Police Abuse

Keith Scott Family Releases Video of Charlotte Shooting Before Police Release Theirs

A law going into effect in North Carolina next month will keep body cam footage out of the hands of the public.

|

NY Times/YouTube

The family of Keith Scott released cellphone footage Keith Scott's wife took that captured video of the moments preceding and following the shooting of Scott by police in Charlotte, North Carolina. Audio is captured of the shooting itself but the cellphone is not facing it. In the video, which you can watch below, Scott's wife yells at police that Scott does not have a gun while police are heard ordring Scott to drop a gun. One officer asks for a "fucking baton" and the wife pleads with her husband "don't do it, Keith" shortly before he is shot.

Scott was shot on Tuesday by police who had shown up in search of a different person but say they saw Scott exit and re-enter his vehicle with a gun in his hand and turned their attention to him. Some of the protests on Tuesday evening escalated into rioting, and eventually authorities confirmed they had body camera footage of the shooting. The officer who shot Scott was not wearing one, but others were. (Charlotte rolled out body cameras last year, but in the first eight months only one in four fatal Charlotte police shootings have been caught on body cam).

After suggestions the video showed Scott pointing a gun at officers, police said the video would only show that Scott was holding a gun. Members of his family initially claimed Scott was holding a book—one of the family members also misidentified the police officer who shot Scott as white and called white people "devils"—the officer who shot Scott was black. The police department showed the body camera footage to the Scott family and their lawyer. Police say the footage confirms the police account even though it doesn't show Scott pointing a gun at officers. "When taken in the totality of all the other evidence," the police chief, Kerr Putney, said at a news conference, "it supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott."

Police are insisting they cannot release the footage to the public because of an "active investigation," although it is unclear how release of the footage would sully the investigation any more than the police chief insisting all the evidence supports the police "version of the truth." On October 1, a new law goes into effect that removes body camera footage from the category of public records. While it should not apply to the Scott footage, a record that was created before the date the legislation goes into effect, that may not be a guarantee that the law does not eventually provide the department cover to prohibit the release of the footage. Out of the 12 state representatives and 5 state senators that represent Mecklenberg County, only one state senator, a Democrat, and two state representatives, a Democrat and a Republican, voted against the bill.

The video is on YouTube, courtesy of The New York Times:

Keith Scott's daughter previously posted an hour-plus Facebook Live video onto YouTube of the aftermath of the shooting.

NEXT: California repeals ban on use of assembly video for political purposes

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. If the video actually shows him holding a gun, this case is over.

    1. It doesn’t seem to as far as I can see.

      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.highpay90.com

    2. My best friend’s sister makes $89 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work… Now this website… http://goo.gl/bvaZx7

  2. Word “totality” used – DRINK!!

    1. One for me, one for my homey Dunphy

        1. booyah baby booyah

            1. I thought it was HGH?

              1. How the fuck should i know? I’m not a ‘roided-up bully with a murder fetish.

      1. You best not be pouring that out on the ground citizen. That’s littering and littering is against the law.

    2. Both “totality” and “circumstances”. The jokes write themselves.

  3. ” One of the family members also misidentified the police officer who shot Scott as white and calling white people “devils”. ”
    I bet that part will get ignored by most.

    1. Asshole says something stupid isn’t much of a headline.

      1. It calls into question their account of things when even the most basic initial fact turned out to be wrong.

        1. I don’t give family members account of things much credibility here, and I doubt many others do either.

          Not because of any malice, just, well, they’re his family. That’s how families are, mine included.

          1. Anyone who doesn’t think a family member started to sniff trouble in the wind, and things deteriorated rapidly into shrieking chaos that always seem to require outdated words such as “bedlam” to describe has been skipping the family Christmas party.

        2. In today’s America you don’t know who is “white” unless you ask them.

        3. I would think that they’re not being present at the time should call into question their account of things.

          Yet every time something like this happens, the media quotes the family’s version of events as if it has any meaning.

          1. Whether it’s the victim or the perpetrator, everybody’s mother is going to say “He was just a good boy!”. they really need to stop interviewing them.

      2. Are you kidding? It’s basically the only headline this election season.

        1. Touche.

  4. What am I missing here? That video shows basically nothing. Terrible cinematography.

    1. The wife telling her husband “keith, dont you do it, dont you do it” and saying “He just took his medicine, so he won’t do anything to you” kind of only makes sense if he was holding a gun. You are correct that this video is pretty much useless and tells us nothing, though

      1. Yeah, What was she telling him not to do? Cops are saying drop the gun and she is saying ‘don’t you do it’. Makes me think she was telling him not to shoot the cops. Meh, who knows….

      2. When I saw the video I thought the wife was yelling at the cops, “don’t you do it.”

    2. Yeah! C’mon people, it is 2016. Everyone should know to hold your phone horizontal by now! Jeez.

  5. All I got from that video was that the police got brain-locked on “follow my commands”.

    They had his wife a few feet away trying to tell them he wasn’t a threat and had a traumatic brain injury. I’m not sure why everyone wasn’t able to back off and give things a little more space.

    We see this over and over again with mentally ill people. They act a little off, or a little erratic and the police push and push and push with the “establish authority and control” thing until they end up shooting someone.

    I couldn’t tell anything about the dead guy from the video, but it sure seems that everything was well contained enough that the police could have backed off and waited him out. Heck, they could have even gotten the wife to go and get him – although perhaps that presents some threat of “maybe they are both homicidal maniac cop-killers and she’ll retrieve the machine pistol from under the seat and they’ll both come out shooting.”

    I was wondering why the police were reticent to show the video. Now I know. It isn’t going to show an imminent threat to most people, and it also isn’t going to show a completely compliant, non-threatening book reader. So it ends up being a Rorschach test.

    How do the “community organizers” always know to glom on to this kind of event. Probably a justifiable shooting but sure as hell could have been handled better, so the law-and-order types see something completely incompatible with what the White-cops-are-devils crowd sees.

    1. Pretty much this:

      I was wondering why the police were reticent to show the video. Now I know. It isn’t going to show an imminent threat to most people, and it also isn’t going to show a completely compliant, non-threatening book reader. So it ends up being a Rorschach test.

    2. Probably a justifiable shooting

      Actually, probably not. Have the cops even claimed he was threatening anyone with whatever gun he may or may not have had? Not following this one closely enough to recall.

      And, no I don’t take the cops statement that they found a gun at the scene to mean the dead guy had it. Throwdowns are a thing. I need corroboration.

      And, as ever, the initial confrontation by the police is unjustiable anyway. Seeing someone with a gun, without more, is not probable cause for any kind of police activity.

      1. Sorry, imprecise language on my part.

        I meant “from the standpoint of how police shootings are judged, this will probably be ruled as a justified shooting because they have a non-compliant subject who is holding a gun and is acting in a way that they will describe as erratically”

        Those sorts of shootings always get ruled as justified, even though I obviously believe they could have backed off, sought cover behind the vehicles and waited the guy out while trying to establish more effective communication.

        This incident actually underscores what I have been saying for at least 15 years. We need better training for our police. These guys were probably following their training to the letter. Better training would have allowed for a better threat assessment and evaluation of ways to mitigate threats to themselves and others. But their current training seems to only allow for “advance and ratchet up the tension”. Where I see “nobody had to get shot here” the police and their bosses see “dude had a gun and wasn’t compliant. Good shoot. Officers got to go home safe.”

        1. Or, we could just have 1/3rd as many laws, and far fewer police to interact with, or reasons for them to confront people.

          1. I’ll have both please….

            /shit that ain’t happening.

          2. I don’t see how you can blame the law in this case. It wasn’t illegal for him to have a gun and that’s not a justifiable reason under the law to stop or detain him. The problem is the cops didn’t give a fuck. I’m not sure if this technically qualifies legally as an illegal shooting, but it definitely could have been handled better by the cops.

            1. The problem is the cops didn’t give a fuck.

              + 1 “fucking” baton

        2. “Those sorts of shootings always get ruled as justified,”
          Put that in the “p’leece guns goood, civilian guns baaaad” Obamapipe and smoke it!

      2. “Did he in any way disrespect the police by refusing to immediately follow all of their commands at the instant they were issued?”

        — Disrespect of Cop. Penalty: Up to summary execution.

        I agree, in open carry states — hell even in an apartment complex where a person lives in non-open carry states, the mere possession of a pistol shaped object absent any other facts about the person is not sufficient to have more than a conversation.

      3. North Carolina allows open carry.

        Open carry means a visible and safely holstered firearm. The claim here is that this guy had the gun in his hand. That is not the same thing as in a holster.

      4. And, no I don’t take the cops statement that they found a gun at the scene to mean the dead guy had it. Throwdowns are a thing. I need corroboration.

        + 1 Randy Webster

    3. I’m not sure why everyone wasn’t able to back off and give things a little more space.

      MAN NOT POLICEMAN NOT COMPLY! OOK! OOK!

    4. How do the “community organizers” always know to glom on to this kind of event.

      See now, this is a remark I have made myself. In Charlotte, I can see how events could unfold without requiring an additional catalyst though. The headlines going into the shooting were the gas shortage in Charlotte, compounded by open panic-buying. Here’s a useful link, that has a few decent facts buried under the Illiberals Can’t Math and Government Is The Answer bullshit.

      We could argue the whole live-long day about whether Charlotte’s unemployment rate is skewed along racial lines because of bugbear of choosing – indeed, I bet someone will want to vehemently discuss that very thing – but I feel it’s rather backseat to the fact that the difference exists.

      You get a bunch of broke, angry people, scare them with a gas shortage, throw a shooting into the mix and then the police department starts the usual We Didn’t Do Nuffin’… I mean, it’s all really in place already. That’s the recipe for a riot.

      Maybe there was an outside catalyst. I’ve said that sort of thing myself, so I can see the logic there as well. In this instance, though, it seems like provocateurs would have had an easier job of it.

  6. Suicide by cop. Getting more common. In related news:

    Several hours before Carr was shot, his mother wrote on another protester’s Facebook page, “Make sure it doesn’t turn violent! We also need to come together as a community and stop killing and hating on each other! They see us killing each other so they think it’s ok for them to do it too! There’s a difference between protesting and acting a damn fool! Do your thing Tre and start this great movement!”

  7. Police are insisting they cannot release the footage to the public because of an “active investigation,”

    Shouldn’t this investigation take a few days, maybe a week? What’s the big mystery, here? We know who was shot, we know who shot them, we know why that person claims to have shot him, we know who the witnesses are, we have video. Get a move on, already. We’re not trying to piece together a decades old cold case.

    1. No defense attorney in his right mind is going to allow any evidence into the public domain prior to a jury trial. If it helps you, save it for the jury. If it hurts you, save it for the jury so you have time to devalue it.

      In this environment, that video will do absolutely nothing to curb suspicion of the police by the people rioting in Charlotte. Facts don’t matter. No matter what the video shows it will be held up as an example of police brutality.

      So from a legal standpoint…don’t release. From a PR standpoint….release accomplishes little.

      1. So from a legal standpoint…don’t release.

        Of course, the police department is neither a law firm, nor on the defense side of things.

        They routinely release video of crimes in progress while they are still investigating, or even after they make the arrest. I would say that just about every night on the news video is shown of a crime, either because the cops just arrested the guy, or because they haven’t and are looking for tips.

        1. Do you not think that immediately upon a police shooting, the local union lawyer and/or DA, is brought in to control the situation???

          I wouldn’t be surprised that the officers are immediately isolated and the first person they discuss the situation with is their lawyer. They’d be crazy not to, even if the shooting was 100% justified and defensible.

          I expect an enormous reason why officers seem to skate so much on questionable situations is in no small part due to a highly organized and proactive legal defense. After a legal incident a citizen’s first discussion is often with the police, whose job it is to gather evidence to convict. After a similar legal incident a LEO’s first discussion is often with a lawyer, whose job is to prevent the gathering of evidence to convict.

        1. Yeah, there are no charges against anyone. Pretty irrelevant.

          Or it should be. I guess maybe the idea is that the police department sees it as their business to defend the officer (who they say didn’t do anything wrong).

          In summary, fuck the police.

        2. Whose defense attorney?

          He means the police department is following defense attorney tactics. They shoot someone. Rather than start giving out details and sharing video, they are issuing vague statements of self-exoneration, without any falsifiable detail.

          Meanwhile, the officers are reviewing all of the video, audio and eyewitness evidence before making their statements.

          Putting the video out to the public doesn’t help them…. even though it would certainly help the community.

        3. The union attorney. Do you not think that immediately upon the shooting, the officer has their designated lawyer handling any and all further communications. FFS, of all the people who know to not talk to the police, its the police themselves.

      2. Release accomplishes little – except remove the suspicion of a cover and what the video *might* show.

        If they had been open and honest – here’s what the video shows, its unclear as you can see for yourself, we’re investigating and it will take a few days to get the timeline straightened out – then maybe the incentive to burn the town down wouldn’t be there.

        Its not like news agencies don’t get footage from police helos, dash-cam footage (released ASAP when it absolutely clears the officer) and private security cameras in pretty much every other instance.

        LEO’s need to understand that they’re not trusted anymore and they don’t get a pass from the public assuming ‘that must have been a bad dude’ and need to work fast to assure the public in incidents like this.

        1. then maybe the incentive to burn the town down wouldn’t be there.

          You really believe ths?

          City, State, and Federal/DOJ investigations all proved that Michael Brown attacked a police officer in his car.

          Yet, they still run around saying “hands up, don’t shoot”…

        2. The rioters were on the streets before the department even had time to review the video. Releasing will accomplish absolutely nothing and everyone knows it.

      3. I thought the whole purpose of police being employed by the state was so that they were held to higher standards than private citizens?

    2. They’re trying to piece together reasonable “officer feared for his life”. The prosecutor’s office has to work with the F.O.P.’s defense attorneys. You know that shit doesn’t get done in just a few days.

    3. Gotta take enough time to fabricate a story and make sure all the pigs are on the same page. These things take time you know. Plus the pigs involved earned the customary 2-3 week paid vacation that murderous pigs always get. Are you trying to deny them that? That’s an executable offense….

  8. [to the cop] “He’s totally harmless, don’t shoot him!”

    [to the suspect] “Keith, don’t do it!”

    Like I said before, this needs an inquest jury.

    There should be an inquest jury whenever there’s a suspicious death, including deaths by police.

    An inquest jury operates in public and can be quickly empaneled – not at the speed of a riot, of course, but quickly enough to satisfy any *reasonable* demand for an investigation.

    1. From Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition (Thomson West 2004), pp. 808, 873:

      “inquest jury. A jury summoned from a particular district to appear before a sheriff, coroner, or other ministerial officer and inquire about the facts concerning a death.”

      “inquest. 1. An inquiry by a coroner or medical examiner, sometimes with the aid of a jury, into the manner of death of a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, or who has died in prison.”

      1. Oh, yeah, and since the proceedings of an inquest jury are public, then any relevant video will be shown to the public.

        1. (I’m not commenting on what the law is or isn’t in North Carolina, I’m saying what the law *ought* to be.)

  9. Finally, something conclusive. We can now conclude police WERE on scene.

  10. And why did they keep reporting that he was “disabled” instead of saying “had a traumatic brain injury”. That significantly changes the narrative.

    If you hear disabled, you probably think “dude blew his knee out working construction and is on disability” or something like that, not “dude has brain damage and has to take his medication to seem normal”.

    That little tidbit would have made a big difference in the “white devil police gun down innocent book reading family man” story. Everything makes a lot more sense if you know the police were dealing with a guy with mental problems and didn’t know it. Even when they do know it they are prone to screw up and deal out excessive force.

    1. So we have a guy with mental problems carrying a gun around and attacking strangely. Great.

      1. And we also have the guy that got shot.

        1. Nice one.

      2. I didn’t see any gun.

        attacking strangely

        I assume you meant “acting”.

      3. A guy who, if we’re to believe the Charlotte Observer, had been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, for which he had been sentenced to seven years in the pen, and who therefore would have be ineligible to possess a firearm legally (see http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..5292.html; scroll down to the end of the article).

  11. I’m not sure why everyone wasn’t able to back off and give things a little more space.

    And this is why you’ll never be a law enforcement professional.

  12. Police are insisting they cannot release the footage to the public because of an “active investigation,” although it is unclear how release of the footage would sully the investigation any more than the police chief insisting all the evidence supports the police “version of the truth.

    If video evidence clearly supports the police view of events, it always seems to get released despite the “active investigation”. So whenever they’re hesitant to release video, I assume it’s because the police are lying. And 99 times out of 100 I’m right.

    1. I said this same thing to my wife last night.

    2. If you say “2 +2 = four” under your breath all day long, you can be right closer to 999 times out of 1000.

  13. “When taken in the totality of all the other evidence,” the police chief, Kerr Putney, said at a news conference, “it supports what we’ve heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott.”

    Jesus, that copspeak.

    1. What’s baffling is he is saying “we have a bunch of evidence, including video, which exonerates us. But we aren’t going to release it, because reasons. Even though we are having riots right now because people think the cops are guilty, and we can prove we aren’t, we just aren’t going to publicly clear our names, the one thing that might make the riots stop.”

      He’s lying. He has to be. It makes no sense otherwise.

      1. “You know, I can see how this would look bad to someone who didn’t know what good officers these three men are.”

      2. Yep. Because if the video backed up the cops’ stories, then you can bet it would have been released before they were done cleaning up the blood. Do they clean up the blood? Or do they leave it as a reminder of their power.

      3. “Version of the truth” that lead to blah blah? That whole sentence is chock-full of weasel.

      4. This is the only logical conclusion. Not the absolute lying bit, but they clearly know that their video will not convince the public that the shooting was necessary. In all likelihood it looks similar to this video, which means it will show that the police will feel that they are in the clear and the #BLM folk will think that they are covering for their racist, self-loathing homicidal brother officer.

        So instead they are trying a fools gambit – claiming they have all the video evidence they need to prove that it was a good shoot and insist that everyone just trust them. I really don’t understand why they can’t see that “trust me” doesn’t work when what people are telling you is that they don’t trust you.

        1. I really don’t understand why they can’t see that “trust me” doesn’t work when what people are telling you is that they don’t trust you.

          It’s pretty simple. Good people trust the cops. Only bad people don’t. So if you don’t believe them, then you are one of the bad guys.

      5. I really don’t care if it affects the riot or not.

        The way to affect the riot is to send in the National Guard.

        Even if the cop was a psychopath who shot the guy while he was going to Grandma’s house with a basket of insulin, it’s *still* necessary to stop the riot by using the language rioters understand – and the National Guard should be there if they’re needed for that purpose.

        Like I say, a prompt investigation should decide whether the cop is a murderer, and if he is, he should be prosecuted just as promptly, or exonerated just as promptly, as if there had never been any riots at all.

        Anything else is perverse incentives for rioters.

        1. Maybe, just maybe, a riot against misuse of state power shouldn’t be met with overwhelming state power?

          1. The bottom line is that those store owners whose property was smashed and looted didn’t shoot anyone or cover anything up, those trucking companies whose goods were stolen didn’t shoot anyone, those drivers trying to get to their destinations didn’t shoot anyone, and they are also people with rights – and if the cops can’t protect their rights the National Guard can do so.

            1. It’s just as if a bunch of Klanspersons, in “retaliation” for a crime alleged to have been committed by a black person, went and burnt and looted black stores.

              It makes no difference if the alleged black criminal is guilty, the Klan’s actions would still be wrong.

              1. …and should be met with force.

            2. Exactly.

              The response to state abuse is legal/political action.
              the response to state abuse where legal/political action is unsuccessful is civil disobedience.
              The response when the first too are ineffective is uncivil actions against the state.

              At no point is it justified to riot and destroy private property. Property owners should be within their rights to actively and lethally defend their property. Arson in particularly is traditionally met with lethal force.

              The rioters are cowardly animals. They deserve no respect or patience. If they were true political activists, they would be ‘rioting’ in front of the police station, courthouse, state offices, and/or media offices. Instead they’d rather burn crap and loot. eff em.

        2. I think I should omit the phrase “and if he is” from the second-to-last sentence.

      6. And if he’s not lying about there being an active investigation, that would seem to indicate that they aren’t sure the cop who shot the guy was right to do so. What else is there to investigate?

      7. Let’s get one thing straight: The policeman isn’t there to create disorder, he’s there to preserve it.

        /richardjdaley

      8. If I wanted to let things cool down a little I would refuse to release the video, might be a larger picture here. If the video is not definitive either way it will surely cause a lot of public unrest. I’d be communicating with the community leaders and trying to coordinate some kind of response, I would be talking with the state police and the governor about how to control a situation that might cause a lot of death and damage.

        But that’s why I am not a law enforcement officer.

    2. Weapons were discharged and the subject became deceased.

      1. Correlation is not causation. The suspect could have had a genetic predisposition to gunshot wounds. Did you ever think of that??

        /cop

      2. Bullets followed procedure.

      3. “were” and “became” are too active, “subject” too passive.

        “Weapons discharged. The suspect is deceased.” Preferably delivered immediately following a statement about the officer’s undeniable recognition of ‘the suspect dangerously brandishing a deadly assault-handgun’.

        This way, the discharged weapon COULD be interpreted to be that of the unstable madman, possibly even before officers arrived on the scene, and the cause of death COULD be attributed to a completely
        unrelated aneurysm burst after-the-fact.

  14. I know we’re not supposed to “judge” how anyone reacts during any stressful situation, but her demeanor during that whole thing was very, very strange. Her husband just got shot and dragged out of the car and is lying on the pavement and she keeps talking in the (slightly stressed, but mostly normal) tone of voice. Your HUSBAND JUST GOT SHOT AND DRAGGED OUT OF THE CAR AND IS LYING ON THE PAVEMENT. The fact she doesn’t change tells me it was foreseen by her.

    And yeah, we can all “Rohrschach” why it may have been foreseen. “Don’t do it Keith” was very telling. Don’t do what? Why did she have to keep repeating that? Clearly don’t do something that will get you shot by all these pigs standing around…..but he did it.

    I don’t see how this video would feed any anti-cop view whatsoever, except for the “backing off” part, I can always agree with that.

    1. Yep. It seems pretty fucking obvious from the video that she knew he wanted to die and knew exactly what he was doing and what was about to happen.

      No normal person in the world acts the way she did when a loved one is unexpectedly murdered right in front of them.

      1. “No normal person in the world acts the way she did when a loved one is unexpectedly murdered right in front of them.”

        You did it shorter than I did.

      2. But Suicide By Cop makes no sense in this circumstance. He had no way of knowing the police would be there. He did not initiate a circumstance in which the police would be called. Your version requires that within seconds of seeing a group of plainclothes police he made the calculation that this was his opportunity to commit suicide and use the police to do it. While waiting to pick up the kids at the bus stop.

        It makes far more sense to believe that she’s used to dealing with him, he can be erratic or difficult or hard to control, and she has experience in dealing with the police so she knows enough not to run screaming into the middle of a bunch of police with guns drawn and fingers on triggers.

        The “don’t do it” could have been referencing a menacing stance he was taking toward the police… or she could have seen him wanting to lock himself in the car. She did seem very worried about getting the windows of her car broken.

        Suicide by cop isn’t entirely out of the question, but it is an extraordinarily odd circumstance for such a thing.

        1. Cyto, I don’t disagree with you. I’m not saying he did a premeditated “Suicide by Cop.” I’m saying she clearly knew he was capable of doing something that would get him shot by a cop right then, right there….and he did it. And she barely even flinched. The whole thing was very odd.

          1. So, good shoot then?

            1. This video doesn’t tell us.

              1. You just said “he did it”.

                1. I was connecting dots of “don’t do it Keith, don’t do it Keith” over and over again, followed by shots. The video doesn’t show those dots connecting, that was just me extrapolating.

          2. Sounded more like she was clinging to the hope that he wasn’t dead or dying. “He better not be dead”.

            Yeah, it sounds weird to me too. But I have no idea what I or anyone would do under such circumstances. Can you really say you do?

      3. You’ve observed a lot of normal people who have just seen loved one’s get shot?

        1. Just give it a rest, idiot. The cops are screaming “Drop the gun, drop the gun”, and she’s screaming “Don’t do it, Keith, don’t do it.”

          He was tired of living, he decided to commit suicide by cop, she knew the whole entire time exactly what was going down, she was trying hard in her own way to defuse the situation, but she wasn’t even the least big shocked when it happened.

          1. Oh, so you can read people’s minds now too. By way of video from several days ago, no less. That’s really something.

            You are pathetic.

          2. Another possibility – she wanted him dead. So the cops are screaming, “Drop the gun, drop the gun!” and she’s screaming “Don’t do it, Keith, don’t do it” because she wants him to keep the gun in his hand and get himself shot.

        2. Not in person. But in the past few years, due to the current media climate, I have seen lots of video of family and friend bystanders and their conduct while their loved one/friend is in a cop confrontation (up to and including getting shot). Not one of them has been this eerily calm. Usually there is a lot of shrieking and indecipherable yelling going on.

    2. Maybe, and I admit this might be far fetched, just maybe she didn’t want her mentally ill husband to do anything erratic. You know, since apparently acting erratic is a death sentence if there are cops around.

  15. Yeah, impossible to tell what is going on.

    At this point, I’m not going to read to much into the wife’s plea of “don’t do it, Keith” without further evidence, though, especially since nearly immediately before she was yelling at him to get out of the car. She was panicking and there were other points where she misspoke.

    1. I was quite impressed with her. She was very much in control, despite being extremely upset and angry in a horrific circumstance. Not everyone is either a Rhodes Scholar or a caricature from a 70’s blacksploitation movie.

      The only thing I bet she wishes she had back is not walking in and getting her husband. It probably wouldn’t have worked though. They probably would have tackled her, provoking the husband and getting him shot anyway.

      1. What they should have done, since she was right there talking to them, was ask her to come over and talk some sense into him.

        But he’d already disobeyed and might have had a gun, so it’s escalation time.

        1. And if he’s nuts, and the cops call her over just to get her shot by her crazy husband….that doesn’t seem like a good idea at all.

          1. They didn’t know anything about the guy and had him contained. Maybe one of the 5 cops could have at least talked to the woman who was trying to talk to them and see if they could figure out what was going on.

  16. The object in the “gun pic” is a black latex glove. You can see the cops with them in the wife’s video. You can also see there’s no gun right there after the shooting. So it does help in that respect.

    1. Ah! So that’s what it is. Yes, obviously it’s no gun. It’s starting to look like the cops are totally inventing the gun thing.

  17. RE: Keith Scott Family Releases Video of Charlotte Shooting Before Police Release Theirs
    A law going into effect in North Carolina next month will keep body cam footage out of the hands of the public.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m glad the body cam footage will not be made public.
    Otherwise the police might be held accountable for their actions.
    No one wants that.

    1. God forbid we suffer new rounds of awful pro-police apologetics from Sean Hannity et. al,

  18. Am I the only one who feels utterly disinterested in whether or not the video is released publicly? As long as it gets shown in court when/if there’s a trial then who cares? Why must the death of every black man at the hands of police suddenly become national news? Yes, police need to be held accountable for their actions, but there’s a system for that already: actual courts of law run by experts on the law (lawyers and judges).

    The Court of Facebook needs to stop. That’s how you get the Freddy Gray nonsense.

    1. Well looky there… Reason is finally important enough for the nationalsocialists to assign infiltrators to explain away inconvenient murders–just like on Youtube. I hope they at least bought a subscription with some of those tax dollars and goonion dues…

      1. his comment is perfectly reasonable and in line with a Libertarian viewpoint.

        Get over yourself.

    2. Theu are all colluding to not punish the cops though. Have you not read the DOJ report on how the Ferguson cops and the courts were milking the citizens?

    3. Theu are all colluding to not punish the cops though. Have you not read the DOJ report on how the Ferguson cops and the courts were milking the citizens?

  19. In the Houston Police manuals the bulleted list runs:
    * Throwdown
    * Mow down
    * Slow down, evade and obstruct till a mock trial clears the perps…

  20. After the shooting when they’re on top of him, there’s something over to the right that looks like the “gun” from earlier pictures. If that’s a gun why are they ignoring it and just letting it sit there on the ground?

    1. That seems to be the norm from other videos. Once the weapon is out of reach of the suspect, it is ignored and left completely untouched until forensics arrives. I’ve seen situations where buckets or other obstructions are placed overtop weapons/casing/etc to avoid any inadvertent movement.

  21. til I looked at the receipt which said $4688 , I accept that my mother in law had been truley earning money part-time at their laptop. . there mums best friend started doing this 4 only 21 months and a short time ago paid for the loans on there apartment and bought a new Aston Martin DB5 . read the article…

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

  22. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  23. the worst part of all this is i’m not really sure that either side -the protestors or the police- really care what the truth is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.