Charlotte Mayor is now demanding release of the shooting video

[240 is Back]

The gun that the police found next to Keith Scott's body, had Scott's fingerprints, DNA, and his blood on it. His lying wife saying, "He don't have no gun," but deliberately not videoing her husband as the police are confronting him, so we couldn't see that he did indeed have a gun, was just part of her plan to win the "ghetto lottery" by suing the city because the cops killed her POS husband. Negroes are disgusting excuses for human beings.

Did he have it in his hand, or did he POINT IT as they claimed?

Police cannot shoot someone for holding a gun pointed at the ground.   If they do, it's more of a punishment thing for him being a punkass. 

My own guess is that we'll find out he didn't point it - they just got tired of his shit and popped him for not dropping the gun.  If they want to do it, fine, but we will see if it's legal.  My big problem is them fcking lying about it.  If that's the case.

[Erik C]

Did he have it in his hand, or did he POINT IT as they claimed?

Police cannot shoot someone for holding a gun pointed at the ground.   If they do, it's more of a punishment thing for him being a punkass. 

My own guess is that we'll find out he didn't point it - they just got tired of his shit and popped him for not dropping the gun.  If they want to do it, fine, but we will see if it's legal.  My big problem is them fcking lying about it.  If that's the case.

There is no evidence that the cops are lying. The evidence says he had a gun. His gun, with his finger prints, his DNA, and his blood on it. The liars are the negro witnesses, who said he was holding a book. No book was found. And what would an illiterate, brain injured negro be doing with a book anyway.

[George Whorewell]

There is no evidence that the cops are lying. The evidence says he had a gun. His gun, with his finger prints, his DNA, and his blood on it. The liars are the negro witnesses, who said he was holding a book. No book was found. And what would an illiterate, brain injured negro be doing with a book anyway.

Truth.

As soon as the media narrative centered around the "victim" holding a book, I knew it was bullshit.

[240 is Back]

There is no evidence that the cops are lying. The evidence says he had a gun. His gun, with his finger prints, his DNA, and his blood on it. The liars are the negro witnesses, who said he was holding a book. No book was found. And what would an illiterate, brain injured negro be doing with a book anyway.

Did he POINT the gun as the police claimed? 

That seems to be the big deal here.  They claimed he pointed.  All signs are that he was just holding it.

[Erik C]

Did he POINT the gun as the police claimed? 

That seems to be the big deal here.  They claimed he pointed.  All signs are that he was just holding it.

The standoff with the stupid negro, lasted many minutes. It wasn't a matter of seconds. The cops tried to talk to him, "Put down the gun!"
You can hear them on the negro's merry widow's phone video. Obviously, he pointed the gun at them, as that's when they shot him. Why is it that whenever one these stupid negroes refuse to obey the cop's orders, and do something stupid, getting themselves killed, it is always the cops fault. This was a clean kill.

[240 is Back]

Obviously, he pointed the gun at them, as that's when they shot him.

Why is that obvious?  Because that was in their report?

The suspicion of many is that we're not seeing the other 2 body camera angles (from the 2 closer cops) because it matches what the witnesses say - he held the gun but never pointed it.

[Erik C]

Why is that obvious?  Because that was in their report?

The suspicion of many is that we're not seeing the other 2 body camera angles (from the 2 closer cops) because it matches what the witnesses say - he held the gun but never pointed it.

The cops said he had a gun. The negro "witnesses" lied and said he had a BOOK! The "witnesses' " story/lie fell apart, once you admit that he did indeed have a gun. And, the evidence is that his merry widow, who planned on cashing in on "The Ghetto Lottery" never put her husband on camera, until he was shot and on the ground, because she could clearly see that he was holding a gun, yet she said, " he don't have no gun." She had a clear view of her husband, holding the gun, but never put him on camera, because, if she did, then her lie that "he don't have no gun." wouldn't have worked for her to sue the city. She knew her POS , brain dead husband would do something stupid, and get himself killed, and she couldn't of cared less, as she'd be sitting pretty once she won the law suit.

If it were your friend or relative, in that situation with the cops, what would you be videoing, to prove your case, that he dindu nuffin? Wouldn't you put the camera on him, the whole time? She could've, yet she didn't because it didn't prove her narrative/Lie.

[240 is Back]

The cops said he had a gun. The negro "witnesses" lied and said he had a BOOK! The "witnesses' " story/lie fell apart, once you admit that he did indeed have a gun. And, the evidence is that his merry widow, who planned on cashing in on "The Ghetto Lottery" never put her husband on camera, until he was shot and on the ground, because she could clearly see that he was holding a gun, yet she said, " he don't have no gun." She had a clear view of her husband, holding the gun, but never put him on camera, because, if she did, then her lie that "he don't have no gun." wouldn't have worked for her to sue the city. She knew her POS , brain dead husband would do something stupid, and get himself killed, and she couldn't of cared less, as she'd be sitting pretty once she won the law suit.

If it were your friend or relative, in that situation with the cops, what would you be videoing, to prove your case, that he dindu nuffin? Wouldn't you put the camera on him, the whole time? She could've, yet she didn't because it didn't prove her narrative/Lie.

You're changing the subject from "did he have a gun".   The point is actually DID HE POINT THE GUN.

Having a gun isn't illegal.  Disobeying a police command is.  But they claimed he POINTED it, and well, it's looking like that isn't the case.

[Erik C]

You're changing the subject from "did he have a gun".   The point is actually DID HE POINT THE GUN.

Having a gun isn't illegal.  Disobeying a police command is.  But they claimed he POINTED it, and well, it's looking like that isn't the case.

He did point the gun! Didn't you read my post? The negro's wife could easily have put the perp on camera, and we could have seen that. She didn't, exactly because he had a gun and pointed it, which is why he was justifiably shot dead.

[240 is Back]

He did point the gun! Didn't you read my post?

Police claim that.   Then they refuse to release the video showing that.

I guess we shall see.  That seems to be the big issue now.

[Erik C]

Police claim that.   Then they refuse to release the video showing that.

I guess we shall see.  That seems to be the big issue now.

It's not the police, it's some stupid NC law. Some libtards don't want videos of police killing some worthless, criminal POS, viewed by the general public, because it might be offensive to family and friends of the perp!

[240 is Back]

It's not the police, it's some stupid NC law. Some libtards don't want videos of police killing some worthless, criminal POS, viewed by the general public, because it might be offensive to family and friends of the perp!

Are you sure about that?   Link to that law?  Because according to the mayor, it's up to the police discretion. 

[TuHolmes]

It's not the police, it's some stupid NC law. Some libtards don't want videos of police killing some worthless, criminal POS, viewed by the general public, because it might be offensive to family and friends of the perp!

The law doesn't go into effect until Oct. 1.

It is the police. Also. NC lawmakers are mostly conservative.

This wasn't a law some liberal signed. Look at the governor. A staunch Republican.

[240 is Back]

It's not the police, it's some stupid NC law. Some libtards don't want videos of police killing some worthless, criminal POS, viewed by the general public, because it might be offensive to family and friends of the perp!

They are going to release it.  Let's see if he pointed it. 

[Erik C]

They are going to release it.  Let's see if he pointed it. 

No problem! It will show that the perp had a gun, and pulled it on the police. Clean kill!

[Skeletor]

Charlotte police release video of shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

Charlotte police released Saturday dashboard and body camera footage of the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, who was shot and killed by police.

The video shows officers surrounding Scott, who has his hands at his side, before shots are fired and he falls to the ground. It is not clear if there is anything in his hands as he backs away from his SUV before being shot.

The dash cam footage shows two officers pointing their weapons at Scott, who is inside the SUV. It is when he gets out and begins walking backwards when he is shot.

The body camera footage, meanwhile, shows officers with guns drawn and pointing their weapons at Scott. That footage does not show when shots are fired, and Scott is already on the ground.

Police also released photos showing what they say showed a handgun and marijuana that were in Scott's possession.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/24/charlotte-police-release-video-shooting-keith-lamont-scott.html

[Erik C]

The videos released, are censored, to protect the "feelings" of the perp's family and friends, instead of showing what really happened, when the POS got shot.

The stupid NC law, protects the perps, instead of the cops.

[TuHolmes]

He's walking backwards. Where was he shot? Was he shot in the back?

[Erik C]

He's walking backwards. Where was he shot? Was he shot in the back?

Fine, show the moment he was shot, and end of story. We already have his lying bitch wife, deliberately not videoing his last moments, because it wouldn't support the lie that she was telling.

He lifted his gun and that's when he was shot dead. We don't see it because NC law says that we can't make the POS' relatives and friends, see the last moments of his life, when he was most deservatively shot dead, for the sake of humanity.

[TuHolmes]

Fine, show the moment he was shot, and end of story. We already have his lying bitch wife, deliberately not videoing his last moments, because it wouldn't support the lie that she was telling.

He lifted his gun and that's when he was shot dead. We don't see it because NC law says that we can't make the POS' relatives and friends, see the last moments of his life, when he was most deservatively shot dead, for the sake of humanity.

I am fine with them showing the moment. It wouldn't be the first time we saw that.

You keep saying it's because of the relatives, but last I heard, the relatives were the ones who wanted to see it.

The law isn't even in effect. It doesn't take effect until Oct. 1.

So right NOW, there is no law prohibiting them showing any and all footage anyway.

So what law is stopping this?

[Erik C]

I am fine with them showing the moment. It wouldn't be the first time we saw that.

You keep saying it's because of the relatives, but last I heard, the relatives were the ones who wanted to see it.

The law isn't even in effect. It doesn't take effect until Oct. 1.

So right NOW, there is no law prohibiting them showing any and all footage anyway.

So what law is stopping this?

The relatives wanted to see it, and they did. I don't hear any outcry from them, anymore, to make his last moments public. Obviously it won't help their law suit against the city.

[TuHolmes]

The relatives wanted to see it, and they did. I don't hear any outcry from them, anymore, to make his last moments public. Obviously it won't help their law suit against the city.

I thought you said the law is keeping them from showing the moment?

[Erik C]

I thought you said the law is keeping them from showing the moment?

It is, and the "law" is favoring, the perp's heirs. Again, where is the outrage from the heirs about, the general public not seeing the videos?
They saw the videos, and know full well that the videos do not support their case, so let the stupid laws, run interference for them, in the pursuit of an unjustified law suit.

[240 is Back]

No problem! It will show that the perp had a gun, and pulled it on the police. Clean kill!

when?