than her husband
(2) She hates cops and wants cops to die

Which one of those do the "I trust the cops" people believe . . . and why?

I am a little sensitive on this subject because I started out life as an "undisciplined" (nice word) young man in a part of Houston white folks didn't go. I have been in similar situations. I have fled law enforcement. I have heard them yelling "He's got a gun" (actually, it was just "gun" over and over) when I didn't. I was lucky as a young man (and my dad got me out of that environment) and I lived long enough to be an old man. Mr. Scott didn't.

Please feel free to critique those who were so sure that the video showed a throw down when it was a glove. However, when it comes to being certain that the cops are telling the truth and a black woman was lying, you need to tread lightly because that kind of stuff happens all the time.

Black lives matter.

[underpants]

128. I appreciate the time you put into this post. I think it is very well done.

You have a lot of points there, good ones, and it gives light to very interesting things to consider.

[tonyt53]

165. A well thought out statement that covers the various scenarios well.

[usedtobedemgurl]

44. Let's Say This Is All True...

where does the fact that he had brain problems and his wife announced it to the cops, as well as the fact he had just taken medication for it, come into play with them understanding he would shut down and not be able to comply at all?

[Lee-Lee]

47. His wife also yelled he didn't have a gun and told all of us that later

So at this point it's clear nothing the family says has any credibility. They knowingly lied about the gun, causing a lot of problems for the entire city including one person being shot during the protests, and stuck to that lie even when seeing everything going to shit around them.

[CRF450]

56. All of that goes out the window when the gun is seen and he's visibly hostile <- not complying

Despite his arm being pointed down and walking backwards, the first deadly shot at an officer can happen at a fraction of a second. They won't take that chance, I wouldn't either if I was in their position as well.

[Lee-Lee]

52. At this point it's clear the family has zero credibility

They knew he had a gun. She knew it as it was going down, hence her repeated statements of "don't do it".

Yet she yelled to the police he didn't have a gun, and the family immediately set out saying he didn't have a gun and was holding a book.

As a result of those intentional lies there were protests that became riots, with lots of people injured, lots of properly destroyed, people arrested whose arrests will follow them forever who thought they were protesting something different than what really happened, and even one person shot and killed.

And the family watched all this going down based in large part on people believing their lies about a "book" and never tried once to admit the truth.

At this point nothing they say has any credibility.

[underpants]

123. I'm not arguing with you BUT the cops didn't hear what she was saying

Well let me say that I would be very surprised if they heard her. She was at a distance and they were in the middle of a very tense situation. I really doubt that they heard what she was saying.

[Jim Beard]

58. What is under the cops left foot in the firsy photo when the cop is stratteling him?

[Rex]

94. That is the gun the cops planted to get away with murder.

Poor guy, just there to pick up his kid from school.

[Rex]

93. What is clear is the cops planted a gun on him after murdering him in cold blood.

Thanks for all the evidence, I would not have believed it had I not seen all that in your OP.

[jmg257]

96. Did they put the ankle holster on him too?

[Rex]

97. Where is the ankle holster, I know you want to see one but it ain't there.

They murdered him and dropped a gun, I guess in your world that never happens.

[jmg257]

99. It in every picture of his right ankle.

[Rex]

100. You mean his sock? Nice try.

[jmg257]

101. Ha ha - yeah his bulgy black sock...too funny.

Beige on one side, black on the other - magic socks!

[Rex]

103. Wow so you see things that are not there.

How sad for you, well you bought the OPs red circles around the guys leg...congrats.

[jmg257]

105. Yep..Easy to see...all you need to do is look. One sock that extends down below the sneaker is new

though.

[Rex]

107. No not really, but you go on and pretend it is there.

[jmg257]

108. Or that his sock extends down over his sneaker...on one side....riiiight.

[Rex]

109. I understand this pic has to be what you need it to be to sleep better at night.

Sorry, but you cannot tell what that is but just a sock.

[jmg257]

117. Oh I sleep fine. The other shots of it can also be ignored.

Because - magic bulgy two-tone sock.

And the gun too can be ignored - the one that was "planted" in the 1st 8 seconds...or were those gloves??

So hard to see (but not really).

[Rex]

119. Glad you admit to a gun being planted.

Finally, glad you see it.

[jmg257]

127. Oh yes...I think the moon landings were fake too.

[heaven05]

132. I bet

those murdering cops who have no conscience, when it come to executing non threatening and unarmed AA people in the streets, sleep fine at night also.

[jmg257]

133. Some of em may be that dispicable. Murdering innocent people is a terrible thing to contemplate.

So actually doing it could show some comfort level with the notion.

[Festivito]

160. Redundant post that fails to answer even one of a dozen reasons given. FAIL! eom

[sarisataka]

149. Very detailed

and I tend to agree with your analysis of all the photos, except for the very first one.

Watching all the videos at the slowest rate I can, as far as I can tell the gun is never in the position of that photo.

Mr.Scott's feet and the curb provide fixed reference points; the shadows indicate that is is past the 1:25 point of his wife's cell phone video. The shadow to the right is the police officer in the red shirt, the shadow to the left is cast by someone who never was captured directly on the video, but his/her shadow remains constant.

From the beginning to end of all available videos where those fixed points and the shadows are in those positions, the gun is by the left foot of the police officer in the red shirt.

Do you know if that picture comes from a different source, thus could have been taken at a point after the videos show us?

[Egnever]

161. I assume you mean this one

I'f so it is taken much later after the crime scene has been taped off. I cropped it to try to make it easier to view but in the original you can see the crime scene tape .

I am on my phone right now I will post the original when I get to a computer I apologize for the confusion.

[sarisataka]

164. Thank you

That then would make sense that it doesn't show up in the cell phone or body cam videos. If they had rolled Mr. Scott over now he could be approximately in line with where the officer in the red shirt was standing over the gun.

[jmg257]

163. Heres the original...its later, red guy is in the pic now, gun seems to be where he was standing

earlier. The shadow to the right is of the white truck. Scott has been moved to the right from where he fell.

?

[sarisataka]

167. Ah, I see my mistake

The shadow to the right of the gun is not from the officer. It is from the white truck that he was standing next to.

[jmg257]

168. No worries - here's a post I just made in another thread - good comparison shot.

?

[Egnever]

171. Good comparison

and surely they would have moved him in the process of pulling down his sweats.

[heaven05]

174. I still opt

for it being a 'throwdown'. Cannot trust police to do the right thing in an execution such as this murder. All your photos are fine,. still they DO NOT exonerate the cops in this incident.I just don't trust anything about the cops in this situation. And it was a white cop that shot and killed Mr. Scott but it was reported a black cop shot him. Too many discrepancies and outright obsfucation in this one. People shall believe what their experience has taught them about cops and AA. Seems the two cultures are at odds, but nothing strange about that. Always has been always will be different conclusions drawn because of privilege and personal experiences in living in america as a white person and AA.

[Lee-Lee]

176. How did they "throwdown" a matching holster on his leg before he was even shot?

Time to deal with reality instead of Hollywood fantasy. He was a many time convicted felon with a history of violent crime, including gun crimes and domestic violence.

He made the decision after his latest release from prison to continue his criminal ways by illegally obtaining a firearm, illegally possessing a firearm and illegally carrying a firearm. That's the gun that police recovered, that you can see he is wearing a holster for. People don't just wear an ankle holster for no reason and the odds of him wearing a holster with no gun and the cops just happening to have a "throw down" gun that exactly matched it ready in seconds are pretty well so high as to be impossible.

This decision by him to illegally get and carry a gun led to this encounter with a police going from what probably would have been nothing to him being dead. Why did it all happen as it did? Too soon to say. One other poster had a good theory that he didn't want to go back to jail and knew he would for the gun, so he opted for suicide by cop. Or it could be that his wife was correct about the TBI and him having just taken a sedative so that would be adding a drug induced mental impairment on top of the TBI mental impairment that could have lead to him making confused or bad decisions- a combination that probably wouldn't have been fatal if he wasn't illegally carrying a gun and a combination of mental impairments that mean even if he wasn't a felon he had no business with a gun.

[jmg257]

178. Not sure about a throw-down. I did not see Scott with a gun,

though I feel if the cops were on him, in spite of their ongoing warrant thing, it was likely for a reason.

i did not see him act threatenly to the cops. I do see him with a holster.
If there was a throwdown it had to be done within 8 seconds of him being shot. (Time between shots and red guy footing the gun away).

Do not feel the incident is necessarily warranted or condone it, especially not the deadly result.

[LeftInTX]

150. Thanks for the stills

These videos are so tragic.

I spent some time freeze framing last night and missed the image at 20 secs on the body-cam that you were able to capture. (Unfortunately, the side view mirror occludes his left hand)

From these videos that have been released over the last several years, I've learned that these deaths happen in milliseconds.

[GOLGO 13]

187. Recovered gun + matching ankle holster + fingerprints/DNA on weapon

He's a felon with an illegal weapon using drugs in public.

[uponit7771]

188. There's no photo evidence of a gun IN SCOTTS HAND that has been shown so far

Also of course there would be DNA on the weapon if it was his, there's no proof that he was holding it at the time he was shot and they CPD didn't know he was a felon or whether what he was rolling in the car was pot or tabacoo

This was a "please show ID" situation at the most and that's it...

The CPD hasn't show any information relative to the engagement... I bet that information is "lost"