Police

Riots in Charlotte Following Police Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

Police say he was armed and an imminent threat; his family says he was reading a book in his car while waiting for his child

|

Keith Lamont Scott
Facebook

Protests—some escalating to full-blown riots—erupted in Charlotte last night following the police shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott.

Police had been attempting to serve a warrant in a nearby apartment complex, when they say Scott exited then re-entered his vehicle carrying a gun. According to The New York Times, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) officials say Scott "posed an imminent deadly threat."

Witnesses and family members of Scott—a married father of seven—say he was disabled, unarmed, and was holding a book he had reading while waiting to pick up one of his kids from school. Scott's brother contends police were undercover and not in uniform when the shooting took place.

Both Scott and the officer who shot him—Brentley Vinson—are black. Vinson, a two-year veteran of the CMPD, has been placed on administrative leave. Thus far, police have not indicated whether any body camera or dashboard camera of the shooting exists, and no eyewitnesses have yet gone public.

A few dozen people began gathering at the scene of the shooting to protest last night, but as the evening wore on, demonstrations grew more aggressive. By around 10 p.m., protesters had surrounded police and the CMPD deployed a civil emergency unit to safely remove their officers from the scene. From there, some demonstrators began vandalizing a police vehicle, and police shot rubber bullets and tear gas at demonstators, some of whom responded by throwing rocks and other objects at officers. Later in the evening, protesters shut down Interstate 85, some looting cargo from a truck and setting it on fire in the middle of the highway.

The CMPD updated its Twitter feed throughout the night, saying 12 officers had been injured—one hit in the face with a rock. 11 others were reportedly hospitalized with minor injuries.

As of 2015, all CMPD police officers are equipped with body cameras, so there should be no excuse for anything short of a full accounting of this shooting to be made public as soon as possible. But as we've noted here at Reason, North Carolina passed a law earlier this year making police body cam footage exempt from public record disclosure rules. While a shooting that's already as high-profile as Scott's will be difficult to keep under wraps, there is no guarantee that all the video footage will be released, which could deny a full public reckoning of the entire incident.

Reason's Ronald Bailey also wrote last month that nearly half of the U.S.'s 50 major police departments failed at eight key criteria to meet satisfactory accountability and transparency with regards to police body cam footage, according to a study by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the technology evaluation group Upturn.

In the case of the CMPD, officers have clear guidelines of when to record and are required to "provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events." Unfortunately, the study indicated that CMPD's "policy allows — or even encourages — officers to view relevant footage before filing an initial written report or statement" and "does not expressly prohibit both footage tampering and unauthorized access."

Via the Associated Press, you can see some raw footage of last night's unrest below:

NEXT: ACLU: Connecticut State Troopers Caught On Tape Fabricating Charges Against Protester

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Calling it now. The camera will have turned out to be on and the man will quiet clearly have a gun. None of the protesters will believe it, but the national news media will suddenly find something new shiny to focus on.

    1. And the protesters will decide to burn down their neighbor’s business in “retaliation.”

      1. Then next year we’ll hear a sob story about how the place is a food desert because no grocery store is willing to move into the neighborhood.

        1. As an evil banker type, there’s no way I’d finance a business in that neighborhood any time soon.

          1. Redlining! RACIST!!!

            1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,.,.,,

              ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

        2. FYI.
          If the Charlotte Observer is correct, the location of these riots is NOT your typical, democrate nest of poverty. This is near the UNC campus and is quite populated with nice stores like IKEA, Home Depot, furniture stores, restaurants, etc. I recently moved from NJ to NC, not too far from these stores. The people are great. My neighborhood is about 50/50 white/black.

          I understand objections to cops shooting innocent people (if that’s the case), but I don’t understand the instant riots. These protesters are not gaining any sympathy for their case by destroying other people’s property.

          1. They don’t want your sympathy, they want JUSTICE (where justice is defined as a nebulous end-game involving a grab-bag of transfer payments, unenforceable mandates, and unachievable social policies).

    2. The camera will have turned out to be on and the man will quiet clearly have a gun.

      Doubt it. If that was the case, the cops would have released the video already. Or was this intended to be sarcasm and my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning like a police officer’s body cam?

      1. “if that was the case, the cops would have released the video already . . .”. Right, the cops MUST be lying because they haven’t released the video. That’s got to be the ONLY reason.

        1. Yes, actually, that’s generally how these things work. It’s the same with drug seizures. If they kill a bunch of people in a no knock raid and there’s a big pile of drugs in the garage, the police hold a press conference a couple hours later with the seized contraband in the background.

          When it turns out that the “drugs” were a handful of tomato plants, the “investigation is still ongoing” and they wait for the media to find some other shiny thing to be interested in.

      2. If you blur the video enough, the gold leaf on the book could be mistaken for a shiny object that is clearly a gun.

    3. The real question is whether he was threatening anyone with a gun. Shooting people simply because they are perceived to have a gun is a problem too.

      And if they actually were undercover/ununiformed, he may well have had legitimate reason to feel the need to act in self defense.

      I have no idea about the facts of any of this, but there is more to it than did he have a gun or not.

    4. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

    5. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

  2. Witnesses of the shooting and family members of Scott?a married father of seven?say he was disabled, unarmed, and was holding a book he had reading while waiting to pick up one of his kids from school. Scott’s brother contends police were undercover and not in uniform when the shooting took place.

    Both Scott and the officer who shot him?Brentley Vinson?are black. Vinson, a two-year veteran of the CMPD, has been placed on administrative leave. Thus far, police have not indicated whether any body camera or dashboard camera of the shooting exists, and no eyewitnesses have yet gone public.

    Don’t these statements contradict each other?

    1. It could be that they made statements but did not want to be identified. Which is wise, being that cops tend to seek retribution against witnesses who say things they don’t like.

      1. According to the first sentence they went public with what they saw. According to the second they haven’t.

        They can give a public accounting without identifying themselves. It happens all the time in stories that say “a witness that wishes to remain anonymous said …”.

        1. I would guess sarcasmic probably has it somewhat right, but who the fuck knows because journalists are idiots who can’t even write a coherent paragraph, despite that being their fucking job.

    2. Shhhhh, no pointing out obvious logical flaws with the narrative.

    3. They don’t really contradict for reasons Sarcasmic gave. We are talking about an eyewitness. The brother and family presumably didn’t witness it, but are going on second hand info.

      1. Then shouldn’t it say “family members of Scott contend witnesses of Scott’s shooting maintain he was unarmed, etc, etc” or something to that effect. Those sentences just don’t make sense.

        1. Watching the reporting from the scene on NBC, at least two reported “family members” are on camera saying (very passionately) that he was just minding his own business and holding a book. They deliver the story as if they were there and witnessed everything.

          But it is never stated explicitly. In fact, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that they were not present during the shooting and heard this version second hand. Exactly as the “hands up! Don’t Shoot!” narrative got started.

          The reporter never asked on camera “did you witness the shooting?” “Did you see this with your own eyes?” Or “Who told you what happened?” It may have happened off camera, but it also is entirely possible that they never even thought to ask. Getting the footage to put on air was the pressing matter, not buttoning down all of the details of good reporting.

          1. The reporter never asked on camera “did you witness the shooting?” “Did you see this with your own eyes?” Or “Who told you what happened?”

            Of course, if they had done that and the family members said “No, I didn’t see it first hand” then it would be clear that they’re reporting 2nd if not 3rd hand information as if it were 1st hand knowledge. Which isn’t what the media wants to do. They have a narrative to push and outrage to generate. Riots get big ratings.

            None of which is intended to endorse the cop’s version of events either. Unless/ until body cam footage of the incident is released there’s no way of knowing for sure what happened. Although I would think that if the footage existed and proved the cop’s story to be true, they would be tripping over themselves to release it. But again, we simply don’t know and may never know. So it comes down to who’s story are you more inclined to believe? The cops, who clearly have an incentive to lie, or the family members and the media, who also have an incentive to lie?

            1. it is a difficult question, after all, isn’t it? You sure expect a lot from journalistas.

              1. You guys don’t understand the school of “advocacy journalism” that most media types to which subscribe. The facts aren’t nearly as important as advancing the desired narrative. The narrative is formulated to support the positions advocated by the so-called “journalist”.

            2. Which only helps Trump.

              So the media is in the tank for Trump . . . .

    4. “Witnesses of the shooting and family member of Scott”…. “no eyewitnesses have yet gone public”.

      1) It’s completely possible witnesses don’t want to be publicly identified; you can take from that whatever you want.

      2) the first group of people is broader than the second; the first sentence is badly-written and vague as to who — non-public witnesses or family members — is saying what.

    5. In all probability it means that some people have come forward to the media but they probably didn’t tell the police anything. These fiasco’s are usually a hotbed of liars and malcontents no matter what the actual underlying event was. Note that robbing a truck on the highway is hardly a ‘protest’ nor could anyone say that such a theft has anything to do with justice for a killed man.

      Some people just want to watch the world burn, and they have no issues taking a few items for themselves while the fire rages.

  3. The family needs to immediately file a wrongful death suite and file with the court for all relevant records, including any body camera footage. This should prevent the destruction of evidence.

    Also, a criminal complaint filed with the US justice department would serve the same function with criminal charges backing it up, rather than just civil contempt charges.

    1. ^^This^^. If more people did this early on I bet these types of things would become less commonplace.

      Although they get a pass based on their grief and the fact they probably aren’t thinking clearly,with,everything going on.

    2. This should prevent the destruction of evidence.

      No it does not.

    3. This should prevent the destruction of evidence.

      BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!!!!! Good one. If the body cam’s were even turned on and working, that footage has already been “accidentally” deleted/ destroyed by now if it backs up the family’s claims.

      They’ve already had more than enough time to get rid of the evidence (assuming there was any to begin with).

      1. You are only saying that because it happens all the time. Well, that and you are a Cynical Asshole.

    4. Yeah, sure, just like the congressional subpoena forced Hillary’s staff to preserve all her emails.

      1. They spent more than a half a year getting around to issuing that subpoena. She managed to read the subtle tea leaves and make arrangements before the subpoena was issued.

        In the real world that might not help you – there’s a “if you knew there was about to be litigation” proviso as well. But in the world of the rich and powerful, the line is much brighter – and you get a free pass if it is not a demonstrably major transgression.

  4. There’s a lot of people out there who don’t get the harm that has resulted from making police violence a purely racial issue. Well, here is yet another example. The partisans on each side can adopt their bunker mentality and spin away in their echo chambers. Not a god damn thing changes, but trash gets an excuse to loot and riot as if they actually give a shit about the dude who lost his life. It barely even matters what happened in this particular shooting when it comes to setting the narrative.

    1. “There’s a lot of people out there who don’t get the harm that has resulted from making police violence a purely racial issue.”

      It didn’t take Democrats long to figure out that’s what had to be done, and they did a great job of it. Their useful idiots are still useful idiots. Mission accomplished.

      1. I have some further criticism of BLM. Beyond their completely myopic and militant racial politics, they also suffer from the same sort of flaw that a lot of other movements do. They are far too political. It is not a ‘big tent’ movement for people who care about a single issue, but instead a far left social justice outfit that has gotten itself entangled into a far larger set of issues that speak to the social justice warrior crowd. So you go on their website and find dumb shit about intersectionality that means absolutely nothing to most of the population. When you combine that with their specific tactics which seem designed to make people hate them, and they are the worst sort of movement to enact change I could imagine.

        1. They’re going to enact some change alright. A change from people being sympathetic to their cause to just not giving a shit. And a change from the cops being militant and shoot first to the cops being more militant and more shoot first. Useful idiots are useful.

      2. I say – okay, go ahead. It’s yours, Democrats. Enjoy your police-less, non-GMO, unfracked world.

        I’ll be on Libertarian Island eating brownies with Gary Johnson.

    2. There are also a lot of people who very clearly get the harm from making things racial, people whose livelihoods depends on it.

  5. I guess it’s a little too early to know what actually happened. Was the guy threatening cops with a gun or was he actually sitting in his car reading a book? I suspect we’ll find out that it’s something in between.

    But these protesters looters and rioters are idiots. You’re so sick of police violence, that to help your cause you attack innocent people and loot the local Walmart? What a bunch of shit for brain losers.

    1. I guess it’s a little too early to know what actually happened.

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

      We have a winner here, folks!

    2. I understand what you’re saying.

      Taken in the context of the shooting in Tulsa of the black man literally having his hands in the air, I can understand why people might just jump to conclusions.

      That said, yes, the rioting is idiotic.

    3. They’re the other side of the rage coin – one side/ Black Lives Matter, the other side/ Trumpkin

    4. Black Looting Matters?

    5. So he was threatening the cops with a book?

      Or was he reading a gun?

  6. The CMPD updated its Twitter feed throughout the night, saying 12 officers had been injured?one hit in the face with a rock. 11 others were reportedly hospitalized with minor injuries

    And the number of casualties among peasants? I know we’ve got at least one death and according to the article police initiated aggression in firing rubber bullets. So the number of lowly peasant casualties does seem to be at least as newsworthy as the number of state-sponsored criminals injured through their crimes.

    Not to say Fisher has done anything wrong in reporting this. (I heart you, Fisher! You’ve been doing the Lord’s work lately.) It is ungodly tone-deaf to see PDs put this info out on press releases as if, now that they started this by killing people, we all need to feel so damned sorry for them.

    1. Is there any evidence it doesn’t really work, though? At least half the country eats it up and a good portion of others are going to at least pay lip service to how much they appreciate cops.

      1. It absolutely works. The second people start attacking police, it becomes us-against-them, with the “them” being those lower-class idiots who want a race war.

        In this case we have a black police officer with a black boss – but it is all due to racism.

        Nothing can possibly get fixed if this is the focus. It can only get worse.

        1. And it will get worse because Democrats are just going to keep pushing the race card until everyone in the country hates everyone else. It’s either their goal or they are dumber than I thought.

          1. Why does it have to be a dichotomy? Can’t it be both?

            I’m quite sure that the race-baiting is intentional. Over the last few days, the Clinton campaign clearly intended to use Obama and the Birther stuff to paint Trump as a racist and turn out the black vote. Team D does it every single election.

            But it also is a part of their DNA. They reflexively see race in everything because of so many years of practicing.

            So I contend that it is both… They really do have the goal of fomenting racial animus, and they are really so addle-brained that they cannot see the world in any way other than a slew of -isms. Racism, sexism, able-ism, antisemitism, etc.

        2. Nothing can possibly get fixed if this is the focus. It can only get worse.

          It’s almost as if that’s what “they” intended all along… *adjusts tin-foil hat*

    2. Maybe if the lowly peasants quit violating the non-aggression principle . . . .

  7. The initial reporting on this has several “family members” making statements about him not having a gun and giving their versions of events. But it is not clear if any of them were actually present during the shooting.

    The language used by the police also seemed a bit odd at one point, at least as reported on NBC’s national news. They talked about him having a gun, but they said it in an odd way…. “a gun was found”. They said he was “acting in a dangerous manner” and the officer was fired his weapon. I would think they would have said “he pulled out a gun and pointed it at police” if that is what happened.

    The way they worded it, it sounded like maybe he had a gun on him or in the car, but he might have been shot by mistake because of the book and perhaps other confusion.

    Some body cam footage would certainly go a long way toward clearing this up. If they have it, they would do well to release it immediately. If the guy really did have a gun out, they need to get in front of it immediately. And if he didn’t, they need to own their mistake immediately. Turtling up and pretending that it was all the dead guy’s fault is not a smart move.

    1. Someone having a gun isn’t a legitimate reason for police to initiate anything. Even if he had one, and I really doubt he was just brandishing his gun out in the open for no damn reason, it doesn’t give the cops a right to engage with him let alone open fire.

      In the military, rules of engagement are very simple. You need positive identification of an active threat. That gun better be pointed at someone or the individual already shooting. If cops have carte blanche to harass you anytime they see you are armed, or even go as far as to shoot you – which seems to be entirely legitimate in their eyes – then the second amendment doesn’t mean a whole lot.

      1. Even in an open carry state, someone walking around with a pistol in their hand is enough for the cops to ask what you’re doing.

        Open carry does not mean in your hand. It means holstered in plain view.

      2. Who the hell in his right mind waves a gun at a cop?

    2. Turtling up and pretending that it was all the dead guy’s fault is not a smart move.

      Why not? Eventually the city will settle with the family for x.x million dollars and, more importantly, no cop will be fired or reprimanded.

      1. Yup, it works great absent a violent public reaction. Given rioting as a response, the better answer would be to either come forward with strong evidence that everything was justified and express regret over the loss of life, or come forward with evidence that an error was made and do your mea-culpas.

        Aside from the layer of racial politics slathered over the top of this issue, there is the problem of police having to be super-human. Both of these factors keep us from addressing the issue properly.

        If you are going to send a bunch of people armed with handguns out into the world and tell them to initiate the use of force several times a day, they are going to make mistakes. They are human beings. We have a million police carrying guns around every day. Of course some of them are going to screw up and kill somebody. And not just the “bad cop who should have been fired but for the almighty police union”. Even a good cop doing his best could screw up and think he was being threatened with a gun when it was just a wallet or a book.

        Our national narrative requires that every shooting be justified – not only was the officer correct, but the guy who got shot was a scumbag. Or the cop was corrupt and incompetent and needs to be prosecuted.

        Unless we can admit that there is the possibility of error, we cannot get the police to move away from the instant narrative of “good shoot”. And we cannot get any reform.

        1. Extremely reasonable, accurate on all points. Oh, I say. Wild applause, sir! Wild applause!

          A very good post, would read and respond again.

        2. TopMen cannot admit error. Just can’t happen. If it could, you would have the occasional politician saying “we thought this was good plan/policy/proposal, but it has not worked out so we’re stopping it” but they never do. Same applies to LEOs or to anyone else. Yes, human beings make mistakes; most will admit it but, for some reason, this trait is absent in large parts of the public sector.

          1. But it isn’t just the top men. It is us.

            The public will not currently accept “we fucked up and killed this guy. It was a reasonable fuckup, but through no fault of his own the guy is dead anyway.” The public at large demands that either the cop is dirty and must be fired and convicted of a crime, or the dead guy is a scumbag who deserved to get shot.

            You actually see these sentiments at play when a screwup shooting is reported. We had a “guy sitting in his broken-down car waiting for the towtruck” shooting in West Palm Beach. At first he was a criminal with a gun. Then he was the victim of a racist cop. Nobody ever allowed for “damn, that was a stupid screwup.” It had to be one or the other. Murder or justified shoot. Nobody would have taken “I’m so sorry, I made a horrible mistake and this poor guy is dead” for an answer. And of course, the guy who shoots someone isn’t going to see it that way. That would be very damaging to his psyche.

            You don’t even see two people at work who get into an argument admitting to their own fault. You are not likely to see that when someone gets killed.

            The only “screwup” they can admit is the other guy’s mistake. Like the kid with a bb gun. The kid shouldn’t have been running around with a realistic gun in public. That’s the mistake. Not going off half cocked like you are in the middle of a shootout with deadly killers at the first sighting of a gun-shaped object.

            1. “It is us” is true to a point but back this story up a bit, the aspect of cops vs civilians. For how long, especially here, has part of the complaint been the absolute no-fault stance taken by law enforcement? First you have the united front of cops and prosecution who portray LEOs as infallible defenders of the public good doing a dangerous job. Then you have the blue line of secrecy that shields the morons.

              Those are key building blocks in creating the public sentiment you reference and they create a scenario in which the public sees cops as only heroes or as only armed baboons. As you point out, that’s not reality. Even good people make mistakes in split-second incidents. The difference between TopMen and us is that their actions often play out in full public view; ours tend to be confined to far smaller groups.

            2. Reasonable fuckups that lead to an innocent person’s death can happen, I’m sure. But by my standard of reasonableness, seeing a guy who might be doing something with a gun does not justify shooting at anyone. They need to see a clear and immediate threat before shooting. And they need to be willing to take a bullet if that’s what it takes to make sure they don’t kill an innocent person.

              I don’t know how that applies in this particular case, but that’s how it should be.

              1. Yeah. And we’ll never get to the discussion of “how do we better train our police so that these errors are reduced and people are made more safe?” Because we are stuck on “either he’s a hero or he’s an evil, racist, corrupt cop.”

                In a sane world, once the focus began to shift to this question of police shootings Radley Balko would have been called forth as the reasonable advocate-journalist and his writings would have been a centerpiece for the discussion. And leading up to #BLM we were seeing some attention via his book and interviews. Then it became “isn’t this a wonderful way to gin up the base and make sure that we keep black turnout for team D high?” And the moment passed.

                1. I’m willing to accept the possibility that fuckups might happen without the shootee being a scumbag or the shooter being a racist dickbag, but I think I’m still going to want a firing for someone who fucks up so egregiously.

          2. Yes, human beings make mistakes; most will admit it but, for some reason, this trait is absent in large parts of the public sector.

            Probably doesn’t help that large swaths of the public sector are either raging narcissists, sociopaths, or lazy incompetent morons who couldn’t hack it in the private sector (they expect results!) and don’t give a shit.

      2. Why should a cop be fired or reprimanded?

  8. I just have this feeling that the cops were probably justified in this shooting. The reason is that the BLM and other leftist idiot organizations seem to always ignore the police killings that should be focused on and instead pick the wrong ones to focus on, like Travon Martin and that thug in St Louis. They are as dumb as the day is long.

    1. If the cops had not been black, it would be all over the place.

    2. “seem to always ignore the police killings that should be focused on and instead pick the wrong ones to focus on”

      They ignore white victims. That is their error. Focussing on black victims is dumb.

    3. It seems like Reason got it right on the Brooklyn loosey cigarette seller, but they themselves were wrong about St Louis.

      In fact, Reason gets it wrong most of the time.

    4. The reason is that the BLM and other leftist idiot organizations seem to always ignore the police killings that should be focused on and instead pick the wrong ones to focus on, like Travon Martin and that thug in St Louis.

      I agree with this, but I’m not leaning towards this shooting being justified just yet. I would think that if there were body-cam footage that exonerated the cops they would be falling over themselves to get that footage in front of as many eyeballs as possible as quickly as possible. There’s just not enough information out there yet to know with any certainty, but right now my gut feeling is going the other way. Of course, I could be completely wrong, *shrugs*.

      But that’s not going to stop the various partisans from trying to set the narrative to whatever they want it to be. Slowing down the outrage train in order to wait for more information to come out just isn’t in their playbook.

  9. Reading a book? My BS detector is screaming at five alarms, because I can hardly even remember the last time I saw any person in America of any race reading a book in public. Maybe somewhere on a beach, possibly.

    1. Is there any report on this as to what time the shooting actually took place? Because I guess according to the guy’s family, he was sitting in his car reading a book, while waiting for the school bus to pick up a kid. That would mean it was probably around 3pm. Then the cops say the guy is walking around with a gun. Someone is lying like a Clinton here.

      1. No one can lie like a Clinton!

        1. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta . . .

  10. If the body camera footage goes a missin’ – then it was probably damning. If it gets shown, it had best be the whole thing, not “excerpts” or “portions”.

    BTW – Later in the evening, protesters shut down Interstate 85, some looting cargo from a truck and setting it on fire in the middle of the highway.

    THAT will surely bring justice, right?!

    1. If you think about it, it’s kind of a microcosm for what goes on in this country: government pulls some bullshit, people get mad, people get whipped up into a frenzy by some smooth-talking “community leader(s)”, then they start destroying private enterprise as if that is somehow at fault.

  11. How about that Tulsa shooting though? That guy sure did look like a bad dude.

  12. Until all “public servants” are required to wear multiple body cameras hooked to different power supplies and storage devices, this shit will never end.

    (They should also be subject to immediate and ongoing “civilian” oversight at all times of the day, not after police first get to see them and decide what to release. And they should be required to preserve evidence and if the record from both recorders is damaged the presumption will be that the officer’s testimony is invalid since it should only exist to corroborate and lend context to the video recording of the incident.)

  13. Thus far, police have not indicated whether any body camera or dashboard camera of the shooting exists, and no eyewitnesses have yet gone public.

    If they don’t cough that up in the next 24 hours, you’ll know that there was no gun.

  14. Police say he was armed and an imminent threat; his family says he was reading a book in his car while waiting for his child

    Why not both?

    1. Armed… with knowledge!

  15. The important thing here is to afford the police the maximum amount of benefit of doubt because they have never lied about them murdering someone and the facts after the dust settles never contradict their initial statements.

  16. Updates:

    – The shooting officer allegedly didn’t have a camera, but other officers did, so there should be at least enough audio to establish a timeline and check some of the facts.

    – The police say that Scott got out of the car, that they gave him warnings to drop it, and that he didn’t. They can’t currently say whether he raised the gun or pointed it any anyone.

    – The police say they recovered a gun from the scene but that there was no book at the scene.

    My wild guess: Audio will show that the police did warn Scott, then shot him very quickly after that, and this will break down to a dispute about whether they should have given him more time to drop the gun and whether he was pointing it or just holding it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/new…..st/500918/

    1. “My wild guess: Audio will show that the police did warn Scott, then shot him very quickly after that, and this will break down to a dispute about whether they should have given him more time to drop the gun and whether he was pointing it or just holding it.”

      This is exactly the sort of ‘something in between’ I was talking about. Is it illegal in Charlotte to hold a gun in public? What if he was taking his gun from the car to the house? Is that illegal? Do the cops just shoot everyone who is holding a gun? I mean, is it a crime punishable by death to be holding a gun? Was the gun even loaded?

      Something is amiss in this story and I don’t trust either the family or the cops to tell the truth. We need the camera footage.

      1. No. NC has open carry. If the police can be believed, they initiated contact with him for something that wasn’t a crime in the first place while serving a warrant on someone completely different.

        They saw a man with a gun leave a vehicle. Police said they approached the man after he got back into the vehicle. The man got out again armed with a firearm “and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers, who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said in a statement.

        1. At least the passive voice was not employed.

          1. But they did imply that the “officers” had only one weapon between them.

        2. Police need more training in basic English.

          1. Maybe it’s more of a defense. “We all pulled that trigger, so you’ll never be able to convict the one that actually killed him!”

          2. I’ve always thought they must get special training in the weird police version of English that they all seem to speak.

            1. This. They never get out of their car, the exit the vehicle. They don’t chase a person, they initiate a pursuit. There has to be some kind of training, because the same terms are used over and over. Suspects always have glassy eyes and slurred speech and resist arrest by “flailing” their arms.

        3. “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers”

          So the question is, was he pointing it at them or threatening to do so? Otherwise, we have to assume that anyone who has a gun on them at any time is a ‘imminent threat’ to cops and it’s ok for them to just shoot that person, based solely on the fact that the person has a gun.

      2. Something is amiss in this story and I don’t trust either the family or the cops to tell the truth. We need the camera footage.

        I’ll go further than this… I don’t trust any of them to know the truth.

        They know what they think they perceived at the time. They could have been wrong at the time. They could have filled in details later that were not present. There are lots and lots of problems with eyewitness testimony.

        A good video should sort this out. If the other guys had video recorders, it will be interesting to see if the shooter has something video recorder shaped on his chest at the scene.

        1. This is also a good point. Eyewitnesses can be very unreliable.

          1. A friend and I were walking around one day. He pointed out something happening on the street and we started to have a conversation about it; it took us a couple minutes of increasingly-confusing back and forth to realize we were talking about two completely different things. This is how reliable eye-witness testimony is.

      3. Undercover officers? Maybe he thought he was watching an illegal home invasion. I’d be concerned if a bunch of guys with guns were running around my kid’s bus stop.

    2. The shooting officer allegedly didn’t have a camera,

      Not a good start, po-po.

    3. If he wasn’t pointing the gun at anyone or making threats, they shouldn’t have shot him, even if he was holding a gun and they told him to drop it. Whatever the facts end up being, that’s how I’m judging it.

    4. Unfortunately, you don’t need to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to believe that the cops would plant a gun near the body to cover their asses. I mean, it happened just this week in another police shooting. It also happened in that shooting in South Carolina a few months or a year ago…

    5. My wild guess: Audio will show that the police did warn Scott, then shot him very quickly after that, and this will break down to a dispute about whether they should have given him more time to drop the gun and whether he was pointing it or just holding it.

      OK, here’s my latest wild ass guess, combining this information with the tidbit revealed in this article that the cops weren’t in uniform:

      Scott was waiting in his car for the school bus, as described. Perhaps reading a book, perhaps not. He gets out of his car, sees men with guns. Not realizing they’re cops, he gets back in his car and gets his gun. He gets back out, one cop yells at him to “drop it” while another yells “freeze” and a third yells “get on the ground”, none of them bothering to identify themselves as police. Less than 0.5 seconds after shouting conflicting commands at him, Officer Vinson opens fire, killing him.

      Or alternatively, the cops mistook the book for a gun, and they’re lying about finding one (or used a “drop gun”) to cover their asses. In both versions of events, Scott doesn’t realize the armed men confronting him are cops, they should conflicting commands, and then open fire in a ridiculously short amount of time after shouting said conflicting commands. Either way, “procedures were followed, more training needed, blah blah blah” and nothing else happens.

      1. Didn’t read down this far yet.

  17. Both Scott and the officer who shot him?Brentley Vinson?are black.

    The article linked in the AM Lynx said that the race of the officer was not known yet. I figured when I read that, it must mean he wasn’t white. if he was, they would have been crowing about it as loud as possible.

    Thus far, police have not indicated whether any body camera or dashboard camera of the shooting exists

    As of 2015, all CMPD police officers are equipped with body cameras…

    In the case of the CMPD, officers have clear guidelines of when to record and are required to “provide concrete justifications for failing to record required events.”

    Which probably means that if the cameras were even turned on, the footage doesn’t back up the police’s version of events. Bets on the cameras either being turned off or “malfuncitoning”?

    I’m starting to get pretty good at reading between the lines with these stories. Probably because I’ve been getting a lot of practice at it lately. *begins drinking heavily*

    1. Still no word on what time this all occurred? Because supposedly the guy was reading a book and waiting on a school bus.

      1. I thought it was around 4:00 in the afternoon. I think they said in the AM Lynx article. So it’s possible the school bus took that long, assuming school gets out at 3 and if his kid’s stop was toward the end of the route.

        1. Ok, thanks.

  18. Each state should be like Montana, with an inquest jury looking into every suspicious death, including all deaths at the hands of police. The exception would be if the prosecutor immediately prosecutes.

    “Later in the evening, protesters shut down Interstate 85, some looting cargo from a truck and setting it on fire in the middle of the highway.”

    I have been reliably informed that referring to “looting” and “looters” is racist.

    1. Inquests should be public, like they’ve always been at common law.

      1. And prompt, Inquests should be prompt.

        Not speed-of-a-riot prompt, but fairly soon after the incident.

        And the National Guard needs to go in rapidly to protect person and property.

        In Ferguson, they weren’t deployed to protect local businesses when they knew the announcement of non-indictment would be something the rioters didn’t like. They left the businesses twisting in the wind. These were largely minority-owned businesses, too.

        1. We should have elected that race-healer as President. He was really eloquent about the need to repair our racial divide; what happened to him?

          1. He took up a job as a professional golfer, motivational speaker and sanctimonious lecturer.

            1. “Professional” golfer is a vast over-statement of reality. #PGAlivesmatter.

              1. Remember when he got in a pissing contest with Michael Jordan, when Jordan called him a hack golfer ? The man who fancies himself the adult in the room couldn’t let it go when a professional athlete tweeked him about his golf game.

  19. According to the AP, a gun was recovered at the scene (about 1:05 in video).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4vRNbx26wY

    1. This is some of the same footage I was referencing above – different reporter though.

      Note the sister giving her version – he’s unarmed and is immediately shot. But probably not an eyewitness account.

      Note the chief – “One of the officers felt a lethal threat and fired his weapon.” Not “he pointed a gun at the officer”.

      Then “recovered a gun at the scene”. Not “the man had a glock 9mm in his hand at the time”.

      No real hard facts…. but enough bread crumbs to make the whole thing sound henke.

      I’m going to say that absent a video, we’ll never discover what really happened. I think the “witnesses”, including the police – are filling in a lot of blanks and their recollections are already hopelessly tainted.

      Here’s a wild-ass guess: Guy was actually waiting in car as described. Sees commotion with armed guys approaching home. Gets out of car. Police are highly alert because of warrant they are serving. See dude get out of car and approach them. Yell something at him – maybe multiple things like “hands up” and “get back in your vehicle” simultaneously. Dude starts to get back in car. Officer sees this as “he’s reaching for a gun” and shoots him.

      This version makes nobody out a liar, is compatible with reasonable actions taken in a chaotic circumstance and doesn’t require any deeper motive or plot. Just a screw-up based on normal procedures. Then they find a gun – which they take as confirmation that they did the right thing.

      1. You left out the part about irredeemable white racism.

      2. Sounds about right. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was something close.

    2. Well then, case closed. It’s not like the cops have any incentive to lie about that. /sarc

      1. Why would they lie?

        1. Are you fucking serious? This… this is a joke, right? It’s got to be.

    3. I wonder if the AP bothered to interview anyone that wasn’t unhinged and incoherent.

      1. What would be the fun in that?

    4. AP = Associated (with the government) Press

  20. Why aren’t their riots and 24/7 coverge over that guy who was shot for no reason on a highway. It was a clear execution caught on video and I’m not hearing much about it.

    1. There

    2. Because they’re idiots. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be looting Walmart and would be aware that is an incredibly dumb thing to do and is not going to come with a lot of sympathy for them.

    3. Because riots make better TV?

      There were peaceful protests in Tulsa. Boring.

      1. There is also the way in which things come out. The Charlotte thing had family members screaming in the streets about how their brother was gunned down in cold blood by the police. It happened in a high-density neighborhood full of people who are ripe for this story, at night, with rumor being the primary news source.

        Tulsa is 15% black, 2/3 white. Charlotte is 45% white, 35% black. Big differences in racial makeup. Charlotte is over 2 million people. Tulsa is under 400k. Big differences in size of population. It is much easier to come up with a couple of hundred angry protesters out of 2 million than it is out of 400k.

        The bigger the group, the dumber and more violent people are. That’s just human nature.

    4. “Why aren’t their riots and 24/7 coverge over that guy who was shot for no reason on a highway. ”

      My guess is the guy was white.

  21. Later in the evening, protesters shut down Interstate 85, some looting cargo from a truck and setting it on fire in the middle of the highway.

    Yeah, “protesters” did that.

    1. Possibly some crooks who attached themselves to the protest.

      There would have been people motivated by the injustice they believe happened.

      Then there would be the others, the hangers – on:

      “Hey, they’re protesting something! Let’s see if there’s anything we can grab!”

      1. PERSON 1: “Justice for Keith Scott!”

        PERSON 2: “Yeah, justice for Kevin!”

        PERSON 1: “That’s not his name!”

        PERSON 2: “No time to get picky about the details, that truck is carrying a suit that’s just my size!”

        1. PERSON 2: “Hey, maybe later we can go to that racist liquor store an liberate some vodka?”

          PERSON 1: “You’re losing focus.”

          PERSON 2: “No, I’m not, I just don’t have the same focus as you.”

      2. What did you get?
        I got a case of Certs.

    2. Protesters is the new word for looters and thugs.

      1. I’m thinking it’s mostly opportunists taking their chance.

        Thought it does seem as if some people consider looting and burning shit legitimate protest.

  22. So … the deceased’s sister says he was just holding a book.

    It figures: “You know the most dangerous thing in America is? A [black man] with a library card.” — Brother Mouzone

    1. Or internet access.

  23. I’m not reading through the whole tainted shitstorm of “reports” that are nothing but quotes from the police.

    All I can say is an order of “Drop your weapon” doesn’t actually mean anything to most people, especially in an open carry state like NC because:

    1) If you’re holding a book and the police see you’ve got a gun in a holster, you don’t consider a book to be a weapon so you don’t drop it.

    2) in order to “drop” a holstered gun, you first have to “go for it” which then makes you a “lethal threat”

    In other words, the police should never ever ever ever ever EVER be given the benefit of the doubt. The police are the most vocal opponents of the Second Amendment and all of them should be considered traitors.

    1. Needz moar woodchipper.

    2. I don’t think police officers are anti-Second Amendment. Why would you join the police unless you want to lawfully use your gun in more circumstances than a “normal” citizen? Complaining about expanded gun rights is a useful way, however, to excuse police killings.

      Also, the Fraternal Order of Police has been leaning Republican for years now; if they were truly anti-gun rights, they would support Democrats, especially due to Democrats’ historical support of public employee unions.

      1. the Fraternal Order of Police has been leaning Republican for years now

        While it’s true they’ve endorsed Trump this time around, 77% of their campaign contributions have been to Dems this cycle.

      2. I don’t think police officers are anti-Second Amendment

        Whatever they claim, if you think simply carrying a weapon makes a person a lethal threat and justifies killing them, then you are functionally anti-second-amendment.

    3. Plus they usually already have drawn on the guy. Not everyone is as stupid as the tattoo-headed guy in Sicario.

  24. Nothing says “thug” more than brandishing a book. Who can blame these poor officers for fearing for their lives? Bookworms are a type of “worm” as their name suggests, right?

    Besides, for all we know the book in question might have been the novel “Serpico” or something like that which casts aspersions on our brave heroes in blue.

    1. CNN: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Scott exited his car with a gun, not a book. He said officers couldn’t find a book at the scene. But they do have a gun.

      “It’s time for the voiceless majority to stand up and be heard,” the police chief, who is also black, said Wednesday.
      “It’s time to change the narrative because I can tell you from the facts that the story’s a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media.”

      1. What do you expect a racist cop to say?

        1. The cop, and the chief, are black.

          1. Blacks can be surprisingly racist against other blacks.

            1. Eh, that was a sarcastic poke at the BLM folk who pin every ill of the police on racism. I kinda thought it was obvious enough that I didn’t have to hang a lantern on it.

    2. I guess you haven’t watched this. Good fight scene.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7UOLUMoqJQ

  25. It should be clear by now BLM’s main objective isn’t about police brutality. At the core, they’re radical racialists who are driven by identity politics. There’s no meaningful difference between them and the folks who ran the French revolution or the Arab Spring. They use legitimate grievances to further their own cause or a narrative. They seek social upheaval.

    BLM does not deserve any sympathy. Police reform is a worthwhile cause since lives are stake, but it will be better served when taken up by serious people who cared about police shootings even when the victims were white.

    The media has a neat black vs white narrative to float, but with a flick a wrist BLM could drag a Korean man out of his car and beat him senseless before the camera. Or some panicked liquor store owner may shoot a belligerent protesters. That would rekindle a lot of BAD memories and repressed feelings. And possibly lead to a minor civil war. It would be…. a mistake to think only white people have bad feelings against blacks.

    According to WAPO, the police may have shot around 40 unarmed black men in 2015. That’s it. Most people who were shot either had weapons and posed a threat to others. It’s the credit to our dishonest media that more people in this country lack perspective – on “gun violence”, healthcare coverage, obesity epidemic, etc.

  26. How many whites, Hispanics, and Asians, did they gun down in the same time period (including flash-bang grenades, strangulation, beat to death with billy clubs, etc..)? More than is acceptable for all US citizens, of all races. Wear the cameras, assholes. Maybe then you can be trusted.

  27. Undercover cops (who allegedly shot the man) do not wear body cameras.

    ***This just in, record number of undercover cops enter service in a town near you!***

  28. Except, the latest cell-phone video available (shot by a bystander) show a gun, not a book, lying on the ground next to Mr. Scott.

  29. Did they pillage the NASCAR Hall-of-Fame because the new Tranny bathrooms were restricted to 4-speeds?

  30. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK???? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.