So I don't think that makes sense.

of the car?? I really do not know.

But I'm not sure.

She was both calling her husband's name and talking to the cops.

What we could be hearing is: "Don't do it." Then her calling her husband's name.

There is a lot more that went on that is in this video and what little the police have said. Why were his family members there, not within minutes, but there when it all started? He was sitting in his vehicle reading a book. The cops weren't there for him. They were after somebody else. Much is missing.

They were parked out at their home and she ran inside for something.

I have no idea, you seem obsessed with it, you clearly have an opinion - what is it?

Far too many things are working here. They weren't there for this guy, but all of a sudden, there he is. All of a sudden his family is all around. Not talking about minutes here, but literally seconds. A lot more to this than is being presented by his family and for right now, by the cops. I learned a long time that when you dive off a cliff, you'd better know how deep the water is first. If that bothers you, then it bothers you.

"suicide by cop"?

His family said he was just sitting in his vehicle reading a book, and one even said he was just waiting for his son. Then all hell broke lose when the cops appeared - cops going after somebody else. All hell broke lose within a very few seconds. Some very important parts of the story are missing. Parts that can be provided by his family and the cops.

Why is it that when it comes to these situations, Black families and witnesses immediately have their credibility questioned. I notice that in every single one of the threads that you have posted in you only seem to be concerned about what and why the wife said something. You have posted ZERO concern about how maybe the police had ample opportunity to resolve this situation without loss of life and was unable or unwilling to do so. Shitting on and questioning the motives of the family certainly doesn't make you the balanced objective person you claim to be.

have extremely shitty recall even cops which is why things like car cams should be mandatory for ever police car and for every police officer.

Police do too but they won't release them. So again, what questions do you have for the police? Or are the questions only for the dead man's family?? Why won't they listen to her?

You can see it yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8184048

but it isn't, sad to say. Something has to be done. Is this how our police officers want to be viewed by the public they take an oath to "Serve and protect"? I would like to believe that a majority would say, "Hell no!".

We know for a fact that our policemen are capable of ensuring armed and dangerous offenders are taken alive in most instances (you know, the ones with lighter skins), but oddly enough, seem to gun down people of color without just cause. It's time to address the system that has supported this racism for hundreds of years. It wasn't acceptable then, and sure as hell isn't acceptable now.

if you didn't grow up in Houston, like me. It was SOP and might still be. The truth came out when one idiot of a cop used a pistol he took from the evidence locker. This was in the 1960's. They also like to handcuff suspects, beat them and then see how well they could swim in the bayou.

That should be a pretty easy claim to back up, someone ... must have written something about all that BS you are spouting.

I've been in Houston since 1976 ...

Or easy enough for anyone at all to research... if they are indeed, sincere in their query and looking for an objective answer rather than a simple rhetorical device.

When someone makes a statement that it is "SOP" for police to do things like this I would think the onus would be on them to provide some form of factual basis for that statement.

Or anyone can just claim anything.

Right?

I remembered things in the wrong decade. Also though I can't find it, I am pretty sure that Mr. Torres was handcuffed.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/HPD-history-shows-problems-not-new-for-department-2100056.php

HPD history shows problems not new for department
Look at HPD history shows problems not first for department
Ex-Chief Lynn served prison time

RAD SALLEE, Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Published 5:30 am, Saturday, September 7, 2002

May 8, 1977, when the body of Jose Campos Torres was found floating in Buffalo Bayou, and it was quickly discovered that Torres had been in police custody and beaten before he jumped or was pushed into the water.

Some of Caldwell's (Harry Caldwell police chief) worst problems were inherited. In 1979, federal authorities notified him that a pistol allegedly found on teenager Randall Webster, whom police had killed in 1977 after a car chase, came from the police property room. It was also discovered that another "throw-down" weapon had been used to justify the 1975 police shooting of a second teen, Billy Joyvies. The two cases ended in probation and acquittal for the officers charged.

http://openjurist.org/689/f2d/1220/webster-v-city-of-houston
689 F. 2d 1220 - Webster v. City of Houston
689 F.2d 1220

John Russell WEBSTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants,
v.
The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

No. 81-2007.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1982.
29:
A "throw down", the starring role in this tragedy, is a weapon which police officers, having killed (or wounded) an unarmed suspect, can put at his side to justify the shooting. How common was this practice? The officers, testifying at trial, made clear that a throw down was "common knowledge". Officer Holloway: "I had several officers tell me that if I needed a throw down that they had one or knew where they could get one." He continued, "I know that maybe the Department and the City and the news media were trying to say that we were the first ones that admitted this throw down, but that has been a part of police work long before I came on the streets." Officer Dillon concurred. "It would be brought up like when (instructors at the Police Academy) would be sitting at various crime scenes for instruction, it would be casually mentioned that if you ever shot anyone accidentally, well, you had best have something to lay down to protect yourself." Officer Byrd, who provided the throw down, explained,

30:
Q: How many officers or what percentage of officers either carried a throw down in 1977 or had access to a throw down?

31:
A: I would say 75-80% of them.

32:
Q: Was that common knowledge on the force back in February of '77?

33:
A: Yes.

34:
Q: It wasn't unusual at all at the Webster scene that there were two officers that had a throw down?

35:
A: It wasn't unusual, no.

SOP to you is defined by what, less than one percent of one percent of incidence?

I did not say it never happened, it has happened everywhere in the country at some point.

said they were trained to do it and:

Q: How many officers or what percentage of officers either carried a throw down in 1977 or had access to a throw down?

31:
A: I would say 75-80% of them.

32:
Q: Was that common knowledge on the force back in February of '77?

33:
A: Yes.

34:
Q: It wasn't unusual at all at the Webster scene that there were two officers that had a throw down?

35:
A: It wasn't unusual, no.

Where is your one percent coming from? Had occasion to utilize the SOP of "throw down" less than one percent of the time?

is the proof that the gun should've been in police custody. There is no way to prove how many unarmed people were shot by HPD and given a gun to hold. But the testimony at the 5th circuit was given as much as 80% of HPD officers carried or had access of throw downs.

Here is a different version.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-throwdown/

"that the govern­ment’s police witnesses were untrust­worthy because they had “bought” im­munity or reduced sentences from the prosecutors in exchange for testimony"

The idea that one person knew 75-80% of 2500 police officers in not believable.

I certainly know that there was/is abuse in the HPD, my father was beaten and jailed back in the late 70's here in Houston, it is the SOP part I will object to. The whole all the police are bad and corrupt is wearing thin.

Maybe I am just in the wrong place, but the more I read here the more I think that is true.

the person's moniker seems to say it all. No clue and doesn't want one.

is american racism systemic and institutionalized?

Google it

ONE SUNDAY NIGHT A HOUSTON POLICEMAN SHOT A TEENAGE BOY. THE POLICE SAID THE BOY WAS ARMED. HIS FATHER DIDN’T BELIEVE THEM AND, ALL ALONE, SET OUT TO FIND THE TRUTH.


http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-throwdown/

It was standard procedure to always carry a drop weapon according to him he was taught that in law enforcement
school. I know for a fact he always carried a switch blade knife in his sock and I assume everyone else in the department did. He has
since passed away so I can't verify it.

the big hurry is with these cops. In both of these last 2 shootings why can't they just step back and take some time to find out what is going on ? There is no shame in retreating to gather info before busting Windows,screaming obscenities and shooting away. The man's wife was there maybe she could have got him out with out incedent. I don't get it.

... the video

Clearly the black officer drops a pair of gloves out for the other guy (the guy in red picks 'em up). Then flicks out a second pair as he puts on his own.

The thing to see is the black object near the back of the white truck close to the curb behind the officer in red for that couple seconds the view 1st swings around.

What I also see is something between the red guys legs near his foot...could be the same "object" seen as the view 1st swings around.

It seems after he grabs the gloves, he steps back to stand over the object.

It is very clear from her video that the ground around her dead husband's feet was clear in the beginning and later three objects appear around his feet. If there is video on-line you can stop and freeze frames.

and come back to this thread, instead of reacting out of rage right now and later finding out the video was completely misleading and my post makes me look like an idiot.

to the slightest bit of news, that have dozens of passionate and enraged responses within minutes, but within 24 hours the thread is completely abandoned because more facts have come out and the entire premise that everyone was raging about is no longer true, just that quick.

Not saying the OP is wrong, I just don't want to get on that bus because when these do turn into those types of threads, they don't make us look very competent.

By the way, you're doing a pretty good job.

Although it's more a case of seeing what you want to see to fit your world view.

you'll see black objects on the ground being fumbled with. I watched it several times, and I'm not so sure they are guns. I'm leaning more toward gloves.

She knows what's going on.She fears what could come. It comes. She lashes out verbally but also knows how to act to protect herself. I can feel her anguish.

Just another day in America with another dead black man in the aftermath of a GANG of cops yelling and waving guns.

for him, for her, for all at risk, for this nation.

My husband and I were both watching this morning. Saw LOTS of replays and freeze-frames. MAN this looks fishy as hell.

We kept saying - in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, "look, below his feet - there's no gun. WHERE's the gun? There isn't one!" And then a few moments later, "well how 'bout that - look, there's a gun. Gee whiz. How convenient..."

I'm so glad this video was released. Also casts even more suspicion on the cops for withholding their video for this long. They still haven't released it. I'd like to know why. What? Do they need more time to doctor it?

AND I want to know who that cop in the red t-shirt is. He's the one who seems to have done the planting. I want him identified. I actually want more than that. But let's start by learning who he is.

I saw the still pics for the wife's video online and started saying where the fuck is the gun on the ground by his feet? Looked at other pics and there is a gun by his feet when paramedics were there. How did it magically appear?

The cops fucking dropped a gun. Only explanation

... looks like a gun... unless there are gun shaped gloves out there I don't know about

shows Scott with a gun in his hand and the family can view it.

Time for a step back and wait until all evidence has been viewed my multiple authorities. Some will say I'm covering for the cops, but all too many times things aren't as they seem. I saw gloves being dropped and picked up. The bigger question is why the hell did he get out of his vehicle when the cops were moving in? They were there for somebody else, not him. Why is his wife screaming "don't do it Kieth" and prior to that "don't bust out the windows"? More unanswered questions.

Back off and manage the situation once they knew he had a brain injury? If the police were after someone else, a point you have repeatedly stressed on thread after thread, why did they stop and fuck with him? Was he "one scary dude"? Or was he just a black guy waiting at a bus for his kid? Why didn't they engage the wife and solicit her assistance in resolving this situation without loss of life?

Yes there are lots of unanswered questions and they aren't only about the victim and his family.

It's hard to account for what the other video might have when the police won't show it. But the victim's wife and then the news shared her video, and that's what is being addressed in this thread.

up. They may have moved the gun from Scotts hand over. The cop in the red shirt is casting shadows on the ground. It could be there and we don't see it at first.

and I have to say I can't bring myself to watch it at this point. At any rate, you also are responding to the video that has actually been shared publicly, as are others on this thread. To be clear, my post (one you responded to) was in response to someone answering to or commenting on this thread by referring to the police video that has not been shared publicly, at this point, anyway.

I finally made myself watch the video. I had read nbcnews article and a transcript of the victim's wife's words during the video and had read talking points memo summary. I now have watched the video a few times now, including while alternating pause/play and then inching along frame by frame.

I cannot tell what is on the ground. I see what you mean about the shadows on the ground in the video. I see what the family attorney means that we cannot tell whether there is a gun.

What is good in this thread is that many DUers are sharing their take on it, and there are differences of opinions about what is seen on the ground (glove or gun or something or anything?). Also, the posts here are rather calm compared to what might be posted in a more general online forum; the posts here are definitely more respectful. Overall, there is an earnest effort to understand and discuss this video that we do have access to.

My response above was about keeping the posts here to what we know, and we do not know what the police video shows. And I think the discussion is fleshing out on just this video and the other pieces of information we know. That is important.

I still hurt for this man and his family.

... about is there's pic CPD circulated that shows no doubt what looks like a gun but in the video there's no gun

They made a point of highlighting the guns location at the man's feet. Today on his wife's video, there is nothing at his feet.

"It is impossible to discern from the videos what, if anything, Mr. Scott is holding in his hands."

http://abc11.com/1522590/

... just gloves.

I think the CPD owes the citizens some kind of explanation, they seem to not have earned the benefit of the doubt here.

Humans just don't blow up like this because they're upset, its usually some oppression there

He now says it is not clear what was in Scott's hand

Does every PO carry a throw down?

.. would someone take off their gloves to touch a bloody body !?!?

but I'm thinking those might be gloves or something on the ground. Are they saying that's the gun?

... the CPD with a gun at the bottom of Scotts feet.

The objects dropped by the LEOs might have been gloves but in the video there's nothing by Scott at first... nothing

Also

Why would the LEOs take off their gloves to handle a bloody body... makes no sense

Wonder what the source of this picture is... so much of the internet is a lie.

I still think the objects in the video are a pair of gloves, and are not the object in that photo. Hard to tell for sure though. So that "gun" was put there at some point after the video ended.

Maybe release photos of the gun they acquired like with the BB gun in the Cleveland shooting? I'm either looking at an empty magazine well or the opening for gloves.

You folks are watching too many movies and digging way to deep into conspiracies to try and fit your biases to come up with this "throw down" gun nonsense.

... but their UNEEDED lack of transparency says they don't deserve it.

Fuck em, think the worst seeing they've not given their best

without bothering to consider the implications.

You know why you don't real ease footage right away. Because doing a PROPER investigation is more important than a bunch spoiled people not involved in the event who think they have a right to that instantly.

You see, it's proven that an eyewitness to an event will often change their testimony, even subconsciously, if they hear other people's versions or see videos. So it's important to get all your witness testimony from people as quickly as possible before they get influenced by other versions.

Not releasing the video until you get all the witness statements is one way to protect the integrity of the investigation. That way nobody gets influenced by it.

And that's a bigger priority than satisfying a bunch of spoiled people demanding instant access to information just because.

... earned it then they should be more transparent

Talk about misplaced priorities, you want to see it NOW because you seeing it is so important that it's work risking the eyewitness accounts being influenced by their seeing it before their statements are fully taken.

Screw a good, proper investigation that focuses on recording everything as accurately as possible, because people on the Internet are so important they must see that video NOW regardless of implications.

.. relationship between the LEOs and the citizens of that city.

We can all call it a good proper investigation but history has shown that's not the case, were in other situations.. .including here Tulsa... openness has proved more of a benefit than clamming up.

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt and I think that's were we'll agree to disagree on this subject.

You seem to be saying that there were so many eyewitnesses to this situation that the police are still in the process of taking their statements, even days later. I didn't see a big crowd, or hear lots of people yelling in the background, in that video. How many witnesses do you guesstimate there were, that their interviews would take days to record?

First you needs to canvass the neighborhood and find any witnesses. Even ones who just heard something can be important. That takes several days of going to all apartments and homes to catch everyone at home.


Also any work crews, or even people driving by. I've known cases where they tracked down every car whose tag they could read on the dash cam as they went by an incident.

Then you need to do a proper interview. Not a stand there with a notebook, but sit down and recorded. That takes time to arrange and make happen with people's work schedules and what else investigators must do.

It can easily go into several days.

This can be made worse if there are reluctant witnesses. In a case like this you see the community narrative and late protests, some violent, insisting he was unarmed. A witness who may have seen him armed, or even knew he and a gun earlier in the day, might be very reluctant to come forward with an account counter to the prevailing narrative in their community and it can often take several days to get such a witness to forward.

Yes, it can easily take many days to do right. For a good example go read the DOJ report on Ferguson and see how long it took and how much trouble it was to locate all the witnesses and get statements. And also note how many of them admitted to or were found to have changed stories based on what they heard in the media.

(in the somewhat enclosed space of a parking lot), not people who saw him earlier in the day.

Yes, I guess if you're looking for someone who will say that he had a gun earlier in the day, that could take awhile.

hasn't been much "integrity of investigations" since the execution of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin. Integrity? None such in american policing, culture these days. Spoiled? No. Frustrated by systemic and institutionalized racist behavior of murder and execution by shootings and hangings by police and private citizens of PoC> YES!!!!!

They wanted time to sway public opinion and get their ducks in a row to avoid accountability for their actions. We saw this before, remember? Fool me once....

There was huge outcry from the community on this incident right away. CMPD shot a disabled father with a serious brain injury waiting for his kid to get off the bus in the middle of the afternoon when they were trying to serve a warrant on a completely different person. Now they want to make it look like it was his fault.

I dunno what, exactly, went down there, but they police instigated that confrontation and were WILDLY incompetent under any scenario. There needed to be immediate answers and some sort of accountability. There is no integrity to protect if no one trusts your word.

And if they were waiting while they collected testimony, then they would have SAID that. The community would likely have accepted that. What they said instead was that they would never release the video.

Why they bothered the man, in an open carry state they claim they saw Scott with a gun. And then they claim he got back in his truck with the gun. None of them said they thought he was the guy with the warrant they were looking for so why even interfere with Scott. How does seeing someone with a gun in open carry NC require the police even talk to him.

Time, place, context can lead to ab investigation of circumstances.

I was a deputy in NC. I saw farmers come to town with a pistol open carried in a holster on thier belt almost every week, and it was routine. But if I saw somebody in town exit a vehicle with a handgun in hand and not holstered that would be a more suspicious set of circumstances and would prompt me to investigate further.

A gun in the hand in metro Charlotte would defiantly warrant immediate investigation. It's very different than a visible holstered handgun.

CMPD seems A-ok with that! Move along people, nothing to see here

http://abc11.com/news/man-brandishes-gun-out-of-car-window-in-charlotte/1522280/

So the police say he got out of the truck holding the gun, got back in the truck and I assume that's the portion of the video we see from the wife's cell phone. And they told him to drop the gun while he's in the truck & to get out of the truck. So we see the 2nd exit from the truck. And the shooting. People keep saying he had a gun initially but now people saying after seeing the police tape they're not even sure what they saw was a gun. Some say he had a gun but wasn't pointing it at anyone. What if he didn't have a gun or put the gun back in the truck and never had it when he got out of the truck a second time.
Another thing my husband would take his gun out of his holster when he got in and out of his truck or was driving. Because it never quite was comfortable with the seat belt. So yup for a few seconds while he got in or out of his truck, it was in his hand.

especially if he's black is the american SOP, open carry or not. Get real!!!!!!geez

Who knows. The police are arguing that Scott is at fault for waving the gun at them aggressively, not that he couldn't have the gun. But none of the video seems to back that version up.

Open carry is the stupidest thing ever. All it does is cause upset and confusion. Too much detail to parse in the moment for law enforcement. It would be easier and safer for everyone if it was just illegal to have a gun in public. And we all know that the unwritten law is that only white people get to open carry.

I dunno why they were harassing the man in the first place. They were attempting to serve a warrant to some other person. Keith Scott was in his car waiting for his kid to get off the school bus. There was not a warrant for Keith Scott. Police yelled at him. He got confused as a result of his brain injury. They felt threatened. They shot him dead. Same old, same old

Many of my white friends do. I know it's not scientific or a poll but my black friends have concealed permits and that's how they carry their guns because to a person they don't want to be shot for being black with a gun even in am open carry state. The police can say they were doing anything to explain shooting a black person with a gun. I've seen white folks in 7-11,walmart and 4h horse shows open carry without a care in the world.

Your point is valid. The condescension... not so cool.

what ever happened to police stay in their safe car and use the speaker to direct the 'suspect' get out with hands up.

This man had a head injury, he was probably terrified hearing his wife shouting, 'strange men' shouting like crazy. Todays police don't even sound like police, they curse and shout 'orders'.

The jury I was on last month did exactly that with the lapel video. If there is anything dropped at the scene by a cop, they'll pick it up.

Cops get away with a lot of shit...but, I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, that they're stupid enough to
be carrying and planting "throw down guns" on their victims.